Essays Ameen LISSIM 6

This is my research topic. In particular, I look at the C-T-v relation in the framework of phases (Chomsky 2000, et seq), with a focus on Arabic. The research project falls into two parts. In the first part, I consider T-v relation; and in the second C-T connection.

With respect to the T-v relation, I mainly consider Phase Sliding, a phase-based model proposed by Gallego 2010, and an operation of reprojection/remerge (Biberauer &Roberts 2010; Sola 1996)and Pesetsky and Torrego (2001, 2004, 2007). The primary concern here is what triggers V-movement when it takes place.

In my work I argue that there is a distinction between two features that T/C could have: a T feature (classical case) and a Tense feature that anchors an expression to some temporal point. The former makes T establish a relation with the subject DP. In fact I call it T just to go with most of the present literature, following Pesetsky and Torrego’s reasoning of Uniformity; otherwise I don’t think there is a problem in naming it case, which I find more transparent. The latter feature is responsible for establishing a relationship between v and T/C.

With respect to Tense/Aspect, Arabic generally shows a past/non-past (or perfective/imperfect- ive) dichotomy (Fassi Fehri 1993, 2004; Aoun et al. 2010). Only the perfective form clearly encodes past reading, the imperfective can have different temporal readings in different contexts. There is an interesting observation in Benmamoun (2000) to the effect that there is a strong correspondence between the different word orders that Arabic displays, mainly VSO and SVO, and the tense of the sentence. More precisely, past tense constructions preferably take VSO, non-past sentences SVO. I take this to be a consequence of T-v relation. In the past tense constructions, the verb carries tense information, i.e. the feature Tense, which happens here to be +past, and therefore it moves to T. In non-past constructions, on the other hand, the verb doesn’t encode temporal information about the event. So there is nothing that compels head movement of the verb to T. in short it is the Tense feature on T that triggers verb movement.

The question that immediately arises in this context is the following: if I am adopting or adapting any variant of Chomsky’s Phase Theory, why should the verb move if it can enter into an Agree relation with T. unfortunately, I haven’t’ got an answer to this question yet. However, it seems that there are two alternatives that one could explore. The first would be a claim that that Tense feature on T always has an EPP feature that drives Goal movement. An alternative would be to assume that a head-head Agree relation (as opposed to e.g. head-DP (though it is basically with the head of the DP) is always accompanied by EPP. The former claim can be supported by the assumption prevailing in the literature that in principle any formal feature may have an EPP–why not Tense then? The latter stand can be supported by the idea that in no-past sentences in Arabic, the verb moves to the Aspect, since it encodes imperfective information, an aspectual concept.

In this connection I also show that, in spite of being phonologically identical, the –u marker on the verb in the imperfective is not a (Nominative) T feature on the verb, but rather the valued uninterpretable counterpart of a (broadly) Tense feature of T on the verb. So is the case with –a on the verb in the subjunctive, which enters an Agree relation with an, an instance of T in C.

In the second part of my research, I consider C-T relation, reflecting on Chomsky’s feature inheritance. In this connection, I argue, against Gallego’s claim that that-trace effects, that-deletion, inversion and islandhood of preverbal subjects in NSLs are consequences of phase sliding (i.e., movement of the phase head little v to T). I think that these are consequences of C-T relation. In particular, I refer to Ouali (2008), which suggests three possibilities in regard to C-T feature transfer: Donate, Keep and Share. This claim of mine is based on the observation referred to earlier that v-T occurs only in perfective constructions.

Now LISSIM 6, I am sure, will help me sharpen my ideas that seem to be clumsy at this stage. Meeting Pesetsky is going to help me get the distinction I propose between T and Tense clarified: supported or questioned. And seeing Bobaljik will clarify the role of Phi-features in syntax, and where syntax meets morphology. Finally, accompanying Ayesha and Tanmoy will definitely sharpen my understanding and questioning of syntactic theories.

[1] As per instructions, I will be abstract away from delving into the details of the different accounts and models I consider here, confining myself to mentioning sources.

	Skype Interview
	Interview List
	Latest News
	LISSIM 6 Page
	Home