Affiliation:
1. College of Sciences and Arts (at Tanuma), King Khalid University , Abha , Saudi Arabia
2. Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University , Riyadh , Saudi Arabia
Abstract
AbstractThe current article argues that the multiple nominative constructions of the Japanese type do not exist in Standard Arabic. Based on evidence from binding, A′-interception and Case, the article shows that the so-called ‘broad subject’ is a clitic left-dislocated element base generated in the A′-domain. The article thus follows the spirit of the analysis proposed by Landau (e.g., Landau, Idan. 2009. Against broad subjects in Hebrew.Lingua119(1). 89–101), who denies the existence of broad subjects in Hebrew, concluding that broad subjects do not exist in Semitic languages at all.
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference52 articles.
1. Akkal, Ahmed. 1996. How SVO is SVO in Standard Arabic. In Abdelkader Fassi Fehri (ed.), Comparée et langues au Maroc Rabat, 101–127. Rabat: Publications de la Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines.
2. Alexopoulou, Theodora, Edit Doron & Caroline Heycock. 2004. Broad subjects and clitic left dislocation. In David Adger, Cécile De Cat & George Tsoulas (eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects, 329–358. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
3. Alotaibi, Mansour. 2019. Broad subjects in Arabic. English Language and Literature Studies 9(1). 106–113. https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v9n1p106.
4. Anagnostopoulou, Eleni. 1994. Clitic dependencies in Modern Greek. Salzburg: University of Salzburg Dissertation.
5. Aoun, Joseph & Elabbas Benmamoun. 1998. Minimality, reconstructions and PF movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29(4). 569–597. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553888.