Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:29:49.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variable embedded agent in Sason Arabic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2021

FARUK AKKUŞ
FARUK AKKUŞ*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania, 3401-C Walnut Street, Suite 300, C Wing, 19104, USAakkusf@sas.upenn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper investigates the syntax and semantics of an indirect causative construction, ‘make’ causatives, in Sason Arabic with a focus on the syntax of the embedded structure and the status of the implicit embedded agent. On the basis of several diagnostics, the study demonstrates that ‘make’ embeds an agentive VoiceP, which also manifests an active-passive alternation despite the absence of any morphological reflex. Regarding the nature of the implicit embedded agent, the paper argues that it is present as a free variable à la Heim (1982) generated on the Voice head itself. In so doing, it adds to the ontology of null arguments as well as suggesting that licensing of a grammatical object is dissociated from the projection of a specifier.

Keywords

causativeVoiceimplicit argumentsfree variableSason Arabic
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 233 - 277
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Many thanks are due to Julie Anne Legate, Florian Schwarz, David Embick, Martin Salzmann, Kyle Johnson and Donka Farkas for invaluable comments and discussions. I would also like to thank Abbas Benmamoun, Matt Barros, Alison Biggs, Jim Wood, Einar F. Sigurðsson, Hamid Ouali, Hadas Kotek, and the audiences at TripleA 6, ASAL 33, GLOW 42 for feedback and discussions on various parts of this work. The insightful comments of the three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees helped improve the paper substantially. Usual disclaimers apply.

Glossing follows Leipzig conventions with the following additions: grnd = gerund, inch = inchoative, indir = indirect.

References

REFERENCES

Akkuş, Faruk. 2015. The Syntax of (Complex) Tense in Sason Arabic. In Handout at the 29th Annual symposium on Arabic Linguistics (ASAL29), https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.sas.upenn.edu/ dist/4/121/files/2016/05/ASAL29-Handout-1ggc6yt.pdf.Google Scholar
Akkuş, Faruk. 2020a. Anatolian Arabic. In Lucas, Christopher & Manfredi, Stefano (eds.), Arabic and contact-induced change: A handbook, 135–158. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Akkuş, Faruk. 2020b. On Iranian Case and Agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(3). 671–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akkuş, Faruk. 2021. (Implicit) Argument Introduction, Voice and Causatives: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Akkuş, Faruk. To appear. Evidence from Sason Arabic for Ā-movement feeding Case-licensing. Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2018. -Able adjectives and the syntax of psych verbs. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1). 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2004. Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative Alternation: evidence for a non unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Everaert, Martin (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, 115–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AlRashed, Mohammed. 2012. Argument structure in arabic: Lexicon or syntax?: Arizona State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph & Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1998. Minimality, reconstruction, and PF movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29(4). 569–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas & Choueiri, Lina. 2010. The syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Choueiri, Lina & Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32(3). 371–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon W. 1980. In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3(3). 297–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1991. Causatives in Moroccan Arabic. In Eid, Mushira (ed.), Perspectives in Arabic Linguistics III, 173–195. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The feature structure of functional categories: A comparative study of Arabic dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Embick, David. 2004/2017. Causative derivations in Hindi-Urdu. Journal of Indian Linguistics 78:1-2. 93–151.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Implicit Arguments. In Martin Everaert & Henk vanGoogle Scholar
Riemsdijk, (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 558–588. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Pancheva, Roumyana. 2017. Implicit Arguments. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16(1). 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çetinoğlu, Özlem, Butt, Miriam & Oflazer, Kemal. 2008. Mono/bi-clausality of Turkish Causatives. In Ay, Sila, Aydın, Özgür, Ergenç, Iclal, Gökmen, Seda, Işsever, Selçuk & Peçenek, Dilek (eds.), Essays on Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 43–53. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clem, Emily. 2019. Amahuaca ergative as agreement with multiple heads. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37(3). 785–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8(2). 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2018a. On the phi-features of the implicit argument in the passive. Ms., NYU. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004331.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2018b. The Theta-Criterion, UTAH and the projection of external arguments in the passive. Ms., NYU. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004351.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser. 2017. Language Contact in Anatolia: the case of Sason Arabic. In Korkmaz, Ramazan & Gürkan, Doğan (eds.), Endangered Languages of the Caucasus and Beyond, 209–225. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2001. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkadir. 1987. Anti-causatives in Arabic, causativity and affectedness. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for Case. In Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–25. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2). 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hallman, Peter. 2006. Causativity and Transitivity in Arabic. Ms., University of Toronto. http://www.peterhallman.com/Causativity.pdf.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125. 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2017. ‘Passive’ as agreement: Suppressing subjects in Hiaki. Ms., University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Stone, Megan S.. 2013. The ‘No Agent Idioms’ hypothesis. In Folli, Raffaella, Sevdali, Christina & Truswell, Robert (eds.), Syntax and its limits, 191–222. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite NPs: UMass, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia & Siloni, Tal. 2010. Lexicon versus Syntax: evidence from morphological causatives. In Hovav, Malka Rappaport, Doron, Edit & Sichel, Ivy (eds.), Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure, 153–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingason, Anton Karl. 2016. Realizing morphemes in the Icelandic noun phrase: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi & Vihman, Virve-Anneli. 2006. Invisible arguments: Effects of demotion in Estonian and Finnish. In Lyngfelt, Benjamin & Solstad, Torgrim (eds.), Demoting the agent: Passive, middle and other voice phenomena, 111–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. the transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Passive in the world’s languages. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description , volume 1: Clause structure, 243–281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kibort, Anna & Maskaliūnienė, Nijolė. 2016. Passive Constructions in Lithuanian: Selected works of Emma Geniušiene. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Mauner, Gail. 2000. A-definites and the discourse status of implicit arguments. Journal of Semantics 16(3). 207–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(2). 593–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurylowicz, J. 1957. Esquisse d’une théorie de l’apophonie en Sémitique. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 58. 1–38.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22. 811–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41(3). 357–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3). 335–391.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. To appear. Noncanonical Passives: A Typology of Voices in an Impoverished UG. Annual Review of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne & Akkuş, Faruk. 2017. Turkish passive impersonals. Paper presented at the 48th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 48), University of Iceland, Iceland.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne, Akkuş, Faruk, Šereikaitė, Milena & Ringe, Don. 2020. On Passives of Passives. Language. 96(4), 771–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1). 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Daoxin. 2020. Pro Controlee and Finite Control in Mandarin. Ms., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4). 609–665.Google Scholar
Lundin, Katarina. 2003. Small Clauses in Swedish: Towards a Unified Account: Lund University dissertation.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Westphal, G. F., Ao, B. & Chao, H. (eds.), ESCOL ‘91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 234–253. Baltimore.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2008. Phases and words. In Choe, S.-H. (ed.), Phases in the theory of grammar, 191–222. Seoul: Dong In.Google Scholar
Matsuoka, Mikinari. 2013. On the notion of subject for subject-oriented adverbs. Language 89(3). 586–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1). 77–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41(1). 35–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel. 2013. Deverbal Adjectives at the interface: a crosslinguistic investigation into the morphology, syntax and semantics of-ble. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2013. The sense of self: Topics in the semantics of de se expressions: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2016. The semantics of partial control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2). 691–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitteroff, Marcel. 2014. Non-canonical ‘sich lassen’ middles: University of Stuttgart dissertation.Google Scholar
Pitteroff, Marcel. 2015. Non-canonical middles: a study of personal let-middles in German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18(1). 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitteroff, Marcel & Schafer, Florian. 2019. Implicit control crosslinguistically. Language 95(1). 136–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkanen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rákosi, Gyorgy. 2011. Hungarian external causatives: Monoclausal but bi-eventive. In Approaches to Hungarian: Papers from the 2009 Debrecen Conference, 1–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2006. Direct and indirect causation in Hindi. Paper presented at the Workshop on Clitics, Intonation and Causatives, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Reed, Lisa A. 2018. Against control by implicit passive agents. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14: Selected papers from the 46th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), vol. 14, 279–292. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17(3). 501–557.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18(2). 267–310.Google Scholar
Saad, George Nehmeh. 1982. Transitivity, causation, andpassivization: a semantic-syntactic study of the verb in classical Arabic. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The syntax of (anti-) causatives: External arguments in change-of-state contexts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2017. Romance and Greek medio-passives and the typology of Voice. In D’Alessandro, Roberta, Franco, Irene & Gallego, Ángel J. (eds.), The verbal domain, 129–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar F. & Wood, Jim. 2020. On the implicit argument of Icelandic indirect causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1–47.Google Scholar
Soltan, Usama. 2007. On formal feature licensing in minimalism: Aspects of Standard Arabic morphosyntax: University of Maryland dissertation.Google Scholar
Šereikaitė, Milena. 2018. Active Existential Voice In Lithuanian: Burzio’s generalization revised. Talk at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA).Google Scholar
Šereikaitė, Milena. 2020. Active Existential Voice In Lithuanian: Remarks on Burzio’s generalization. Linquistic Inquiry 1–78.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1985. PRO and subject of NP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3(3). 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1987. Implicity arguments, the binding theory, and control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(2). 151–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2011. Icelandic let-causatives and case. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 1–52.Google Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure, vol. 90. Springer.Google Scholar
Wood, Jim & Sigurðsson, Halldór Á.. 2014. Let Causatives and (A)symmetric Dat-Nom Constructions. Syntax 17(3). 269–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim & Sigurðsson, Einar F.. 2014. Icelandic verbal agreement and pronoun-antecedent relations. In Collins, Chris (ed.), Cross-linguistic studies of imposters and pronominal agreement, 196–237. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2003. Burzio’s generalization, markedness, and constraints on nominative objects. In Brandner, Ellen & Zinsmeister, Heike (eds.), New perspectives on case theory, 301–329. CSLI Stanford.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakut, Ayşe B. 2013. Syntax of Sason Arabic: A Descriptive Review. Ms., Boğaziçi University. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.sas.upenn.edu/dist/4/121/files/2016/05/ Yakut-2013-Syntax-of-Sason-Arabic-2id3xfy.pdf.Google Scholar