21.3426, Disc: Morpho-syntax of wh-questions in Arabic

Thu Aug 26 16:42:57 UTC 2010

LINGUIST List: Vol-21-3426. Thu Aug 26 2010. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 21.3426, Disc: Morpho-syntax of wh-questions in Arabic

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
Reviews: Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Eric Raimy, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
       <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, 
and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Elyssa Winzeler <elyssa at linguistlist.org>

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at


Date: 24-Aug-2010
From: Issa Razaq < issarazaq at yahoo.com >
Subject: Morpho-syntax of wh-questions in Arabic

-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:40:37
From: Issa Razaq [issarazaq at yahoo.com]
Subject: Morpho-syntax of wh-questions in Arabic

E-mail this message to a friend:

Dear colleagues, 

As a follow up from my last topic on 'WH-forms in Arabic'
(http://linguistlist.org/issues/20/20-3654.html#1) for which I received
significant feedback, I would like to raise the following issues concerning
the behavior of argument wh-forms in some Arabic languages:

1. One of the issues I am pursuing is concerned with the wh-forms: sheno
'what' in Iraqi and shu(u) 'what' in Lebanese. Although these forms have
been assumed to be wh-DPs like English 'what', I argue against such
treatment, especially the wh-form shu(u). For instance, this form appears
only in clause-initial position, it cannot be used referentially (cannot be
d-linked, resumed), unlike the wh-phrase miin 'who'. As such, shu(u) does
not have the same distribution as miin 'who'.  My argument is that shu(u)
is not a DP but rather a (coplular) CP on its own, which comprises the DP
?eysh 'which thing' and  the pronominal copula huu/huwa 'he/it'. Within the
CP containing these elements, the DP ?eysh 'which thing' moves from SpecTP
to SpecCP. This could explain why shu(u) 'what' behaves the way it does,
i.e., being a CP, shu(u) cannot be used where a DP is, hence its
ill-formedness in d-linking contexts, with a presumptive reading or even
being in argument position (*in-situ). As for sheno 'what' in Iraqi, this
form is acceptable in situ unlike Lebanese shu(u), assuming the same
internal structure as Lebanese shu(u) - given phonological differences- it
could be the case that movement of the wh-DP 'which thing' results in
labeling the CP as a DP  following the logic of Citko (2008) and Donati

2. Similarly, the Iraqi form meno 'who' is argued in my study to be CP that
contains the wh-element men 'who' and the pronominal copula 'hu/huwa' with
internal movement of men 'who' as a DP to SpecCP resulting in DP structure.
For those who are familiar with this topic, notice that I argue against
treating the pronominal element attaching to men in men-o as an object
clitic since the wh-phrase men/miin does not qualify as a host for any type
of clitic, i.e., it does not behave like verbs or prepositions that are
able to host pronominal clitics. 

These are the issues I am looking at. This is just a brief, I will be more
than happy to share and exchange views and ideas on this topic. Your
feedback is much appreciated. My e-mail is issarazaq at yahoo.com. Thank you all. 

Linguistic Field(s): Morphology

Subject Language(s): Arabic, Standard (arb)

LINGUIST List: Vol-21-3426	


More information about the Linguist mailing list