In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

17 2 on the syntax and semantics of arabic Universal Quantification KAMEL A. ELSAADANY Gulf University for Science and Technology SALWA MUHAM M ED SH AM S Alexandria University this chApter investigAtes the syntax and semantics of Arabic universal quantification from three different perspectives. The first one is the transformational approach that considers the Arabic universal quantifier kull and its two different structures, which we call the unmarked “NPadjQ” and the marked “FQ,” as base-generated and that the marked construction is a “floated” quantifier. The second approach considers the marked FQ construction an adjoined adverb and does not posit any transformational link between the marked FQ and the associated DP nominal constructions. Our third lexical-functional approach proposed in this study proves that the two quantified structures are semantically different; accordingly, they show different syntactic constituencies . It argues that there is no “floating” involved in deriving the marked and unmarked quantification constructions. It also shows that there is no movement involved in the marked FQ construction, and there is no “floating” involved in deriving the marked and unmarked quantification constructions. This Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) analysis treats the marked FQ as an instance of topicalization. The TOPIC function is identified by its anaphoric binding and coreference with the SUBJ function that is represented by the pronominal clitic attached to the Q kull in the subject position, a requirement that satisfies the Extended Coherence Condition (ECC). The study argues that whenever such anaphoric binding between the TOPIC and the so-called floated Q kull is absent, this TOPIC will not be identified, and thus the ECC will be violated, thus rendering these constructions ungrammatical. the phenomenon In (1a), the Arabic quantifier (Q) kull “all” appears adjacent to the determiner phrase (DP) ʼaṭ-ṭula:b “the students” and seems to be semantically composed with this DP. The Q kull may also appear nonadjacent to ʼaṭ-ṭulla:b “the students” as in (1b). The Q kull in (1a) will be called in this chapter the unmarked NPadjacent Quantifier, which Kamel A. Elsaadany and Salwa Muhammed Shams 18 is represented as NPadjQ. In (1b), we follow the standard practice of calling elements like kull-u-hum in (1b) the so-called floating quantifier or the marked FQ: (1a) kull ʼaṭ-ṭulla:b katab-u: ʼad-dars-a [unmarked NPadjQ] all the-students-3pl.masc wrote the-lesson “All the students wrote the lesson.” (b) ʼaṭ-ṭulla:b katab-u: kull-u-hum ʼad-dars-a [marked FQ] the-students-3pl.masc wrote all-3pl.masc the-lesson “The students wrote all the lesson.” (c) ʼaṭ-ṭulla:b kull-u-hum katab-u: ʼad-dars-a the-students-3pl.masc all-3pl.masc wrote the-lesson “The students all wrote the lesson.” (d) * ʼaṭ-ṭulla:b katab-u: kull ʼad-dars-a [FQ] the-students-3pl.masc wrote all the-lesson “The students wrote all the lesson.” (e) * ʼaṭ-ṭulla:b kull katab-u: ʼad-dars-a the-students-3pl.masc all wrote the-lesson “The students all wrote the lesson.” proposed arguments The Arabic universal quantifier kull in example (1) shows an apparent mismatch between the position of the quantificational element and its interpretation. Various responses to this challenge have been proposed. In this chapter we discuss and propose three major approaches to this quantification problem in Arabic. The first approach proposes a transformational, derivationalbased analysis of the marked FQ and unmarked NPadjQ constructions in Arabic. This approach has been used by Sportiche (1988), Miyagawa (1989), Shlonsky (1991), Merchant (1996), Bošković (2004), and many others. The second approach eschews this transformational treatment and treats the marked FQ construction as an adverbial element that does not directly quantify over related nominal. This quantification treatment has been also adopted by other scholars, such as Dowty and Brody (1984), Bobaljik (1995), Doetjes (1997), and Brisson (2000). Our proposed third approach proposes an analysis of this quantificational phenomenon in Arabic in the LFG framework as developed and used by Bresnan (2000), Falk (2001), and Dalrymple (2001). This proposed LFG approach provides a new analysis that uses nonderivational LFG configurations. In this lexical approach to analyzing quantification in Arabic, we argue that sentences (1a) and (1b) present two different semantic and syntactic structures that involve two different, yet morphologically related, quantifiers: the unmarked NPadjQ kull and the marked FQ kull. This claim is supported theoretically and empirically in the LFG framework. Because these two structures—that is, NPadjQ and FQ—show different c-structures and fstructures , we...

Share