Syntactic Mapping of Preverbal Subject Positions in Standard Arabic

Cardinaletti argues that with Italian psych verbs either the theme or the experiencer can be preposed to the preverbal subject position (2004: 122):

In the second example above, the fronted dative seems to be in the preverbal subject position, but it does not get its Case checked. This, she argues, makes its movement unmotivated. However, adopting the proposal of having two preverbal subject positions circumvents this problem, since we can argue that the fronted dative moves to the preverbal position in spec-SubjP to check the subject of predication feature, and the nominative Case is checked on the postverbal theme via a chain with the expletive pro. Thus, the dative argument appears preverbally, whereas the grammatical subject, a theme, stays in situ in postverbal position.

In Italian, unaccusative verbs allow their locative argument to be fronted to the subject position (Cardinaletti 2004: 124):

Cardinaletti argues that in inverse copular sentences in Italian, a predicative DP moves to the preverbal position, and the grammatical subject remains postverbally (2004: 125):

The example above can be assigned the following structure:

Cardinaletti points out that the predicative DP moves to spec-SubjP, where it checks the subject-of predication feature. The grammatical subject remains in the postverbal position and gets nominative Case.

Cardinaletti (2004) concludes that dative and locative PPs and predicative DPs are not assigned nominative Case; therefore, their movement to spec-SubjP is not motivated. SubjP must contain some feature that attracts dative and locative PPs, predicative DPs, as well as subject DPs. The subject-of-predication feature represents what all these phrases have in common when they appear preverbally. The head Subj is thus the locus of the subject-of-predication feature.

Negation in Standard Arabic can be expressed in the sentence by the occurrence of negation particles such as lam, lan, laa, and maa, among others (Ryding 2005). These particles can be categorised into three types; the first type includes negation particles like lam and lan that must be followed by the verb:

These negation particles cannot be followed by the subject, hence the ungrammaticality of the sentences below:

However, subjects can precede both the negation particle and the verb:

Following the standard analysis of verb movement in this language in which the verb is assumed to have vacated vP and left-adjoined the head T (Fassi Fehri 1993, Ouhalla 1994, Shlonsky 1997, Benmamoun 2000, among others), I assume that the subject DPs in the examples above cannot be positioned in spec-TP and must be based in a position higher than spec-TP.

The second type includes negation particles like maa that can be followed by the verb:

The negation particle maa can also be followed by the subject DP:

It is to be noticed that the Case of the subject is nominative, hence the ungrammaticality of the sentences below when the subject following the negation particle surfaces with an accusative Case marker:

Following the analysis that places negation above TP in Standard Arabic (Benmamoun 2000), I assume that the nominative subject DP that follows the negation particle maa must be in spec-TP.

The third type of negation includes particles like laa which can be followed by the subject²:

If the subject DP following the negation particle laa surfaces with a nominative Case marker, the sentence is rendered ungrammatical:

In addition, the subject DP cannot precede the negation particle laa, hence the ungrammaticality of the sentences below:

It is to be noticed that while the subject DP following the negation particle maa surfaces with a nominative Case marker, the subject following laa appears with an accusative Case marker. Moreover, while the negation particles lan and lam allow the subject to precede them, the particle la cannot be preceded by the subject. This variation in word order indicates that these different negation particles cannot occupy the same position above TP. There must be more than one position that can host negation particles. Also, the subject seems to occupy two different positions in its interaction with these negation particles.

Adverbial phrases can project in several preverbal and postverbal positions in Standard Arabic. In preverbal positions, adverbs can appear in a sentence-initial position:

In this context, the subject is in a postverbal position, presumably in spec-vP. This is the unmarked word order in Standard Arabic where the subject typically follows the verb. It has been argued that the verb in this language must vacate its base-position in the vP shell and left-adjoin a higher head, probably the head T, and this obligatory head movement is motivated by the rich morphology on the verb (Fassi Fehri 1993, Ouhalla 1994, Shlonsky 1997, Benmamoun 2000, among others). Hence, the sentence-initial adverb could be in a position above TP in the example above.

The alternative marked word order in Standard Arabic is the SV order where the subject precedes the verb and ultimately lands in spec-TP, below the adverbial phrase:

In the example above the adverb precedes both the subject and the verb. However, the subject can surface in a position higher than the adverbial phrase:

It can be seen in the example above that the subject precedes both the adverb and the verb. This position cannot be in the CP domain and the preverbal DP cannot be a topic, for the simple reason that the sentence above can appear with a sentence-initial complementiser (cf. McCloskey 1997, Rizzi 1997):

In addition, the Case marker of the preverbal subject has changed to accusative, suggesting that this DP cannot be a topic since topics moving from a subject position typically leave a pronominal clitic and end up with a nominative Case marker:

Consequently, we can assume that there exist two different positions for the preverbal subject in Standard Arabic. The first position is a specifier position below the adverbial phrase, and the second is a specifier position above the adverbial phrase.

There are two types of auxiliaries in Standard Arabic, positive auxiliaries and negative auxiliaries. I will briefly outline below the distributional properties of the positive auxiliary kaan and the negative auxiliary laysa, as examples. The positive auxiliary has two forms: perfective kaan ‘was’ and imperfective yakuun ‘is’. The imperfective form is not commonly used, except in certain cases. However, the negative auxiliary has only one imperfective form laysa ‘isn’t’. To express the perfective aspect of the negative auxiliary a negation particle is coupled with the positive auxiliary to form conjoined particles like lam yakuun ‘wasn’t’.

These auxiliaries can stand alone as main verbs in copular sentences where they agree with their subject:

When these auxiliaries appear with main verbs, they still inflect for agreement:

Also, while tense is expressed on the auxiliary verb, the main verb appears in the imperfective form, lacking tense and dependent on the auxiliary verb for its tense:

It is clear that the subject in Standard Arabic can precede the verb and surface in a position between the auxiliary and the verb. In this position, the subject agrees in number only with the main verb and agrees in gender with the main verb as well as the auxiliary:

However, the subject can precede both the auxiliary and the main verb and in this position it agrees in number and gender with the auxiliary as well as the main verb:

The preverbal DP in the example above cannot be a topic/CLLD for two reasons. The first is that the DP agrees in number and gender with the auxiliary as well as the main verb, hence the ungrammaticality of the sentence below when the subject agrees only with the main verb:

Under the assumption that the DP in the sentence above is a topic, the ungrammaticality of this sentence is hard to explain. In addition, the sentence above can be preceded by a complementiser, suggesting that the preverbal DP is a subject residing in a position below CP:

It is clear from the examples above that there exist two different positions for the preverbal subject when it appears with auxiliaries. The first position is between the sentence-initial auxiliary and the verb, and the second position is in a specifier position above the auxiliary.

It has been assumed in the literature that preverbal subjects in Standard Arabic are uniformly positioned in spec-TP (or spec-AgrsP in the old configuration). In this paper, I provide an alternative analysis in which I claim that there exist two different positions for the preverbal subject in this language. The lower position is spec-TP which hosts grammatical subjects that have moved from their base-position in spec-vP. The higher position is spec-SubjP which hosts subjects of predication, along lines discussed in Cardinaletti (2004). Crucially, subjects in spec-SubjP are base-positioned and have not undergone movement from spec-vP:

The tree diagram above shows that the SubjP projection is positioned below CP and above TP and can be preceded by a NegP projection that hosts the sentential negation particle in Standard Arabic. I argue that this configuration can account for the instances discussed in this paper where the subject seems to be in a position higher than TP. The new analysis can also account for instances in which the preverbal subject surfaces with an accusative Case marker or a genitive Case marker, indicating that the variation in Case markers is not due to the existence of different Case assigners or the optionality in Case marking. Rather, this analysis offers a new account for Case variation in terms of availability of syntactic positions. When the spec-SubjP position is available, it is filled with a subject of predication where this subject is base-positioned in this location. Crucially, the accusative Case on the preverbal subject in this position is inherent and has not been assigned by the head T.³

However, the tree diagram above shows a simplistic view of the actually more intricate and rich syntactic layer between the CP and TP heads. A syntactic mapping of all the possible categories that can project between these heads will give us a better understanding of the cartography of the CP-TP area (Rizzi 1997, Cinque 1999, Cardinaletti 2004). This will also show that the two proposed positions for the preverbal subject are not adjacent as it may appear.

A closer examination and representation of the sentences below where several syntactic categories can surface in preverbal positions in Standard Arabic show that the area between the CP and TP projections can host many functional heads.⁴ Let us examine the position of the preverbal subject alawlaad ‘the boys’ in the following sentences. Each sentence is followed by a representation of the possible hierarchy of its syntactic categories:

A collapsed hierarchical representation of all the sentences above will give us the following tree diagram:

It should be noted that the tree diagram above is not exhaustive. However, it maps the major syntactic categories that can project in the layer between the CP and TP. It is to be noticed that negation particles occupy two different positions. Additionally, adverbs are shown to occupy two positions as well; however, the hierarchy of all types of adverbs in this language is beyond the scope of this paper (cf. Cinque 1999).

The concurrence of the subject and a floating quantifier in a preverbal position needs further investigation on the possible positions of both DPs. In standard Arabic, quantifiers like kullu and jameeu typically precede the quantified DP which surfaces with a genitive Case marker (Aoun et al. 2010, Fassi Fehri 2012):

Any alternative order between the quantifier and the DP renders the sentences ungrammatical:

However, the preverbal DP that follows the quantifier can be left-dislocated to a topic position, provided that it leaves a pronominal clitic attached to the quantifier:

On the other hand, floating quantifiers like ajmauun and kaafatan cannot precede DPs, hence the ungrammaticality of the sentences below:

Floating quantifiers like ajmauun and kaafatan must follow the quantified DP (yding 2005):

The preverbal DPs above cannot be assumed to be an instance of left-dislocated structures. In this language, left-dislocated or topicalised DPs usually leave behind a resumptive pronoun. If one assumes that the preverbal DP in the sentences above is a topic, the ungrammaticality of the sentences below is hard to explain where a resumptive pronoun appears attached to the quantifier:

However, the preverbal DP in the sentences above can be topicalised and moved to a position above C. In this context, it must leave a resumptive pronoun in its base-position in spec-SubjP:

Contrary to the assumption that the two preverbal XPs following the head C are both competing for the same position, i.e., spec-TP, I argue that the preverbal resumptive pronoun and the floating quantifier in the sentences above occupy two different syntactic positions. These positions are spec-SubjP for the resumptive pronoun and spec-TP for the quantifier.

In Standard Arabic, the preverbal subject can surface with an emphatic reflexive:

In addition, the preverbal DP and the reflexive can be both preceded by a complementiser:

Moreover, the preverbal DP can be topicalised and moved to a position above the complementiser. In this context, it must leave a resumptive pronoun in its base-position, giving us two preverbal pronominals, a resumptive pronoun and a reflexive pronoun:

It is clear from the examples above that the two preverbal pronominals occupy two different syntactic positions between C and T, assuming that the verb in Standard Arabic uniformly left-adjoins the head T. Our assumption that a SubjP projection above T can host subjects of predication accounts for this context where two XPs seem to be competing for the subject position.

In Standard Arabic, two different DPs which refer to the same entity/person can surface side by side:

In addition, a subject DP in this language can be mentioned twice for emphasis:

Moreover, a DP and a pronoun can refer to the same person and surface together:

Apparently, Standard Arabic can have several contexts in which two XPs appear side by side in a preverbal position. Different accounts have been proposed in the literature to accommodate these two adjacent DPs in terms of topicalisation or focalization of the higher DP. I contribute to this ongoing investigation by introducing a new analysis in which I assume that there exist two different preverbal subject positions that can host different preverbal DPs. The two positions are spec-TP, for the grammatical subject which moves from spec-vP, and spec-SubjP, which hosts base-positioned XPs.