LISSIM 6

June 1-15, 2012@ Kangra

Selected Essays

Verb meaning in Arabic

Jaklin Mansoor
PhD, EFLU, Hyderabad

• How would LISSIM6 help you in sharpening your research question and in looking for a possible answer?

The first-phase syntax or the decomposition of verbal meaning into several heads and the distinction between structural and conceptual semantics are one of my basic concerns that I will discuss here. I will address some questions related to the assumption of structuring semantic notions such as telicity along the line of structuring result state.  I base this discussion on data from Standard and Yemeni Arabic.  I also discuss the behavior of the verb kassar ‘break several times’ in Yemeni Arabic which is resultative and iterative at the same time and demonstrate how it is difficult to capture this variation in the first phase syntax.   Many questions are raised but I leave them open to LISSIM6 since I cannot make any judgment or draw any conclusion at the moment hoping that attending LISSIM6 will clear my doubts with this regard.

There are many factors that play a major role in the contribution to the telicity or boundedness of events like quantized objects, pathPs and verbs which means that syntax is present in determining telicity.  Ramchand’s (2008) groundbreaking work on structural semantics does not treat telicity as part of the first-phase syntax for the reason that it is part of conceptual semantics and it is defined by entailment.  What I find it quite confusing in her proposal is structuring the sub-event corresponding to the result state. The result state or the result head is not clear enough, at least to me, because it involves entailment too, so I think that assigning telicity to conceptual semantics and result state to structural semantics is not empirically motivated.  If we take into account the flexibility in the argument-structure and event structure which give rise to ambiguity, we find out that the result state can be identified not just by the nature of the verb but also by the nature of its object complement.  For instance, some verbs are ambiguous between [init, proc, res] and [init, proc] like jump. Consider this example from Arabic:

1.      ali  qafaz           assuur

ali jumped.3ms the fence

‘Ali jumped the fence.’ (telic)

 

2.      ali  qafaz            aswaar

ali  jumped.3ms fences

‘Ali jumped fences.’ (atelic)

Further, the verb dafa’a ‘pushed’ can also create such ambiguity in Arabic. Consider this example:

3.      dafa’a           ali alwalad

 pushed.3ms ali the boy

‘Ali pushed the boy.’

 

4.      dafa’a         ali  assayarah

pushed.3ms ali the car

‘Ali pushed the car.’

The difference between jump and push is that the first is semelfactive while the latter is not so the first identifies a result state head while the latter does not. But in Arabic, dafa’a in (3) describes the nature of transition, let us say, from position1 to position2 like jump and obtains a punctual reading while in (4) it describes a continuous transition. Therefore, I assume that ambiguity is not only restricted to semelfactives as claimed by Ramchand (2008) but it can arise from verbs such as dafa’a in Arabic.  Consequently, if I am on the right track, I assume that dafa’a in (3) can identify a res head like jump.  The point is that the result state is not always noted in the lexical entry of the verb but it depends sometimes on the nature of the object complement and it is defined through entailment corresponding to some extent to telicity.

The other point which attracts a great piece of attention is finding answers to these questions: how can minimalist syntax and nanosyntax work together and how is it possible to approach telicity within these frameworks?  Within the minimalist framework, Thompson (2006) and MacDonald (2008) assume that an event can check its bounded/ telic feature against a functional head called Asp^o via moving the element that entails telicity to Spec, AspP or its head.  These arguments are motivated empirically since the telic/atelic distinction is first syntactically represented and semantically interpreted through modes of composition.  However, these accounts contradict with respect to the position of the AspP whether it is generated above vP or above VP. I agree with the core idea of these proposals that telicity can also be represented on a functional head but at the moment I cannot reach a firm conclusion about the exact position of this functional head unless the distinction between nanosyntax and minimalism is built strongly in my mind.

Now I will throw some light on the verb kasar ‘break’ in Arabic that can undergo either morphological or phonological change to express causativization, transitivity, and duration. Consider these examples:

5.      kasar         ali ala’asa

break.3ms ali the stick

‘Ali broke the stick.’

 

6.      ala’asa   enkasarat

the stick broke.3fs

‘The stick broke.’

The transitive and intransitive versions of break in Arabic differ morphologically unlike English.  The other version of break is kassar which does not express a single instantaneous change as the above-mentioned versions but it indicates multiple actions of breaking that take place instantaneously. The verb still identifies a result state while expressing repetitive actions. Consider this example:

7.      kassar              ali ala’asa

broke.3ms.rep ali the stick

‘Ali broke the stick several times/in pieces.’

 

8.      takassarat       ala’asa

broke.3fs.rep the stick

‘The stick broke in pieces.’

The beauty of this verb lies in that one single lexical item can identify several functional heads. The question is how can we capture this variability in Arabic in the first-phase syntax?  This question is left open until attending LISSIM6.

In conclusion, the investigation into the aspectual properties of events in Arabic in the spirit of Ramchand (2008) reveals several aspects that it is not possible to note them down in this essay. All these aspects cast doubt either on Ramchand’s (2008) proposal or on my sense of understanding of her proposal in particular and nanosyntax in general.  As was illustrated by the discussion, there are many aspects that require more attention and it is not easy to distinguish between structural semantics and conceptual semantics when syntax plays a vital role in determining meaning. As was shown, the factors that determine result state and telicity do not differ greatly.  Finally, I present my doubts to LISSIM6 and I am certain that discussing these questions with the faculty will do a great favor to me in the field of knowledge.

 References:

MacDonald, J. E. (2008). Domain of aspectual interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(1), 128-147.

Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, E. (2006). The structure of bounded events. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(2), 211-228.

For enquiries, write to secretary@fosssil.in