Case Theory posits that every argument within the syntactic structure is assigned case. According to Theta Theory, each argument receives only one theta role, in light of the visibility condition which demands that only theta-marked constituents be visible to case assignment. While case assignment is universal across languages, arguments receive the nominative case differently in English and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) due to the distinct morphological systems of each language. Case assignment operation sheds light on the interplay between syntax and morphology, all within the framework of Chomsky’s theory (Chomsky, 1995). This paper adopts an explanatory comparative approach to analyze the control structure [ʔarada: want] in both English and MSA. The study explores the operation of case assignment to the embedded subjects and employs a theoretical framework grounded in Chomsky’s theory particularly focusing on the Split-INFL hypothesis (Pollock, 1989; Chomsky, 1989). It conducts a comparative analysis of control structures to examine the interaction between case assignment and agreement. The findings reveal that while subjects in English are assigned the nominative case via the head tense in finite clauses, the embedded subjects in MSA carry the nominative case in non-finite embedded clauses by the head agree. This suggests a close relationship between the nominative case assignment and the valuation of phi-features via Agree operation in MSA, within the Split-INFL hypothesis. However, when the subject structurally precedes the infinitival particle [ʔan: to] in Arabic, it receives case by the closest case assigner.
References
[1]
Adger, D. (2006). Three Domains of Finiteness: A Minimalist Perspective. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations(pp. 23-58). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199213733.003.0002
[2]
Ahmad, H. I. (2015). Verbal Complementizers in Arabic. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Utah.
[3]
Al-Aqarbeh, R. (2011). Finiteness in Jordanian Arabic: A Semantic and Morphosyntactic Approach. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kansas.
[4]
Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E., & Sportiche, D. (1994). Agreement, Word Order, and Conjunction in Some Varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 195-220.
[5]
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT Press.
[6]
Borsely, R. D., & Roberts, I. (1996). The Syntax of Celtic Languages: A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511586279
[7]
Chomsky, N. (2019). The UCLA Lectures. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/noam-chomsky/
[8]
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris.
[9]
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Praeger.
[10]
Chomsky, N. (1989). Some Notes on the Economy of Derivation and Representation. In R. Freidin (Ed.), Principles and Parameters in ComparativeGrammar (pp. 53-82). MIT Press.
[11]
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.
[12]
Chomsky, N. (1999). Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowwicz, & K. Hale (Eds.), A Life in Language (pp. 1-52). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004
[13]
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-156). MIT Press.
[14]
Chomsky, N. (2001). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. MIT Press. (Unpublished Manuscript)
[15]
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic StructuresVol. 3 (pp. 104-131). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0004
[16]
Chomsky, N. (2015). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262527347.001.0001
[17]
Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 425-504.
[18]
Citko, B. (2014). Phase Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139644037
[19]
Fehri, A. F. (1993). Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Springer Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1986-5
[20]
Felser, C. (1999). Verbal Complement Clauses. A Minimalist Study of Direct Perception Constructions. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.25
[21]
George, L., & Kornfilt, J. (1981). Finiteness and Boundedness in Turkish. In F. Heny (Ed.), Binding and Filtering (pp. 27-105). Croom Helm.
[22]
Greshler, T. A., Melnik, N., & Wintner, S. (2017). Seeking Control in Modern Standard Arabic. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2, 1-41. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.295
[23]
Haddad, Y. (2012). Raising in Standard Arabic: Forward, Backward, and None. In R. Bassiouney, & E. Graham (Eds.), Arabic Language and Linguistics (pp. 61-78). Georgetown University Press.
[24]
Haegeman, L. (1986). INFL, COMP and Nominative Case Assignment in Flemish Infinitivals. In P. Muysken, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Features and Projections (pp. 27-123). Foris. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871661-006
[25]
Jalabneh, A. (2009). Syntactic Analysis of Pro in Embedded Clauses in Arabic Syntax: Chomsky’s (1981-1986). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283895901_syntactic_analysis_of_pro_in_embe dded_clauses_in_arabic_syntax_chomsky'_1981-_1986
[26]
Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D. (1991). The Position of Subjects. Lingua, 85, 211-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(91)90022-W
[27]
Martin, R. (2001). Null Case and the Distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 141-166. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179140 https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554612
[28]
Mohammad, M. A. (1990). The Problem of Subject-Verb Agreement in Arabic: Towards a Solution. In M. Eid (Ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics: Papers from the First Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics (pp. 95-125). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.63.07moh
[29]
Pesetsky, D. (1982). Complementizer-Trace Phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition. Linguistic Review, 1, 297-343. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1982.1.3.297
[30]
Pollock, J. (1989). Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365-424.
[31]
Radford, A. (2009). An Introduction to English Sentence Structure. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511800924
[32]
Raposo, E. (1987). Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: The Inflected Infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 85-109.
[33]
Roberts, I. (2005). Principles and Parameters in A VSO Language. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195168211.001.0001
[34]
Soltan, U. (2007). On Formal Feature Licensing in Minimalism: Aspect of Standard Arabic Morphosyntax. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
[35]
Wilder, C. (1994). Coordination, ATB, and Ellipsis. Groninger Arbeiten Zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 37, 291-331.
