The syntax of applicative constructions in spoken Sudanese Arabic
Different languages have different means for structuring clauses which allow the coding of a thematically peripheral argument or adjunct as a core-object argument. The resulting constructions are known as double object or applicative constructions. The primary aim of this paper is to present a syn...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
2018
|
| Online Access: | http://journalarticle.ukm.my/12892/1/22716-78343-1-PB.pdf http://journalarticle.ukm.my/12892/ http://ejournal.ukm.my/3l/issue/view/1096 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Different languages have different means for structuring clauses which allow the coding of a thematically
peripheral argument or adjunct as a core-object argument. The resulting constructions are known as double object
or applicative constructions. The primary aim of this paper is to present a syntactic analysis of applicative
constructions in Sudanese Arabic within the theoretical framework of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1993,
1995), in particular, the notion of phases, in combination with Pylkkänen's proposed phrase structure and the
semantics of I-applicative (2000, 2008). The overall endeavor is to provide answers to the central questions: how
applicatives in Sudanese Arabic are derived? Whether applicatives in Sudanese Arabic are I-applicatives or Eapplicatives?
The derivation of such constructions in Sudanese Arabic involves the coding of new argument in the
argument structure of the verb. This new argument is introduced via a preposition and has a benefactive/goal
interpretation. This argument is c-commanded by any internal argument. The applied argument is placed in the
complement position of the head ApplI, and can undergo neither A-movement nor wh-movement. This makes
Sudanese Arabic fit into the general syntactic typology of I-type applicative languages cross-linguistically and
consequently promoting contrastive linguistics. |
|---|