11

Arabic syntax II: clause structure

1. Clauses in Arabic

Clauses are centered structurally and systematically around the predicate,

and the predicative essence of a clause is what distinguishes it from a phrase. In
Arabic syntax, there are verbal sentences and verbless (equational) sentences, and
predicates may be of almost any lexical category: verbs (daras-naa l-kitaab-a ‘We
studied the book’), pronouns (haadhaa huwa ‘This is he’), prepositional phrases
(al-kitaab-u fii l-maŧbax-i ‘The book is in the kitchen’), adjectives (al-bayt-u
kabiir-un ‘The house is big’), or nouns (haaʔulaaʔi ŧullaab-un ‘These are stu-
dents’).1 Thus although verbs are at the heart of most predications, because the verb
‘to be’ in Arabic does not surface in the present tense indicative, other syntactic
categories may bear the predicate or copular function in equational sentences.
Traditional Arabic grammars often classify sentence-types according to the
first word in the sentence (noun or verb – jumla ismiyya/jumla fiʕliyya, ‘noun-
sentence’/ ‘verb-sentence’), but the division is also viewed alternatively, according
to whether or not the sentence contains an overt verb at all.2 Verbless sentences are
considered a distinct linguistic category and usually referred to in English as
“equational” sentences, with a basic predication distinction between the “topic”
component (al-mubtadaʔ) and the “comment” component (al-xabar).

2. Verbal sentences/verbal clauses

Syntactic relations in Arabic verbal sentences may be characterized as

centering around the verbal predicate, which acts as the primary “governor” or
ʕaamil within the clause. The verb assigns theta-roles, marked overtly as Arabic
accusative case. In traditional Arabic syntactic analysis, and in some discussions of
argument structure, the subject NP of the verb is “governed” in the nominative
case. In generative grammar, subject NPs are seen as different from object argu-
ments, as indirect and external to the VP. It is said that the verb “theta-marks” a

127

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
 128 Arabic syntax II: clause structure

constituent directly if it assigns a role directly; however, “if a verb theta-marks an

argument compositionally we call this indirect theta-marking” (Haegeman 1994: 72).3
Interestingly, in terms of contemporary Arabic syntactic theory, “the verbal
clause seems to have elicited less theoretical interest than nominal clauses have,
except with relation to agreement” (Hoyt 2009b: 653). Word order issues have
dominated in the analysis of Arabic syntax, especially as they relate to subject–verb
agreement, but as Hoyt notes, “In the Government-Binding and the Minimalist
traditions . . . the verbal clause has no independent theoretical status . . . These
frameworks make extensive use of ‘null’ or unpronounced abstract structure, and
as such, ‘word order’ as it is traditionally known does not correspond directly to
constituent order” (Hoyt 2009b: 657). This difference, albeit subtle, is important to
understanding the aims and procedures of Arabic generative syntactic analysis. In
terms of constituency and schematic relations, agreement features and government
features characterize Arabic clausal relations: agreement between subject and verb,
and various kinds of hierarchal relations between the verbal predicate and its
arguments, including clausal arguments. The argument structures that surface in
verbal clauses are factors of the semantic valence of the verb. In an earlier work
I have summarized these relations as follows:

The valence of a verb or other predicate (such as a preposition) is expressed in

terms of the number of core arguments that the predicate requires. Thus a verb
such as ‘give’ in English or ʔaʕŧaa in Arabic has a valence of three (Agent, Object,
and Recipient), whereas a verb such as ‘buy’ or ishtaraa, has two core arguments
(Agent and Object). Pinker proposes the term “thematic core” for the set of a
predicate’s required arguments and defines it as follows: “a thematic core is a
schematization of a type of event or relationship that lies at the core of the
meanings of a class of possible verb” (1989: 73). Goldberg considers argument
structure of central importance in relating semantics to syntax, stating that “argu-
ment structure constructions are a special class of constructions that provides the
basic means of clausal expression in a language” (1995: 3). In some approaches to
argument structure, such as Fillmore’s ‘case grammar’ (Fillmore 1968 and 1977),
the different arguments are distinguished according to thematic role labels such as
“Agent,” “Patient,” and “Beneficiary.” As Haspelmath notes, “Fillmore’s inten-
tion was to highlight the importance of abstract semantic roles for languages like
English that have (almost) no case distinctions” (2009: 507). Anderson states that
“if we interpret the relations involved here [in dative and accusative relations] as
semantic . . . in the case of the post verbal elements (at least), then their identi-
fication is ensured by the semantic valency of the verb, which regulates the syntax.
This . . . is the crucial insight of ‘case grammar.’” (Anderson 2006: 28)
Other approaches to predicate-argument structure, such as Pinker 1989 and Levin
and Rappaport 1998, forgo the semantic labeling of arguments and differentiate
them only as X and Y. In a later work, Levin and Rappaport describe the verb’s
semantic core structure using the term “lexical semantic template” (1995: 24). In

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
 Verbal sentences/verbal clauses 129

their 1998 article on morphology and lexical semantics, Levin and Rappaport
Hovav distinguish between “the lexical syntactic representation, often called ‘argu-
ment structure,’ and the lexical semantic representation which . . . has come to be
known as ‘lexical conceptual structure’” (LCS) (1998, 2001: 249). Thus, a number
of alternative perspectives have been proposed regarding the nature of semantic
core arguments required by predicates, focused on the interrelationship between the
syntax and semantics of the clause, and on linking or mapping the semantic
information to surface structure. (Ryding 2011: 288–289)4

Five syntactic issues are introduced here as examples of topics of interest to

researchers in Arabic syntactic theory: word order and subject–verb asymmetry,
WH-movement, dative-movement, sentential complements, and case theory.

2.1. Word order

Verbal sentences in standard Arabic tend to have VSO word order (Verb-
Subject-Object); but this is by no means a strict standard, and it varies depending
on context and discourse function. For example, newspaper headlines tend to be
SVO, reflecting “the attention-getting function of the SVO word order” (Ryding
2005: 67). Moreover, vernacular Arabic word order differs considerably from
standard Arabic and is heavily influenced by discourse context. Current issues in
word order studies (for both standard and colloquial Arabic) have centered around
the following factors, as described by Dahlgren: (1) foreground and background,
(2) topicalization, (3) focusing, (4) topicality, (5) animacy, (6) aspect, (7) rhythm
(2009: 731–734).
According to Soltan

the study of clause structure and word order has figured as one major topic in the
study of Arabic syntax. There have been three main questions in this regard:
(i) what are the syntactic categories in the clausal hierarchy, e.g., is Arabic a tense
language, and if so, how is tense expressed? (ii) What are the dominance relations
between such categories on the hierarchy, e.g., where is Neg projected in the
clausal hierarchy? (iii) How can this clausal hierarchy account for possible word
orders attested in Arabic dialects, e.g., the alternation between verb-initial . . . and
nominal-initial . . . structures. (2011: 238)

Researchers have engaged in a rich debate about these topics, particularly as they
affect both standard and colloquial Arabic.5

2.1.1. Subject–verb agreement asymmetry

Certainly the topic of key interest in Arabic word order studies is subject-
verb agreement asymmetry (SVAA). Agreement rules normally require that verbs

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
 130 Arabic syntax II: clause structure

reflect the number and gender of their subjects, but in Arabic, this rule only applies
fully when the verb follows the subject:

al-banaat-u daras-na fii l-maktabat-i

the-girls-nom. studied [Link]. in the-library-gen.
The girls studied in the library.
al-bint-aani daras-ataa fii l-maktabat-i.
the-two-girls-nom. studied [Link]. in the-library-gen.
The two girls studied in the library.

If a plural or dual subject follows the verb, agreement is only partial; the verb
agrees in gender only, not number:

daras-at al-banaat-u fii l-maktabat-i

studied 3f. sing. the-girls-nom. in the-library-gen.
The girls studied in the library.
daras-at al-bint-aani fii l-maktabat-i
studied 3f. sing. the-two-girls-nom. in the-library-gen.
The two girls studied in the library.

This agreement restriction applies solely to human subjects, because only

human plurals are reflected in Arabic agreement morphology. If the subjects are
non-human dual or plural, their agreement features are feminine singular no matter
what the word order:

al-Şuquur-u ʔakal-at al-samakat-a

the-hawks-nom. ate 3f. sing. the-fish-acc.
The hawks ate the fish.
ʔakal-at al-Şuquur-u al-samakat-a
ate 3f. sing. the-hawks-nom. the-fish-acc.
The hawks ate the fish.

Accounting for the agreement asymmetry with human subjects has been a topic
of extended discussion, especially in generative approaches to Arabic syntax. “The
major challenge in this respect has always been how to account for the presence of
the SVAA in SA [standard Arabic] given standard assumptions about agreement in
generative syntax” (Soltan 2006: 241).6 In Chekili’s analysis of word-order issues
he notes that “Arabic raises the question of how to analyze the initial NP in SVO, as
subject or topic,” and notes that this question “has given rise to a dual account of
such structures” (2009: 527). Ouhalla states that “a more appropriate way of
characterizing the situation in standard Arabic is not in terms of the notion ‘lack
of agreement,’ but, rather, in terms of the notion ‘poor agreement’ ” (1997: 205). He

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
 Verbal sentences/verbal clauses 131

further refers to “the fact, attested in a large number of languages . . . that poor
subject agreement elements (characteristic of so-called impersonal forms) tend to be
identical with the third person singular agreement morpheme” (205). Soltan spec-
ulates that “full agreement obtains in the SV orders because of the presence of a
pronominal subject . . . Partial agreement in the VS order could be viewed then as the
result of a default agreement on T(ense)” (2005: 203).7 The topic of Arabic SVAA
has generated substantial research and theoretical speculation, especially among
generative linguists, and remains an area of key interest for theoretical linguistics.

2.2. WH-movement
The study of interrogative structures through WH-movement is a sec-
ond topic of research interest in Arabic linguistics from a generative viewpoint.8
WH-words are question words (e.g., who, when, why) or relative pronouns
(who, which). Chekili notes that certain transformational/generative models
generated “even greater interest in ‘WH-constructions’ because they relied on
such constructions in developing a general theory of conditions on transforma-
tions” (2009: 524). According to Choueiri, “WH-movement plays a key role in
the syntax of long-distance dependencies. Typically, it is involved in the deri-
vation of wh-interrogatives, but it is also involved in the formation of other
constructions, such as topicalized constructions and relative clauses” (2009:
718). In recent articles, Soltan (2010 and 2011) addresses issues of scope and
question-formation in Egyptian Arabic. Most WH-movement studies have
focused on vernacular Arabic, since it is spoken discourse that most vividly
contextualizes the various kinds of question formation, their acceptability, their
structure, and meaning.

2.3. Case relationships and case theory

Case theory centers around the key role of the verb and its semantic
valence (the number of arguments that the verb takes). The relationships of
sentence or clause constituents to the verbal predication are characterized in
terms of their case roles, which include labels such as Agent, Benefactive/
Recipient, Experiencer, Instrumental, Locative, and Object. These terms have
been subject to discussion and dissatisfaction within syntactic theory, so the
number of them and labels of them are still under scrutiny and evaluation.9 It is
important to note that these “cases” do not correspond exactly to the case-marking
system of Arabic (or any other language), nor are they intended to. They are labels
of semantic relations between the verb and its arguments, rather than syntactic
categories. Nonetheless, case theory and case-marking can be interrelated and used
productively to discuss and analyze Arabic case structures and their functions.

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
 132 Arabic syntax II: clause structure

Particularly important to this analysis is the study of Arabic verbal ʔawzaan, the
Forms of the verb, and their valency alternations. Amberber (2000) is a study of
Amharic verbs and valency encoding, but similar studies for Arabic have yet to be
developed.10 Ryding (2011) discusses dative structures and their underlying case-
role relationships, as does Ryding-Lentzner (1977 and 1981). Abdul-Raof (2006)
and Letourneau (2006 and 2009) describe case roles, case theory, and theta roles as
they apply to Arabic.

2.4. Dative structures in Arabic

The morphology of Arabic verbs wherein lexical root information interrelates
with morphosyntactic verbal template information yields a perspective for analysis
of “key issues in syntactic theory through analysis of the formal semantics of
Arabic lexical roots and their derivational modifications . . . Modern Standard
Arabic lexical items remain largely transparent in terms of their lexical structure
and syntactic argument requirements. When derivational or syntactic modifica-
tions yield ditransitive constructions, it is often possible to discover semantic
reasons for particular syntactic constraints” (Ryding 2011: 283–284). In Ryding
(2011) and Ryding-Lentzner (1981), Arabic ditransitive constructions and the
distinction between Arabic ‘to’-datives and ‘for’-datives, are analyzed using case
grammar, construction grammar, and lexical semantics to examine the composition
of dative semantics and their realizations in Arabic.
Ditransitive structures in Arabic include the double-object construction and the
li-construction. The double-object constructions result from the underlying seman-
tics of the verb, including those that are doubly transitive due to the lexical content
of the root and others that result in double transitivity through derivational mor-
phology. Here are some categories of ditransitives in Arabic:

(1) The dative-alternation construction where the beneficiary argument shifts place,
with preposition deletion, often based on the notion of “giving.”
(2) Causative constructions where a valency-changing derivation modifies the lexical
root, e.g.

Form IV ʔaħđara to bring (Cause-to-come)

Form IV ʔaŧʕama to feed (Cause-to-taste)11

(3) Verbs of permission or denial, e.g.

manaʕa to forbid
manaħa to grant

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
 Verbal sentences/verbal clauses 133

(4) Verbs of perception and cognition (afʕaal qalbiyya), e.g.

ʕadda to consider, deem

iʕtabara to consider, deem
wajada to find, deem
(5) Verbs of transformation (afʕaal al-taħwiil), e.g.

şayyara to convert
ittaxadha take, adopt (as)
jaʕala to make
ʕayyana to appoint
tawwaja to crown12
(Ryding 2011: 286–287)

For example, in the predication of “giving,” the option is to use either double
accusative, or the prepositional dative structure, li-with Beneficiary noun, shifted
to the second object position, a procedure that is referred to as “dative shift” or
“dative movement:”

ʔaʕtay-tu l-bint-a l-kitaab-a

i-gave the-girl-acc the book-acc.
I gave the girl the book.
ʔaʕtay-tu l-kitaab-a li-l-bint-i
i-gave the-book-acc to-the-girl-gen
I gave the book to the girl.

With the predicate for “buying,” however, the ditransitive structure is not
possible in Arabic (although it is in English):

ishtaray-tu l-kitaab-a li-l-bint-i

i-bought the-book-acc. for-the-girl-gen.
I bought the book for the girl.

But not:

*ishtaray-tu l-bint-a l-kitaab-a

i-bought the-girl-acc. the-book-acc.
I bought the girl the book.

In Ryding 2011 I show through compositional analysis that variations on Arabic

dative structures are clearly semantically motivated, and that there is “a major
difference in syntactic behavior between the to-dative and the for-dative in Arabic,
even though they are represented in the surface structure by an identical item, li-”
(295).

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
 134 Arabic syntax II: clause structure

2.5. Complement clauses in Arabic

Complement clauses are predications which are subordinated within
another sentence. In Maria Persson’s work on object complements in standard
Arabic, she defines a complement as “any element whose presence and form is
decided by the principal lexical item of the phrase or clause in which it occurs”
(2002: 7). Complement clauses are often linked to main or matrix clauses through
the use of subordinating conjunctions referred to as “complementizers.” Persson
considers a complementizer as “a morpheme (a word, particle, clitic, or affix)
signalling that the preceding or following clause is a complement” (2002: 13). In
Arabic this would include ʔinna and her sisters as well as ʔan-plus-subjunctive
clauses. From a theoretical standpoint, Persson takes a “functional perspective” to
analyze complementation, rather than a generative standpoint.
Dixon (2010b) also provides a useful definition of a complement clause:
“A complement clause is a type of clause which fills an argument slot in the
structure of another clause” (370). Dixon’s analysis of the grammatical structure
of clauses sets “three defining criteria for a complement clause”: (1) “It has the
internal constituent structure of a clause [not a phrase], at least as far as core
arguments are concerned,” (2010b: 375); (2) it “functions as a core argument of a
higher clause. In every language in which complement clauses occur they function
as O[Object] argument; there are often other possibilities as well” (2010b: 377);
(3) “A complement clause must refer to a proposition, something involving at least
one participant who is involved in an activity or state” (2010b: 380). In addition,
Dixon provides an analysis and summary of the semantics of matrix verbs, which
in Arabic determine the nature of the complementizer and complement clause.
These semantic types include: (1) attention (see, hear, notice, smell, show) (2010b:
395), (2) thinking (think, consider, imagine, assume, suppose, know, understand)
(2010b: 396); (3) deciding (decide, resolve, plan, choose) (2010b: 397); (4) liking
(like, love, prefer, regret, fear, enjoy) (2010b: 397); and (5) speaking (say, report,
inform, state – among others) (2010b: 397–398).
Although covering the full range of variation in Arabic complement studies here
is not possible, I would like to provide an indication of what is theorized about such
structures. First of all, the type of complementizer is selected by the semantic
nature of the main verb. Kirk Belnap’s research on Arabic complementation
structures (1986) focused on the use and distribution of ʔan, ʔinna, ʔanna, and
verbal noun complements in a corpus of about 17,000 words, classifying them
according to Givón’s (1980) “hierarchical implicational scale of binding.”
Whereas English may use the word ‘that’ to embed a complement in many different
respects (“I wish that . . .; they told me that . . .; she thinks that . . .” ), Arabic

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
 Verbless predications 135

distinguishes among the complementizers (and the structures they govern) accord-
ing to the meaning of the matrix verb. These complementizers in Arabic, the
“sisters of ʔinna,” are subordinating conjunctions that are followed by a clause
whose subject is required to be in the accusative case. For example, after the verb
qaal-a ‘to say,’ the complementizer ʔinna is required:
qaal-uu ʔinna l-siyaasiyy-iina ya-staxdim-uuna
said-they m. that the-politicians m.-acc. they-use-m.
muşŧalaħaat-in diiniyyat-an
terminologies-acc. religious-acc.
They said that politicians use religious terms.

After verbs of reporting or relaying factual information, the particle ʔanna is

used as complementizer:

ʔadrak-a ʔanna-hu nasiy-a l-kalimat-a

he-realized that-he he-forgot the-word-acc.
He realized that he forgot the word.

After a matrix verb indicating an attitude or feeling toward the action in the
complement clause, the complementizer ʔan is used, with subjunctive marking on
the verb:

tu-riid-u ʔan ta-ʕrif-a maadhaa

she-wants-indic that she-know-subj what
sa-ya-ʕnii haadhaa l-salaam-u
will-he-mean this-m the-peace-nom.
She wants to know what this peace will mean.

Matrix verb semantics, the choice of complementizer, and subsequent comple-

ment structure have been areas of some interest for Arabic syntactic study. As
Persson states in her conclusion, “The CTPs [complement-taking predicates] in the
MSA corpus have rather well-defined semantic fields, and . . . each class of CTPs
is, to a remarkable extent, associated with specific complement patterns” (Persson:
2002: 135).

3. Verbless predications

Equational or verbless sentences constitute one of the major categories of

Arabic syntax, one that has attracted substantial attention from researchers in
syntactic theory. The key feature of these sentences is that there is no surface
representation of the present tense indicative verb ‘to be,’ although it surfaces in

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
 136 Arabic syntax II: clause structure

negatives, in subjunctive mood, in jussive mood, and in the past and future tenses.
Bahloul writes that “contextual triggers such as tense, aspect, modal, and mood
markers” affect the appearance of the verb ‘to be’ (kaana) in copular sentences, and
he advocates a “model which places modality at the center of the sentence
structure” (2006: 510). Because verbless sentences often begin with a noun or
NP, they are sometimes terminologically conflated with verbal sentences that start
with a nominal (jumal ismiyya ‘nominal sentences’). As Badawi, Carter, and Gully
point out, Arabic has no separate term for “equational sentence,” rather, “it falls
under ‘nominal sentence’” (2004: 307). It is helpful, however, to examine the
specific nature of verbless sentences.
Verbless predications in standard Arabic are of two types: one in which there
is no overt “copula morpheme,” and one where there is. The copula morpheme is
realized, when it occurs, as an Arabic subject pronoun.13

3.1. Predications with no copula pronoun

In Arabic, predication without a copula pronoun is standard for express-
ing quality, quantity, location, identity, and other states of being in the present tense
indicative. The two parts of the sentence, the subject (al-mubtadaʔ) and the
predicate (al-xabar) form a balanced predication. The subject of such sentences
is usually definite. If the predicate is a modifier, it agrees with the subject in number
and gender, but is indefinite. Both parts of the basic equational sentence are in the
nominative case. When the predicate is a prepositional phrase it normally follows
the subject, except when it indicates possession.

al-ŧariiq-u ŧawiil-u-n
the-road-nom. [is] long-m.-sing.-nom.-indef.
The road is long.
ʔuxt-u-haa ʔustaadhat-u-n
sister-nom.-her [is] a-professor-f.-nom.-indef.
Her sister is a professor.
ʔax-uu-naa musaafir-u-n
brother-nom.-our [is] traveling-m.-sing.-indef.
Our brother is traveling.
al-zuwwaar-u fii l-maktab-i
the-visitors-nom. [are] in the-office-gen.
The visitors are in the office.
la-naa l-qudrat-u
to-us [is] the-ability-nom.
We have the ability.

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
 Summary 137

3.2. Predications with copula pronoun

The copula pronoun is used when it is necessary to distinguish a phrase
(e.g., ‘this book’) from a predication (‘this is a book’), or when the predicate of the
equational sentence is definite.
haadhaa l-makaan-u
this-m. sing. the-place-nom.
this place
haadhaa huwa l-makaan-u
this-m. sing. he [is] the-place-nom.
This is the place.
haaʔulaaʔi l-masʔuul-uuna
these the-officials-nom
these officials
haaʔulaaʔi hum-u l-masʔuul-uuna14
these they-masc. [are] the-officials-nom.
These are the officials.

This predicative function of the pronoun has led one researcher to maintain that
“evidence from Arabic suggests that the copula pronoun be analyzed as a predicate
expressing the relation of identity” (Eid 1991: 33), and that “pronouns function as
anti-ambiguity devices to force a sentential, vs. a phrasal, interpretation of a
structure” (Eid 1991: 42).15

4. Summary

Arabic clausal syntax is a vast and fertile field for linguistic study, no
matter which approach is taken or which theories applied. Generative theory has
shown that Arabic has an important role to play in contributing to the concept of
Universal Grammar; valence theory has shown the importance of Arabic in
extending the analysis of lexical and morphological composition of verb forms;
and the special role of copular clauses in Arabic has brought attention to the
centrality of mood-marking in Arabic surface structure.

Study questions and discussion

(1) Find ten examples of subject–verb asymmetry in Arabic and discuss these
examples with the other students in your class. What would be the ten best
examples, overall, for use in teaching Arabic as a foreign language?

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
 138 Arabic syntax II: clause structure

(2) Subordination or complementation is a complex topic in standard

Arabic. Aside from ʔinna and her sisters, list any other kinds of com-
plementizers and their effect on the embedded clause. Be sure to cite
examples.
(3) Equational or verbless sentences may or may not have a copula mor-
pheme. Find five examples of each and discuss them.
(4) What kind of insight can valence theory provide for Arabic syntax
or morphosyntax? Prepare a two-page paper discussing valence theory
and Arabic.

Further reading

Aoun, Joseph E., Elabbas Benmamoun and Lina Choueiri. 2010. The Syntax of Arabic.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A compara-
tive study of Arabic dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Especially chapter 1 on
comparative Arabic syntax.
Chekili, Ferid. 2009. Transformational grammar. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 520–528. Leiden: Brill.
Ryding, Karin C. 2011. Arabic datives, ditransitives, and the preposition li-. In In the
Shadow of Arabic: Festschrift for Ramzi Baalbaki, ed. Bilal Orfali, 283–298. Leiden:
Brill.
Soltan, Osama. 2006. Standard Arabic subject–verb agreement asymmetry revisited in an
Agree-based minimalist syntax. In Agreement Systems, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 239–264.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Notes

1. “Apart from a Verb Phrase (VP), the initial NP of the copular sentence may be followed
by any other lexical category” (Bahloul 2006: 507).
2. Issues of clause classification have been significant factors in Arabic theoretical syntax.
Hoyt, for example, reviews the implications of two definitions of “verbal clause,” one
referring to “V-initial” word order, and the other to “V-headed” clauses, making the
distinction between sentences (clauses) in which inflected verbs come first, and sentences
where the verb appears later in the sentence (2009b: 653).
3. “The theta role assigned to the subject is assigned compositionally: it is determined by
the semantics of the verb and other VP constituents. Roughly, the verb assigns an object
role first, the resulting verb-argument complex will assign a theta role to the subject. The
subject argument is as if it were slotted in last” (Haegeman 1994: 71–72) (emphasis in
original).
4. For more on case roles and theta roles in Arabic, see LeTourneau (2006, 2009).

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
 Summary 139

5. See for example, Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri (2010); Chekili (2009: 523–524);
Soltan (2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012).
6. For an examination of SVAA in both spoken and written Arabic, see Aoun,
Benmamoun, and Choueiri (2010: 73–95) on sentential agreement. For summaries of
the issues and helpful bibliographies, see Hoyt (2009a, 2009b).
7. See Soltan (2006, 2011) for further discussion of a minimalist approach to Arabic
syntactic derivations, especially as regards SVAA.
8. WH-movement “is used to refer to a transformational rule which moves a wh-phrase
(wh-XP) to initial position in the sentence” (Crystal 1997b: 418).
9. “Across theories there is a huge amount of dissatisfaction with these role labels” (Butt
2009a: 33).
10. See Maalej (2009) for a discussion of valency as it applies to Arabic.
11. For more on the semantics of “cause” in Arabic, see Măcelaru (2006).
12. Categories 4 and 5 include verbs which belong to the traditional ‘nawaasix’ category in
Arabic grammar, that is, verbs that shift one or more arguments in the VP to accusative
case. See Ryding (2005: 176–179) for further description.
13. The term “copula morpheme” is taken from Eid (1991).
14. The /-u/ suffix on hum ‘they’ in this sentence is a helping vowel, not an inflectional
vowel.
15. For more extensive discussion of copular sentences in Arabic, see Ryding (2005:
59–63); and especially Badawi, Carter, and Gully (2004: 307–344). Bahloul (2006)
provides an excellent summary of copular structures in standard Arabic.

Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]
Downloaded from https:/[Link]/core. University of Florida, on 27 Apr 2017 at [Link], subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https:/[Link]/core/terms. [Link]