Discussion Details
| Title: | Morpho-syntax of wh-questions in Arabic |
| Submitter: | Issa Razaq |
| Description: | Dear colleagues,
As a follow up from my last topic on 'WH-forms in Arabic' (http://linguistlist.org/issues/20/20-3654.html#1) for which I received significant feedback, I would like to raise the following issues concerning the behavior of argument wh-forms in some Arabic languages: 1. One of the issues I am pursuing is concerned with the wh-forms: sheno 'what' in Iraqi and shu(u) 'what' in Lebanese. Although these forms have been assumed to be wh-DPs like English 'what', I argue against such treatment, especially the wh-form shu(u). For instance, this form appears only in clause-initial position, it cannot be used referentially (cannot be d-linked, resumed), unlike the wh-phrase miin 'who'. As such, shu(u) does not have the same distribution as miin 'who'. My argument is that shu(u) is not a DP but rather a (coplular) CP on its own, which comprises the DP ?eysh 'which thing' and the pronominal copula huu/huwa 'he/it'. Within the CP containing these elements, the DP ?eysh 'which thing' moves from SpecTP to SpecCP. This could explain why shu(u) 'what' behaves the way it does, i.e., being a CP, shu(u) cannot be used where a DP is, hence its ill-formedness in d-linking contexts, with a presumptive reading or even being in argument position (*in-situ). As for sheno 'what' in Iraqi, this form is acceptable in situ unlike Lebanese shu(u), assuming the same internal structure as Lebanese shu(u) - given phonological differences- it could be the case that movement of the wh-DP 'which thing' results in labeling the CP as a DP following the logic of Citko (2008) and Donati (2006). 2. Similarly, the Iraqi form meno 'who' is argued in my study to be CP that contains the wh-element men 'who' and the pronominal copula 'hu/huwa' with internal movement of men 'who' as a DP to SpecCP resulting in DP structure. For those who are familiar with this topic, notice that I argue against treating the pronominal element attaching to men in men-o as an object clitic since the wh-phrase men/miin does not qualify as a host for any type of clitic, i.e., it does not behave like verbs or prepositions that are able to host pronominal clitics. These are the issues I am looking at. This is just a brief, I will be more than happy to share and exchange views and ideas on this topic. Your feedback is much appreciated. My e-mail is issarazaq@yahoo.com. Thank you all. |
| Date Posted: | 26-Aug-2010 |
| Linguistic Field(s): |
Morphology
Syntax |
| Language Specialty: | Arabic, Standard |
| LL Issue: | 21.3426 |
| Posted: | 26-Aug-2010 |
