Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXIX: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2015
Edited by Hamid Ouali
[Studies in Arabic Linguistics 5] 2017
► pp. 205–226

Chapter 8
The Merge Condition on Adjuncts

Evidence from circumstantial clauses in Lebanese Arabic

| University of Florida
Discussion of merge as a feature-driven operation has predominantly focused on the restrictions on Set Merge, or substitution. This paper addresses the topic of Pair Merge, or adjunction. It suggests that Pair Merge is subject to a restriction called the Merge Condition on Adjuncts. While Set Merge is contingent on the feature specifications of the heads of the two merging elements, the Merge Condition on Adjuncts states that an adjunct must merge in accordance with the feature specifications of its own head. Two edge features are available: [+ Predicational] and [− Predicational]. Only the former forces the adjunct to function as an open predicate and to establish a predication dependency – or a subject-predicate relation – with an element in the matrix clause. This requirement is syntactic, and it overrides the semantic specifications of adjuncts. Support comes from adjunct control into circumstantial clauses in Lebanese Arabic.
Keywords: adjunction, Arabic, control, movement, structural theory of predication
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Circumstantial clauses: An overview
  • 3.The derivation of COMP-less circumstantial clauses
    • The PRO approach to adjunct control
    • The predication approach to adjunct control
    • The movement approach to adjunct control
  • 4.Beyond circumstantial clauses
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.5.09had
References (41)
References
Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: A Minimalist approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T., Doron, E., & Heycock, C. (2003). Broad subjects and clitic left dislocation. In D. Adger, C. de Cat, & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects (pp. 329–358). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., Choueiri, L., & Hornstein, N. (2001). Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 371–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2003). Islands and chains: resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 3 (pp.104–131). New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
(2007). Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H. M. Gärtner (Eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? (pp. 1–29). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008). On Phases. In R. Freiden, C. P. Otero, & M. L. Zubizaretta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp.89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Lasnik, H. (1995). The theory of principles and parameters. In Chomsky 1995.Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den. (2006). Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Ackerman, F. (2001). The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language, 77, 798–814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddad, Y. A. (2009). Copy control in Telugu. Journal of Linguistics, 45, 69–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010a). A non-stranding approach to resumption: Evidence from South Asia. The Linguistic Review, 27, 107–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b). Why things may move: Evidence from (circumstantial) control. Journal of South Asian Linguistics, 3, 45–63.Google Scholar
(2011). Control into conjunctive participle clauses: The case of Assamese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddad, Y. A., & Potsdam, E. (2013). Linearizing the control relation: A typology. In T. Biberauer & I. Roberts (Eds.), Challenges to Linearization (pp. 235–268). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hallman, P. (2015a). The Arabic imperfective. Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 7, 103–131.Google Scholar
(2015b). Participles in Syrian Arabic. Ms. University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30.1, 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Move! A Minimalist theory of construal: Generative syntax. United Kingdom: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism. UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Nunes, J. (2008). Adjunction, labeling, and Bare Phrase Structure. Biolinguistics, 2, 57–86.Google Scholar
Huettner, A. K. (1989). Adjunct infinitives in English. Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts at AmherstGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (2003). Towards an etiology of adjunct islands. Nordlyd, 31, 187–215Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (2002). Pronouns and their antecedents. In S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program (pp.133–166). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2000). Elements of control. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Movement-resistant aspects of control. In W. D. Davies & S. Dubinsky (Eds.), New horizons in the analysis of control and raising (pp. 293–325). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1995). Last Resort and Attract F. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America (pp. 62–81). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. (2004). Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2006). Probes, goals, and syntactic categories. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Keio University, Japan.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., & Potsdam, E. (2006). Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax, 9, 171–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potsdam, E., & Haddad, Y. A. (To appear). Control phenomena. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Companion to syntax, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rothstein, S. (2001). Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, E., & Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Depictive secondary predicates in cross linguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology, 8, 59–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowell, T. (1991). Small clause restructuring. In R. Frieden (Ed.), Principles and Parameters in comparative grammar (pp.182–218). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (1994). The noun phrase. In F. Kiefer & K. Kiss (Eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian. Syntax and semantics 27 (pp. 179–275). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (2003). Pure adjuncts. Ms., University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. (1992). Principles and Parameters of syntactic saturation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1992). Adjunct control. In R. K. Larson, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri, & J. Higginbotham (Eds.), Control and grammar (pp. 297–322). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. (2014). The merge condition: A syntactic approach to selection. In P. Kosta, L. Schürcks, S. Franks, & T. Radev-Bork (Eds.), Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the interface (pp. 130–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar