Abdelkader Fassi Fehri Arabic Modifying Adjectives and DP Structures
Abdelkader Fassi Fehri Arabic Modifying Adjectives and DP Structures
Abdelkader Fassi Fehri Arabic Modifying Adjectives and DP Structures
1. Introduction
The study of the system of adjectival modification, in addition to its
importance in its own right, is essential for clarifying how the internal
structure of nominal phrases is articulated, and what appropriate paral-
lelisms should be established between DP/NP and CP/IP. In investigating
the internal syntax of modifying adjectival constructions in Arabic,
evidence can be provided for the need of independent AP (or A) raising,
as well as N and Possessor raisings.1 Order variation across languages is
then characterized depending on (a) how much use is made of these
movement processes for (re-) ordering constituents, and (b) how high the
targeted positions are located in the structure.
In line with Chomsky's (1995) Attract movement theory, I argue that it
* The content of this work has been presented in various forms at the 11th Symposium on
Arabic Linguistics held at Emory University, Atlanta (March 1997), at the GLOW 20
Workshops (IERA, Rabat, April 1997), the MIT Linglunch (September 1997), and the LSM
annual meeting (IERA, Rabat, February 1998). I would like to thank the audiences there,
and acknowledge helpful comments and remarks by Ken Hale, Noam Chomsky, Richie
Kayne, Anders Holmberg, David Pesetsky, Pino Longobardi, Morris Halle, Noriaki Yusa,
Hyon Sook Choe, and two Studia Linguistica reviewers. The usual disclaimers apply.
1
The term Arabic is used in the text to designate Standard Arabic, the unique official
language through the Arab world (with only minor regional variation). Spoken Arabic
dialects exhibit more significant variation.
Studia Linguistica 53(2) 1999, pp. 105±154. # The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 1999.
Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK, and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
d:/3stud/53 -2/fehri.3d ^ 22/6/99 ^ 14:33 ^ sh/mp
12
The attributive vs. predicative distinction of adjectives is a classical one (see e.g.
Bolinger 1967 and Hawkins 1983, among others). Other (quite) equivalent terminologies
used in the literature are: direct vs. indirect, restrictive vs. non-restrictive, and intersective vs.
non-intersective. Furthermore, order has been reported to vary depending on what Sproat &
Shih (1990) call `the discourse relevant class' to which the speaker wishes to refer, hence the
contrast between e.g. `small brown dogs' and `brown small dogs'. For relevant discussion,
see also Crisma (1993, 1995).
13
Note that other orders (which do not observe MIO) are not possible with attributive
interpretation, although they may have predicative or focus readings (together with comma
intonation), as illustrated by the following counterparts of (1), (2), and (8):
(i) l-kitaab-u s-sagÇiir-u l-?axdar-u
ÇÇ
the-book the-little Ç
the-green
`The little book which is green'
(ii) sÏaay-un jayyid-un siiniiy-un
tea Ç
excellent Chinese
`An excellent tea which is Chinese'
(iii) l-hujuum-u l-wahsÏiyy-u l-?amiriikiyy-u
Ç
the-attack the-salvage the-American
`The salvage attack which is American'
See the following subsections for further clarifications.
14
Sproat & Shih (1988) treat Arabic postnominal adjectives as indirect modifiers (the
equivalent of predicatives in our terminology), and they claim that these adjectives are not
subject to their AOR ordering restrictions. According to their informant, no order of
postnominal adjectives is basic. But this description is incorrect. On the other hand, they
take the placement of the synthetic possessor (before adjectives) and the occurrence of two
separate articles on nouns and adjectives to be indications of indirect modification. But see
below for a different interpretation of these facts.
plement, whereas predicatives occur after it. Thus the contrasts in (18)
and (19) show that attributives must precede complements:
(18) a. l-mudiir-u s-saabiq-u li-l-maktab-i
the-director-nom the-former-nom of-the-office-gen
`The former director of the office'
b. *l-mudiir-u li-l-maktab-i s-saabiq-u
(19) a. s-sabab-u r-ra?iisiyy-u li-stiqaalati-hi
the-reason-nom the-main-nom of-resignation-his
`The main reason of his resignation'
b. *s-sabab-u li-stiqaalati-hi r-ra?iisiyy-u
On the other hand, predicative adjectives must follow the complement.
Compare the following pair of constructions:
(20) a. muhaarabat-u l-hukuumat-i l-muntadarat-u
Ç
fighting-nom Ç
the-government-gen ÅÇ
the-expected-nom
li-l-irtsÏaa?-i
of-the-corruption
`The expecting fighting of the corruption by the government'
b. muhaarabat-u l-hukuumat-i li-l-irtisÏaa?-i
Ç
fighting-nom Ç
the-government-gen of-the-corruption
l-muntadarat-u
ÅÇ
the-expected-nom
`The fighting of the corruption by the government, which is
expected'
In (20a), the AP has only an attributive reading, while in (20b) it has only
a predicative reading. As the English translation shows, the interpretation
of (20b) is close to that of a reduced non-restrictive relative clause.
Likewise, in analytic possessive constructions, attributive adjectives
must precede both the possessor and the complement, whereas predicative
adjectives follow both of them:16
(21) a. l-hujuum-u sÏ-sÏadiid-u l-muhtamal-u li-?amiriikaa
Ç
the-attack-nom the-violent-nom the-probable-nom of-America
¹ alaa l-muqaawamat-i
on the-resistance
`The probable violent attack of the resistance by the U.S.'
b. l-hujuum-u sÏ-sÏadiid-u li-?amiriikaa ¹ alaa l-muqaawamat-i
the-attack-nom the-violent of-America on the-resistance
l-muhtamal-u
Ç
the-probable-nom
`The violent attack of the resistance by the US, which his
probable'
16
Constructions like (21) are productive in Modern Standard Arabic, although their
grammaticality is questionable in Classical Arabic. See Fassi Fehri (1993) for a discussion.
See also Sibawayhi (8th cent.) and Wright (1858/1974).
17
The argumentation based on the Left Branch Condition is adapted from Cinque
(1994a). See also Emonds (1978, 1985) for relevant properties of the latter condition.
19
See Fassi Fehri (1997b) for details.
22
(40) is obviously excluded only in the relevant interpretation. The other interpretation
(i.e. `I looked for who is with plenty of respect') is possible, but irrelevant for the discussion.
23
See Fassi Fehri (1990, 1997c). A further test is provided by preadjectival negation (like
gÇayr), which is possible with postnominal, but not prenominal adjectives:
(i) ?akal-tu t-ta¹aam-a gÇayr-a l-ladiid-i
ate-I ÇÇ
the-food-acc Å Å
non-acc the-delicious-gen
`I ate the non-delicious food.'
(ii) *?akal-tu gÇayr-a ladiid-i t-ta¹aami-i
ate-I Å Å
non-acc delicious-gen ÇÇ
the-food-gen
Note also that prenominal adjectives can occur in a series, provided they observe genitival
relations, as already observed. This is illustrated in the following examples:
(46) np 3
l-muhtamal
. np 2
.ˇ
l-wahsii np 1
l-?amirikii NP
l-hujuum
In order to derive the right surface order, the NP is first moved to the left
of the lowest AP, then the whole AP (containing NP) to the left of the
most proximate higher AP, and so on. Adjectival MIO and N placement
before adjectives are then accounted for. The movement proceeds as
indicated in (46a):
When any or all of the items (demonstrative, numeral, and descriptive adjective) precede the
noun, they are always found in that order. If they follow, the order is either the same or its
exact opposite.
`The left/right asymmetry', says Cinque, `consists in the fact that while to the right of the
N both the order Dem(onstrative) Num(eral) A(djective), and its mirror-image, A Num
Dem, are possible, to the left of the N only the order Dem Num A is attested.' (Cinque
1996:453)
27
I have used np as a category projection which includes AP as its specifier, instead of
using (less neutral) designated aspectuo-temporal functional categories like those used by
Cinque (1995, 1997) for adverbs, leaving the matter for future research. In (46a), NP has
moved first to the left of np1, thus forming np1'. The latter moves to the left of np2, creating
np2', which later moves to the left of np3.
(46a) np 3,
np 2, k np 3
np1, j np 2 l-muhtamal
. np 2, k
NPi .ˇ
np1 l-wahsii np1, j ek
ei
Thus in order to derive the surface order in (47), and maintain LSH, it is
necessary to postulate independent processes of N and Possessor raisings.
This is in fact the solution that I adopt in the following subsection, where
these two separate movements are given independent motivation.
If N and Possessor raise independently, then no solution for Arabic
adjectival MIO is readily available in Cinque's (1996) X' type variation.
An alternative option that suggests itself is to postulate independent AP
(or A) raising, a process which is able to reorder the series of adjectives. A
first piece of evidence for the existence of such a process is provided in the
following subsection, where structures of postnominal adjectives are
examined.
(51) np 3
l-muhtamal
. np 2
li-?amirikaa np1
ˇ ˇ
s-sadiid NP
l-hujuum
30
I have used dp to host AP movement, and DP to host NP (or N movement), only for
convenience sake, and with no theoretical intention. As for np, it is intended to be a thematic
extension of NP, recalling the VP/vp extension.
(52) DP
D dp 2
ˇˇ
l-hujuumi s-sadiid j dp1
l-muhtamal
. k np 3
ek np 2
li-?amirikaa np1
ej ei
Let us call the mode of movement involved in (52) the External Spec
Derivation (= ESD). ESD might be compared to a competitive alternative
in which the movement proceeds through a (created) Spec which is
internal to the AP, which is itself a Spec of np. This Internal Spec
Derivation (= ISD) has been adopted by Bosque & Picallo (1996) for
Spanish, following suggestions in Kayne (1994). ISD may or may not be
adequate, depending on various theoretical considerations, in particular
how locality and cyclicity are construed. For example, limiting the
domain of feature checking to a strictly local relation between a Spec
and its Head (as in ESD) appears to be much simpler and more restrictive
than the more complex Spec of Spec option (embodied in ISD). I will then
adopt ESD for the sake of simplicity and concreteness, pending further
research on the matter.31
Summarizing, I have shown that there is evidence for AP movement in
Arabic, and that the latter operates through external specifiers. In
section 5, evidence is provided for the existence of A movement in
prenominal modifying constructions, hence corroborating the view that
adjectives move (be they heads or maximal XPs). Before that, however, I
examine in section 4 how the synthetic possessive structure is organized,
and how both AP and Possessor movements take place, without inducing
minimality violations.
31
The movement operations used in ESD observe the Extension Condition proposed in
Chomsky (1995, pp. 190±191 and 327±329), which derives strict cyclicity, whereas ISD does
not.
(54) DP
D np 2
r-rajul-i np 1
l-waasi a NP
daar-u
,
(54a) DP
D FP
daar-u i r-rajul-i k np 2
ek np 1
.
l-waasi a j NP
ei
subject inside VP/vp. The positioning of some `high' adjectives (e.g. modal adjectives) after
the possessor in constructions like (65) below might be taken as evidence that the possessor
has raised, since it is lower than those adjectives at the base (see structure (66) ).
34
See Siloni (1994) and Longobardi (1996) for such a proposal. Longobardi assumes that
Def checking occurs in D, although Def inheritance takes place in the AGR domain. Borer
(1996), on the other hand, assumes that a feature percolation mechanism is needed for Def
matching. For criticism of these approaches, see section 6.
35
I am following here ideas by Holmberg & Sandstrom (1996 = HS henceforth), Delsing
(1993), and Holmberg (1993). HS assume the following checking principle (their (11b) ):
(i) A strong feature of a functional category F is checked off if a phonetically licit
category with a matching feature is adjoined to F, or placed in Spec F.
36
The affixal nature of D and its Def content have been advocated to motivate the
movement (see Fassi Fehri 1987, Ritter 1987, Mohammad 1988, and Ouhalla 1988, among
others). Longobardi (1996) advocates the strength of N features in D.
37
HS contrast basically Scandinavian languages that allow N-Poss constructions (like
Icelandic) with those that do not (like Norwegian and other Mainland Scandinavian), and
attribute the variation to the strength of Case in D. They also discuss the problem of N-D-
Poss, and take the variation (attributed to the strength of Def in D) to a minor parameter. In
their system, Case and Def conflate under a single segment category D, while I take the two
features to be located into separate categories. The strength of the Case feature on D
correlates with the morphological `richness' of case on N (dragged by D), and the absence of
a free article (for such a correlation, see HS 1996; see also Giusti 1995).
(56) DP2
D DP1
daar-u i r-rajul-i k dp
l-waasi a j np 2
ek np 1
ej ei
In this configuration, N has raised to D2, and the possessor to Spec D1.
The possessor in Spec D1 transmits its Def feature value to D1 (containing
the head moving N) via Spec-Head, and that feature in turn is carried
along to D2. The head D2 of DP2 is then equipped with the relevant value
of the Def feature for appropriate interpretation. The small dp is
introduced to host the moved AP, in line with the ESD analysis argued
for above.
The fissioned D hypothesis receives further support when the structure
of SGs is examined more closely. It thus turns out that Def inheritance
does not necessarily take place in all SG cases, contrary to the widely
spread view embodied in the property (f) above. Such considerations are
examined in the next subsection.
entire predicate phrase carries accusative case, but its internal subject
receives Genitive. The adjective is not definite, and has inherited no Def
from its genitive complement. If it were to function as a modifier of a
definite noun, then it must bear a definite article, as (60) illustrates:
(60) ra?ay-tu r-rajul-a t-tawiil-a l-qaamat-i
saw-I the-man-acc Çthe-tall-acc
Ç the-height-gen
`I saw the man with a tall height.'
Thus in the case of predicative adjectives, no Def inheritance occurs
either, presumably because the possessor DP has not raised to Spec D (or
more precisely to Spec D1). I will return to the structure of modifying
adjectives like those involved in (60) and (53) in section 5.
4.4. Partitives
More evidence for the absence of Def inheritance in SG structures comes
from partitive SG constructions. The latter are exemplified in (61)±(62):
(61) ?ahad-u r-rijaal-i raja¹ a
Ç
one-nom the-men-gen came.back
`One of the men came back.'
(62) kull-u r-rijaal-i raja¹ uu
all-nom the-men-gen came.back
`All (of) the men came back.'
These constructions have presumably the same structure as possessive
SGs, as proposed by traditional Arabic grammars. However, in addi-
tion to differing from (true) possessives in interpretation, partitives
differ from the latter in some (apparently) puzzling and interesting
properties.
First, the head of the partitive SG in the examples mentioned cannot
be modified. Only the complement can, as the following contrast
indicates:
(63) a. *?ahad-u r-rijaal-i t-tawiil-u raja¹ a
Ç
one-nom the-men-gen Çthe-tall-nom
Ç came.back
Intended to mean: `one tall of the men came back.'
b. ?ahad-u r-rijaal-i t-tiwaali raja¹ a
Ç
one-nom the-men-gen Çthe-tall.pl.-gen
Ç came.back
`One of the tall men came back.'
This property is strikingly characteristic of partitive SGs, which differ in
this respect from possessives (as we have seen above). It suggests that the
partitive head and its Spec cannot raise in the structure as high as those of
(modified) possessives. If this is true, then there is no reason to think that
the head of the partitive SG has ever inherited Def from its `possessor'.
This expectation appears to be borne out.
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 1999.
d:/3stud/53 -2/fehri.3d ^ 22/6/99 ^ 14:33 ^ sh/mp
41
There are SG partitives which have analytic counterparts, like the following:
(i) tulut-u r-rijaal-i
Åthird-nom
Å the-men-gen
`The third of the men'
(ii) t-tulut-u mina r-rijaal-i
ÅÅ Å
third-nom of the-men-gen
`The third of the men'
These contrasts, as well as the question why Definiteness is forced in some SG partitives,
need further research.
(66) np 3
l-muhtamal
. np 2
?amirikaa np 1
ˇ ˇ
s-sadiid NP
N PP
If the possessor moves directly to Spec D1, then the operation appears to
be violating Relativized Minimality. One way out is to allow movement
through equidistance, and move first the APs (starting from the highest),
until the dp cycle is completed. Then the possessor moves in one step to
Spec DP1, jumping over only the chains formed between APs and Specs
of dp. The resulting structure is as exhibited in (67):
(67) DP2
D DP1
hujuumii ?amirikaak dp 2
ˇ ˇ
s-sadiidj dp 1
l-muhtamal
. l np 3
el np 2
ek np 1
ej NP
N PP
ei alaa l-muqaawama
then move the (whole) NP (except the complements) to the left of the
lower AP, and proceed with a Cinquean XP type movement to obtain
MIO. As far as I can tell, however, this approach does not make the
movement depend on the properties of the various NP constituents in
languages. As we will see in section 6, crosslinguistic variation suggests
that these processes do occur separately, in lines with what happens in
Arabic.
Note, finally, that object denoting nominals do not differ from eventive
ones in that the same processes apply with multiple AP structures, along
the lines suggested above.
5. Adjectives as DPs
5.1. The structure of prenominal adjectives
As observed earlier in subsection 2.4 above, prenominal adjective
constructions behave in essential ways like nominal SGs. Moreover,
they are either interpreted like partitives or like normal postnominal
adjective constructions. It is then reasonable to think that the adjective
and its complement originate as head and Spec of AP, respectively, and
they undergo essentially the same operations which apply to the two
constituents of a nominal SG in the DP domain. Thus an `adjectival'
possessive in (35) above, repeated here as (68), would have a basic
structure like (69):
(68) ?akal-tu ladiid-a t-ta¹ aam-i
ate-I Å Å
delicious-acc Çthe-food-gen
Ç
`I ate the delicious (of the) food.'
(69) IP/ap
t-ta
. . aam ladiid
The adjective ladiid, being a head, incorporates first into D1, and then
Å Å
into D2, just like a `normal' N in a nominal SG does. The two-step
movement is motivated by the split/fissioned functions of D, Def and
Case, respectively. The NP t-ta¹aam moves through Specs, receiving
Genitive case, and surfacingÇ in
Ç Spec DP , to check Def in D . Def
1 1
inheritance is then expected. The surface structure is then as follows:
(70) DP2
D DP1
ladiid i t-ta
. . aamj D'
D1 IP/ap
ei ej ei
If this analysis is correct, then adjectives can also inherit Def from D, and
get somehow `nominalized' by D. Note that the (Def) D on the adjective
can be taken as `referential', inducing typically individuation, just as a
nominal D does. No expletive interpretation is workable here. Further
clarification on article properties are provided in the next subsection.
(71a) DP
D CP/DP
[l-] C/D IP
r-rajul tawiil
.
In Kayne's clausal system, however, nothing forces this `double DP'
structure, and nothing ensures Def agreement between the two DPs.43
But suppose, in line with Kayne's system, that the base structure of
attributive adjective modification is essentially (71a), where two D heads
and two Spec Ds must be involved (although they may form only
segments of the same category, along the lines to be explained below).
If articles are morphologically prefixed on nouns as well as on adjectives
in the base, then the syntactic distribution of these two categories will
depend on the nature of their inflectional and interpretational properties.
The needed derived structure is then (72):
(72) DP
D dp
r-rajulj t-tawiil
.. i np
ei NP
ej
43
Alexiadou & Wilder (1997), who also assume that the origin of Def is a syntactic D,
claim that Kayne's treatment of adjectives as reduced relatives make available (at least) two
determiner sources: one is the determiner of the external DP (which contains the relative
clause), and the other is the determiner of the DP subject of the AP, contained in CP (see
their structures (45) and (46) ). But to my knowledge, Kayne's analysis does not allow such
interpretation. See e.g. his analysis of `le livre jaune' on p. 101 (with no article on the DP
which is internal to CP). See also his structure (57) on p. 97 for `the book sent to me', and his
assumption that `book' there receives Case through incorporation with `the' (p. 98). As far as
I understand it, Kayne postulates only one D in (headed) relative clauses, which is equated
with C, and the nominal head of the relative clause, which originates in the internal IP
without determiner, raises to the domain of the external D/C. The only way then to ensure
the existence of two Ds (and their agreement) is to assume that in (headed) relative clauses
two base generated DPs (one internal to IP, and one external to it) come to interact in
various ways at PF.
44
One consequence of this view is that the attributive AP can be found in an `inverse'
structural position of that of the predicate, i.e. as a Spec, rather than a head, of the
predication, a well-known property of identificational sentences (see Moro 1991 and Milsark
1976, among others). This appears to be in fact the system proposed by Cinque (1996), in
which APs are Specs of NPs, a proposal which appears to be in contradiction to Kayne's,
although it is not, if APs are interpreted as predicates.
,
haadaa i D
D IP
l-walad j e i ej
D only from a moved N which is specified for Def.48 Borer also assumes
that the salient feature of the nominal construct state (= our SGN) is that
its N head is generated without Def specification. Since both D (in
general) and (the head) N in SGN have no Def specification, syntactic
incorporation (or merger) of N-to-N is required, where the second N
(heading the complement) has Def specification, and it transmits its
feature to the head N via a complex mechanism of percolation. Then
the N-N complex substitutes for D, to make it (in)definite.49
In addition to appealing to a very complex route to ensure Def
inheritance, Borer's analysis embodies a number of claims that are
questionable:
(a) the claim that the article is not a functional affix (and/or a D head, or
that D is empty), but only a lexical feature of N;
(b) the claim that adjectives do not need articles; the claim that the head
N of the SGN and that of its complement form a unique head at S-
structure;
(c) the obligatory Def inheritance in SGN, since the only way for the
head N of SGN to inherit a Def value is via incorporation with the
head N of the complement (which is marked for Def).
If (a) and (c) were true, then we would expect the (definite) SGN and
the N carrying the article to have basically the same distribution. This
expectation is not borne out. As a matter of fact, there is evidence that the
two phrases exhibit different distributional behaviours. For example,
prenominal demonstratives cooccur only with head nouns on which a
definite article is realized, but they cannot be constructed with a (definite)
SGN. The latter is treated like bare common nouns (with no article), as in
(83a), or bare proper names, as in (83b), which cannot cooccur with a
prenominal demonstrative:
(83) a. *haadaa rajul-un
Å
this-nom man-nom
b. *haadaa zayd-un
Å
this-nom Zayd-nom
c. *haadaa bayt-u r-rajul-i
Å
this-nom house-nom the-man-gen
Intended to mean: `this house of the man'
Likewise, demonstratives can precede only nouns bearing articles
(whether common or proper):
48
See Borer (1996), p. 53. The author resorts to morphological `secondary percolation'
and `feature sharing' mechanisms (see p. 56). I have already called into question the
morphological nature of Def inheritance.
49
In contrast to Semitic, English (and more generally Germanic) has a D specified for the
Def feature, and hence no CSN is possible. For a different view, see Longobardi (1994,
1996).
50
Note that demonstratives can occur with CSNs or bare proper names, provided they
are postnominal:
(i) bayt-u r-rajul-i haadaa
Å
house-nom the-man-gen this-nom
`This house of the man'
(ii) zayd-un haadaa
Å
Zayd-nom this-nom
`This Zayd'
segments) is parallel to TP, in that the two categories are endowed with a
D feature, through which Cases of external arguments (i.e. possessors and
subjects) are checked. Note that since parallels between DP and CP are
also widely established in the literature, this further strengthens the need
for a layerly fissioned DP, which would then be the equivalent counter-
part of the TP/CP extension.
If Gen is checked in Spec DP, then a number of questions arise:
Concerning question (a), there are enough reasons to think that Gen is
checked by PF. We have seen above that SGs like (20a) differ from
analytic genitives like (21a) in that overt Possessor raising has occurred in
the latter, but not in the former, and that the placement of APs depends
on whether the mentioned process takes place or not. It is then reasonable
to think that, at least in these SGs, the possessor raises. But up till now,
we have assumed that Possessor raising is triggered by Def, typically in
cases where Def inheritance occurs. There are, however, instances of
adjectival as well as nominal SGs, in which there is no Def inheritance, yet
the possessor could be argued to have moved.
Consider the following event nominal SGs:
(87) nasÏr-u l-xabar-i ¹ amd-an l-yawm-a xata?-un
publication-nom the-news-gen deliberately today Ç
mistake-nom
`The publication of the news deliberately today is a mistake.'
(88) nasÏr-u xabar-in kaadib-in tama¹ an fii
Å
publication-nom the-news-gen false-gen Çpurposing in
stigÇlaali-hi xata?-un
Ç
exploiting-it mistake-nom
`The publication of a false news in order to exploit that is a
mistake.'
(89) nasÏr-u s-sahiifat-i l-xabar-a ¹ amd-an
ÇÇ Ç
publication-nom the-newspaper-gen the-news-acc deliberately
xata?-un
Ç
mistake-nom
`The deliberate publication of the news by the newspaper is a
mistake.'
In these constructions, the possessor has moved over all adverbs, includ-
ing subject-oriented adverbs, which are presumably generated higher than
the subject/possessor at the base structure. On the other hand, there is no
reason to think that the eventive head N has ever inherited any Def
feature from the possessor, since it is impossible to modify this head by
nominal modifiers such as adjectives or relative clauses:
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 1999.
d:/3stud/53 -2/fehri.3d ^ 22/6/99 ^ 14:33 ^ sh/mp
52
To quote: `suppose [that the article feature] . . . in Semitic is strong [. . . then] it has to be
checked before Spell Out, triggering overt movement. Suppose also that AgrG may inherit
the definiteness value of the genitive argument in its Spec and that the raising of the noun to
D takes place in the following way: N first adjoins to AgrG and then the new complex so
formed adjoins to (or substitutes for D). Now the condition on the identification of D will be
satisfied: the raising of the lexical noun [. . .] will be functionally motivated and licensed by
the need to check the [+ article] feature and the presence of a prepositionless Genitive is
explained by the fact that this operation can be performed only by dragging to D an AgrG
being in a Spec-Head relation with a Genitive argument' (Longobardi 1996, p. 32).
proposed by Bittner & Hale (1996a, b).53 Thus the dissociation of Gen
and Def in adjectival SGs falls out naturally from my system, but not
from that of Longobardi.
The order observed thus suggests that only N to D raising has occurred,
and that APs surface in their initial hierarchical order.
Second, adjectives are located after the head noun and before the
possessor, even in SGs, as (92) indicates:
(92) merch bert brenhines ddoeth
daughter beautiful queen wise
`The beautiful daughter of a wise queen'
The order exhibited here suggests that the possessor has not moved from
its base position.
Third, Welsh adjectives do not have their own (independent) article, as
observed in these examples. The order is then D-N-A, a distribution
which cannot be found in Arabic, as already explained above. The
poorness of inflection of Welsh adjectives then correlates with the absence
of A movement.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, I have addressed various descriptive and theoretical
questions concerning the base structure ingredients of modifying APs,
and how these constituents are reordered within larger DP structures. I
have argued for the existence of AP (and A) leftward movement, which is
motivated by the strength of D features of Arabic APs. The recursive
local application of the latter movement has been shown to be behind
MIO effects. Furthermore, AP and Possessor movements interact appro-
priately, without inducing minimality violations. I have reanalyzed the
structure of synthetic possessives in the light of the observation that they
may or may not involve Def inheritance. The latter has been argued to be
syntactic in nature: it is triggered by Possessor raising, in a split/fissioned
56
The judgements with respect to (101) and (102) are very subtle, and some speakers are
unable to make a distinction between the two constructions. When confronted with the
difference in interpretation, however, speakers tend to correct their judgements in the right
direction.
DP architecture. On the other hand, Case, Def, and Agr features play
separate roles with respect to Attract, in autonomous DP domains.
Possessive and partitive structures have been examined and contrasted,
and the relevance of their structure to that of the treatment of prenominal
adjective constructions explored. Finally, Gen checking has been disso-
ciated from Def checking in SGs, thus providing additional motivation
for a fissioned DP approach. Further research is obviously needed to
detail and refine this picture.57
References
Abney, S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. MIT.
Alexiadou, A. & Wider, C. 1997. Adjectival modification and multiple determi-
ners. Ms. Berlin: FAS.
Androutsopoulou, A. 1995. The licensing of Adjectival Modification. WCCFL
14, 17±31.
Astarabaadii, R. 12th century. SÏarh asÏ-SÏaafiya. Beyruth: daar al-kutub l-
¹ ilmiyyah, 1975. Ç
Bernstein, J. 1993. Topics in the syntax of nominal structure across Romance.
Ph.D. New York: CUNY.
Bittner, M. & Hale, K. 1996a. The structural determination of Case and
Agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 1±68.
Bittner, M. & Hale, K. 1996b. Ergativity: toward a theory of a heterogeneous
class. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 531±604.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.
Bolinger, D. 1967. Adjectives in English: attribution and predication. Lingua 18,
1±34.
Borer, H. 1988. Morphological parallelism: a case study. Morphology yearbook,
ed. G. Booij & J. van Marle, 45±65. Dordrecht: Foris.
Borer, H. 1996. The construct in review. Studies in Afroasiatic grammar, ed.
J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm, & U. Shlonsky, 30±61. The Hague: Holland
Academic Graphics.
57
Indeed, a number of theoretical and technical questions remains to be solved, in
particular with regard to motivation of movement. For example, one might wonder what
features are interpretable or non-interpretable in Chomsky's sense, which would then trigger
or not trigger movement. I was basically assuming that D has N features (namely Def), and
D features (Case and Agr), and that the former are interpretable, whereas the latter are not.
If Arabic Case and Agr in D are strong, then they motivate internal movement within DP.
What about Def? It is widely accepted in the Arabic and Chamito-Semitic literature that N
moves to D (Def), at least in definite SGs. On the other hand, I have shown that N moves to
D, even with nouns bearing the prefixed article, as evidenced by the obligatory N-A order.
This suggests that Def does also trigger movement, and it may or may not be interpretable.
In the case of the N-A order, it is possible that the movement is motivated by scope (and
secondarily by Def checking of adjectives). In the case of SGs which undergo Def
inheritance, it is possible that D is not included in the numeration, and it is only created
by Possessor movement. The N then picks up the Def feature through agreement with the
possessor, since it is necessary for its interpretation. As for APs, their movement is basically
motivated by the same factors. Other questions arise with regard to the issue of what counts
as (lexically) inherent (such as plurality), or (functionally) non-inherent category features
(such as definiteness, presumably). Furthermore, alternative technicalities are equally
conceivable, but I leave these matters for further inquiry.