functional or anaphoric control in jordanian arabic?

Language Sciences, Volume 14, Number l/2, pp. l-28, 1992 0388-OOOlI92 $S.OO+.OO Printed in Great Britain 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd

Functional or Anaphoric Control in Jordanian Arabic?

Fawwaz Al-Abed Al-Haq

Yarmouk University

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of control in Jordanian Arabic within the

framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) as developed by Bresnan (J. Bresnan, 1982.

The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Cambridge: MIT Press.), Mohanan (K.

Mohanan, 1983. Linguistic Inquiry 14.), Simpson (J. Simpson, 1983. “Aspects of Warlpiri

Morphology and Syntax,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.), Simpson and Bresnan (J.

Simpson and J. Bresnan, 1983. Natural Language and Linguistics 7heory 1). Wager (J. Wager,

1983. “Complementation in Moroccan Arabic,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. MIT), Pinker

(S. Pinker, 1982. The Mental Representation of GrammaticalRelations, Cambridge: MIT Press)

and Kaplan and Bresnan (R. Kaplan and J. Bresnan, 1982. l7te Mental Representation of

Grammatical Relations, Cambridge: MIT Press).

The researcher discusses functional and anaphoric control in complex sentences of Jordanian

Arabic (JA) within the framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG). By complex

sentences, we mean those in which more than one verb appears. These complex sentences in

Jordanian Arabic can be produced by using: the lexical entries, phrase-structure rules, and func-

tional structures along with the well-formedness principles: completeness, coherence and con-

sistency (J. Bresnan, 1982. l7te Mental Representation oj* Grammatical Relations, Cambridge:

MIT Press).

The researcher argues that in Jordanian Arabic we have anaphoric rather than functional

control.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of control in the Jordanian Arabic (henceforth JA) within the framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) as developed by Bresnan (1982), Mohanan (1983), Simpson (1983), Simpson and Bresnan (1983), Wager (1983), Pinker (1982) and Kaplan and Bresnan (1982).

2 Language Sciences, Volume 14, Number l/2 (1992)

It should be mentioned that JA is one of the Arabic colloquial languages, whose

word order varies among speakers. For some Jordanians, SVO is the normal surface

order of constituents, while other speakers consistently use a VSO order. In this study,

I will assume VSO to be the underlying word order for JA.

Jordanian Arabic (and Arabic in general) is one of the languages which is referred

to as a “subject PRO-drop” language. This name is used for languages in which a

lexical subject NP is not required in a sentence. In JA, a subject NP need not be

present in a sentence, and subject agreement markers appear on each verb whether or

not a subject NP is present. Therefore, a fully interpretable sentence in JA may consist

solely of a verb, as shown in (1) and (2) below.

(1) a. bica

wept (3 sgm)

“He wept.”

b. bicat

wept - 3 sgf

“She wept.”

c. biceit

wept - 2 sgm

“You wept.”

(2) a. am&

CONT - 1 sg - walk

“I am walking.”

b. yimSi

CONT - 3 sgm - walk

“He is walking.”

c. timSuu

CONT - 2 pl - walk

“You are (~1.) walking.”

The sentences in (1) consist of verbs in the perfect tense, while those in (2) are in

the imperfect. In (la) there is a zero morpheme which indicates that the verb’s subject

features are third person masculine singular and the -t suffix in (Ib) indicates third

person singular feminine. The -iet suffix in (lc) is the second person singular marker.

In (2a), the prefix a- is the continuative morpheme, which indicates first person, while

the Y- prefix in (2b) indicates third person singular masculine. The t- prefix in (2~)

refers to second person, and the accompanying -uu suffix is the plural marker.

Functional or Anaphoric Control? 3

Before discussing the theory of control, it is worth stating the basic tenets of the

Lexical-Functional Grammar. The theory postulates that sentences have two levels:

constituent structure, c-structure, which is basically surface structure in some version

of the X-bar theory, and functional structure, in which the linguistically significant

grammatical functions are represented directly (Andrews, 1982; Bresnan and Kaplan,

1982). Functional structure is itself quite simple, being essentially a representation of

grammatical relations together with inflectional features, and the mapping between

constituent and functional structures is likewise straightforward. To have a clear

picture about the organization of the LFG, Simpson (1982:33) proposes the following

diagram:

Lexicon - - - _ - - _ - - _

I

Morphology Phrase structure rules

Lexical insertion Txlding

Constituent structure Functional structure

Phonetic form Semantic form

Figure 1.

Simpson states that

“the lexicon contains dictionary entries for all words and affixes, including information about

the case of selected functions. In the morphology, words are created by affxation, compounding,

and template forming. Lexical items, complete with information from both the lexicon and

the morphology are inserted into the terminal nodes of constituent structure trees created by the

phrase structure rules. The lexicon, morphology and phrase structure rules all provide infor-

mation about grammatical functions, and grammatical features (such as CASE). This information

is represented as equations which are attached to nodes. These equations are then solved in the

process of building a functional structure, which gathers together information about functions

and features from all parts of the annotated constituent structure tree. The functional structure

acts as input for semantic interpretation” (p. 33).

Pinker (1982:658) indicates that the

“annotated phrase structure rules are similar to the base rules of a transformational grammar,

but with two important differences. First, since a lexical grammar has no transformational rules,

there must be phrase structure rules to generate all surface structures directly. The second

difference between the base rules of a transformational grammar and annotated phrase structure

rules is that in the latter, category symbols on the righthand side of rules can be annotated with

grammatical functions.”

4 Language Sciences, Volume 14, Number 112 (1992)

The annotated P-S rule for a simple JA intransitive sentence is given in (3) below.

(3) s + v (NP) t=l lSUBJ=l

The arrows in the functional notation are used to instantiate values in f-structure.

The 1 arrow refers to the f-structure of the “mother” node, i.e. the node immediately

dominating the node in question. Here, the “mother” node is S. The I arrow refers

to the f-structure of the node to which the equation is attached, the “daughter” node.

These equations simply mean that information about the f-structure of the node on the

right-hand of the “ = ” is information about the f-structure of the node on the left-

hand side.

The equation 1 = L is usually (in the unmarked case) associated with heads of phrases.

This equation means that the features of the daughter node f-structure (I) are trans-

mitted up the tree to become features of the mother node f-structure (I). Thus, since

V is the head of S, the properties associated with the verb will also be properties of

the sentence. The functional equation on the NP in (3) states that that NP’s f-structure

(1) is the subject of S, the mother node f-structure (1). This NP is in parentheses

because it is optional.

The lexical entry for a predicate consists of three parts: the predicate argument

structure, which sets forth the arguments on which a particular lexical item exerts

selectional restrictions, the grammatical function assignment, which details the

functions that are syntactically subcategorized by the lexical item, and the lexical

form, which matches functions with arguments.

The lexical entry for the verb Saaf “see ” in JA, as in the sentence Ali daaf Fatimeh

“Ali saw Fatimeh,” is given in (4) below

(4) Saaf a. predicate argument structure Saaf < 1,2 >

b. grammatical function assignment (SUBJ) (OBJ)

c. lexical form Saaf < (SUBJ) (OBJ) >

Saafhas a dyadic predicate argument structure, whose first argument, the perceiver,

is assigned the function SUBJ, and whose second argument, a thing/person perceived,

is assigned the function OBJ (Bresnan, 1982:289).

Modifying this model, the lexical form of the intransitive verb biZa (wept) in JA

will be that of (5) below.

(5) biea: V, 1PRED = ‘biEa < (SUBJ) > ’

In (5) the t refers to the f-structure of the V node, which is syntactically identified


with the f-structure of the S through the I = 1 equation on the V. The lexical form

in (5) means that the lexical item biZu is a verb (V), and that its “meaning” indicated

by the PRED feature, is ‘bihz’ with a monadic predicate argument structure, i.e. it

subcategorizes only for the SUBJ function.

It should be emphasized that all verbs must contain a subject marker. Since rule (3)

can generate sentences without an overt subject NP, I assume that when the subject

NP is absent, the subject markers function as the subject argument of the verb. When

a sentence does contain an overt subject, then the subject markers are merely phono-

logical realizations of the features of the subject NP, having no PRED (meaning)

value.

Sample lexical entries for the subject markers are given in (6) below.

(6) a. -a : AF, (t SUBJ PRED = ‘PRO’)

t SUBJ NUM = SG

b. -at : AF, (

c. a- ” AF, (

SUBJ PERS = 3

SUBJ GEND = MASCULINE

SUBJ PRED = ‘PRO’)

SUBJ NUM = SG

SUBJ PERS = 3

SUBJ GEND = FEM

SUBJ PRED = ‘PRO’)

SUBJ NUM = SG

SUBJ PERS = 1

The equations in the lexical entries given above for a representative set of subject

affixes (of the category AF(fix)) indicate information about the subject of the verb to

which they are attached. If a lexical subject appears in a sentence, its features must

match those of the subject affix appearing on the verb.

Pronouns and pronominal affixes have the PRED value ‘PRO’. The equation t SUBJ

PRED = ‘PRO’ appears in parentheses in the above lexical entries, indicating that this

feature is optional. It is the optionality of this feature that allows the two inter-

pretations of the subject affixes, one in which the affix actually functions as the

pronominal subject of a verb, and the other in which the subject affix is merely an

agreement marker. Principles governing the well-formedness of functional structures

will assure that the correct option is chosen.

The subject affixes are attached to verb roots in the lexicon by morphological

rules, and together they form a phonological word. As Wager (1983:19) indicates that

neither the affixes nor the verb root may stand alone as a phonological word, they must

occur together, and are inserted as a unit into the verb (V) node in C-structure. This

process is illustrated below.


(7) a. ruhit

b. c-structure:

s-r v (NP)

14 TSUBJ =i

c. lexicon: verb root

’ I went’

S

rub

tPRED = rub (SUBJ) a’ -It

t SUBJ PRED=‘PRO’

t SUBJ NUM =Sg

f SUBJ PERS=l

t SUBJ GRND=MASC

t ASPECT = PERFECT

Figure 2.

The above process shows that the grammatical features of the affix thus become

features of the verb.

Before demonstrating how f-structures are constructed, I will state the following

well-formedness principles as shown by Bresnan (1982).

1. Completeness: this principle requires every grammatical argument subcategorized

by a predicate must appear in the functional structure of that predicate.

2. Coherence: this principle requires that only the arguments that are subcategorized

by a given predicate appear in the functional structure of that predicate.

3. Consistency: this principle demands that every grammatical feature have a unique

value.

To show how the P-S values and lexical information interact to form f-structure, the

following illustrative example is given.

(8) rahat Fatimeh ‘Fatimeh went’

This is generated by rule S-V (NP) t=1 ISUBJ = 1

a. Lexical entries

*: V. t PRED = ‘RAH < (SUBJ) > ’

-at: AF, (t SUBJ PRED = ‘PRO’)

t SUBJ NUM = SG

t SUBJ PERS = 3

ISUBJ GEND = FEM

fASPECT=PERFECT

Functional or Anaphoric Control? I

Fatimeh: N, t PRED = ‘Fatimeh’

tNUM = SG

t PERS = 3

t GEND = FEM

b. c-structure (annotated with functional schemata)

/ sF’\ 1-l

“1%

I f PRED - ‘RAlj,<(SUBJ)>’

(t SUBJ PRED I ‘PRO’)

t SUBJ NUM - SG

t SUBJ PERS - 3

t SUBJ GEND - FEM

tASPECT- PERFECT

t SUBJ-I

NP ‘3

t PRED - FATIMEH

tNlJM=SG

?PERS -3

?GEND I FEM

rabat

Figure 3.

Farimeh

c. Equation for instantiation in functional structure, given by the c-structure and

lexicon

1.

ii. . . . Ill.

iv.

V.

vi.

vii. .

Vlll.

ix.

X.

xi.

f, = fi

f, SUBJ = fs

f2 PRED = ‘RAH < (SUBJ) > ’

(fi SUBJ PRED = ‘PRO’)

fi SUBJ NUM = SG

f2 SUBJ PERS = 3

f2 SUBJ GEND = FEM

f2 ASPECT = PERFECT

fs PRED = ‘FATIMEH’

fs PERS = 3

fs GEND = FEM

(vi-viii are given by the lexical entry for the subject affix -at, and ix-xii are given

by the lexical entry for ~atimeh.)


d. fl

fi

SUBJ f3

PRED

ASPECT

PRED ‘FATIMEH’

NUM SG

PERS 3

GEND I FEM _

‘RAHAT < (SUBJ) > ’

PERFECT

The f-structure in (8d) is the result of not having chosen the optional SUBJ, PRED =

‘PRO’ equation on the subject affix. This is achieved by the aforementioned consis-

tency principle.

After this brief introduction about LFG, I will attempt to demonstrate how this

theory accounts for control in JA.

CONTROL IN LFG

Mohanan ( 1983: 642) argues that the adequacy of the control theory can be achieved

by answering the following questions:

1. What are the syntactic positions where the controlled elements may occur, must

occur, and cannot occur?

2. When is a controller for these controlled elements obligatory or optional?

3. What makes a controller eligible for the controlled elements?

To answer these questions, let us look at the nature of the control in LFG, i.e. how

is it defined? What factors are considered to be important for control? and what are

the basic assumptions behind control?

Bresnan (1982: 283-4) indicates that the following are the basic assumptions of

theory of control in LFG:

1. Grammatical functions are universal primitives of syntax, not derived from

phrase structure representations or from semantic notions.

2. Grammatical functions are lexically encoded in predicate argument structures.

3. Constituent structure categories are universally decomposed into features and

types; the features are definable in terms of the primitives SUBJ, OBJ, whereas the

types are definable in terms of: VP (“V), PP (“P), NP (“N) and AP (“A).

4. Grammatical functions are syntactically encoded directly in surface represen-

tation of phrase structure, according to structural configurations or morphological

features.

The classification of grammatical functions assumed in LFG is best illustrated by

Simpson (1983: 65). She gives the following diagram (see Figure 4).

It should be indicated that complements act as arguments of argument-taking


Grammatical functions:

Selected Non-selected

Closed Open Closed

A I I Semantically Semantically Semantically Semantically unrestricted restricted restricted restricted

Open

I Semantically

restricted

SUBJECT COM XCOM ADJUNCT XADJUNCT OBJECT OBLIQUES

OBJECT2

Figure 4.

predicates, whereas adjuncts are argument-taking predicates which modify either

propositions or argument-taking predicates or arguments. They are considered to be

the only instance of non-selected grammatical functions. Furthermore, verbs select

complements, and so, for such a verb, the absence of the complement either generates

ungrammatical sentences, or else forces another interpretation of the verb. Never-

theless, the absence of an adjunct has no direct effect on the interpretation of the verb

(Simpson, 1983; Bresnan, 1982). Moreover, Simpson (1983: 54-6) brings out the

difference between ADJUNCTS and XCOMPS as follows: XCOMPS are selected,

whereas ADJUNCTS are not. Furthermore, a sentence can have more than one

ADJUNCT, whereas it can only have one XCOMP. Finally, ADJUNCTS are ana-

phorically controlled, wheres XCOMPS are functionally controlled.

Control has been defined by Bresnan (1982: 317) as

“a relation of referential dependence between an unexpressed subject (the controlled element)

and an expressed or unexpressed constituent (the controller); the referential properties of the

controlled element, including possibly the property of having no reference at all. are determined

by those of the controller.”

This control relation is illustrated in the following example:

(9) nuwa yimSi yigra

want-future- (3sgm) go - (3 sgm) read (3sgm)

In (9), the unexpressed subject of yimSi is controlled by the unexpressed subject of


nuwu, and the unexpressed subject of yigru is also controlled by the unexpressed

subject of yimbi.

In LFG, Bresnan (1982) and Mohanan (1983) indicate that control is characteristic

of the functional structure that encodes grammatical functions as ‘subject of’ and

‘object of’ rather than a property of the C-structure that encodes the relations of

precedence and domination. Based on the characterization of control relations in terms

of referential dependence, LFG identifies two types of control. These types of control

are made clear by Bresnan (1982: 321) who states

“where the referential dependence is accompanied by the complete identity of all functional

features of the controller and the controlled element, we have functional control. where the

referential dependence Implies no identity of grammatical features, we have anaphoric control.

That is. functional control entails identity of f-structures of the controller and controlled elements,

while anaphoric control entails mere ‘identity of reference’ (i.e. only referential dependence).”

In other words, the motivation of having anaphoric or functional control is based on

whether the control relation is one of identity by reference or one of identity of all

grammatical features.

Bresnan goes further to characterize functional control by demonstrating that the

controlled element is the subject function and the controlled clauses are designated by

the open grammatical function XCOMP and XADJ. It should be made clear that open

and closed functions are determinant factors for types of control.

The distinction between open and closed functions is well-defined by Simpson

(1983: 52-64). She states

“the open and closed distinction cross-cuts complements and adjuncts, producing four types ot

grammatical function: COMPs, XCOMPS, ADJUNCTS, XADJUNCTS. The difference

between open complements (XCOMPs) and adjuncts (XADJUNCTS). on the one hand. and

closed complements (COMPs or SCOMPs) and adjuncts (ADJUNCTS). on the other. is that the

SUBJECT of the open XCOMP or XADJUNCT has to be identical to some particular function

of the matrix predicate selecting the XCOMP, whereas COMPs and ADJUNCTS contain their

own phrasal SUBJECT. However. the SUBJECTS of an ADJUNCT or COMP could be a null

pronominal. An XCOMP or XADJUNCT is considered open. because its f-structure is in-

complete unless supplied with a SUBJECT from among the arguments of the matric predicate.

A COMP or ADJUNCT is considered closed, because no additional information is needed for

a complete f-structure; it provides its own SUBJECT (which may be a null pronominal). The

relation between the SUBJECT of an open function such as XCOMP, and its controller. is called

functional control. The relation between a null pronominal SUBJECT of a closed function. and

the argument with which that null pronominal SUBJECT is coreferential is called anaphoric

control.”

Simpson further indicates that since SUBJECT, OBJECT, OBJECTZ, and OBLIQUE

do not demand any further information for completion of their f-structures, they are

also closed functions.


Bresnan (1982) identifies two types of functional control: (1) the lexically-induced;

and (2) the constructionally-induced.

The first type is accounted for by the Lexical Rule of Functional Control. This rule

stated below, stipulates which element in a sentence may be the controller of an

XCOMP (an open function) which itself subcategorizes for a SUBJECT.

(10) Lexical Rule of Functional Control

let L be a lexical form and F, its grammatical function assignment. If

XCOMP E F,, add to the lexical entry of L:

(r OBJ,) = (t XCOMP SUBJ) if OBJ,E F,; otherwise:

( 1 OBJ ) = (r XCOMP SUBJ) if OBJ &FL; otherwise:

(t SUBJ) = (1 XCOMP SUBJ).

To illustrate this rule, the following example from Moroccan Arabic (Wager 1983:

68-70) is given.

(11) a. Kan 1 weld zwin

was (3sgm) the boy beautiful

‘the boy was beautiful’

b. S - V NP XP

t = 1 tSUBJ = i tXCOMP= 1

c. lexical entry for Kan:

Kan: V, PRED = ‘KAN < (SUBJ)(XCOMP) > ’

t SUBJ = t XCOMP SUBJ

The lexical entry for Kan ‘be’ in (11~) includes the equation t SUBJ = t XCOMP

SUBJ. This equation is a control equation. It is derived from the Lexical Rule of

Functional Control (Bresnan 1982: 322).

d. SUBJ ‘LWELD’

SG

3

MASC I PRED ‘KAN < (SUBJ)(XCOMP) > ’

XCOMP

[

SUBJ i 1 1 PRED ‘ZWIN c (SUBJ) > ’ 1

TENSE PAST


In the functional structure of (lOd), the SUBJ of Kun has been coindexed with the

SUBJ of Zwin; this marking shows the effect of control equation; that the SUBJ of

Zwin, the XCOMP, is identified with the SUBJ of the verb Kan. This identifica-

tion indicates that the f-structures in question are identical in all features, including

functional markings.

Wager (1983: 70) argues that

“functional control involves identifying the non-overt (in c-structure) subject of an XCOMP.

which is an argument of verb. with an item in the sentence with which it has identity of all

features. An XCOMP does not have a structural subject, but it does have a functional subject,

whose controller IS determined by the lexical item which subcategorizes for the XCOMP

argument. The lexical rule of functional control is a redundancy rule that adds a control equation

in their lexical entry.”

However, I will argue later in this paper that this type of construction is COMP rather

than XCOMP.

The second type of functional control is constructionally induced. The control equa-

tion is part of a c-structure rule annotation. The controlled clause is the XADJUNCT

which is no-subcategorizable by the predicate of the matrix clause. This type is

accounted for by the Constructional Rule of Functional Control. This rule, stated

below, stipulates which element in a sentence may be the controller of an XADJUNCT

(an open function) which itself subcategorizes for a SUBJECT (Bresnan 1982: 324).

(12) Construction Rule of Functional Control

If (t XADJ) = I is a syntactically encoded functional annotation,

conjoin it to the disjunction of the schemata { (t G) = (ISUBJ) G&C }

This rule mainly indicates that if a predicative adjunct lacks a controller, rule (12)

obligatorily specifies the set of possible controllers. The above rule can be demon-

strated clearly as shown below:

(13) a. Siftuh Sakraan

Saw-I-him drunk - (3sgm)

‘I saw him drunk’

b. The P-S rule S V NP NP AP

t = I (rSUBJ) = I (rOBJ) = 1 (1XADJ) = 1

(f OBJ = (LSUBJ)

c. Lexical entry of Saaf: v, t PRED: ‘Saaf < (SUBJ)(OBJ) > ’

Sakraan: ADJ, t PRED: ‘Sakraan < (SUBJ) > ’


d. SUBJ,

OBJ

PRED

XADJ

TENSE

PRED

NUM

PERS

GEND

‘PRO’

SG

1

MASC

PRED

NUM

PERS

GEND

‘PRO’

SG

3

MASC

’ Saaf < (SUBJ)(OBJ)(XADJ) > ’ r SUBJ i[ 1

L PRED 1 ‘Sakraan < (SUBJ) >’

PAST

In (13a) either the SUBJ pronoun ‘I’ or the OBJ pronoun ‘him’ can be the controller

of the XADJ Sukruan. But because we assume that the SUBJ ‘I’ would probably not

describe himself as ‘sakruan’ ‘drunk’. Therefore, (13b) indicates constructionally that

the OBJ of the matrix clause will be the controller for the SUBJ of the controlled

XADJ. Thus, in the functional structure of (13d), the OBJ of the verb Saaf ‘saw’ has

been coindexed with the SUBJ of sakraan; this marking indicates the effect of the

control equation, that the functional SUBJ of sakruan, the XADJ, is identified with

the OBJ of the matrix verb Suuf This identification means that the f-structures in

question are identical in all features, including functional markings. Worded differ-

ently, the XADJ does not have a structural subject, but it does have a functional

subject whose controller is determined constructionally.

However, I will argue later in this paper that the control is anaphoric rather than

functional. Now, I will turn to discuss the second type of control as espoused by

Bresnan (1982). According to her “anaphoric control relations arise from the presence

of a functional anaphor (‘PRO’) which is not expressed in c-structure. ” Furthermore,

Bresnan states that anaphors refer to both anaphors (reflexive, reciprocal pronouns)

and pronouns. For anaphoric control in JA, I will adopt the Obviation Principle

proposed by Bresnan (1982: 331). This principle is stated below.

(14) The Obviation Principle

If P is the pronominal SUBJ of an obviative clause C,

and A is a potential antecedent of P and is the SUBJ

of the minimal clause nucleus that properly contains C,

then,


a. P is bound to A if P is unexpressed and;

b. P is not bound to A if P is expressed.

Following Wager (1983: 88), I will assume for the moment that the type of COMP

discussed here, that which never include a complementizer, constitutes an obviative

clause. Since P in these COMPs is unexpressed, part (a) of the Obviation Principle

is the part relevant to the discussion of COMPs. To illustrate this principle, the

following example is given:

(15) a.

b.

dal alwalad yidrus

remained the boy studying - (3sgm)

‘the boy remained studying’

S-V NP COMP

’

PRED

COMP

1 ASPECT

-PRED ‘alawad’ 1

-t

A, SUBJ of

the minimal

clause nucleus

containing C . 1 NUM SC

PERS 3

GEND MASC

‘da1 (SUBJ) < (COMP) > ’

SUBJ

PRED

-PERFECT

P

Obviative

Clause C

In (15c), the SUBJ features of both the matrix and COMP subjects are coindexed.

Since P and A are in the relation defined by the Obviation Principle, P is bound to

A, indicated by the coindexed SUBJ f-structures.

However, the Obviation Principle will fail to account for the following example:

( 16) widduyyaahum yimSuu

wants - (3sgm) - 3 PlM go (3PlM)

‘he wants them to go’

According to the Obviation Principle, the antecedent of the COMP PRO SUBJ will

be the matrix SUBJ. Nevertheless, the antecedent of the COMP PRO SUBJ is the

matrix object. This part is assured by the morphological clues on the COMP which

show agreement with the matrix clause object. Thus, part (a) of the Obviation


Principle as stated by Bresnan will be abandoned.

Wager (1983: 93) proposes the Obligatory Anaphoric Control to account for cases

like (16) above. This principle is stated below.

(17) Obligatory Anaphoric Control

If P is the pronominal unexpressed subject of an anaphoric control Clause C,

and A is a possible antecedent of P, then P is bound to A

(i) if A is the OBJ of the minimal clause nucleus that properly contains C;

otherwise

(ii) if A is the SUBJ of the minimal clause nucleus that properly contains C.

This rule indicates that if a matrix object occurs with closed COMP (in which there

is no complementizer), that object must be the antecedent of the COMP PRO SUBJ;

whereas if no OBJ occurs, the SUBJ is the antecedent. Thus (16) will be adequately

accounted for according to Wager’s proposal. Sentence (16) is repeated below.

(17a) widduyyaahum yimSuu

wants - (3sgm) = 3 PlM go (3PlM)

‘he wants them to go’

(17b SUBJ

PRED

TENSE

OBJ I

COMP

PRED ‘PRO’

NUM SG

PERS 3

GEND MASC 1 ‘widd < (SUBJ)(OBJ)(COMP) > ’

PRESENT

PRED

NUM

PERS

GEND

SUBJ i

PRED

‘PRO’ 1

Pl

_ J

3

MASC

‘yimSuu < WBJ) > ’ tilosed COMP C


The rule of Obligatory Anaphoric Control requires that the OBJ be the antecedent.

Therefore, P is bound to the OBJ, and this binding is allowed because the features of

the OBJ match those of the COMP SUBJ. This matching is further assured by the

morphological agreement markings on the COMP Verb.

It is important to mention that JA observes the Universal Condition on Anaphoric

Control proposed by Bresnan (1982; 333-4). This principle is stated below:

(18) Universal Condition on Anaphoric Control

If A is a grammatically assigned antecedent of P,

where the value of P is [PRED ‘PRO’, U+], then A

must f-command P. F-command is a relation on

f-structure defined as follows:

For any occurrence of the functions, cr, 8 in an

f-structure F, cx f-commands 8 if and only if CY

does not contain R and every f-structure of F that

contains LY contains D.

To illustrate the effect of the Universal Condition on Anaphoric Control in JA, the

following example is given:

(19) a. annas illi yikrah-uu al-harb nagal-uu {amal Salaam

the people who hate war discuss making peace.

b. SUBJu,

PRED

OBJ

-PRED ‘annas’

I[ PRED ‘PRO’ 1 ’ [ I

‘yikrah < (SUBJ)(OBJ) >

‘al-harb’ I L OBJa* [ PRED

SUBJol,

OBJa* f-commands SUBJs,

does not f-command SUBJ,,

‘nagaS < (SUBJ) (OBJ) > ’

SUBJ,, PRED ‘PRO’

U + 1 PRED ‘carnal (SUBJ) I OBJ,* t PRED ‘Salaam’

(OBJ)’

‘I 1


(19b) shows us the f-command condition on anaphoric control. The SUBJ,, f-

commands the SUBJs,, while OBJ,, does not f-command SUBJs,. Thus, it follows

from the Universal Condition on Anaphoric Control that (01, B,) but not (cY~, 8) is a

possible control relation. This interprets why the ‘PRO’ SUBJ of ramal ‘making’ in

(19b) can be understood as annas ‘the people’ but not as al-hub ‘the war’. Further-

more, (19b) indicates that the Universal Condition applies only to the unexpressed

(+U) ‘PRO’ and not to definite personal pronouns.

Thus, so far we have been discussing the Obligatory Anaphoric Control. Now one

might ask if there is optional anaphoric control in JA. The answer is yes, we have

optional anaphoric control. The next question is what might determine the optional

anaphoric control? To answer this question, let us look at the following examples.

(19) a. da1 milaan/{aSaan timSi

stayed (3sgm) so that go (3sgF) ‘he stayed so that she should go’

b. da1 mGaan/[aiaan yimSi

stayed (3sgm) so that go (3sgm) ‘he stayed so that he should go’

c. da1 miSaan/[acaan yimSuu

stayed (3sgm) so that go (3PIM)

‘he stayed so that they should go’

d. da1 miSaan/{aiaan amSi

stayed (3sgm) so that go (1sgM)

e. da1 yimSi /*timSi /*yimSuu / *amSi

stayed (3sgm) go(3sgm)/go(3sgf)/go(3pIM)/go(IsgM)

In JA miSaan/jMuzn ‘so that’ are complementizers which are in free variation. In

(19a through e), the presence or the absence of miSaan/~akan is significant in deter-

mining the relationship between the controller and the controllee. The sentences in

(19a through d) above indicate that the antecedent to a complement verb subject is not

limited to one particular argument of the matrix verb. In fact, as (19a-d) demonstrate,

the antecedents are extra-sentential; that is, the reference of the embedded ‘PRO’

subject is free. Therefore, the rule of obligatory anaphoric control is thus not applic-

able, and the antecedents of the embedded clause ‘PRO’ subject is not restricted.

However, (19e) indicates that the unexpressed matrix SUBJ is the antecedent of the

COMP SUBJ. the reasons behind this is that the complementizers miSaan/S_aSaan are

absent. Moreover, the fact that arbitrary control is possible in (19a-d) indicates that

the operation involved is anaphoric control, rather than functional control.


To conclude this part, it has been demonstrated that the complementizer is the

determining factor in the relation between anaphor and antecedent. Once the com-

plement is closed function, then its PRO SUBJ is either obligatorily or optionally

identified with the matrix verb arguments. What determines this is the presence or the

absence of the complementizer. If the complementizer is filled with miSaan/~aSaan,

then it is optional anaphoric control, whereas if the complementizer is not filled with

miSaanl{aSaan, then it is obligatory anaphoric control.

The next part of this paper is to investigate whether we have anaphoric or functional

control in JA.

ANAPHORIC OR FUNCTIONAL CONTROL IN JA?

Earlier in this paper, I have mentioned that Wager (1983: 68-70) argues for func-

tional control, when an open function complements XCOMP, and an open function

adjunct, XADJUNCT, have no phrasal subject, but do have subjects in f-structure that

are functionally controlled. In this section, I will attempt to show that these XCOMP

and XADJUNCTS are closed functions rather than open functions. The argument goes

as follows: if these open functions are shown to be closed functions, then they are

anaphorically controlled. In JA an XCOMP or an XADJUNCT may be either

adjectival, nominal or prepositional.

An example of an XADJUNCT that was said to be functionally controlled is

repeated below in

(20) a. Siftuh sakraan

saw (Isgm) - 3sgm drunk (3sgm)


b. P-S rule: S + V NP NP XP

I=1 (tSUBJ)=l (tOBJ)=l (tXADJ)=l

( t OBJ) = ( 1 SUBJ)

The Construction Rule of Functional Control provides the control equation in the

above annotated P-S rule. This control equation specifies that the controller of the

XADJ SUBJ is the matrix OBJ. The adjective ‘sakraan’ has the lexical entry in (21)

below.

(21) ‘sakraan’: A, 1PRED = ‘SAKRAAN < (SUBJ) > ’

The lexical entry above specifies that the adjective ‘sakraan’ is subcategorized for a

SUBJ argument. In the following discussion I will illustrate that the XADJUNCTS


exemplified by ‘sakraan’ and the XCOMP, i.e. the complement subcategorized for by

for the verb kan and its sisters (Sar ‘became’, da1 ‘remained or stayed’, bata ‘became

night’ and others), all these grammatical functions are close complements and hence

anaphorically controlled. I will proceed by showing that adjectivals, nominals, and

prepositionals in JA may stand alone as fully interpretable sentences, and thus must

have an internal subject; a construction that has an internal subject is assigned a closed

function (Wager, 1983). The following are illustrative examples:

(22) a. mabsuut

happy (m) ‘I am (m)/ you are (m)/ he is happy’

b. mabsuuta

happy (0 ‘I am (l)/ you are (f)/ she is happy’

c. kanat albint mabsuuta

was (esgf) the girl happy (3sgf)

‘the girl was happy’

The sentences in (22a-b) are present tense equational sentences in which no lexical

subject occurs. Since the above adjectives can stand alone as sentences, they must

include an internal subject which anaphorically controlled, rather than functionally,

controlled. To account for the sentences in (22a and b) above, the P-S rule generating

the present tense equational sentences is given below:

(23) a. S (NP) XP

tSUBJ=i t=1

t TENSE = PRESENT

In rule (23) the NP SUBJ is marked as optional, and thus a sentence may consist of

just an XP (Adjective Phrase, Noun Phrase, Prepositional Phrase). The f-structure for

mabsuuta is given below.

PRED ‘PRO’

NUM SG

GEND FEM

‘MABSUUTA < (SUBJ) > ’

PRESENT


The adjective phrase in the above f-structure is the head of a verbless present tense

equational sentence, and it thus provides the PRED value. No lexical subject occurs,

and so the features of the SUBJ are obtained from the affix -a that occurs on the

adjective.

Since the AP in (22a-b) contains an internal subject, it cannot be assigned the open

function XCOMP or XADJUNCT, but must have a closed function. Thus, the verb

kan will subcategorize for a COMP, as in (24) below, rather than an XCOMP and

sakruan ( I3a which is mentioned previously in this paper), the XADJUNCT, will be

considered ADJUNCT; that is, a closed function as illustrated in (25) below.

(24) a. kanat albint mabsuuta

b. kan: v. IPRED = ‘KAN < (SUBJ) (COMP) > ’

c. P-S: s-v NP COMP

The above lexical entry does not include a control equation, as the function COMP

does not permit functional control of its SUBJ.

d. SUBJ

PRED

TENSE

COMP

PAST

_

In (24d) the features of the matrix subject are given by the lexical entry for the subject

albint. The features of the COMP SUBJ are determined by the affix -a on the adjective

mubsuuru.

(25) a. Siftuh

saw (Isgm) - 3sgm


b. P-S rule: S - V

t=1

sakraan

drunk - (3sgm)

NP NP AP

(tSUBJ)= 1 (tOBJ)= 1 (tADJ)= I


The above annotated P-S rule does not include a control equation, because the function

ADJUNCT does not permit functional control of its SUBJ.

C. SUBJ

I

OBJ

PRED

ADJUNCT

rENSE

RED

IUM

ERS

iEND

RED

KJM

ERS

iEND

‘PRO’

SG

1

MASC

‘PRO’

SG

3

MASC

Saaf < (SUBJ) (OBJ) (ADJUNCT > ’

SUBJ PRED ‘PRO’

NUM SG 1 PERS 3

GEND MASC

PRED ‘Sakraan < (SUBJ) >’

‘PAST J

In (2%) the features of matrix subject and object are given by the lexical entry for

the subject and object affixes on Siftuh ‘I saw him’ whereas, the features of the

ADJUNCT SUBJ are determined by the affix on the adjective sukraan.

Just as APs can stand as fully interpretable sentences in JA, so can NPs and PPs.

It should be indicated that this phenomenon is observed by Wager (1983) in Moroccan.

There is no wonder in that, since both languages are descedents of the Classical

Arabic.

The following are examples of sentences containing only an NP and a PP in

c-structure.

(26) a. fallah

farmer (m)

‘I am (m)/ you are (m)/ he is a farmer’

b. balkarum

in-the-vineyard

‘I am/ you are/ he is/ she is/ it is/ we are/ you are

(pl)/ they are in the vineyard’

The NPs and PPs in (26a-b) are fully interpretable sentences, and thus they must


have ‘PRO’ subjects. NPs have affixes that specify the number and gender of their

subjects. Thus (26a) can be shown as follows:

(27) a.

b.

fallah

P-S rule S - (NP) XP

SUBJ

PRED ‘Fallah < (SUBJ) > ’

TENSE PRESENT _

The sentence in (26b) can be shown as follows:

(28) a. balkarum

b. P-S rule: S - (NP) XP

c. lexical entry for b-: P, PRED = ‘f- < (SUBJ) (OBJ) > ’

(I SUBJ PRED = ‘PRO’)

d. SUBJ

PRED

OBJ

TENSE

[PRED ‘PRO1

‘F - < (SUBJ) (OBJ) > ’

-PRED ‘alkarum’

NUM SG

PERS 3

GEND MASC 1

-PRESENT -

Since no features other than PRED = ‘PRO’ are specified for the SUBJ, the ante-

cedent to the ‘PRO’ can be of any gender, person, or number. Rules of discourse will

then choose the proper antecedent for the subject of the sentence.

One may wonder if these sentences consisting of just a c-structure AP, PP, or NP

behave similar to complete sentences consisting of lexical subjects and lexical verbs.

I will cite some evidence to prove that (some of these evidences are in Wager, 1983).

1. Adjectivals, nominals and prepositionals may occur, for example, as the com-

plement to the head of a relative clause, as the examples below show:

(29) a. i Starilha alktaab elli ahmar

buy (Isg) (3sgf) the book that red (M)

‘buy the book for her that (is) red’


b. ihtirim arrijil elli fallah

respect (Isg) the man that farmer

‘respect the man that is a farmer’

C. riS aSjarah elli balkarum

spray (Isg) the tree that in the vineyard

‘Spray the tree that (is) in the vineyard.’

In (29a) the modifier of the relative clause is an AP, in (29b) the complement is an

NP, and in (29~) it is a PP.

2. Negation by the morpheme miS ‘not’. Finer (persona1 communication) points out

to me that the negative morpheme miS which is used to negate a complete sentence

with lexical subject and lexical verb, can be used to negate these “XP sentences”.

The following are examples:

(30) a. miS fallah

not farmer

‘he is not a farmer’

b. miS balkarum

not in the vineyard

‘he is not in the vineyard’

C. miS ahmar

not red

‘it is not red’

Since the morpheme miS is used with both complete and XP sentences, then XP

sentences are considered to be full interpretable sentences.

3. There are some verbs in JA which are obligatorily subcategorized for complement.

Such verbs as kan ‘was’ sar ‘became’ should have complement as one of their

arguments, otherwise, the sentences will be ungrammatical.

Since XP sentences can occur with these verbs, then they are closed complement.

The following are illustrative examples:

(31) a. $ar fallah

became (3sgm) farmer

‘he was a farmer’


b. $ar balkarum

became (3sgm) in-the-vineyard

‘he was in the vineyard’

c. Sar alward ahmar

became (3sgm) the flower red

‘the flower was red’

d. Sar Ali yidrus

became (3sgm) Ali study

‘Ali became to study’

4. Matrix Object Dislocation: Wager (1983) indicates that another environment in

which full sentences occur is as COMPS to matrix object dislocation verbs. XP

sentences also can occur in this environment, as examples below clarify:

(32) ligeituh tinaan i balkarum i fallah

found (Isg) (3sgm)/ tired (3sgm)i in-the-vineyard/ farmer (m)

‘I found him tired/ in the vineyard/ a farmer’

The matrix object dislocation verb, leg&t ‘found’, which subcatergorizes for a

closed complement. provide evidence that PPs, APs, and NPs may have the function

COMPs, hence anaphorically controlled rather than functionally.

Simpson (1983) and Wager (1983) have argued that resultative attributes are

XCOMP, hence they are functionally controlled. In JA, I will argue that these resul-

tative attributes are COMP rather than XCOMP. Therefore, these resultative attributes

are anaphorically controlled. The following examples are given below in (33).

(33) a. dahanna albeit ahmar/ rnig ahmar

painted (1~1) the-house-red (m)/ not red (m)

‘we painted the house red/ not red’

b. tubaxnaha malhai miS malha

cooked (IpI) (3sgf) salty (f)/ not salty (ft

‘we cooked it (too) salty/ not (too) salty’

c. qitacitah taweelah/ miS tweelah

cut-(Isgf (3sgf) long (f)/ not long (t)

‘I cut it short/ not short’

d. risamitah daapiriyyah / miS daa%riyyah

drew (kg) (3sgf) rounded (f) / not rounded (f) ‘I drew it rounded/ not rounded’


The above examples (33a-d) demonstrate some verbs, such as, duhun ‘painred’, tubax ‘cooked’, qiru{ ‘cut’ and risum ‘drew’ which subcategorize for resultative attribute. The above examples also show that the resultative are adjectivals and they also exhibit agreement with their PRO SUBJs. Another interesting fact about the resultative in JA is that they can be negated by the morpheme negation miS ‘not’ which is said to be a criterion to identify closed complement function. Furthermore, these resultative attributes are propositional, hence there is a possibility to be COMPs. To sum up, because these resultative attributes exhibit: agreement with their ‘PRO’ SUBJs, negation with mis ‘not’ and being propositional, hence they are closed complement, therefore they are anaphorically controlled. This is illustrated below:

(34) a. qitantah taweelah

cut (Isg) (3sgf) long (0 ‘I cut it long’

b. P-S rule: V NP NP XP l=i (lSUBJ)=t (tOBJ)=1 (tCOMP)=I

C. SUBJ

PRED

OBJ

COMP

TENSE

-PRED NUM PERS GEND

‘qitar

-PRED NUM PERS GEND

SUBJ

PRED

.PAST

‘PRO’ SG 1 MASC I < (SUBJ) (OBJ) (COMP) > ’

‘PRO’ SG 3 FEM 1

‘taweelah c (SUBJ) > ’

In conclusion, since all verbs in JA which subcategorize for an obligatory or optional complement can be shown to take closed function rather than open functions, then the function XCOMPs and ADJUNCTS could be entirely eliminated from the inventory of functions needed in the grammar of JA. This grammar would thus be simplified, as the functional control would be eliminated along with the function XCOMPS and


XADJUNCTs. This elimination of functional control is due to the phenomenon of

agreement in JA.

Another good reason for the exclusion of functional control is drawn from Modern

Standard Arabic (MSA). MSA exhibits case markings. Thus, we have nominative,

accusative, and genitive case. The following examples illustrate the case endings in

MSA.

(35) a. Jaa?a Muhammadun yirkudu

came (3sgm) Muhammad (NOM) run (3sgm)

‘Muhammad came running’

b. ra’iytu muhammadan yirkudu

saw (Isg) muhammad (ACCUS) run (3sgm)

‘I saw Muhammad running’

c. Marertu bimuhammadin yirkudu

passed (Isg) by muhammad (GENIT) run (3sgm)

‘I passed by Muhammad running’

In (35a) Muhammad is in the nominative case indicated by -un, in (35b) it is in the

accusative case indicated by -an and in (3%) it is in the genitive case indicated by -in.

However, the COMP PRO SUBJ is in the nominative case. Since functional control

requires that the ‘PRO’ SUBJ of a functionally controlled clause musf have the same

case feature as its controller, then this will not be realized in MSA, because the

controller may be accusative or genitive and the controllee is always nominative,

hence the requirement of functional control is violated. Thus, due to case in MSA and

agreement in JA, the functional control requirements will not be met. But since the

anaphorically controlled PRO and its antecedent do not have to have identical features,

therefore control is anaphoric rather than functional in JA.

Earlier in this paper, three questions were raised as a test for the adequacy of the

theory of control in LFG. The following diagram provides answers for these questions.

The Theory of Control in LFG for JA

Identity of Reference

Anaphoric Control

1. Domain (= controlled clause : closed function)

2. Controller : SUBJ, OBJ, OBJ,, OBLIQ

3. Controlled element : SUBJ


4. Representation

5. Rule

Lexical equations:

(tG PRED) = ‘PRO’

(tu) = +

for G a controlled element

Obviation, Obligatory

Anaphoric Control

NOTES

1. Address correspondence to: Prof Fawwaz Al-Abed Al-Haq, English Department,

Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.

2. Present address: Iman Mohammad Bin, Saud Islamic University, Department of

English Translation, Abho, P.O. Box 1183, Saudi Arabia.

REFERENCES

Andrews, Avery

1982 “Long Distance Agreement in Modern Icelandic,” in Z7zhe Nature of

Synrucric Representation, Jacobson and Pullum (eds), Dordrecht: Reidel

Publishing Company.

1982 “The Representation of Case in Modern Icelandic,” in 7&e Mental Rep-

resentation of Grammatical Relations, Joan Bresnan (ed.) Cambridge,

Mass: The MIT Press.

Bakir, Murtada

1980 Aspects of Clause Structure in Arabic: A Study of Word Order Variation

in Literary Arabic, Bloomington: IULC.

Bresnan, Joan

1982 “Control and Complementation,” in The Mental Representation of

Grammatical Relations, Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

Caspari, C.

1955 Grammar of i%e Arabic Language, Cambridge: The University Press.

Clinkenbeard, J.

1976 “On Subject-to-object Raising in Arabic,” in Harvard Studies in Syntax

and Semantics, J. Hankamar and J. Aissen (eds), Cambridge: Department

of Linguistics, Harvard University.

Halvorsen, P.

1983 “Semantics for Lexical Functional Grammar,” Linguistic Inquiry 14. (4).

Kaplan, R. and J. Bresnan

1982 “Lexical Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Rep-

resentacion,” in l7re Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations,

Cambridge: The MIT Press.


Kenstowics, M.

1984 “The Null-Subject Parameter in Modern Arabic Dialects,” NELS 14.

UMASS, Amherst.

Mohanan, K.

1982 “Grammatical Relations and Clause Structure in Malayalam,” in The

Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, J. Bresnan (ed.),


1983 “Functional and Anaphoric Control, ” Linguistic Inquiry 14. (40).

Neidle, C.

1982 “Case Agreement in Russian,” in 7Yhe Mental Representation of Gram-

matical Relations, J. Bresnan (ed.), Cambridge: The MIT Press,

Pinker, S.

1982 “A Theory of the Acquisition of Lexical Interpretive Grammars,: in 77ze

Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, J. Bresnan (ed.),


Roeper, et al.

1981 “A Lexical Approach to Language Acquisition, in Language Acquisition

and Linguistic Theory, S. Tavakalian (ed.), Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Saad, G

1982 Transitivity, Causation and Passivization, London: Kegan Paul International.

Simpson, J 1983 “Aspects of Warlpiri Morphology and Syntax,” Unpublished Ph.D.

Dissertation, MIT.

Simpson, J. and J. Bresnan

1983 “Control and Obviation in Warlpiri,” Natural Language and Linguistics

7Yheov. 1 (1).

Wager, J.

1983 “Complementation in Morrocan Arabic,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

MIT.

functional or anaphoric control in jordanian arabic?

Documents