1 Prince Sa Correspon yasirho@h Received: doi:10.553 Abstract This paper that a shar grammar structures analysis is phrases in argument i some prob new analy object, as a Keywords 1. Introdu This paper account fo MSA and The follow In exampl verb nag˘aḥ contrast, th verbs in th many lang provides a pronoun, f The paper
Sha
attam bin Abdu ndence: Yasir H hotmail.co.uk August 1, 201 39/ijel.v8n1p16 r discusses sha red argument b (LFG) framew involve analy s the split anal both conjunct is spread from blems in accou ysis for shared
a null argumen s: nonconstitue uction r discusses no or this phenom other languag wing examples e (1a), two co ḥa “succeeded he two conjun his coordinate guages, has a an appropriate functioning as is organized a
ared Argu
ulaziz Univers Hameed Alotai 17 Accepted 64 UR ared argument between two co work for analyyzing the shar lysis, where th ts are split. The m one conjunct
unting for this d arguments th
nt.
ent coordinatio
nconstituent c menon. The term
ges. In a coord from MSA sh onjuncts share d” in the secon ncts in example structure. The attracted some analysis withi a subject in ex as follows: Se
uments in
Yasir H sity, Al Kharj, ibi, Prince Sattd: September 2 RL: http://doi.o
ts in coordinat onjuncts can b yzing this kind red argument he shared argu e second analy to another. Th s phenomenon hat involves an on, function sp coordination o m shared argu dinate structure how the two ty
the same subj nd conjunct sh e (1b) share th latter phenom e attention in in the LFG fra xample (1a)). ction 2 provid Publ
n Modern
Hameed Alotaib Saudi Arabia tam bin Abdul22, 2017 On org/10.5539/ije te structures in e a subject or a d of structure. as bearing tw ument is zippe ysis is function his paper argue in MSA. To nalyzing the m
preading, split,
r shared argu uments is used e, the two con ypes of sharing
ject; the verb hare the same he proper noun menon, which i the literature amework (Not
des data from M
lished by Canad
n Standar
bi1 aziz University nline Publishe el.v8n1p164 n Modern Stan an object. The In LFG, the t wo functions ed to both conj n spreading, in es that the prevsolve these pr missing argume , lexical-functi ments in MSA to refer to two njuncts may sh g (Note 1):
ḏa¯ kara “studi subject, which n Ahmad, whic s called right n e. This paper
te that this pap
MSA; section dian Center of Sc
d Arabic
y, Al Kharj, Sa ed: October 25, ndard Arabic e paper uses thetwo possible a in the two co juncts by assu n which the fun vious analyses roblems, this p ent, whether it ional grammar A and uses an o types of sha hare the same
ied” in the firs h is al-ṭa¯ lib-u ch functions as node raising (R discusses bot per is assumin 2.1 explains t
cience and Educ
audi Arabia. E
, 2017
(MSA). It assu e lexical-funct analyses for sim
onjuncts. The uming that the nction of the sh in LFG have f paper contribu t is a subject o r, null argumen LFG approach aring that occu
MSA, and begins by discussion explained, analyses a that can a arguments 2. Data This sectio analysis in coordinate has a share a subject r paper (Not 2.1 Right N This part element, th are used in conjuncts The positio pivot is at Hartmann located at English lan (2) a. [David f b. *[David In both ex two conjun therefore, is not at t deleted ele (2003, 7), rightmost p (3) *[Geor However, t MSA allow rightmost p shown in e This const d 2.2 shows th providing a b n of previous and in 3.2, w are unable to a account for a s. on discusses tw n this paper. T e structure app ed element bet rather than an te 2). Node Raising of the paper d he ability to sh n this structur in an RNR stru on of the RNR t the right of a (2000), Sabb the right of th nguage: fixed ... ]and d fixed ... ]an xamples above ncts. In exam this sentence i the rightmost p ement in the fi
who uses the position in the rge left ... in the case in MS ws more posit position, as sh example (4b). truction in MS he sharing in s brief overview LFG analyses where function ccount for all ll examples i
wo kinds of ph The first phen pears in the sec
tween two con object. Both p
discusses RNR hare a noncons re. The term R ucture. R pivot is usua a coordinate st agh (2007), H his structure. d [Mary watche nd [Mary watch e, the argumen mple (2a), this is grammatical position, and irst conjunct m following ung e first conjunct the drawer] an SA is different tions for the R hown in examp Thus, both exa
SA involves m subject functio w of LFG and s of a similar spreading is examples in M in MSA. In t henomena that nomenon is RN cond conjunct njuncts in a co phenomena are R and shows i stituent elemen RNR pivot is u ally the same in
tructure in ma Ha (2008), Sha The following
ed the televisi hed the televis nt the television element is spe l. By contrast, hence, the sen must be at the grammatical ex t: nd [Elaine wro t, as the RNR RNR pivot in th
ple (4a), and ca amples below more positions on. Section 3 d the analysis o r phenomenon discussed. In MSA. Therefor this analysis, t are related to NR, where a t and functions ordinate struct regarded as a its properties i nt, the types of used in this pa n a variety of any languages abani (2015) a g examples ill ion]. sion] on Friday n is shared by elled out at th the shared ele ntence is ungr
rightmost posi xample as evid
ote in the train pivot can appe his language. I an also appear are grammatic in which the discusses the p of coordinate s n is presented this section, th re, section 4 in the missing a o one another i shared elemen s as an object ture, but the sh a kind of a non in MSA, such f conjunctions aper to refer t languages. In . Ross (1967), and others stat ustrate the po
y.
y the two predi e rightmost po ment is spelled rammatical. Fu ition, accordin dence that the
the letter]. ear in other po In particular, t in another pos cal: RNR pivot ca previous analy structure in th d in 3.1, wher his paper dem ntroduces a ne arguments are in MSA, as de nt between tw . The second p hared element nconstituent co h as the positio and the types to an element particular, the , Postal (1974 te that the RN osition of the R icates fixed an osition of the d out in the sec urthermore, th ng to Duman an deleted eleme ositions. The fr the RNR pivot sition in the se an occur. It can yses in LFG, a his framework. re split analys monstrates that ew analysis in e analyzed as emonstrated in wo conjuncts i phenomenon a here function oordination in on of the miss of predicates t that is shared e position of R 4), Wilder (199 NR pivot must RNR pivot in nd watched in second conjun cond conjunct he location of nd van Riemsd ent must be at
conjunct e occurs bef 2.1.1 Con The RNR Abbott ( have und The case i can be a al-ʔarbica¯ al-ʔarbica¯ example d 2.1.2 Conj Like other conjunctio example (8 either before o fore the predica
nstituency and R pivot can be 1976) and Wy dergone RNR— is the same in nonconstituen a¯ ʔ -i “Ahmad on a¯ ʔ -i “the day o does not form a
junctions r languages, M ons in MSA w 8b), it occurs w
or after the pr ate qa¯ bal “me
d Nonconstitue e a constituen yngaerd (2009 —in English in MSA, as the R nt, as shown n Wednesday” of Wednesday” a constituent. MSA allows RN with this pheno
with ʔaw “or”
edicate. The f et” in the first c
ency nt, as in the ex ), among othe example (6a) a RNR pivot can in example ( ”, containing a ” modifies bot NR with a vari omenon. In exa ”. In (8c), it occ following exam conjunct in exa xamples above ers. The follow and in Dutch in n be a constitu 7b) below, in a noun phrase a th predicates i iety of conjunc ample (8a), RN curs with la¯ k
mples illustrat ample (5a) and
e, and can be wing examples n (6b)—and bo uent as illustrat n which the R and an adverb in both conjun
ctions. The fol NR occurs wit kin “but”:
te the two cas d after this pre
a nonconstitu s illustrate non oth are gramm
2.1.3 Kin In MSA, predicate passive p passive p functioni predicate argument Additional predicates verbal nou marking at nds of Predicat the predicates es other than v participles can participle predi ng as predicat es. Similarly, t t, which is Sale lly, verbal no (see Ryding ( uns ḥubb “love
t the end of thi tes
s that share an verbs; thus, sim n function as p
icates can shar tes and sharin the two passiv
em.
ouns in MSA, 2005)) and sha e” and taqdyr is NP shows th element may b milar structure predicates in M re the same el ng an argumen ve participles i , which name are an argumen “respect” sha hat it functions be verbs, as illu es in MSA can MSA (see Ryd lement. The ex nt, which is L
in example (9b
e the action o nt in a coordin are the same ob
s as an object o ustrated in the n have non-ve ding (2005)), xample in (9a) Layla, which f b) function as of their corres nate structure a bject, which is of both verbal previous exam erbal predicate and in this ca ) contains two functions as a s predicates an sponding verb as well. In exa s Khaled, and t nouns. mples, or kinds s. The active ase, two active
2.2 Subjec In all the shared arg predicates as the sub functions agreement suggested In this pa coordinatio structure. T shared sub between th argument following the two pr second pre Some of th and the ty others, suc 3. Previou LFG has th the functio organized in LFG as compleme or nonmax The f-struc values, or second is i ct Function previous exam gument in MSA in a coordina bject of both p as the subject t of the secon in traditional g
aper, both exa on is between This paper use bject. The unif he two pheno in a coordinat example in (1 redicates in bo edicate. he characterist ypes of conjun ch as the nonco us Analysis in he advantage o onal structure into constituen ssumes that le ent position wit ximal projectio cture in LFG i it can be assu ts value (see K mples of RNR A can perform te structure. T predicates in t t of both pred nd verbs in th grammar of Ar amples in (11 n two IPs shar es a uniform an form analysis a omena. In part te structure, bu 2) illustrates th oth conjuncts b
tics that are di nctions, are sim
onstituency an LFG of having two (f-structure). S nts that are rep exical items o
thin the phrase on (see Jackend
s devoted to fu umed to be a Kaplan & Bresn
R in this pape another functi The following e the coordinate dicates in this he following rabic language 1) are conside ring the same nalysis to acco assists in accou ticular, it is p ut each predic his situation in but is required iscussed in rel milar when the nd types of pred levels of repre Similar to othe presented in tre ccur as heads e. The lexical o doff, 1977; Ch unction inform set of pairs in nan, 1982; Bres r, the shared ion. In particu examples are i structure. Lik example. Imp examples are e and in other f ered a type o subject, whic ount for both s unting for som possible in MS cate requires th n MSA, in whic d as a subject lation to RNR e function of t dicates, are no esentation, nam er syntactic fra ees and license s of phrases an or functional c homsky, 1986; mation. This f-s n which the fir snan, 2001).
element funct ular, this argum
illustrative: Kh kewise, the pr portantly, this e pronouns fu frameworks. f nonconstitue h is pronounc sharing phenom me examples in SA to find tw his argument t ch the proper n of the first pr R, such as the p the missing ele ot applicable to
mely, the cons ameworks, LF ed by rules. Th nd that they m category in x-b Dalrymple, 20 structure conta rst member of tions as an obj ment can be the haled in exam roper noun Ali paper does n unctioning as
ent coordinati ced in the first mena, namely, n MSA that sh wo predicates to fill a differ noun Zayd-an redicate and as position of the ement is the s o the subject fu tituent structur FG assumes tha he principle of may appear wi bar theory is re 001). ains a function f the pair is an bject. However e subject of the mple (11a) func
Another fu c-structure f-structure The analys and the f-should beg illustrates by Bresna The rule, t analyzing IPs, and th are named a set in thi that the co allows the tense featu contrast, if the whole more than (13) David (14) IP The c-stru the c-struc which app named SU both IPs, w an attribut require a s unction in LFG e are related t e may be relate sis of a shared structure. Bef gin with a brie a simple case an et al. (1985) the c-structure the sentence in he annotation d j and y in the is analysis is t onjuncts in a co whole coordin ure in the f-str f any feature i coordinate str one IP can oc d failed and M ↓ ucture in (15a) cture indicates pears beneath b UBJ, and they f
which represen te called PRED subject only, an G relates nodes to specific f-s ed to more than d element in co fore we initiate f introduction of sentential c ), Kaplan & M
and the f-struc n (13) in the L ↓ ∈ ↑ benea f-structure in that it allows a oordinate struc nate structure t ructure j or y s added benea ructure and is n
cur before the ary succeeded. IP+ ↓ ↑ corresponds t that they occu both NPs in bo fill the subject nt both conjun D whose value nd this is repre s in the c-struc structures, in n one node. oordinate struct e the discussio to the analysis coordination in Maxwell (1988 cture that are s LFG framework
ath the IPs ind (15b), are mem a coordinate st cture do not ha to have differe is a distributiv ath the feature
not distributed conjunction, a . C to the f-structu ur in the same oth conjuncts, function requ ncts, appear in e shows the req esented in both cture to their co which each n tures or RNR i on of previou s of coordinate n the English l 8) and Dalrymp shown in (14), k. The rule in dicates that the mbers of a set tructure to hav ave these prope ent properties f ve feature bec
CONJ “and”, d to any conjun and this is opti
Conj ↑ ↓ ure in (15b). T f-structure as t indicates that uired by both p f-structures in quirement of th h f-structures. orresponding f node is related in LFG require s analyses of e structures in anguage. This mple (2001) as (15a) and (15 (14) indicates e f-structures th in the main f-s ve properties t erties individu from the indivi
ause it is distr it will be non nct. The symbo ional in the En IP ↓ The annotation their mother, w t both NPs occ predicates. As s nside the set. E he predicate. B f-structures; he d to one f-str es discussing b nonconstituen LFG. The exa kind of coord a coordination b), respectivel
that this coord hat correspond structure. The that are nondis ally. In other w idual conjunct ributed to a sp ndistributive, as ol + in the rule nglish language ↑ n ↑=↓ beneath while the anno cur in the emb shown in the f Each f-structur Both predicate
ence, nodes in ructure, while
both the c-stru nt coordination ample in (13) b dination is anal n between two ly, are propose dination is betw d to the IPs, w
The remai reviews tw (1996) for are split. I spreading, paper argu examples o 3.1 Split A In the LFG coordinatio because th verb dislik split. In th VPs, and e both conju (19). In th contain tw (16) “John In rules (1 or the V n implies tha value of a such as (16 inder of this se wo suggested a r nonconstituen In RNR, the sh , in which the ues against bo of shared argu nalysis G framework, M on in some la he object potato ke in the secon his case, rules o
each is split in uncts, contains his proposal, th wo incomplete V n likes and Bill
7) and (18), th node in (18) a at the NP, whi an attribute, lab 6), repeated in ection discusse analyses for R nt coordination hared element shared elemen oth analyses i uments in MSA Maxwell & M anguages. Max oes is a valid o d conjunct. Th of coordination nto two VPs: t s the object. T he x-VP, whic VPs. l dislikes potat he annotation ↓ are members o
ich is the shar beled OBJ in n (20a) with the
es the analysis RNR in LFG. T n in general, an will be zipped nt in one conju in LFG, claim A. Manning (1996) xwell & Mann object for the v his analysis can n refer to parti the first one c This assumptio ch contains the toes” (Maxwel ↓∈↑ indicates of a set in the red argument, the the f-struc e c-structure in
s of shared arg The first analy nd in this analy d to each conju unct can be spr ming that the
) propose a the ning (1996) a verb likes in th n be performed ial constituent contains the ve on is allowed b e object potat ll & Manning,
s that the f-stru f-structure of functions as a cture of the m n (20b).
guments in the ysis was propo ysis, the verb p unct. The seco read over the w two analyses
eory that is abl argue that the he first conjunc
d by allowing b s. This structu erb, and the se by the phrase s toes, can be zi 1996, p. 7). uctures that co f the mother n an object; thus mother node. T e LFG framew osed by Maxw phrases (VPs) ond analysis in whole coordina are unable to le to account f example in ( ct and also a v both VPs in bo ure in this anal econd, which i structure rules ipped to both
orrespond to th ode. The anno , the f-structur The rules abov
The RNR and should However, pivot may example ( “entered” oblique as requiremen and Mann al-manzil-zipped to b object that case marke Another ar than one p before and occur in di Another ar this examp However, requires it Manning ( it carries a an object f pivot, which c d be zipped to some problem y be unsuitable (21) contains requires an N s a compleme nt of the secon ning (1996) fai i “the house” both predicate t carries an ac er, cannot fulfi
rgument again position. In exa d after the verb ifferent positio
rgument again ple, the predic
the verb in th t as an object (1996), as it is accusative case
for the second
contains the NP both conjuncts ms in this analy
e for both pred two verbs tha NP as a comp ent. The prep nd predicate, w ils to account ” that is the ob es, this assump
ccusative case fill the requirem
nst this analysi amples such as b in this conjun ons, making th nst this analysi cates in the co he first conjun . This exampl impossible to a e marking, wh predicate only P potatoes in e s to constitute ysis render it un dicates in a co at require diff plement, but t positional phra which is ḫarag for all examp bject of the pre ption causes a p marker; thus, ment of this pr is comes from s those in (5), nct. The proble he analysis mor is comes from oordinate struc nct requires Z le causes a se assume that Za ich is suitable y. example (20a) a complete sen nable to accou oordinate struc ferent complem the verb ḫara ase (PP) mina
g˘a “left”. Thi ples of this phe
eposition shou problem in tha the noun al-m edicate.
m the fact that M repeated in (2 em with both e re complicated an example su cture share an Zayd as a subj erious problem ayd can serve a for the object
, is obviously ntence in each unt for some M cture. For exam
ments. In the ag˘a “left” in t a al-manzil-i is example sho enomenon in uld be outside t at the predicate manzil-i “the h MSA allows th 2), the RNR p examples below d. uch as that in n argument, w bject, while th m for the analy
as an argumen t function; thus
outside the co h conjunct. MSA examples.
mple, the coor first conjunct the second co
The previo Maxwell a The follow 3.2 Functi Another an This analy coordinate structures subject for 176), illust The proble required b that allow following (25) CP GDF in th example ( ensures th conjunct th ous examples and Manning wing section co ion Spreading nalysis in LFG ysis allows so e structure. Fra in German. Th r all conjuncts trates this cons
em in exampl by the verb in s the subject f phrase structu ↓ (↓ G his rule refers
24), the subje hat the subject hat lacks a sub
in MSA and (1996) for non onsiders anoth G that is used ome member ank (2002) use he problem in s in this constr struction: le (24) is that this conjunct. feature to be d ure rule for the
CP ↑ GDF) = (↑ GD s to grammati ect of the first of the first co bject will be co d the ensuing nconstituent c er analysis for to account fo of a conjunct es this approac this construct ruction. The fo the second co To solve this p distributed ove example in (2 C ↑ DF) icalized disco conjunct is G onjunct is distr omplete (Note problems lea oordination ca r this phenome r nonconstitue t in a coordin ch to account f
ion is that one following exam onjunct in this problem, Fran er the whole c 4). Conj ↓ urse functions GDF, and the a ributed over th 3). The rule in d us to state annot account enon within the
ent coordinatio nate structure for the subject e NP in the coo mple in Germa s coordinate s nk (2002) uses construction. F CP ↓ ↑ s, which are S annotation (↓G he whole cons n (25) allows th
that the analy for this pheno e LFG framew
on is called fu to be spread gap in finite/fr ordinate structu an, quoted from
The f-struc the rule in f-structure contains t f-structure Sadler (200 coordinate conjuncts following (28) “Aeth go-PA “The In exampl “knock” is past tense. solve the p IP and VP (29) IP The annota of TENSE
cture that corre n this analysis e by number 2, the NP the hu e is wellformed
06) uses the sam e structures in have non-finit example illust h AST.3SG t e farmer went e (28), the ver s not marked f . Additionally problems of th and proposes ↓ (↓ TE (↓ SU ations beneath E and SUBJ. T esponds to this s allows the t , which means unter. Given t d. me approach (f this language, te verbs, and t trates this struc y fferm the farme
to the door an rb in the first c for any tense. , the whole co he tense and su the following IP ↑ ENSE) = (↑ T UBJ) = (↑ SU h the IP, which a
The rule in (29
c-structure is r two conjuncts s that the SUB this analysis, function spread , the verb in th the subject is cture in Welsh: mwr at er to nd knocked on conjunct, whic However, the onstruction has ubject, Sadler phrase structu TENSE) UBJ) are (↓TENSE) 9) allows the fo represented in to share the BJ attributes in
the two pred
ding) to accoun he first conjun shared betwee y drws the do it” (Rouveret, ch is aeth “wen second conjun s one shared s (2006) argues ure rule: Conj ↑ ↓ ) = (↑ TENSE) ollowing c-stru (27). The new subject functi n both conjunc dicates have a nt for a similar nct is marked f en all the conj
s a or and k 1994, p. 302) nt”, is in the p nct is semantic ubject, which that coordinat ) and (↓SUBJ) ucture for the s
w aspect of this ion. This is re cts share the sa all their requir
phenomenon i for tense, while juncts in the c
churo ar knock on-3S
past tense, whi cally interprete is y ffermwr tion in this stru
VP ↓ ↑ ) = (↑ SUBJ), s sentence in exa f-structure is t epresented in ame value, wh rements, and in Welsh. In so e the remainde construction. T rno”. SM
ile the verb ch ed as denoting “the farmer”. ructure is betw
The f-stru feature, wh in the f-str feature bet Alzaidi (2 dialect. He function ov (32) IP The annot over the w cture in (31) s hich are availa ructure by usin tween the two
010) argues th e proposes the
ver the whole
↓ ation (↓OBJ) whole construc
shows the fun able in the first ng the number embedded f-st
hat the functio e following ph coordinate stru IP ↑ = (↑OBJ) ben ction and is sh nction informat conjunct, are s 1 to connect t tructures. on spreading a hrase structure ucture in this d neath the IP no hared by the t tion of this an spread to the se the TENSE fe approach is the rule and state dialect.
Conj ↑ ↓ ode implies tha two conjuncts
nalysis. The S econd conjunc eature and the
e best approac es that it allow at the object o in this way. I UBJ function ct. This spread number 2 to c ch for RNR in ws for the spre
IP ↓
(↓ OBJ) = of the second c In other word
implies tha Alzaidi (20 This analy in the f-st requires a function is function w clauses an at the OBJ is a 010, 83) propo ysis assumes th tructure. The f SUBJ and OB s available in t with the secon d can be repre
a distributive f oses the c-struc
hat the coordin f-structure lab BJ. These requ this clause, an nd conjunct. T
sented by a lin
feature, and thu cture in (34a) a nate structure i beled j represe uirements mus nd the OBJ is a The sharing re ne that connect
us, the value o and the f-struc
is between two ents the first c t be satisfied, also available elationship is ts the two func
of the OBJ is s cture in (34b) f
o IPs and that conjunct, and or the f-structu in this clause represented b ctions in the tw shared between for the example
both are memb the predicate ure will be
ill-by sharing the by the number wo f-structures.
This analy positions o A phrase s using a dis the second However, t this approa the shared predicate r al-manzil-conjunct, w Second, th predicates second req predicate. that the fu such as (↓G f-structure CASE wit thus unsuit
ysis may accou of the pivot in M
structure rule s sjunction. In o d conjunct. Thu
the case in MS ach cannot sol d element is al requires an NP i “from the h while the first
his analysis can sharing a singl quires it as an This kind of e unction that sp GF) = (↑ GF) b e, the value of th the value A table for the S
unt for this phe MSA, as repres
such as that in one case, the p us, the IP eithe
SA is more com lve the problem l-manzil-i “the P, which is al-m ouse”. The re predicate occu nnot account f le argument, w n object. The N example canno pread from the
beneath the sec f the OBJ attr ACC, indicatin UBJ function enomenon in th sented in exam (36) can succe ivot occurs in er with or with mplicated, and m caused by a e house”, not manzil-i “the h equirement of urs without an for an example which is Zayd, b NP carries an ot be analyzed e second claus cond IP. The p ribute in y f-st ng that the case
in j f-structure
he Hijazi Arab mples (4a) and (
essfully solve the first conju hout object spre
d the use of M an example su the whole PP house”, and the f the second p
overt object.
e such as (12), but the first pre accusative cas d with a functio se is a general problem will re tructure is h f-e marking of t e, which needs
bic dialect and (5), repeated in
the problem o unct, and in the
eading can occ
SA reveals pro uch as (21), rep P min al-manz e second predi predicate (the , repeated in (3 edicate requires se marking, m on spreading a grammatical f emain in the f-f-structure, and this argument s a nominative
d can easily acc n (35) below.
f different pos e other case, th cur in each con
oblems with th peated in (37) zil-i “from the icate requires a PP) is availab 38). This exam s this NP as a making it suitab approach beca function (GF) -structure, show d it contains a is accusative. e case marking.
count for differ
sitions in MSA he pivot occur njunct. his analysis. Fi . In this examp house”; the f a PP, which is m ble in the sec
4. MSA an This sectio arguments shows that objects in examples t 4.1 Null Su MSA is a understood examples i In exampl understood example (4 “went” ag and it is no LFG analy Additional object, can can occur examples. indicating object) ev nalysis on proposes a s. This section t it is possible MSA and th that caused ser ubject and Obj pro-drop langu d. The null su illustrate null s
le (40a), the v d from the suf 40b) occurs w grees with a fir ot functioning yses.
lly, null argum n be omitted in
in a context in In example that this sent ven though bot
a new analysis demonstrates in the LFG fra hen demonstrat rious problems ject in MSA uage, which m ubject in this c subjects in MS verb ḏahab-tu ffix tu. The sub with a null subj
rst-person plur as a subject as
ments are not n MSA. In the n which someo (41a), the ve tence is compl th are omitted s in which mi that this analy amework. This
tes that the su s for the previo
means that a ve case can be un SA:
“went” agree bject does not ject that is und ral subject by t s it is assumed
restricted to following exa one told the sp erb fahim-tu “ lete and conta d because they
issed argumen ysis is the bes s section opens uggested analy ous analyses o
erb may occur nderstood from
s with a first-occur with th derstood from the suffix na¯. w d in traditional
a subject func amples, the obj peaker somethi “understood” ains all argum y can be unde nts in each con st analysis for s with a short e ysis in this pa f this phenome without an ov m the agreem person singula he verb in this the agreement we assume tha grammar or o ction in MSA jects of the ve ing and the sp
forms a full ments required erstood from th
njunct are ana shared argum explanation of aper is able t enon in LFG.
vert subject if t ent of the ver
ar subject, and ex- ample. Sim t of the verb. T at this suffix is
ther framewor
A; other argum erbs are omitte peaker replied sentence and by the verb ( he context. Li alyzed as omit ments in MSA f null subjects to account for
the subject can rb. The follow
samic-tu “ The follow In LFG, exa as having n (2014) in u Warlpiri, w dialect. Th be used he (42) N’ The rule in implicit. T omitted. T only that t sentence in “I heard” in ex wing question t amples, such as null arguments using an empty while Alotaibi his paper claim ere for the null
n (42) covers The symbol ε The first choice
this element h n (41a), which
xample (41b) l thus arises: how
the two exampl s, but by usin y category in L (2014) uses t ms that the follo
subject or obj { ∈ | ↑ ↓ two possibilit in this rule co e in this rule do as a function i h lacks both an lacks an explic w can this kind
les in (41) are an ng an empty c LFG. Simpson this category f owing phrase s ect. N ↑ ↓ ties for a noun orresponds to t oes not allow t in the f-structu overt subject
cit subject and d of sentence b nalyzed as conta ategory. This (1991) uses th for analyzing structure rule t } n that function the empty cate the omitted arg ure. The follow
and an overt o
object, althoug be analyzed wi
aining null argum paper follows he empty categ the head noun that is propose
s as a subject egory and allo gument to appe wing c-structu
bject.
gh its requirem ithin a framew
ments. This pape s Simpson (19 gory for analyz n of relative c ed in Alotaibi (
or object, whi ows the subjec ear in the c-str ure and f-struct
ments are satisf ork such as LF er will analyze th 991) and Alota zing auxiliarie lauses in the T (2014, p. 310)
ich are explici ct or object to ructure and sho
The f-stru requiremen of the omi (43b). 4.2 Sugges Verbs that two conjun This paper the ability pivot elem as an argum argument performed (45) N’ This rule MSA, has first conju first conju example in the first co the PRED ucture in (43b nts are satisfie itted subject o sted Analysis contain null s ncts, each of w r suggests a ne to omit the su ment cannot be
ment that fills in MSA, wher d by adding a p allows nouns two conjuncts unct. In the ana unct and that t
n (46) will be r onjunct is not s D of this object b) shows that ed. Therefore, r object is rep subjects and n which lacks an ew analysis fo ubject and obj analyzed as a one function i re arguments c phrase structure { ∈ ↑ to be explicit s, and each ver alysis propose this omitted ob represented in shown in the c is “pro”, as sh t the verb in this sentence presented as a null objects in explicit subjec or shared argum ect in MSA, a shared argume in its local clau can be frequen e rule such as ∈ | ↓ or implicit in rb in these conj ed in this pape bject is the sa the c-structure c-structure, but hown in the f-s n this sentenc is complete, a PRED whose MSA can be ct and object. ments in MSA as shown in pr ent between th use. The misse ntly deleted, as that in (42), re N ↑ ↓ n MSA. The f njuncts requires er, we should ame as the pro
e in (47a) and t it is represent structure in (47
e requires a and the f-struct
This analy above, and (5), repeat ysis is easily ab d this approach ted below as (4 ble to account h can also acco 48):
t for RNR in M ount for the sh
MSA when the hared object wh
e pivot appear hen it appears
rs in the secon in the first con
nd clause, as sh njunct, as show
Additional cannot be shared elem as an obje “enter” in The analys analysis of of the verb (50b). The verb in the in the seco OBJ in the in the first the feature a function Another p shown in second con contrast, t subjects in marking. T null subjec The verb i Zayd, whic subject of this pro is agrees wit second con as pro, wh of Zayd is account fo each conju
lly, the main a accounted for ment that is ne ct of a prepos n the first conju
sis of this pape f this example b in the first co e f-structure of e second conju ond conjunct. T e first clause c t conjunct indi e CASE GEN with a genitiv problem in MS example (12), njunct, fills an the verb in the n MSA is nom The suggested ct. The c-struc in the first con ch appears in t
the verb in th represented b th an object th njunct also req hile the object
s represented or a shared ele unct.
dvantage of th r in other anal eeded for a diff
ition in the sec unct. er can solve th is represented onjunct, which f the second c unct requires a Thus, the conn cannot make th
cates that the in the OBJ f-e casf-e marking SA that canno , repeated in ( n object funct e first conjunc minative, indi d analysis in th cture in (52a) a njunct in this the second con he first conjunc by the feature C hat is marked a quires a subjec is the shared e by the feature ement such as his suggested a lyses. For exam fferent function cond conjunct his problem by d in the c-struc is not shown i onjunct clearly an oblique, rath nection betwee his f-structure w “pro” fills a fu -structure insid g. ot be solved b (51). In this e tion in this co ct requires the icating that za his paper can s and f-structure example requ njunct with an ct is pro, and CASE NOM i as first person ct and an objec element Zayd, e CASE ACC Zayd in this e analysis is that mple, an exam n in each conju t, but it is need y assuming tha cture in (50a) a in the c-structu y shows that t her than an obj en the value of well-formed. T function that re de the OBL f-s by the previou example, the s njunct, and th e same proper ayd-an cannot solve this prob e in (52b) repr ires a subject accusative cas it is represent n the f-structu and is represe ct. The subject which carries C in the f-struc example, whic it can account mple such as ( unct. The NP a ded to function at an object is and the f-struct ure, is represen the requiremen ject, and this r f OBL in the s The feature CA equires an accu structure indic us LFG-based shared elemen he case markin r noun as a su t fill both fun blem by assum resent the coor
and an object se marking. Th ed in the f-stru ure). Additiona ented in the f-s t is missing and s an accusative cture). In sum h is required t
t for some exa (21), repeated al-manzil-i “th n as an object omitted in the ture in (50b). N nted as “pro” i nts of the two requirement is second conjun ASE ACC in t usative case m ates that the N
analyses of th nt zayd-an, wh
ng of this nou ubject, and th nctions with th ming that the m rdinate structur t. The subject hus, we are led ucture only (th ally, the verb in structure as we d is represente e case marking m, the analysis to address a d amples in MSA as (49), conta he house” func of the verb da e first conjunct. Notably, the o in the f-structu verbs differ, a satisfied by th nct and the val
5. Conclusion
This paper has argued for a new analysis for shared arguments, including RNR, in the LFG framework. This work has shown that the previous analyses in LFG, namely, split analysis and function spreading, cannot account for all examples of this phenomenon in MSA. Therefore, this paper proposes a new analysis that can account for the two types of shared arguments in MSA discussed above and that can account for all types of examples for which problems arose for the previous LFG-based analyses. The new approach in this paper analyzes the missing argument as a null argument that should be presented in the f-structure as pro. This analysis, as shown above, can account for the shared argument when it fills a different function in each conjunct. Moreover, this analysis is consistent with the fact that MSA is a pro-drop language, which means that subjects and objects can be deleted. This paper suggests that the new analysis in LFG is applicable to other languages and can account for similar phenomena in other languages without problems.
References
Abbott, B. (1976). Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(4), 639-642.
Alotaibi, Y. H. (2014). Conditional Sentences in Modern Standard Arabic and the Taif Dialect. Ph. D. thesis, University of Essex.
Alzaidi, M. S. (2010). Gapping and right node raising: An LFG approach. Ph. D. thesis, MA Thesis. University of Essex.
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bresnan, J., Kaplan, R. M., & Peterson, P. G. (1985). Coordination and the flow of information through phrase structure. MS, Xerox PARC.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dalrymple, M. (2001). Lexical Functional Grammar, 42. New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781849500104
Duman, B., & van Riemsdijk, H. (2003). Right Node Raising & Turkish. Ph. D. thesis.
Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference. Stanford, CA. CSLI Publications. Retrieved from http://www-csli.stanford.edu/publications
Ha, S. (2008). Ellipsis, right node raising, and across-the-board constructions. ProQuest.
Hartmann, K. (2000). Right node raising and gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1977). X ̄ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kaplan, R. M., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammat- ical representation. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations (pp. 173-281). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kaplan, R. M., & Maxwell, III J. T. (1988). Constituent coordination in Lexical-Functional Gram- mar. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COL- ING 88), 1, Budapest, pp. 303-305.
Maxwell, J. T., & Manning, C. D. (1996). A theory of non-constituent coordination based on finite-state rules. In Proceedings of LFG, 96.
Postal, P. M. (1974). On raising: One rule ofenglish grammar and its theoretical implications. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph. D. thesis, MIT.
Rouveret, A. (1994). Syntaxe du gallois. Paris, France: Editions CNRS.
Ryding, K. (2005). A reference grammar of modern standard Arabic. Cambridge Univ Pr. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486975
Sabbagh, J. (2007). Ordering and linearizing rightward movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25(2), 349-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9011-8
Sadler, L. (2006). Function spreading in coordinate structures. Lingua, 116(11), 1777-1806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.09.005
Shabani, M. (2015). Right node raising: A nonhomogeneous construction in persian. Language Related Research, 6(2).
Simpson, J. (1991). Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax: A Lexicalist Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3204-6
Wilder, C. (1999). Right node raising and the lca. In Proceedings of WCCFL, 18, pp. 586-598. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Wyngaerd, G. (2009). Gapping constituents: a revised version of 1998 version. Ms., FWO/KU Brussel.
Notes
Note 1. The paper uses the following abbreviation in the glossing: PFV: PERFECTIVE, IPFV: IMPERFECTIVE, DEF: DEFINITE, 3SGM: THIRD PERSON, SINGULAR AND MASCULINE, NOM: NOMINATIVE, ACC: ACCUSATIVE, GEN: GENITIVE, IMP: IMPERATIVE, JUSS: JUSSIVE, FUT: FUTURE, PASS: PASSIVE, ACT: ACTIVE, PTCP: PARTICIPLE.
Note 2. The data in this paper were obtained from experts in Arabic linguistics departments in some universities in Saudi Arabia, including the author, who has knowledge about this language.
Note 3. The clause is complete if it contains all the governable grammatical functions that are required by its predicate (see Dalrymple, 2001).
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
