Abstract
The present study examines the claim that definite relative clauses in Modern Standard Arabic exhibit free variation between resumptive pronouns and gaps. The implication of such a claim presents a problem for minimalist syntax that does not tolerate true optionality. To solve this problem, the study argues that the original claim is incorrect and that despite similarities in the PF outputs, resumptive relatives are syntactically different from gapped relatives. While the latter is derived from a standard VSO structure, I propose, the former is derived from a topic-comment structure that already contains an RP. Thus, the fact that resumptive relatives contain resumptive pronouns has nothing to do with relativization, as is generally assumed. The study demonstrates that both resumptive relatives and gapped relatives are derived by movement in contexts that do not involve islands. As it turns out, resumption in relatives is used only as a last resort strategy to save structures in which movement is genuinely blocked, such as islands, from crash. Altogether the study concludes that the variation observed does not reflect true optionality, a finding that supports robust economy principles of minimalist syntax.
Highlights
The aim of the present study is twofold
The present study examines the claim that definite relative clauses in Modern Standard Arabic exhibit free variation between resumptive pronouns and gaps
The step in our analysis is to provide a derivation for relative clauses with RPs that is not based on the same numeration used for definite relative that with gaps. 4.3 Relativization Out of Topic-Comment/Nominal Sentences In the previous section, I have shown that MSA relative clauses with gaps are derived by movement of the DO from its base position to Spec, CP and that the structure feeding this process is a standard VSO structure
Summary
The aim of the present study is twofold. First, it investigates the claim that relative clauses in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA, hereafter) exhibit free variation between gaps and www.macrothink.org/ijl2020, Vol 12, No 5 resumptive pronouns in the relativization site that corresponds to the direct object (Shlonsky (1992) and Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri (2010)). Examples like (1a-b) appear to constitute empirical support for the claim made in Shlonsky (1992), and Aoun, Benmamoun and Choueiri (2010) that both resumption and movement are simultaneously possible in MSA definite relatives. This scenario gives rise to a conflict between empirical facts reflecting optionality and theoretical assumptions building the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001, 2007, 2008). It is unlikely that a single numeration n allows both presence and absence of the EF feature as this will result in two derivations, one with obligatory movement and another without movement, simultaneously Such a scenario is not desirable, at least in minimalism. The Last Resort principle requires such superfluous steps in the derivation be minimized
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
