Binding Relations and Their Implications for Word Order in Arabic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1109.06Keywords:
Arabic, binding theory, C-command, reflexives, possessive pronounsAbstract
This study aims at investigating the distribution of the possessive pronouns in Modern Standard Arabic. It shows that when the possessive pronouns are used as reflexives they have implications for the word order. The different positions occupied by the objects are determined by the presence of these pronouns and the binding relations within the c-commanding domain. Building on the basic assumptions of Binding Theory, possessive pronouns are best treated as normal pronominal elements which are subject to condition B. However, when they are used as anaphoric elements in certain contexts, they have to be c-commanded by their antecedents. Depending on the derivational level at which c-command relation is established between the reflexive possessive pronoun and its antecedent, movement of the possessive pronoun along with the phrase containing is optional in certain structures or, in other structures, the pronoun becomes frozen in the position in which it is base-generated.
References
Alenazy, M. (2009). Case, agreement and movement in Arabic: a Minimalist approach. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Publishing Company.
Baker, C. L. (1995). Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally-free reflexives in British English. Language, 71 (1): 63-101.
Benmamoun, E. & L. Choueiri. (2013). The syntax of Arabic from a generative perspective. In J. Owens (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Arabic linguistics. Chicago: Oxford University Press, 115–164.
Boeckx, C. (2003). (In)Direct binding. Syntax 6: 213-36.
Bošković, Ž. (2008). On the operator freezing effect. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26: 249-87.
Charnavel, I. (2009). Linking Binding and Focus: on Intensifying son propre in French. Unpublished MA Thesis. University of California, Los Angeles.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, Holland; Cinnaminson, N.J.: Foris Publications.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale. A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1-52.
Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H.-M. Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1-30.
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, & M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistics Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133-166.
Hassan, A. (1961). an-nahw al-wafi. Cairo: dar al-ma'araef.
Hornstein, N. (1995). Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ibn Hisham, J. (13th century). Mughni al-labeeb. Damascus: Darul feker (1964).
Johnson, D. E. (1977). On relational constraints on grammars. In Cole, P. & J. M. Sadock (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relation. New York: Academic Press, 151-78.
Kayne, R. S. (1994). The antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Mohammad, A. M. (2000). Word order, agreement, and pronominalization in Standard and Palestinian Arabic. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT.
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation, Croom-Helm, London.
Rizzi, L. (2006). On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Cheng, L. L.-S. & N. Corver (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on. Cambridge MIT Press, 97-133.
Rooryck, J. & G. Vanden Wyngaerd. (2011). Dissolving Binding Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Truswell, R. (2014). Binding theory. In Carnie, Andrew, Yosuke Sato, and Daniel Siddiqi (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Syntax. Abingdon. Taylor & Francis, 214–238.
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
