Cypriot Maronite Arabic: a problem for the universal adjective order ...

7 downloads 1112 Views 152KB Size Report
In this paper I propose that in the nominal domain of Cypriot Maronite Arabic there are two separate Functional Sequences that are inserted one inside the other.
Cypriot Maronite Arabic: a problem for the universal adjective order?

Fryni Panayidou

In this paper I propose that in the nominal domain of Cypriot Maronite Arabic there are two separate Functional Sequences that are inserted one inside the other. One functional sequence, which I label ‘Arabic Fseq’, accommodates the adjective classes of Quality, Size and native Arabic Colour. The other functional sequence, the ‘Greek Fseq’, is where the classes of Shape, Nationality and borrowed Greek Colour adjectives are merged. The two Fseqs differ morphologically, but also syntactically. In the first one we find adjectives with nonconcatenative morphology and obligatory NP-movement, while in the second Fseq we encounter concatenative morphology and optional NP-movement. Cypriot Maronite Arabic adjectives appear, at first blush, to violate what is considered to be the universal adjective order, however, I will show that each of the two Fseqs adheres to the universal order and that that the apparent violation is the result of embedding the Greek Fseq inside the Arabic Fseq.

1. A puzzle for the universal adjective order Several studies examining adjectival syntax across languages have noted that attributive adjectives appear to follow a fixed order when modifying a noun (Sproat & Shih 1991; Cinque 1994, 2010; Scott 2002; Laenzlinger 2005, among others). According to the same literature, the ordering restrictions of stacked adjectives are determined by the semantic class of each adjective. The possible orders are given in (1). When prenominal, as in (1a), Size adjectives follow adjectives of Quality, Shape adjectives come after Size, and so forth. When the adjectives appear postnominally, two possible orders are attested crosslinguistically. The first order is identical to the prenominal order, as demonstrated in (1b). The second order, which according to Cinque (2010:38) is the most common for postnominal adjectives, is the mirror image of the prenominal order and is illustrated in (1c). (1)

a. b. c.

Quality > Size > Shape > Colour > Nationality > Material > N N > Quality > Size > Shape > Colour > Nationality > Material N > Material > Nationality > Colour > Shape > Size > Quality

Proceedings of ConSOLE XX, 2012, 153-168 http://www.sole.leidenuniv.nl c Fryni Panayidou

154

Fryni Panayidou

In Cypriot Maronite Arabic (hereafter CMA), an endangered Arabic dialect that has been heavily influenced by Greek, we find both prenominal and postnominal adjectives. While most classes adhere to the orders given in (1a) and (1b), the Colour class varies as to whether it follows or precedes Nationality.1 The expected order is Colour to the left of Nationality, however, in (2) we see that the Colour > Nationality order is only available when the colour terms for ‘green’, ‘yellow’ or ‘blue’ are used. If the colour terms for ‘red’, ‘black’ or ‘white’ are used, the order must be Nationality > Colour as in (3a). N > Colour > Nationality:2 a. ??thavli l-aXmar/isfet/apcaD l-italiko table.DEF the-red/black/white the-italian ‘the red/black/white Italian table’

(2)

b.

thavli li-prasino/tSitrino/ble l-italiko table.DEF the-green/yellow/blue the-italian ‘the green/yellow/blue Italian table’

N > Nationality > Colour: a. thavli l-italiko l-aXmar/isfet/apcaD table.DEF the-italian the-red/black/white ‘the red/black/white Italian table’

(3)

b. ??thavli l-italiko li-prasino/tSitrino/ble table.DEF the-italian the-green/yellow/blue ‘the green/yellow/blue Italian table’ What appears to determine the position of the Colour adjective in this case is whether the colour term is a native Arabic word or a term borrowed from Greek. For example, prasino ‘green’ is borrowed from Greek and it appears to the left of Nationality adjectives, while aXmar ‘red’ is a native Arabic word and has to follow Nationality adjectives. Bearing this observation in mind, in what follows I will propose that there are two distinct Functional Sequences (Fseqs) in CMA and, consequently, two positions for Colour adjectives in CMA. The apparent violation of the adjective order is the result of one Fseq being inserted inside the other. The Colour position found to the left of Nationality belongs to the Greek Fseq and it 1

CMA does not have any material adjectives so we cannot test where Colour stands in relation to Material. PPs are used to express Material as shown below: (i)

malaga ma l-aQut spoon with the-wood ‘wooden spoon’

2 Definiteness in CMA is marked by the use of the definite article l-. However, the article is assimilated when the following word begins with a single consonant. If the word-initial consonant is a plosive, then the plosive becomes aspirated. In the glosses, I distinguish between the phonetically present and the assimilated definite article. The former is glossed as ‘the’, while the latter is marked on the noun or adjective as DEF.

Cypriot Maronite Arabic: a problem for the universal adjective order?

155

accommodates Colour adjectives borrowed from Greek, while the position after Nationality is part of the Arabic Fseq and is the position where native Colour adjectives surface. After providing the relevant data for the ordering and placement of all adjective classes in CMA in section 2, I proceed to section 3, where I divide the adjective classes in two categories depending on their morphology and syntax. In particular, in section 3.1 I introduce the idea that there are two distinct Fseqs in CMA and I address the theoretical implications of a system that permits one Fseq to be embedded inside another. In section 3.2 I illustrate how all the possible adjective orders are derived under my analysis. Finally, in section 4 I recapitulate the main points of the paper and provide some final remarks.

2. Adjective ordering and placement in CMA 2.1. Quality, Size and Shape As already noted, all adjectives in CMA, apart from adjectives of Colour, adhere to the orders given in (1a) and (1b) as represented in (4), regardless of whether they appear before or after the noun. That Quality must precede Size is illustrated in (5) and (6). (4)

Quality > Size > Shape

(5)

Postnominal: a. thavli khaes li-Gbir table.DEF nice.DEF the-big b. ??thavli li-Gbir khaes table.DEF the-big nice.DEF ‘the nice big table’

(6)

Prenominal: a. ??khaes li-Gbir thavli nice.DEF the-big table.DEF b. *li-Gbir khaes thavli the-big nice.DEF table.DEF ‘the nice big table’

N > Quality > Size ??N > Size > Quality

??Quality > Size > N *Size > Quality > N

The marginality of (6a) stems from the preference for native Arabic adjectives to be postnominal. Since both kaes and Gbir are native Arabic words and are found in a prenominal position, (6a) is degraded. I will temporarily abstract away from the distinction between ?? and *, and simply focus on what is fully acceptable versus what is unacceptable or dispreferred. Moving on to the classes of Size and Shape, we observe that Size has to appear to the left of Shape, as shown in (7) and (8). Note that judgements are more clear-cut in this case than with Quality and Size. Both the postnominal and the prenominal positions of the adjectives are grammatical, as long as ‘big’ appears before ‘round’. The reverse order is unacceptable in either position. The unexpected acceptability of the native Arabic adjective Gbir in a prenominal

156

Fryni Panayidou

position is related to the presence of a Greek adjective in the same phrase. This is discussed in more detail in section 3.2. (7)

Postnominal: li-Gbir li-strodZilo a. thavli table.DEF the-big the-round b. ??thavli li-strodZilo li-Gbir table.DEF the-round the-big ‘the big round table’

(8)

Prenominal: a. li-Gbir li-strodZilo thavli the-big the-round table.DEF b. *li-strodZilo li-Gbir thavli the-round the-big table.DEF ‘the big round table’

N > Size > Shape ??N > Shape > Size

Size > Shape > N *Shape > Size > N

CMA does not allow more than two adjectives at once, therefore it is not possible to test the above three classes in the same construction. Nevertheless, the order set by transitivity is as in (4).

2.2. Colour and Nationality in relation to Shape Before looking into the interaction of Colour and Nationality, let us examine whether both of these classes appear after Shape, as expected on the basis of (1a) and (1b). The data in (9) and (10) show that Shape must indeed appear before Nationality both in a prenominal and a postnominal position. (9)

Postnominal: a. thavli li-strodZilo l-italiko table.DEF the-round the-italian b. ??thavli l-italiko li-strodZilo table.DEF the-italian the-round ‘the round Italian table’

(10)

Prenominal: a. li-strodZilo l-italiko thavli the-round the-italian table.DEF b. *l-italiko li-strodZilo thavli the-italian the-round table.DEF ‘the round Italian table’

N > Shape > Nationality ??N > Nationality > Shape

Shape > Nationality > N *Nationality > Shape > N

Cypriot Maronite Arabic: a problem for the universal adjective order?

157

Colour, likewise, occurs to the right of Shape regardless of which colour term is used. The (a) examples, in (11) to (14), use a native Arabic colour term, while the (b) examples use a colour term borrowed from Greek. The acceptability effects are identical with both types of Colour adjectives. The postnominal cases are given in (11) and (12). (11)

N > Shape > Colour: a. thavli li-strodZilo l-aXmar table.DEF the-round the-red b.

(12)

thavli li-strodZilo li-prasino table.DEF the-round the-green

N > Colour > Shape: a. ??thavli l-aXmar li-strodZilo table.DEF the-red the-round b. ??thavli li-prasino li-strodZilo table.DEF the-green the-round

Arabic Colour Greek Colour

Arabic Colour Greek Colour

Prenominally, the picture is complicated by the fact that postnominal placement is preferred for native adjectives. Nevertheless, if we compare (13a) to (14a), we observe that the order Colour > Shape, which is given in (14a), is more degraded than the order in (13a), where Shape comes before Colour. This is an indication that the Shape > Colour order is more natural. (13)

Shape > Colour > N: a. ??li-strodZilo l-aXmar thavli the-round the-red table.DEF b.

(14)

li-strodZilo li-prasino thavli the-round the-green table.DEF

Colour > Shape > N: a. *l-aXmar li-strodZilo thavli the-red the-round table.DEF b. *li-prasino li-strodZilo thavli the-green the-round table.DEF

Arabic Colour Greek Colour

Arabic Colour Greek Colour

Finally, the prenominal borrowed Colour adjective follows the same pattern as when it is in a postnominal position. In other words, the order Shape > Colour, which is demonstrated in (13b), is grammatical, while the reverse order, which is given in (14b), is not. We conclude that both Colour and Nationality follow Shape, in line with the orders in (1a) and (1b).3 3 A reviewer points out that it is interesting to test Nationality and Colour adjectives with adjectives of Quality that can be sometimes used intersectively. The pattern that emerges is the same as with Shape adjectives. In the examples below kaes ‘nice’ has the meaning of ‘formal’ and we observe that it must precede the classes of Colour and Nationality:

158

Fryni Panayidou 2.3. Colour and Nationality

The question that arises from the data presented above is why it is possible to find Colour both before and after Nationality, especially when all other adjective classes follow a single order that is universally available. One way of approaching the problem of colour ordering in CMA, is to claim that the order between Nationality and Colour adjectives is free, due to their intersective nature. This is a position that Truswell (2004, 2009) takes, presenting the examples in (15) as evidence in favour of the claim that intersective adjectives are interchangeable. (15)

a. b.

wooden red clogs red wooden clogs

Truswell (2009:527)

While this might be true in the case of English, this hypothesis causes more problems than it solves in CMA. Firstly, if intersective adjectives are freely ordered, we expect this to affect all intersective adjectives in CMA, but, as we have seen in section 2.2, this is clearly not the case; a Shape adjective will always precede a Nationality or Colour adjective although all of these three classes are intersective. Secondly, if we assume that for some reason only adjectives of Nationality and Colour are freely ordered, we expect all possible orders of Nationality and Colour to be acceptable. As we have seen in (2) and (3), however, the order is not free; rather the acceptability of the order depends on the lexical item used. In particular, if a borrowed colour term is used, then the Colour adjective must precede Nationality. If, on the other hand, the colour term is a native Arabic lexical item, then it will obligatorily follow Nationality. This is represented in (16) below: ColourGreek > Nationality > ColourArabic

(16)

I assume that the reason we find variance with regards to the position of Colour is because there are two distinct positions for Colour in CMA; one position accommodates the native Arabic colour terms, while the other is available to borrowed Greek colour terms. Note that the only native Arabic colour terms in CMA are for ‘red’, ‘black’ and ‘white’.4 I, therefore, suggest that thavli khaes l-aXmar/li-strodZilo table.DEF formal.DEF the-red/the-round b. ??thavli l-aXmar/li-strodZilo khaes table.DEF the-red/the-round formal.DEF ‘the formal red/round table’

(i)

a.

4

The fact that these three particular colour terms have been resilient to borrowing is not surprising if one takes into account Berlin & Kay’s (1991) typological work on colour universals. According to their findings, if a language only contains three colour terms, then these terms will be for white, black and red. The different forms of these three colours in CMA are shown in (i): (i)

a.

b.

aXmar - Xamra - Xumr red.M . SG - red.F. SG - red.M / F. PL ‘red’ isfet - sauta - sut black.M . SG - black.F. SG - black.M / F. PL

Cypriot Maronite Arabic: a problem for the universal adjective order?

159

these three native terms appear in a position that follows Nationality, while all other colour terms that are borrowed from Greek are merged in a position to the left of Nationality. Postnominal configurations supporting this claim were exemplified in (2) and (3). Prenominally, the Arabic Colour adjective is unacceptable, but as mentioned earlier, this is due to the preference for native Arabic adjectives to be postnominal. What is important to note however, is the contrast between (17a) and (18a); specifically the order italiko > aXmar is less degraded than the reverse order, suggesting that the Nationality > Colour order is less marked for the native Arabic adjective. As for the Greek Colour adjective, the judgements are more robust. It is permitted only before Nationality, as illustrated in (18b). Nationality > Colour > N: a. ??l-italiko l-aXmar thavli the-italian the-red table.DEF

(17)

b. *l-italiko li-prasino thavli the-italian the-green table.DEF Colour > Nationality > N: a. *l-aXmar l-italiko thavli the-red the-italian table.DEF

(18)

b.

li-prasino l-italiko thavli the-green the-italian table.DEF

Arabic Colour Greek Colour

Arabic Colour Greek Colour

The conclusion drawn from this set of data is that the Arabic Colour adjectives systematically contrast with the borrowed Greek Colour adjectives with respect to their position.

3. Resolving the Colour puzzle 3.1. Two Fseqs While we have already seen that Colour adjectives appear in different positions depending on whether they are native or borrowed words, in what follows I show in more detail how morphology supports the assumption that there exist two separate Colour positions. In particular, what we will see is that the Arabic Colour class, Quality and Size follow rules of nonconcatenative morphology, while Greek Colour adjectives, but also Nationality and Shape adjectives

c.

‘black’ apcaD - peDa - piD white.M . SG - white.F. SG - white.M / F. PL ‘white’

Borg (2004:84, 2011:77) claims that CMA has a five-term colour system that also includes the native words XoDer.M . SG ‘green’ and asfar.M . SG ‘yellow’. According to my informants, XoDer is used to express the meaning ‘fresh/unripe’ and asfar conveys the meaning ‘pale’. Borg (2004:85) points out that these nonrestrictive meanings of the two colour terms are shared in many other Arabic dialects. Yet, in CMA it appears that these two terms are limited to the noncolour meanings and speakers prefer to use the Greek borrowed terms to convey the meanings ‘yellow’ and ‘green’. As a result, when asfar and XoDer are used in CMA, they appear as Quality adjectives.

160

Fryni Panayidou

have concatenative morphology. Firstly, the classes of Quality and Size consist of native Arabic words or borrowed Greek words that were nativised to resemble the CMA nonconcatenative morphology. In these two classes, the consonantal root is modified by the insertion of vowels when specified for number and gender. For example, in (19) the insertion of /i/ in the root Gbr signifies masculine gender and singular number. (19)

Native Arabic word: √ a. √γbr −→ Gbir.MASC . SG γbr −→ Gbar.PL b.

‘big’

An example of a nativised Size adjective is the word for ‘short/low’. In (20) we observe that while the original Greek root is xamil, the CMA root is Xmn which, similarly to Gbr, is modified for gender and number. Both the phonology and morphology of the Greek root were altered in this instance. (20)

Borrowed nativised word (Borg 1985:112): √ √ a. χmn −→ Xmin.MASC . SG ‘short/low’ (from the Greek xamil) √ b. χmn −→ Xman.PL

In contrast to the classes of Quality and Size, Shape and Nationality only consist of borrowed Greek words that have kept the Greek concatenative morphology. As witnessed in (21), the root for ‘square’, tetrajon, remains unchanged when the adjective is specified for gender and number. These two features are marked via suffixation. (21)

Borrowed Greek word: √ a. √tetrajon −→ tetrajono.MASC / NEUT. SG b. tetrajon −→ tetrajona.NEUT. PL

‘square’

Colour is the most interesting class when it comes to morphology. It consists of Arabic words with nonconcatenative morphology, which are the three terms for ‘white’, ‘black’ and ‘red’, but it also includes borrowed Greek words with concatenative morphology. This is demonstrated below: (22)

Native Arabic Colour and Borrowed Greek Colour words: √ a. √χmr −→ aXmar.MASC . SG ‘red’ prasin −→ prasino.MASC / NEUT. SG ‘green’ b.

A conclusion drawn from the above examples is that adjectives in CMA fall into two categories with regards to their morphology. Based on this conclusion and taking it a step further I assume that there is a separate functional sequence for each of these categories. For example, the classes that follow nonconcatenative morphology, which are Quality, Size and Arabic Colour, are merged in a functional sequence which I call ‘Arabic Fseq’. On the other hand, the classes of Shape, Nationality and Greek Colour, which come with concatenative morphology, are merged in the ‘Greek Fseq’.

161

Cypriot Maronite Arabic: a problem for the universal adjective order?

I consider a functional sequence to be a fixed hierarchy of functional projections in which adjectives are merged. Adopting Cinque (1994, 2010), Scott (2002) and Laenzlinger (2005), I assume that each adjective is generated in the specifier (Spec) of a dedicated functional projection with which the adjective is semantically related. Given that the functional heads are hierarchically ordered, it follows that the adjectives will also be hierarchically merged, thus capturing the strictness of the universal order. The prenominal universal order of adjectives is simply the result of this functional sequence, which is schematised in (23). (23)

DP D

... FPshape AP3 Fshape

FPcolour

AP2 Fcolour

FPnationality

AP1 Fnationality

NP

Extending this proposal to CMA, the structure for the Arabic Fseq is seen in (24) and for the Greek Fseq is given in (25). Note that this analysis allows us to maintain that each Fseq is an instantiation of a universal scope hierarchy of adjectival modification. (24)

(25)

Arabic Fseq

Greek Fseq DP

DP D

D

FPquality AP3 Quality Fquality

FPsize

AP2 Size Fsize AP1 Colour

FPshape AP3 Shape Fshape

FPcolour Fcolour NP

AP2 Colour

FPcolour

Fcolour

FPnationality

AP1 National. Fnationality NP

The apparent violation of the universal order, where Arabic Colour appears to the right of Nationality, occurs when the two Fseqs are put together. Taking into consideration the data pre-

162

Fryni Panayidou

sented so far, I assume that the Greek Fseq is inserted as one object inside the Arabic Fseq, lower than Size, but above Arabic Colour. Crucially, the Greek Fseq does not include the core, which is N, but only the functional projections above it. The structure, after the Greek Fseq is inserted inside the Arabic Fseq, is therefore as illustrated in (26), where the Greek Fseq is marked with bold letters. (26)

DP D

FPquality AP Quality Fquality

FPsize

AP Size Fsize

FPshape

AP Shape Fshape AP Greek Colour

FPcolour

Fcolour

FPnational.

AP National. Fnational. AP Arabic Colour

FPcolour Fcolour NP

Although each Fseq does indeed follow the hierarchy that is observed crosslinguistically, we still need to account for the fact that the Greek Fseq is embedded between Size and Arabic Colour and not in any other position. If we assume that selection goes from top to bottom then it is expected that Size will select Shape, as it is the class that follows it in the universal hierarchy. Since I assume that the whole Greek Fseq is inserted as a single object, then what is relevant to selection is only the highest FP in the Greek Fseq, which is Shape. An alternative proposal is to presume that the N obligatorily moves and reprojects an NP above the low Colour position — Arabic Colour — as in (27).

Cypriot Maronite Arabic: a problem for the universal adjective order? (27)

163

FP AP 0 Nationality F

NP N AP Arabic Colour

After reprojection (Sur´anyi 2005, Georgi & M¨uller 2010) takes place, Nationality only sees and selects an NP. This could potentially account for why Arabic Colour adjectives are strictly postnominal, while other native Arabic adjectives are sometimes allowed prenominally as in (8a). If this is the correct analysis, then the hierarchy in CMA will look like in (28), where no violations of the universal adjective order arise. (28)

Quality > Size > Shape > ColourGreek > Nationality > [NP N ColourArabic tN]

A question that arises from this, however, is how reprojection is justified if it is a process that occurs exclusively with this class. If we consider the examples in (29), we observe that the Colour class, in general, appears to be more noun-like than other classes, so this could be an indication that this class is found in a closer relationship with N. (29)

a. Red is a nice colour. b. #Greek is a good nationality. c. #Round is a good shape.

Another point that might be of relevance, has to do with the fact that CMA does not have any native words for the classes of Nationality or Material, which are the only classes that are assumed to be found lower than Colour in the universal hierarchy. CMA makes use of PPs in order to express Material, and employs either PPs or borrowed Greek adjectives for Nationality. As a result, it could be the case that these three basic colour terms have always been merged closest to N and have always been found inside the NP.

3.2. Deriving the orders If the above analysis is on the right track, then we should be able to validate the prediction that the two Fseqs will diverge syntactically. We have already seen that there is a clear-cut distinction in the morphology of the two Fseqs. As for syntax, it was previously mentioned that native Arabic adjectives are preferred postnominally, which is typical of Semitic syntax.5 In 5 Something that sets CMA apart from other Semitic languages, however, is the order in which postnominal native Arabic adjectives appear. Most Semitic languages follow the postnominal mirror-image order, which was illustrated in (1c), while in CMA native Arabic adjectives appear in the order given in (1b), where adjectives are ordered as when prenominal.

164

Fryni Panayidou

contrast, the borrowed Greek adjectives are acceptable in either a prenominal or a postnominal position. As we have already seen in (23), the prenominal universal order is the result of adjectives being merged in a fixed hierarchical order above N. Shlonsky (2004) and Cinque (2010) argue that any other order witnessed across languages is derived via movement of a phrase that contains the N above each AP. For this reason, they assume that each FP is merged with an Agr0 head and that the phrase containing N is moved to the Spec of each AgrP. Cinque (2010) argues that the trigger for movement is the need for all APs in the extended nominal projection to be licensed with a nominal feature. He claims that there are two ways of licensing the APs. For languages with postnominal adjectives, he assumes that the NP — either alone or as part of a larger phrase — will move above each AP, inside their respective AgrPs, in order to license them. As for languages that simply allow prenominal adjectives, he assumes that a nominal feature is merged inside each AgrP and as a result the NP stays in-situ. In a similar vein, I assume that when the borrowed Greek adjectives are prenominal in CMA an interpretable nominal feature is already merged with each Agr0, therefore there is no need for NP movement. This is what we see in (30). (30)

DP D

AgrYP

AgrY0 [N]

YP

AP li-strodZilo ‘round’

Y0

AgrXP

AgrX0 [N]

XP AP X0 l-italiko ‘Italian’

NP t avli ‘table’ h

However, in section 2 we saw that the borrowed Greek adjectives are equally grammatical in a postnominal position. In this case, the Agr0 heads are merged with an uninterpretable nominal feature and will need to attract a nominal element. This is what also happens within the Arabic Fseq. The Arabic Agr0 heads are always merged with an uninterpretable nominal feature. As a result, a nominal element, in this instance the NP, moves cyclically to each Spec,AgrP in order to license these features under Spec-head agreement, as shown in (31). The difference between the Arabic Agr0 heads and the Greek Agr0 heads, however, is that the former are always merged with [uN], while the latter have the option of either being merged with [N] or [uN].

165

Cypriot Maronite Arabic: a problem for the universal adjective order? (31)

DP D

AgrYP

AgrY0 [uN]

YP AP khaes ‘nice’

Y0

AgrXP

AgrX0 [uN]

XP AP li-Gbir ‘big’

X0

NP thavli ‘table’

Recall now how in (8a), a native Arabic adjective, Gbir ‘big’, was acceptable in a prenominal position, when it surfaced with the borrowed Greek adjective strodZilo ‘round’. The question, then, is how this can be accounted for under the current analysis if Arabic Agr0 always needs to attract a nominal element. What I suggest is that the nominal element does not always need to be the NP. The presence of [N] on the Greek Agr0 allows the higher Arabic AP in a prenominal position, as the nominal element that moves in this case is the lower Agr0 that bears [N]. Given that the [uN] is satisfied as schematised in (32), movement of the NP is unnecessary. (32)

DP D

AgrYP

AgrY0 [uN]

YP AP li-Gbir ‘big’

Y0

AgrXP

AgrX0 [N]

XP

AP li-strodZilo ‘round’

X0

NP t avli ‘table’ h

A question that remains, is what is responsible for the syntactic diversity witnessed in the two

166

Fryni Panayidou

Fseqs. In other words, what it is that makes NP-movement obligatory in the case of the Arabic Fseq, but optional for the Greek Fseq. What we expect to find is a featural distinction between the two. Indeed, there appears to be a divergance in the gender feature. Native Arabic adjectives only distinguish between feminine and masculine, while borrowed Greek adjectives use a three-way gender system with feminine, masculine and neuter. Consequently, I presume that the gender feature for the Arabic Fseq is [±fem] and that the Greek Fseq has the more complex gender feature [±fem, ±masc]. A masculine Arabic AP is, therfore, specified for [–fem], while a feminine Arabic AP bears [+fem]. A Greek AP, on the other hand, is [–fem, +masc] if it is masculine, [+fem, –masc] if feminine and, finally, [–fem, –masc] when neuter. The proposal, then, is that the selectional properties of Agr0 are sensitive to the presence or absence of [masc]. If [masc] is absent from the AP as in (33), the FP is merged with an Agr0 that bears [uN] and consequently, movement is obligatory. If, however, the AP has the more complex gender feature [±fem, ±masc], then the FP is merged with an Agr0 that optionally comes with [N], in which case the NP will optionally move as in (34). (33)

aXmar (Arabic) red.MASC . SG

(34)

AgrXP

AgrYP

AgrY0 [uN] AP [–fem]

prasino (Greek) green.MASC . SG

YP [–fem]

AgrX0 [N]

Y0

NP

XP [–fem, +masc]

AP [–fem, +masc]

X0

NP

What is therefore claimed in this section is that the different requirements for movement associated with each Fseq stem from a featural distinction.

4. Summary and final remarks In this paper I proposed that there are two Colour positions in CMA. One position is found to the right of Nationality and the other to its left. I have argued that this does not pose a problem for the idea that there is a universal order, as the two Colour positions essentially belong to two separate Fseqs, each of which adheres to the universal order. The Arabic Fseq consists of the classes for Quality, Size and Arabic Colour, while the Greek Fseq accommodates the classes for Shape, Greek Colour and Nationality. The Greek Fseq is embedded inside the Arabic Fseq, which is why we find an apparent violation of the universal order. The two Fseqs differ morphologically, but also with regards to syntax. I claimed that this is

Cypriot Maronite Arabic: a problem for the universal adjective order?

167

due to a featural distinction of gender. In particular, I proposed that the gender feature for the Arabic Fseq is [±fem], while in the Greek Fseq it is specified as [±fem, ±masc]. The absence or presence of [masc] determines whether the Agr heads will bear [N] or [uN]. If [masc] is absent, Agr0 will bear [uN] and this results in NP-movement above the AP, to Spec,Agr, in order for the NP to license this feature. If, on the other hand, [masc] is present, Agr0 will optionally be merged bearing [N] and as a result the NP stays in-situ. A positive consequence of the analysis presented here is that it helps us interpret the difference in acceptability judgements by taking into account the number of violations that occur in each instance. In this paper we came across unacceptable phrases, some of which were marked with ?? and others with *. Consider the phrases in (35) where two native Arabic adjectives are used. In the first case, the unacceptability of the phrase is marked with ??, as the adjectives violate the unmarked order of adjectives in CMA. In the second example, the phrase is again marked with ??, since the adjectives appear prenominally and as we have seen this entails that the [uN] on the Agr heads remains unlicensed, which causes the derivation to crash. (35)

a. ??thavli li-Gbir khaes table.DEF the-big nice.DEF

(1 violation: Adj order)

b. ??khaes li-Gbir thavli nice.DEF the-big table.DEF

(1 violation: [uN])

c. *li-Gbir khaes thavli the-big nice.DEF table.DEF ‘the nice big table’

(2 violations: [uN], Adj order)

So far, each phrase makes a single violation. The phrase in (35c), however, makes two violations; firstly, the adjectives appear prenominally which means that the [uN] on the Agr heads again remain unlicensed, and, additionally, the adjectives appear in the wrong order. This accounts for why (35c) is worse than the first two phrases.

Acknowledgements Many thanks to David Adger, Hagit Borer and Daniel Harbour for their feedback on earlier versions of this paper. I am also grateful to the audience of ConSOLE XX for helpful comments and discussion. All errors remain mine. Fryni Panayidou Queen Mary University of London [email protected] http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/fpanayidou References Berlin, B. & P. Kay (1991). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. University of California Press, Berkeley, MA.

168

Fryni Panayidou

Borg, A. (1985). Cypriot Arabic: A Historical and Comparative Investigation into the Phonology and Morphology of the Arabic Vernacular Spoken by the Maronites of Kormakiti Village in the Kyrenia District of North-Western Cyprus. Deutsche Morgenl¨andische Gesellschaft, Stuttgart. Borg, A. (2004). A comparative glossary of Cypriot Maronite Arabic (Arabic-English): with an introductory essay. Brill, Leiden. Borg, A. (2011). Towards a diachrony of Maltese basic colour terms. Biggam, C. P., C. A. Hough, C. J. Kay & D. R. Simmons (eds.), New Directions in Colour Studies, John Benjamins Publishing Co, Amsterdam, pp. 73–90. Cinque, G. (1994). On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. Cinque, G., J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi & R. Zanuttini (eds.), Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, Georgetown UP, Washington, DC, pp. 85–110. Cinque, G. (2010). The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Georgi, D. & G. M¨uller (2010). Noun-phrase structure by reprojection. Syntax 13:1, pp. 1–36. Laenzlinger, C. (2005). French adjective ordering: perspectives on DP-internal movement types. Lingua 115:5, pp. 645–689. Scott, G.-J. (2002). Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. Cinque, G. (ed.), The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Vol. 1, Functional Structure in DP and IP, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 91–120. Shlonsky, U. (2004). The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua 114:12, pp. 1465–1526. Sproat, R. & C. Shih (1991). The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions. Georgopoulos, C. & R. Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 565–593. Sur´anyi, B. (2005). Head movement and reprojection. Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando E¨otv¨os Nominatae. Sectio Linguistica. Tomus XXVI, ELTE, Budapest, pp. 313–342. Truswell, R. (2004). Attributive Adjectives and the Nominals they Modify. Master’s thesis, Oxford University. Truswell, R. (2009). Attributive adjectives and nominal templates. Linguistic Inquiry 40:3, pp. 525–533.