Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) has several embedded clause constructions, some of which resemble control in English (and other languages). However, these constructions exhibit some notable differences. Chief among them is the fact that the embedded verb carries agreement features that can indicate both coreference and disjoint reference between a matrix argument and the subject of the complement clause. Through a corpus-based investigation, informed by previous insights regarding the distinction between control and no control, we found no evidence of obligatory control predicates in MSA; these findings contradict accepted generalizations (and predictions) proposed by state-of-the-art theories of control. Nevertheless, although no obligatory control predicates were found, the backward pattern, where the single expressed subject occurs in the embedded clause, revealed morphosyntactic reflexes of the control vs. no control distinction. Coreference between the expressed embedded subject and the unexpressed matrix subject was found to be restricted to a set of predicates. The existence of backward control and its relation to the backward raising construction, also found in MSA, are especially relevant for current debates regarding the theory of control. We propose an analysis that ties together control, raising and restructuring.
Does Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) have obligatory control predicates? MSA has several embedded clause constructions, some of which resemble control in English (and other languages). However, these constructions exhibit some notable differences. Chief among them is the fact that the embedded verb carries agreement features that can indicate the agreement properties of its understood subject.
We distinguish in this paper between obligatory control (OC) and no control (NC). OC generally refers to a situation whereby an unexpressed subject of a complement clause is obligatorily identified with (or controlled by) a matrix argument (subject or object). In some languages this relation also applies to a reversed situation, where the unexpressed subject is in the matrix clause, and its obligatory controller is the subject of the complement clause. Both cases, referred to in the literature as “forward control” and “backward control”, respectively, are considered here as OC. NC, on the other hand, refers to a situation whereby the reference of an unexpressed subject is not dependent on the reference of another argument.
The first goal of this paper is to investigate whether all verbs in these MSA constructions are NC predicates, which allow for both coreference and disjoint reference, or whether there are OC predicates which enforce coreference between the subject of the embedded clause and a matrix argument. In order to determine whether OC predicates exist in the language we conducted a thorough corpus-based search of such constructions. This empirical investigation was informed by previous insights regarding the distinction between OC and NC predicates in MSA and in Modern Greek and by more general typological predictions. Surprisingly, we found no evidence of OC predicates in MSA; our findings contradict accepted generalizations (and predictions) proposed by state-of-the-art theories of control.
The second goal of the paper is to propose a formal analysis of the control-like MSA constructions. Under the assumption that there is no OC in MSA, a straightforward account is to propose one structure for all cases, namely, a no-control structure. There is, however one pattern which challenges this account: the backward pattern, where the matrix clause lacks an overt subject and an overt subject is found in the embedded clause. We find that an agreement alternation exhibited by this pattern correlates with the OC/NC distinction. From a theoretical perspective, the existence of backward control in MSA throws light on the relation between control, restructuring and raising, in this language as well as across languages.
The structure of the paper is as follows. We begin Section 2 by briefly reviewing some basic properties of MSA that are relevant to the current study and proceed to discuss in more depth
Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is the shared language of the Arab world, but it is a written language, which is spoken only in formal scripted contexts and learned as a second language in school. The first language of MSA speakers is a regional dialect, which is spoken but rarely written. This makes linguistic analysis of MSA challenging: it is hard (though not impossible) to obtain “native” speaker judgments; and corpus-based approaches, our main methodology herein, can be hampered by the influences of authors’ native dialects on their MSA production. Still, given the large amount of data available for MSA, and the fact that many speakers are highly competent in the language, corpus analysis augmented by near-native judgments provides a solid framework for in-depth investigation.
MSA is a
(1)
a.
katabat
wrote.3
tʕ-tʕaalibaat-u
the-students.
maqaal-an.
article-
b.
ʔatʕ-tʕaalibaat-u
the-students.
katabna
wrote.3
maqaal-an.
article-
‘The female students wrote an article.’
When pronominal subjects are dropped the verb exhibits full agreement.
(2)
katabat
wrote.3
maqaal-an.
article-
‘She wrote an article.’ (Not: ‘They wrote an article.’)
The FA/PA distinction, which is determined by the position of the subject relative to the verb, is only discernable with plural human subjects (as in (1)). Plural inanimate subjects always trigger singular–feminine agreement (3).
(3)
ʔal-kutub-u
the-books-
l-qadiimat-u
the-old.
suriqat.
were.stolen.3
‘The old books were stolen.’
MSA has two types of embedded clauses, introduced by two principal particles:
(4)
a.
ħaawala
tried.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
[ʔan
AN
yaktuba
write.3
maqaal-an].
article-
‘Muhammad tried to write an article.’
b.
ballaɣa-nii
informed.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
[ʔanna
that
l-baaħiθ-a
the-researcher-
sa-yaktubu
will-write.3
maqaal-an].
article-
‘Muhammad informed me that the researcher would write an article.’
The two types of embedded clauses differ in three main respects.
(5)
ħaawala
tried.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
kitaabat-a
writing-
l-maqaal-i.
article-
‘Muhammad tried writing an article.’
Typically,
(6)
a.
ħaawala
tried.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
[ʔan
AN
yaktuba
write.3
maqaal-an].
article-
‘Muhammad tried to write an article.’
b.
ʔaqnaʕa
convinced.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
hind-an
Hind-
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
maqaal-an].
article-
‘Muhammad convinced Hind to write an article.’
There are strict adjacency conditions with respect to the linear position of
(7)
a.
*ħaawala
tried.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
[ʔan
AN
l-yawm-a
today-
yaktuba
write.3
maqaal-an].
article-
b.
ħaawala
tried.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
[ʔan
AN
laa
not
yaktuba
write.3
maqaal-an].
article-
c.
ħaawala
tried.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
[ʔal-laa
AN-not
yaktuba
write.3
maqaal-an].
article-
‘Muhammad tried not to write an article.’
Finally, when
(8)
a.
ħaawala
tried.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
[ʔan
AN
yaktuba
write.3
maqaal-an
article-
wa-yasiira].
and-go.3
b.
ħaawala
tried.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
[ʔan
AN
yaktuba
write.3
maqaal-an
article-
wa-ʔan
and-AN
yasiira].
go.3
‘Muhammad tried to write an article and go.’
In the aforementioned examples the understood subject of the embedded subjunctive verb is construed as either the matrix subject (6a) or the matrix object (6b), and consequently they receive a “control” interpretation, parallel to the interpretation we find in English control clauses containing an infinitive form. Nevertheless, the understood subject of
(9)
ħaawala
tried.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
maqaal-an].
article-
‘Muhammad tried that she would write an article’.
The matrix verb bears third-person-singular-masculine (3
Moreover, in cases in which the embedded verb and the matrix verb bear the same agreement features, coreference is not obligatory. Thus, (6a), repeated here as (10a), and (10b) are actually ambiguous; the understood subject can be the matrix subject or someone else.
(10)
a.
ħaawala
tried.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
[ʔan
AN
yaktuba
write.3
maqaal-an].
article-
‘Muhammad
b.
ħaawala
tried.3
[ʔan
AN
yaktuba
write.3
maqaal-an].
article-
‘He
MSA
(11)
ħaawala
tried.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
hind-un
Hind-
maqaal-an].
article-
‘Muhammad tried that Hind would write an article.’
With two overt subjects with distinct agreement properties, there is obviously no coreference between the embedded subject and the matrix subject.
An additional configuration, which we will refer to as a
(12)
a.
ħaawala
tried.3
[ʔan
AN
yaktuba
write.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
maqaal-an].
article-
‘Muhammad
‘He
b.
ħaawalat
tried.3
[ʔan
AN
yaktuba
write.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
maqaal-an].
article-
‘She tried that Muhammad would write an article.’
It is, however, impossible to have identical R-expressions as coreferring subjects in both positions (13).
(13)
ħaawala
tried.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
[ʔan
AN
yaktuba
write.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
maqaal-an].
article-
Intended: ‘Muhammad
One additional construction in which
(14)
yaʒibu
have-to.3
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
hind-un
Hind-
maqaal-an].
article-
‘It is necessary that Hind would write an article.’
In sum, subjunctive
In the previous section we presented the different patterns in which the verb
We begin by reviewing studies that address the distinction between OC and NC predicates, specifically in MSA and Modern Greek, and more generally, from a typological perspective. Building on these studies we form predictions regarding the types of predicates that potentially require coreference. Subsequently, in Section 4, we present empirical evidence, collected by corpus searches, which put these predictions to the test.
Examples similar to the introductory examples in (6)–(12) are found in reference grammars of MSA (
In a corpus-based study of sentential complements in MSA, Persson (
Table
Distribution of semantic types &
Control |
No control |
Total | |
---|---|---|---|
Manipulative ( |
120 | 14 | 134 |
Cognitive ( |
2 | 30 | 32 |
Utterance ( |
0 | 1 | 1 |
Total | 122 | 45 | 167 |
A different hypothesis with regards to control restrictions in MSA is made by Habib (
Modern Greek (MG) is a language that shares a number of syntactic properties with MSA. Like MSA, MG is a
(15)
a.
O
the
Yannis
Yanis.
pistevi
believes.3
[
that
to
the
sipiti
house.
ine/itan
is/was.3
oreo].
beautiful
‘Yannis believes that the house is/was beautiful.’
b.
O
the
Kostas
Kostas
matheni
learn.3
[
PRT
odhiji].
drive.3
‘Kostas is learning (how) to drive.’
The distinctions between the two types of complement clauses are reminiscent of that of
Roussou (
Modals (
Aspectuals (
Volitionals (
Perception (
Mental perception (
Psych verbs (
Epistemic predicates (
Verbs of saying (
Verbs of knowing (
Similarly to MSA, MG (and other Balkan languages) uses
(16)
a.
O
the
Kostas
Kostas
matheni
learn.3
[na
PRT
odhiji].
drive.3
‘Kostas is learning (how) to drive.’
b.
O
the
Kostas
Kostas
theli
want.3
[na
PRT
odhiji].
drive.3
‘Kostas wants (him) to drive.’
Roussou (
Roussou (
The control continuum (
In comparing the class of control predicates in MG with that of English, Roussou notes that the presence of agreement marking on the embedded verb in MG, but not in English, accounts for the smaller number of control predicates in Greek.
The distinction between OC and NC is discussed by Landau in a series of papers (
The tense specification of complement clauses depends on whether or not their tense is anaphoric to the tense of the matrix clause. Thus, when the complement clause is semantically
(17) | a. | Last night, Tom planned to help us today. | → complement is [+T] |
b. | *Last night, Tom managed to help us today. | → complement is [–T] |
Based on this characterization, Landau categorizes the types of predicates which select tensed or untensed complement clauses.
(18) | ||
a. | Implicatives ( |
|
b. | Aspectuals ( |
|
c. | Modals ( |
|
d. | Evaluative adjectives ( |
(19) | ||
a. | Factives ( |
|
b. | Propositional ( |
|
c. | Desideratives ( |
|
d. | Interrogatives ( |
In a more recent paper, Landau (
The combination of the agreement [Agr] parameter and the semantic category of the predicate (regardless of whether it is stated in terms of tense [T] or attitude) produces four different options, which interact with control. According to Landau’s (
The OC-NC Generalization (
+T/attitude | –T/non-attitude | |
---|---|---|
+Agr | NC | OC |
–Agr | OC | OC |
One implication of this generalization is that in languages such as MSA, where the complement clause exhibits overt morphological agreement, non-attitude predicates will enforce obligatory control. Indeed, as Landau (
The picture that emerges from the studies presented so far is that the distinction between OC and NC predicates is directly linked to their semantic properties. Persson (
In order to determine whether OC predicates exist in MSA we conducted a corpus study, which focused on a number of predicates discussed by Landau (
The morphological tagging of the corpus provides a way of defining queries which target particular person, number and gender features, as well as Case and mood. Consequently, we were able to retrieve instances where the matrix predicate and the embedded predicate match in their gender and person agreement, as well as those where there is a mismatch. Furthermore, we could control for the existence or lack of a possible subject (i.e., agreeing nominative noun) following the predicates. Nevertheless, the search results are not exhaustive. There are numerous instances of erroneous morphological tags, which contributed to false positive results as well as false negatives. Moreover, we decided to favor precision over recall, and limited the distance between the predicates. Consequently, instances with longer NP subjects or intervening adverbials were not retrieved. These limitations notwithstanding, in what follows we provide examples of coreference and disjoint reference for a representative set of predicates. Due to the non-exhaustive nature of the searches we do not present quantitative data with regard to the distribution of coreference and disjoint reference. We do, however, note whether we found dozens of similar examples or whether there were only several examples of a particular pattern.
We conducted corpus searches using representatives from Roussou’s (
We start at the right end of Roussou’s continuum. Volitionals are predicted by Roussou (
(20)
a.
ʔaraada
wanted.3
[ʔan
AN
yaʕmala
do.3
diraasat-an].
study-
‘He wanted to conduct a study.’
b.
ʔaraada
wanted.3
[ʔan
AN
yakuuna
be.3
r-radd-u
the-reaction-
watʕaniyy-an].
national-
‘He wanted the reaction to be national.’
In (20a) the subject of the embedded predicate corefers with the subject of the matrix predicate; the same person is both the “wanter” and the “conductor” of the study. In (20b), on the other hand, the embedded clause involves an overt subject,
Moving left on Roussou’s continuum, we found dozens of examples of disjoint reference with the predicate
(21)
a.
ħaawala
tried.3
r-raʒul-u
the-man-
[ʔan
AN
yatakallama
speak.3
maʕa-na].
with-us
‘The man tried to speak with us.’
b.
liðaalika
So
ħaawaaluu
tried.3
[ʔan
AN
tanhadʕa
assume.3
l-ʒamaahiir-u
the-public-
bi-masʔuuliyyat-i-ha].
in-responsibility-
‘So they tried to have the public assume its responsibility.’
The implicative ‘dare’ is closer to the left end of Roussou’s (
(22)
a.
laa
not
yaʒruʔu
dare.3
raʒul-un
man-
[ʔan
AN
yaquula
say.3
l-ħaqiiqat-a
the-truth-
fi
in
l-zawaaʒ-i].
the-marriage-
‘No man dares to say the truth in the marriage.’
b.
lan
never
taʒruʔa
dare.3
[ʔan
AN
yakuuna
be.3
raʔy-u-haa
opinion-
ɣayr-a
not-
musaanid-in
supportive-
li-lmaɣrib-i].
to-Morocco-
‘She will never dare that her opinion would be non-supportive of Morocco.’
Tri-valent manipulatives do not appear in Roussou’s continuum, yet Persson (
(23)
a.
wa-fi
and-in
l-masaaʔ-i
the-evening-
kaanat
was.3
malaak
Malak(
qad
already
ʔaqnaʕat
convinced.3
waalid-a-haa
father-
[ʔan
AN
yaʔmura
order.3
saaʔiq-a-hu
driver-
l-xaasʕsʕ-a
the-private-
bi-ʔiisʕaal-I
in-delivering
buuʒaa
Buja
ʔila
to
qaryat-i-hi].
village-
‘And in the evening, Malak had already convinced her father to order his private driver to deliver Buja to his village.’
b.
ʔaqnaʕnaa-hum
convinced.1
[ʔan
AN
yuʕayyina
appoint.3
huwa
he.
l-ħukuumat-a].
the-government-
‘We convinced them that he would appoint the government.’
(24)
a.
iðaa
if
lam
not
nasmaħu
allow.1
li-l-ʔameriikaan-i
to-the-Americans-
[ʔan
AN
yamurruu
pass.3
min
from
ʔaraaʕii
territory
t-turkiyya]…
the-Turkish
‘If we don’t allow the Americans to pass from Turkish territory…’
b.
fa-mawqiʕ-u-hu
and-status-
l-ʔiʒtimaaʕiyy-u
the-social-
laa
not
yasmaħu
allow.3
lahu
to.him
[ʔan
AN
yakuuna
be.3
bnu-hu
son.
fii
in
haaða
this
l-makaan-i].
the-place-
‘And his social status does not allow him that his son will be in this place.’
Modals like ‘can’ are close to the left (OC) end of Roussou’s (
(25)
a.
wa-tamakkana
and-was.able.3
ʔabuu
Abu
bilaal
Billal
[ʔan
AN
yanðʕura
see.3
min
from
fatħat-in
opening-
dʕayyiqat-in
narrow-
ʒidaan].
very
‘And Abu Billal was able to see from a very narrow opening.’
b.
ʔiða
if
kaθθafna
intensify.1
ʒuhuud-a-na
efforts-
fa-sa-natamakkana
then-will-be.able.1
min
from
[ʔan
AN
yakuuna
be.3
laday-na
with-us
tʕifl-un
baby.3
mustansax-un
cloned.3
xilaala
within
ʕaam
year
aw
or
ʕaamayni].
two.years
‘If we intensify our efforts we will be able to have a cloned baby within a year or two years.’
Aspectuals are another class of predicates that are predicted by Roussou (
(26)
a.
kaadat
almost.3
[ʔan
AN
tasqutʕa
fall.3
ʕalaa
on
l-ʔardʕ-i].
the-ground-
‘She almost fell on the ground.’
b.
hadamuu
destroyed.3
sanawaat
years
min
of
l-ʒihaad-i
the-Jihad
ħatta
until
kaaduu
almost.3
[ʔan
AN
tataħawwala
turn.3
haðihi
this
t-taʒribat-u
the-experiment-
ʔila
to
miʕwal-in
tool-
haddaam-in].
destruction-
‘They destroyed years of the Jihad until they almost had this experiment turn into a tool of destruction.’
All but one of the
Interestingly, in many disjoint reference examples (e.g., (22b), (24b), (25b)) a pronominal clitic appears on the embedded subject (a possessive clitic) or on the embedded verb or preposition (an object clitic) and refers back to the matrix argument. For example, in (25b) the clitic in the preposition phrase
An additional component of Landau’s (
(27)
a.
lan
never
taʒruʔa
dare.3
[ʔan
AN
yakuuna
be.3
raʔy-u-haa
opinion-
ɣayr-a
not-
musaanid-in
supportive-
li-lmaɣrib-i].
to-Morocco-
‘She will never dare that her opinion would be non-supportive of Morocco.’
b.
*maa
not
ʒaraʔat
dared.3
ʔamsi
yesterday
[ʔan
AN
yakuuna
be.3
raʔy-u-haa
opinion-
ɣayr-a
not-
musaanid-in
supportive-
li-lmaɣrib-i
to-Morocco-
ɣadan].
tomorrow
Intended: ‘She didn’t dare yesterday that her opinion would be non-supportive of Morocco tomorrow.’
Although the implicative
The goal of this section was to investigate whether there exist
For languages which do have OC predicates alongside NC predicates it is natural to assume that each is associated with a distinct syntactic structure. Indeed, Landau (
Roussou (
Regardless of whether languages have OC and NC predicates, like MG, or whether they only have NC predicates, as we are claiming is the case with MSA, one issue which requires further examination is the case of coreference with an NC predicate. Consider for example the MG sentence in (16b), repeated here as (28), with its coreference interpretation. What is the syntactic structure of such sentences?
(28)
O
the
Kostas
Kostas
theli
want.3
na
PRT
odhiji.
drive.3
‘Kostas wants to drive.’
There are (at least) three different types of answers to this issue. Habib (
A different approach is taken by Terzi (
(29)
Juan
Juan
quiere
wants
que
that
venga*
come.3
‘Juan wants that he will come.’
Terzi (
The proposal that MG exhibits obviation is not trivial. Obviation is associated with languages in which there is “subjunctive-infinitive rivalry”, or, in other words, where the infinitive competes with the subjunctive (
Additional arguments against Terzi’s (
The question regarding the possible analyses of NC predicates such as the MG
(30)
Thus, regardless of how clauses, clausal complements and
The NC analysis, which builds on the
(31)
ħaawala
tried.3
[ʔan
AN
yaktuba
write.3
muħammad-un
Muhammad-
maqaal-an].
article-
‘Muhammad tried to write an article.’
‘He
This simple example masks a more complex agreement pattern which is only discernable with plural human subjects, for which agreement varies depending on the position of the subject relative to the verb.
Consider the minimal pair in (32), which differ only with respect to the agreement marking on the matrix predicate. As expected in VS clauses, in both (32a) and (32b) the embedded predicate
(32)
a.
ħaawalat
tried.3
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
maqaal-an].
article-
‘The girls tried to write an article.’
‘She tried that the girls would write an article.’
b.
ħaawalna*
tried.3
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
maqaal-an].
article-
‘They
Not: ‘The girls tried to write an article.’
Sentence (32a) is ambiguous. The understood subject of the matrix clause can either be construed as the embedded subject or as a different singular-feminine unexpressed subject. Sentence (32b), with its plural-marked matrix predicate, can only have a disjoint reference interpretation, where the understood subject of the matrix clause is a plural–feminine referent distinct from the embedded subject. A coreference reading requires the matrix predicate to exhibit partial agreement with the embedded subject, as is the case with simple VS clauses.
The backward patterns exhibited in (32) provide counter-evidence to the NC analysis proposed above, which assigns an identical structure to coreference and disjoint reference, and attributes the distinction to semantico-pragmatic constraints. If coreference and disjoint reference share the same syntactic structure it is not clear what accounts for the absence of a coreference reading in (32b). If coreference is simply co-indexation in the semantico-pragmatic level, what bars the co-indexation between the subject of
Moreover, these data are problematic for an analysis which builds on
A difference in interpretation between the forward pattern and the backward pattern is also found with F-subjunctives in Greek (
(33)
a.
O Janis
John-
elpizi
hopes
pro
pro
na
subj
fai
eats
to
the
tiri.
cheese
‘John
b.
Pro*
pro
elpizi
hopes
na
subj
fai
eats
o Janis
John-
to
the
tiri.
cheese
‘He hopes that John will eat the cheese.’
Alexiadou et al. (
(34)
a.
O Janis
John-
emathe
learned.3
na
subj
pezi
play.3
kithara.
guitar
b.
Emathe
learned.3
na
subj
pezi
play.3
o Janis
John-
kithara.
guitar
‘John learned to play the guitar.’
Returning to MSA, given the NC analysis we proposed in (30) above, the same explanation can be applied to account for the ungrammaticality of the coreference reading of the MSA example in (32b), namely a Principle C violation. However, unlike MG, MSA does provide a way of expressing coreference with an embedded subject (32a), yet this interpretation cannot be accounted for by the NC analysis proposed above. Thus, the backward pattern suggests that one structure cannot capture all interpretations, and that the OC/NC distinction does have syntactic reflexes. In the following section we probe deeper into the backward pattern by first conducting a corpus-based study of this construction.
Our corpus study of the backward pattern focused on two issues: (i) the types of predicates which occur in this construction and (ii) its agreement patterns. The following examples illustrate instances of the backward pattern with
It should be noted that in all the example sentences below the shared subject is followed by additional VP-internal material. Thus, for example, in (35) the embedded verb has two complements: one is realized as a clitic on the embedded verb (
(35)
wa-laakinna
and-but
haaða
this
maa
what
yuriidu
want.3
[ʔan
AN
yaʒʕala-hu
make.3
the-researchers.
ħaqiiqat-an
reality-
bi-musaaʕadat-i
with-help-
t-taqniyaat-i
the-technologies-
l-ʒadiidat-i].
the-new-
‘But this is what the researchers want to turn into reality with the help of new technologies.’
(36)
bal
moreover
yuħaawilu
try.3
[ʔan
AN
yaʔxuða
follow.3
some-
duuna
without
baʕdʕ-in
some-
bi-t-tartiib-i].
in-the-order-
‘Moreover, some of them (without the others) try to follow the order.’
(37)
lam
not
yaʒruʔ
dare.3
[ʔan
AN
yasʕifa-hum
describe.3
one-
bi-l-ʔirhaab-i].
in-the-terror-
‘No one dared to describe them as terror.’
(38)
la
not
yansa
forget.3
[ʔan
AN
yuʔakkida
emphasize.3
those
ʕala
on
ħirsʕ-i
keenness-
ʔaʕdʕaaʔ-i
members-
l-maʒlis-i
the-council-
l-ʒudud-i
the-new-
ʕala
on
tanfiiðʕ-i
implementation-
tawʒiihaat-i
directives-
r-raʔiis-i].
the-president-
‘Those (people) do not forget to emphasize the keenness of the new members of the council to implement the directives of the president.’
(39)
wa-hunaaka
there
tʕuruq-un
ways-
ʔuxra
other
ʕadiidat-un
many-
yastatʕiiʕu
be.able.3
[ʔan
AN
yasluka-ha
use.3
the-laywyers.
li-yaxdumuu
to-serve.3
l-ʒumhuur-a].
the-public-
‘There are many other ways that lawyers can use to serve the public.’
(40)
ʔinnama
only
tatamakkana
be.able.3
[ʔan
AND
tatadaxxala
intervene.3
institution.
fii
in
hadm-i
destruction-
l-muʔassasat-i
the-institution-
l-ʔuxra],
the-other
ʔiðʕa
if
tuɣayyiru
change.3
l-ʔiʒtimaaʕ-a
the-society-
taɣyyir-an
change-
ʒaðʕriyy-an.
radical-
‘An institution is able to intervene in the demolition of another institution, only if it changes the society radically.’
(41)
wa-binaaʔan
and-based
ʕala
on
haaða
this
yakaadu
almost.3
[ʔan
AN
yattafiqa
agree.3
these
the-researchers
ʕala
on
ʔan
that
l-niðʕaam
the-system
l-fidiraali…]
the-federal
‘And based on this, these researchers almost agree that the federal system….’
While instances of the coreferring backward pattern were retrieved for the verb categories listed above, we found that the distribution of this pattern is restricted to a particular set of predicates. Corpus searches of the backward pattern with the following
(42)
taðakkaruu
remember.3
ʔanna
that
ʔahl-a
people-
tʕ-tʕaʔif-i
Taif-
dʕarrabuu
beat.3
r-rasuul-a
the-Prophet-
wa-ʔahaanuu-hu
and-insulted.3
wa-maʕa
and-with
ðaalika
that
rafadʕa
refused.3
[ʔan
AN
yuhallika-hum
destroy.3
Allah
‘Remember that the people of Taif beat the Prophet and insulted him yet Allah refused to destroy them!!!!!’
With respect to the correlation between the agreement marking on the matrix predicate and the reference pattern, our corpus findings conform with the generalization stated in (32). When the embedded subject is plural and human and the matrix predicate exhibits PA with it, the unexpressed matrix subject is construed as the embedded subject ((35), (36), (38), (39) & (41)). Conversely, when the matrix predicate is plural, the unexpressed subject is construed as a plural human referent, distinct from the embedded subject. This pattern is found with all
(43)
laa
no
yuriiduuna
want.3
[ʔan
AN
yufsida
spoil.3
the-fanatics.
maa
what
banaa-hu
built.3
l-masʔuuluuna
the-administrators
ʔila
to
ħadd-i
limit
l-ʔaan].
today
‘They don’t want the fanatics to ruin what the administrators have built so far.’
Predicates which were found to be incompatible with the backward coreference pattern do appear in the FA pattern. Following are examples with
(44)
lam
not
yataħammaluu
tolerate.3
[ʔan
AN
yansifa
ruin.3
the-Algerians.
ħulm-a
dream-
l-misʕriyyiina
the-Egyptians-
fi
in
ð-ðihaab-i
the-going
ʔilaa
to
l-muundiaal].
the-FIFA World Cup
‘They did not tolerate (the fact) that the Algerians will ruin the dream of the Egyptians to go to the FIFA World Cup.’
(45)
wa-yaxʃawna
and-fear.3
[ʔan
AN
yantafiʕa
benefit.3
the-Christians.
the-Democrats.
mina
from
l-ʔiqtisʕaad-i
the-economy-
l-huulandii].
the-Dutch
‘They fear that the Christian Democrats will benefit from the Dutch economy.’
Instances of the backward pattern attested in the corpus reveal important facts with regard to its distribution and its agreement variation. As for its distribution, our findings suggest that the backward coreference pattern is limited to a set of
(46)
ħaawalat
tried.3
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
maqaal-an].
article-
‘The girls tried to write an article.’
‘She tried that the girls would write an article.’
Conversely, no attestations of the backward control construction were found with the following verbs: verbs:
(47)
qararrat
decided.3
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
maqaal-an].
article-
‘She decided that the girls would write an article.’
The classification of verbs into BC predicates and predicates which do not allow backward control echoes Landau’s (
An additional aspect, of course, is the agreement patterns exhibited by the matrix predicate in the backward pattern. The correlation between PA/FA in the matrix clause and the OC/NC distinction is supported by the corpus data. This is precisely the type of evidence that motivates an analysis which introduces a syntactic distinction between the coreference and disjoint reference interpretations. Consequently, we will assume that the NC analysis proposed in Section 5.2 (30) accounts for the forward patterns, as well as the disjoint reference (FA) backward pattern, and turn to an analysis of the backward control construction.
In what follows we discuss two alternative approaches to the analysis of the MSA backward control construction. First, we examine whether the backward control construction can shed light on the debate regarding control theory. More specifically, we consider whether, assuming the Movement Theory of Control (
The phenomenon of backward control plays an important role in the debate regarding the analysis of control, which, broadly speaking, centers around two opposing approaches: the PRO-based approach (e.g.,
The PRO-based approach to control originates in the theory of Government and Binding (
(48) | a. | Bill |
(raising) |
b. | Bill |
(control) |
One motivation for the PRO-based analysis of control is the theta criterion, according to which every argument must receive a unique theta role and every theta role must be assigned to a unique argument. Since subjects of control predicates appear to be interpreted in two distinct theta roles, assigned by the matrix predicate and the embedded predicate, the theory assumes that there are two syntactic arguments, the overt matrix subject and the embedded phonologically empty PRO, and each is assigned its own theta role.
Assuming the PRO-based analysis, the structure of backward control should be as illustrated in (49).
(49) | PRO |
Yet this structure is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the anaphoric PRO in the matrix position cannot be bound by the embedded subject with which it is co-indexed. Conversely, the R-expression
Other approaches within the Minimalist Program argue for an alternative analysis (
Consider the following representations of the derivation of subject control (50a) and subject raising (50b).
(50) | a. | [IP Bill [VP |
(control) |
b. | [IP Bill [VP appeared [IP |
(raising) |
In both cases subjects originate in the embedded [Spec VP] position, where they receive a theta role. From there they first move to [Spec IP] to check the D-feature of the lower IP. At this point the derivations diverge. With control predicates the subject moves to matrix [Spec VP] to check the external theta role of the matrix verb, and then it moves to [Spec IP] to check the D-feature of the IP and its own Case. Raising predicates do not assign a theta role to the subject, so the subject skips the higher [Spec VP] position and moves directly to [Spec IP].
The MTC provides a straightforward way to account for the phenomenon of backward control. In fact, this is taken by Landau (
Polinsky & Potsdam (
Backward control in Tsez occurs only with two aspectual predicates, -
Alexiadou et al. (
Contrary to the attempt to unify raising and control, Alexiadou et al. (
Wurmbrand & Haddad (
W&H identify four different patterns in which verbs of appropinquation can occur. These patterns are illustrated in (51a)–(51d).
(51)
a.
ʔawʃakat
were.about.to.3
tʕ-tʕaalibaat-u
the-students.
[(ʔan)
(AN)
yanʒaħna].
succeed.3
b.
ʔatʕ-tʕaalibaat-u
the-students.
ʔawʃakna
were.about.to.3
[(ʔan)
(AN)
yanʒaħna].
succeed.3
c.
ʔawʃaka
were.about.to.3
[(ʔan)
(AN)
tanʒaħa
succeed.3
tʕ-tʕaalibaat-u].
the-students.
d.
ʔawʃakat/ʔawʃakna
were.about.to.3
[(ʔan)
(AN)
tanʒaħa
succeed.3
tʕ-tʕaalibaat-u].
the-students.
‘The female students were about to succeed.’
The resemblance between these patterns and the ones in the focus of this paper is clear. The first two patterns are similar to what we referred to here as the “forward patterns”. Agreement between the matrix predicate and its subject depends on their relative position (FA with a pre-verbal subject and PA with a post-verbal subject) and the embedded predicate exhibits full agreement with the matrix subject. The default agreement pattern in (51c) resembles the impersonal construction illustrated in (14) with the verb
W&H claim that the backward pattern, where the only expressed subject is found in the embedded clause, is unique only to verbs of appropinquation, and is not found with other raising predicates or control predicates. This generalization is refuted by our corpus data, which show that the backward pattern is not unique to this particular class of predicates and, moreover, that it is compatible with various control predicates such as
(52)
liqaaʔ
meeting
c-caadiq
Sadiq
l-mahdi
al-Mahdi
huwa
is
l-waraqat-u
the-card-
l-ʔaxiirat-u
the-last-
ll-atii
that
yuħaawilu
try.3
[ʔan
AN
yalʕaba-ha
play.3
the-regime.
l-ʔaan].
now
‘The meeting with Sadiq al-Mahdi is the last card that the regime is trying to play now.’
A key difference between the backward pattern in (51d) and our backward pattern is the agreement marking on the matrix predicate. Verbs of appropinquation, according to W&H, as well as to other sources they cite (e.g.,
Crucially, with our predicates the FA/PA agreement alternation is manifested in the corpus only as a correlate to the OC/NC distinction described and illustrated by (32) above. The matrix verb exhibits plural marking (which can only occur with FA) when its understood subject is plural, animate and
The analysis which W&H propose for the verbs of appropinquation is based on Haddad (
(53) | [TP |
According to this analysis, the subject originates in
The analysis captures the full symmetry which W&H assume for the verbs of appropinquation: for each forward patterns there exists a parallel backward pattern. Let us illustrate this symmetry by considering the derivations proposed for the patterns shown in ((51a), (51b) & (51d)). We will disregard the default-agreement pattern in (51c), which is not relevant for our purposes.SUBJ for a silent copy, V1 for the matrix verb, V2 for the embedded verb, and ≫ for linear precedence):
(54) | a. | V1 |
(51a) | |
b. | V1 |
(51d) | ||
c. | SUBJ |
(51b) | ||
d. | (51d) |
Pattern (54a) sketches the derivation of the forward raising pattern exemplified by (51a). The subject raises from
The alternating agreement in the backward pattern is a crucial factor in Wurmbrand & Haddad’s (
With BC predicates, however, only the first three derivations in (54) are possible. The pattern in (54d), where the subject is expressed in the lower clause while the matrix predicate exhibits FA, is ungrammatical. Assuming, as this approach does, that the forward pattern is derived by the embedded subject moving to a matrix subject position, it is not clear why the two positions,
One way to salvage the analysis is to propose that of the four derivations licensed for the raising verbs of appropinquation, only one, namely (54b), applies to BC predicates. This would account for the only configuration that is not accounted for by the NC analysis (PA agreement implies a 3
Let us consider how this applies to the sentence in (55), which is ambiguous between a disjoint reference and a coreference interpretation.
(55)
ħaawalat
tried.3
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
maqaal-an].
article-
a.
ħaawalat+pro
[ʔan
taktuba
l-banaat-u
maqaal-an].
‘She tried that the girls would write an article.’
b.
ħaawalat
l-banaat-u
[ʔan
taktuba
l-banaat-u
maqaal-an].
‘The girls tried to write an article.’
As proposed in Section 5.2, the disjoint reference interpretation is licensed by the NC structure in (30); the embedded subject and the
(56)
qararrat
decided.3
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
maqaal-an].
article-
a.
qararrat+pro
[ʔan
taktuba
l-banaat-u
maqaal-an].
‘She decided that the girls would write an article.’
b.
qararrat
l-banaat-u
[ʔan
taktuba
l-banaat-u
maqaal-an].
‘The girls decided to write an article.’
Although the aforementioned analysis may be technically feasible, assuming that covert movement of the subject to position
Our corpus investigations of the backward pattern revealed that only a subset of the predicates which select
Predicates and backward coreference.
Backward-control predicates | Non-backward-control predicates | |
---|---|---|
Volitionals: | ||
Implicatives: | ||
Modals: | ||
Aspectuals: |
With the exception of
In languages with non-agreeing (infinitival) complement clauses, Landau (
(57) | a. | James |
b. | *James |
Recall that in languages where the complement clause exhibits overt morphological agreement, Landau (
Correlation between tense/attitude and control types across constructions.
Agr | Construction | [–T]/non-attitude | [+T]/attitude |
---|---|---|---|
+Agr | Sbj. comp. in MG | C-subjunctives | F-subjunctives |
Sbj. comp. in MSA | backward control | no backward control | |
–Agr | Inf. comp. in English | exhaustive control | partial control |
These correlations are certainly suggestive and most likely play a role in the licensing of backward control in MSA. Nevertheless, as was mentioned in Section 5.4.1, backward control constitutes a real problem for the PRO-based framework, which Landau assumes. Moreover, an attempt to adopt an alternative theory of control, namely the MTC, and to apply W&H’s movement analysis of raising in Standard Arabic to the backward control construction, resulted in a somewhat questionable ad-hoc account.
The same predicates which we found to be compatible with backward control belong to a class of verbs identified in many languages as
A number of properties exhibited by MSA backward control motivate a restructuring analysis. First, as mentioned, the predicates which are licensed in this construction belong to the class of restructuring verbs. Second, under some approaches, restructuring creates a monoclausal structure which has one argument structure, and, more specifically, one subject, which is shared by the two predicates. Under such an approach the partial agreement on the matrix predicate (as well as the embedded predicate) is expected since the two predicates precede their (shared) subject. Third, there are strict adjacency conditions with respect to the linear position of the selecting predicate,
Nevertheless, the MSA control construction does not share a number of key properties associated with the restructuring phenomena discussed by Wurmbrand (
While the Romance/Germanic restructuring analysis may not be adequate for MSA (and also for Greek and Romanian) other proposals, similar in spirit, exist in the literature, where a different formalization of the main idea of “clause union” or “complex predication” is applied. Herbeck (
Grano (
Essentially, Grano’s (
The similarity between MG and MSA extends beyond the shared typological properties that we first noted in Section 3.2. The bifurcation of the MG predicates into C-subjunctives and F-subjunctives mirrors the classification of BC predicates and non-BC predicates in MSA. Moreover, the constraint against backward coreference with F-subjunctives is also found in MSA when the matrix predicate exhibits FA (see discussion around examples (33) & (32)). This phenomenon lends support to the no-control analysis which is proposed for both languages. In addition, in the backward pattern, control is obligatory in MG with C-subjunctives and is possible in MSA only with BC predicates exhibiting PA. In what follows we build on these similarities and propose an account that is inspired by Grano’s (
Most aspects of the embedded
The challenge, then, is to explain the puzzle posed by the backward control construction illustrated in (32) above. More concretely, the questions that we must answer are (i) why is the configuration in (58a) ungrammatical with control predicates and (ii) what licenses the configuration in (58b).
(58) | a. | *V |
b. | V |
Following the insights of traditional Arab grammarians, we assume that fully inflected verbs in MSA are verbs whose subject requirement is fulfilled by an incorporated pronominal, or, in other words, whose subject is
As for the configuration in (58b), we propose that the partial agreement on the matrix verb in the backward pattern indicates that the subject of this verb is perceived to be the embedded subject, which follows it. This entails that the backward control construction involves a single subject which is shared by the two predicates and consequently realized only once in the embedded clause. We propose that this is achieved by restructuring: the matrix predicate and the embedded predicate form a complex predicate which “inherits” the argument structure of the embedded predicate.
Habib (
Our point of departure is Habib’s (
(59)
a.
yuriidu
wants.3
[ʔan
AN
yaʔkula
eat.3
raami
Rami
t-tufaħat-a].
the-apple-
‘He wants Rami to eat the apple.’
b.
[VP [V’ yuriidu [TP [T ʔan+yaʔkula
Let us continue by considering the minimal pair in (32), which illustrates the FA and PA variants of the backward pattern. First we focus on the FA version repeated here as (60), with its one possible disjoint interpretation.
(60)
ħaawalna
tried.3
ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
maqaal-an.
article-
a.
ħaawalna+
tried.3
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
maqaal-an].
article-
‘They
b.
*ħaawalna+
tried.3
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
maqaal-an].
article-
Intended: ‘The girls tried to write an article.’
The derivation in (59b) sketches the analysis at the matrix VP level, where the matrix verb occupies head position. In the syntactic tree presented in (61) we extend the derivation above this level to a full (TP) clause and illustrate how it applies to the disjoint reading in (60a). To derive the verb-initial order of the matrix clause the verb raises from matrix V to T, and the
(61)
We now turn to the second backward pattern, namely the one in which the matrix predicate exhibits PA with the embedded subject. The PA version of (32) is repeated here as (62).
(62)
ħaawalat
tried.3
ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
maqaal-an.
article-
a.
ħaawalat+
tried.3
[ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
maqaal-an].
article-
‘She
b.
{ħaawalat
tried.3
ʔan
AN
taktuba
write.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
maqaal-an.
article-
‘The girls tried to write an article.’ (restructuring)
The disjoint reading in (62a) is associated with a 3
The analysis diverges from the one proposed by Habib (
One way to formalize this derivation in Habib’s (
(63)
With restructuring in place, the derivation continues (see the tree in (64)). The complex predicate raises to the matrix T position, similarly to the V-to-T movement assumed in the NC construction. Then, in the spirit of Grano’s (
(64)
The question that we need to consider now is how to analyze the forward coreference pattern, where we found no evidence of syntactic reflexes of the OC/NC distinction. Recall that in Section 5.1 three alternative answers were discussed: (i) no control, (ii) obviation, and (iii) ambiguity (control/no control).
Let us begin with obviation. Terzi (
Evidence against an obviation analysis for MSA is found in corpus examples such as the one in (65), where an embedded pronominal subject
(65)
ʔinna
that
l-ʔadiib-a
the-writer.
laa
not
yastatʕiiʕu
be.able.3
[ʔan
AN
yuqarrira
decide.3
he.
bi-nafsihi
by-himself
ʔanna
that
n-nasʕsʕ-a
the-text
sa-yakuuna
will-be.3
fii-hi].
in-it
‘The writer cannot decide by himself that the text would be in it.’
Although the selecting predicate
With obviation ruled out, the two remaining options are either to restrict restructuring to backward control, or to assume that the forward coreference pattern is syntactically ambiguous between no control and restructuring. In what follows we tentatively assume the latter, and show how a raising/restructuring analysis of the subject-initial forward pattern emerges naturally from our proposed analysis of backward control.
Restructuring in effect takes a number of predicates and forms one syntactic unit which can function similarly to a simple V in a VSO clause. This is the case in (64), where instead of a simple V, a complex {VV} occupies the T position, while its subject is found in its post-verbal subject position. If so, we can assume that complex predicates can also appear in SVO clauses. There is, however, no consensus regarding the analysis of SVO clauses (see
To illustrate this proposal let us return to our example sentence in its forward pattern variant. If we assume that restructuring is found in both backward and forward control, the coreference interpretation of (66) is syntactically ambiguous. It is licensed by the no-control structure (66a), which is available for all
(66)
ʔal-banaat-u
the-girls-
ħaawalna
tried.3
ʔan
AN
yaktubna
write.3
maqaal-an.
article-
‘The girls tried to write an article.’
a.
ʔal-banaat-u ħaawalna [ʔan yaktubna+pro maqaal-an] (no control)
b.
ʔal-banaat-u {ħaawalna ʔan yaktubna} maqaal-ana (restructuring)
This is not the case with the alternative forward pattern illustrated by (67a), where the matrix clause is verb-initial. The two predicates have mismatched agreement and the subject intervenes between them, thus indicating that no restructuring took place. Consequently, this pattern can only be licensed by the NC structure (67b).
(67)
a.
ħaawalat
tried.3
l-banaat-u
the-girls-
ʔan
AN
yaktubna
write.3
maqaal-an].
article-
‘The girls tried to write an article.’
‘The girls tried that they would write an article.’
b.
ħaawalat l-banaat-u
To summarize, the starting point of this proposed formalization is Habib’s (
The proposed analysis accounts for all the different reference and agreement patterns exhibited by MSA
Our analysis made use of incorporation as a mechanism for deriving restructuring. Nevertheless in our proposed formalization we appealed to the notion of incorporation at the conceptual level, without fleshing out the mechanism behind the process. A similar approach to restructuring, yet fully couched in a theoretical framework, is proposed independently by Wurmbrand (
Finally, the proposed analysis focused only on the reference relationships between the matrix subject and the embedded subject. However, as was mentioned regarding (6b) and illustrated in (23) and (24), control and no control are also found between embedded subjects and matrix objects, albeit only with a forward pattern, where the missing argument is in the embedded clause. Consequently, the same question can be asked in this context: is there a syntactic distinction between the two interpretations? The type of argumentation that was used here to support the proposed analysis does not apply in this case, since the matrix object does not trigger agreement on the matrix predicate. We have not found other evidence for a syntactic distinction. These issues remain open for future work.
So, is control a part of the grammar of Modern Standard Arabic? The search for predicates which enforce coreference between the subject of an embedded subjunctive clause and a matrix argument was unsuccessful. A corpus investigation of likely candidates retrieved instances of disjoint reference for all candidates (with one exception, but see discussion in Section 4.1). These findings contradict generalizations and predictions regarding the correlation between semantic tense, agreement and control. In a sufficiently large corpus, even modals and aspectual predicates, which were predicted to exhibit control behavior, were found to allow for free reference (or no control).
Nevertheless, although no obligatory control predicates were found in MSA, the backward pattern, where the single expressed subject occurs in the embedded clause, revealed morphosyntactic reflexes of the control vs. no control distinction. Furthermore, coreference between the expressed embedded subject and the unexpressed matrix subject was found to be restricted to a set of predicates which we referred to here as
The phenomenon of backward control plays an important role in the debate regarding the analysis of control, which, broadly speaking, centers around two opposing approaches: the PRO-based approach and the Movement Theory of Control (MTC). While backward control is especially challenging for the PRO-based approach, the MTC provides a straightforward way to account for it. Assuming the MTC, according to which control and raising are derived in similar fashions, we first attempted to adapt Wurmbrand & Haddad’s (
A different approach emanated from the similarity between BC predicates in MSA, obligatory-control predicates in Modern Greek, and restructuring verbs in Romance and Germanic languages. More specifically, we proposed that BC predicates in MSA can optionally restructure with the embedded subjunctive and form a complex predicate which denotes a single event and has one argument structure. With one argument structure the single subject is construed as the subject of both predicates, thus giving rise to the control (or coreference) interpretation and accounting for the agreement marking on the matrix predicate. We sketched a formalization of this analysis, avoiding as much as possible theory-specific notions and details. Our analysis, therefore, sheds new light not only on the specific MSA constructions we focused on, but on more fundamental questions of control, raising, and restructuring in natural languages.
1/2/3 = person,
The syntactic structure of VSO and SVO Arabic clauses with their subject–verb agreement asymmetries has been thoroughly discussed in the literature (
See Badawi et al. (
Arabic imperfect verbs inflect for three moods:
Coreferring subjects are possible when the embedded subject is a contrastive focus. See (65).
We show in Section 4 that this assumption is not borne out by the data.
The terms
The new theory, of course, involves more than a simple re-labeling of the categories, and has theoretical and empirical implications, which are outside the scope of this paper. The reader is referred to (
These predicates belong to the class of verbs of appropinquation discussed in Section 5.4.2.
Recall that MSA is not a native language of any speaker; yet highly competent speakers abound.
More about this in Section 5.4.1
The two constructions differ with respect to the case assigned to the subject. Using standard diagnostics for distinguishing between raising and control (i.e., agentive adverbials, animate subjects, and imperatives) Polinsky & Potsdam (
The authors provide evidence for the lack of a silent matrix subject in the raising construction and the occurrence of one in backward control by conducting diagnostics similar to the ones conducted by Polinsky & Potsdam (
Wurmbrand & Haddad (
Haddad (
Note that the data which W&H discuss include cases where the complement clause is preceded by
An anonymous reviewer notes that writers of MSA would have no trouble with an FA matrix clause with a raising verb of appropinquation and a coreference reading would be the only available one.
See Wurmbrand & Haddad (
The volitional
The existence of partial control is one of Landau’s main arguments against the MTC (
Grano (
See discussion in Section 5.2.
We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this.
This assumption is not unorthodox. Wurmbrand (
The debate regarding the derivation of SVO clauses in Arabic is orthogonal to the phenomena discussed here. We adopt this analysis in order to illustrate the implications of our restructuring analysis.
This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no 505/11). We are extremely grateful to Livnat Herzig Sheinfux for her continuous support, and to Abdelnaser Jabarin for expert judgements and much advice on the intricacies of MSA. We are grateful to three Glossa anonymous reviewers for many helpful and constructive comments; we are especially indebted to one of them, whose detailed, constructive suggestions transformed this paper and significantly improved it. All remaining errors and misconceptions are, of course, our own.
The authors have no competing interests to declare.