In order to provide a linguistic overview of Arabic syntax, it is useful to review some theoretical approaches to syntax and their fundamental assumptions. Choosing what to provide as an introduction to ways of analyzing syntax is, however, a daunting task. As one linguist puts it:
The available literature is vast. The consensus on any particular analysis, however, is minimal. It is therefore a challenge to illustrate the basic ideas and assumptions comprehensively without also introducing the complete formal machinery and the various discussions which argue for or against a particular solution. (Butt2006: 46)
In western linguistics, especially of the American school, structural linguistics approaches using immediate constituent (IC) analysis were predominant until the late 1960s.2 But with the emergence and development of the work of Noam Chomsky in the 1960s and 1970s, the major theoretical paradigm became that of generative grammar.3The key difference between structural approaches to syntax and generative ones is that structural linguistics focuses on the organization of ‘surface’ structure, i.e., language as it is used, whereas generative syntax focuses on the cognition of language, i.e., language and mind.4Probably the most salient feature of the shift of linguists’ attention to “generative” syntax was the emergence of the importance of abstract mental structures that underlie sentence structure and meaning; that is, instead of examining only the surface structure of language, or its overt structure, attention shifted to abstract levels of language called“deep struc- ture,” conceptual structures that operate to produce language.
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D109[107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM
The most important point of [Chomsky’s] position is this; the goals of linguistic theory are psychological. Language is a mental phenomenon, to be studied as such, and theories of language are to be considered psychological theories. So the object of study is the human mind, and it is the nature of the human mind as reflected in the acquisition and use of language that provides the central questions of thefield. (Green and Morgan1996: 2)
With the success of the Chomskian approach to linguistic analysis, syntax emerged as the central component of general linguistic theory.5Generative grammar called attention to the fact that syntactic rules and operations operate at a very abstract and perhaps even autonomous level of cognition, as illustrated by Chomsky’s famous example,‘Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.’ As one linguist observes, “syntax works (i.e., makes sentences seem right, somehow) independently of any reason- able context of use, and even in the absence of interpretable meaning itself” (Hall2005: 157). The most widely applied and widely published research articles and books on theoretical syntax often derive from the Chomskian school of generative syntax, but that school itself has undergone many refinements and extensions since the emergence of Standard Theory in the 1970s and 1980s. Perhaps the most widely known is Government and Binding Theory, later versions of which were termed Principles and Parameters Theory. Most recent work in this vein is usually done through the prism of the Minimalist Program and post- Minimalist theory. These latter works are characterized, however, due to the success and explicitness of the original theory, by the fact that they take a great deal of highly explicit technical terminology for granted (by using what one linguist calls“baroque technical terms”).6
It is therefore difficult for those outside this disciplinary subfield to read and comprehend its writings in all their detail and theoretical ramifications.7Moreover, the study of morphology as well as semantics has in many ways moved beyond the limits of syntactic theory, especially in terms of the study of case.8
2.1. Sentential syntax
The essentials of Arabic sentence structure are described here not from any particular formal theoretical viewpoint, but with regard to providing a general framework for further study. This is done to provide options to the reader in view of the fact that many publications on Arabic syntax published in the past twenty years have employed a generative approach, which focuses on syntactic hierarchies and relationships within the Principles and Parameters framework (Chomsky1981), and the subsequent Minimalist framework (Chomsky1995,2000). Whereas this is a popular and pervasive approach to the analysis of Arabic syntax (especially in the United States), it is also undertaken with particular goals of exploring how Arabic Syntactic theory 109
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D110[107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM
syntax relates to human cognitive language faculties in general, and ultimately, the issue of Universal Grammar (UG). Rather than this, a more theory-neutral approach seems called for in an introductory study of linguistics and Arabic. I will, therefore, in addition to discussing generative theory, incorporate elements of basic linguistic theory (BLT) (Dixon2010aand2010b), construction grammar (Goldberg1992and 2006), case grammar (Fillmore1968and1977) and predicate-argument structure (Goldberg, Levin and Rappoport, Pinker) in discussing the elements of Arabic sentential syntax.
2.2. Strengths and limitations of generative grammar
The most useful aspects of generative theory for descriptive purposes are (1) the rigor of its logical argumentation and (2) its development of abstract relations and formalizations to explain grammatical regularities.9The use of tree- diagrams (hierarchical structures with branching nodes) to illustrate relationships within clauses and sentences has been a salient element of generative theory, as has the incorporation of case theory, which studies the nature and number of partic- ipants in any predication, and their thematic roles (or“theta” roles).10This latter area of syntactic theory interfaces with Arabic morphology to a great extent, and should be considered“morphosyntax.” In fact, I think that to a great degree, Arabic syntax is so deeply interwoven with inflectional morphological structure that the central features of Arabic syntactic theory fall under the category of morphosyntax. This is why agreement and government structures are key to understanding Arabic syntactic dependencies, and why the issue of case relationships (overt and abstract) are of special interest.
2.3. Predicate/argument syntax and valence theory
In predicate/argument approaches to syntax, the predicate (usually a verb, but prepositions as well) is key to determining the structural roles of other components of a phrase, clause, or sentence.11“The predicate is the nucleus of a clause. The word – generally a verb – that is placed in the predicate slot will determine the number and type of arguments which the predicate takes. . . The meaning of a [predicate] determines the kinds of noun which can fill a core argument slot” (Dixon 2010a: 98).12 The key analogy made here is chemical, comparing the predicate to an atom surrounded by a specific number of electrons which determine its ability to bond chemically with other atoms (the“valence” of an atom). But a second analogy is also logical and mathematical, relating to the field of predicate calculus, which is a way of stating how certain objects, or “arguments,” relate to a predicate, and of mapping those arguments to appropriate truth values.13There are therefore two analogies applicable to the constructions of 110 Syntactic analysis and Arabic
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D111[107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM
predicates, both of which share the image of a central force surrounded by and bounded by entities that lie within its sway and which are cast into ‘roles’ in expressing syntactic argument functions.14
The concept of valence (or valency) deals with the number and nature of semantic roles that are associated with the meaning of a particular verb (most often, one to three roles); some roles are central, others peripheral. These roles have been labeled differently by different authors as“cases,” “arguments,” “theta roles,” and“functions.” Research based on argument structure designates those semantic roles as to their syntactic function (Agent,Patient/Object,Beneficiary/Recipient), or refers to them with semantically neutral labels such as X or Y.15By“decom- posing” predicate meaning through analysis of the interaction between predicate and arguments, one can discover interrelated semantic and syntactic regularities, a “set of principles for relating semantic representations with facts about grammat- ical form and the structural organization of sentences” (Fillmore1976: ix).16
Designations of cases or arguments vary, depending on authors’ preferences. Although case frames and function labels are not directly equatable to traditional or pre-theoretical grammatical terms (such as “subject” or “object”), some of the following apply. For the traditional notion of indirect object, Fillmore1968used “Dative” and Chafe used “Beneficiary,” whereas Goldberg and others use “recip- ient.” For the traditional concept of direct object, Fillmore used “Object” or “Objective,” Blake and others have used “Patient,” and others use the term “Theme,” introduced by Gruber ([1965],1976).
Arabic is, from a surface-structure viewpoint, a nominative/accusative lan- guage with the genitive as the third separately marked case in inflectional paradigms. All case-type relations are therefore marked with one of these three cases. The dative case, for example, is not separately marked in Arabic; datives (Recipients) are marked either as accusative (in ditransitive structures), or genitive, as object of the benefactive/allative preposition li- prefixed to the Recipient argument.17