D-Linked wh-phrase in Arabic: contrast, cliticization and topic values

References

Alboiu, Gabriela. 2002. The features of movement in Romanian. Bucharest: Editura Univerisităt, ii din Bucuresti.Search in Google Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2). 193–231. https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001753.Search in Google Scholar

Alshamari, Murdhy. 2017. Topic particles in the North Hail dialect of Najdi Arabic. Newcastle UK: Newcastle University Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Alshamari, Murdhy & Marwan Jarrah. 2022. The fine structure of low topics in Najdi Arabic. Linguistics 60(4). 1011–1038. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0065.Search in Google Scholar

Alshamari, Murdhy. 2023a. Cartographic architecture of DP. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 59(3). 493–522. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2022-1050.Search in Google Scholar

Alshamari, Murdhy. 2023b. Pragmaticalisation of the T-marker qaʕɪd in North Hail Arabic: Generative syntax and evaluative morphology. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics. 20(2). 163–186.Search in Google Scholar

Alshamari, Murdhy & Anders, Holmberg. 2022. Topic features and inclusiveness. Paper presented at the mapping syntax conference. University of Oxford, .Search in Google Scholar

Alshamari, Murdhy & Anders Holmberg. 2025. Topic particles, agreement and movement in an Arabic dialect. Linguistic Inquiry 56(2). 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00519.Search in Google Scholar

Alshammari, Naif. 2019. Multiple and conjoined wh-questions in Najdi Arabic. Newcastle UK: Newcastle University Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Auger, Julie. 1994. Pronominal Clitics in Québec Colloquial French: A morphological analysis. Pennsylvania USA: Pennsylvania University Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP: The cartography of syntactic structures, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Benincà, Paola & Nicola Munaro. 2010. Mapping the left periphery. In The cartography of syntactic structures. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740376.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Bianchi, Valentina & Mara Frascarelli. 2010. Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2(1). 43–88.Search in Google Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric & Kleanthes Grohmann. 2004. Sub-move: Towards a unified account of scrambling and D-linking. In David Adger, Cécile DeCat & Tsoulas George (eds.), Peripheries. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/1-4020-1910-6_10Search in Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3). 351–383. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902760168536.Search in Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4). 589–644. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589.Search in Google Scholar

Brunetti, Lisa. 2004. A unification of focus. Padua Italy: Padua University Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5). 11–545.Search in Google Scholar

Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 591–656.Search in Google Scholar

Comorovski, Ileana. 1996. Interrogative phrases and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-015-8688-7Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Logical structure in language. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 8(4). 2–84.10.1002/asi.5090080406Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin Roger, Michaels David & Uriagereka Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of howard Lasnik, 155, 89. Cambridge, Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Hale Ken & Kenstowicz Michael (eds.), A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero & Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures. In Bernt Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 51–65. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0003Search in Google Scholar

Citko, Barbara. 2014. Phase theory: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139644037Search in Google Scholar

Cruschina, Silvio. 2009. The syntactic role of discourse-related features. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15–30.Search in Google Scholar

Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-related features and functional projections. Oxford UK: New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

De Cat, Cécile. 2005. French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua 115(9). 1195–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.002.Search in Google Scholar

Delfitto, Denis. 2002. On the semantics of pronominal clitics and some of its consequences. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1. 41–69. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.55.Search in Google Scholar

Dayal, Veneeta. 2002. Single-pair versus multiple pair answers: Wh-in-situ and scope. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3). 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2002.33.3.512.Search in Google Scholar

Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1990. Clitic doubling, wh-movement and quantification in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry 21(3). 351–397.Search in Google Scholar

È Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/417867.Search in Google Scholar

Frascarelli, Mara. 2000. The syntax-phonology interface in focus and topic constructions in Italian. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-9500-1Search in Google Scholar

Frascarelli, Mara. 2008. The fine structure of the Topic field. In De Cat Cecile & Demuth Katherine (eds.), The Bantu-Romance connection: A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure, 261–292. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.131.15fraSearch in Google Scholar

Frascarelli, Mara & Roland Hinterhölzl. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In Susanne Winkler & Kerstin Schwabe (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.100.07fraSearch in Google Scholar

Frazier, Lyn & Charles Clifton. 2002. Processing “d-linked” phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31. 633–659. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021269122049.10.1023/A:1021269122049Search in Google Scholar

Frey, Werner. 2005. Zur Syntax der linken Peripherie im Deutschen. In Franz-Josef d’Avis (ed.), Deutsche Syntax: Empire und Theorie, Symposium Göteborg. 13.–15. Mai 2004, 147–171. Göteborg: Göteborger Germanistische Forschungen.Search in Google Scholar

Fernández, Jiménez & Luis Ángel. 2011. On the order of multiple topics and discourse-feature inheritance. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 1. 5–32.Search in Google Scholar

Givon, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Talmy Givon (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross language study, 5–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/tsl.3Search in Google Scholar

Harizanov, Boris. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface: A-Movement and morphological merger in Bulgarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32. 1033–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9249-5.Search in Google Scholar

Holmberg, Anders & Urpo Nikanne. 2002. Expletives, subjects, and topics in Finnish. In Peter Svenonius (ed.), Subjects, expletives, and the EPP, 71–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195142242.003.0004Search in Google Scholar

Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4). 533–564. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464322.Search in Google Scholar

Holmberg, Anders, Michelle Sheehan & Jenneke van der Wal. 2019. Movement from the double object construction is not fully symmetrical. Linguistic Inquiry 50(4). 677–722. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00322.Search in Google Scholar

Holmberg, Anders. 2022. On the bottleneck hypothesis of verb second in Swedish. In Rebecca Woods & Sam Wolfe (eds.), Rethinking verb second, 40–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198844303.003.0003Search in Google Scholar

Horvath, Julia. 2007. Separating “focus movement” from focus. In Simin Karimi, Samiian Vida & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 108–145. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.101.07horSearch in Google Scholar

Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32. 593–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0.Search in Google Scholar

Koeneman, Olaf & Hedde Zeijlstra. 2017. Introducing syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316156391Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 243–276. https://doi.org/10.1556/aling.55.2008.3-4.2.Search in Google Scholar

Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3). 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506.Search in Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, Focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Search in Google Scholar

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2017. Agreement beyond phi. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.10.7551/mitpress/10958.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Molnár, Valeria. 2002. Contrast in a contrastive perspective. In Hilde Hasselgård, Stig K. A. Johansson, Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, 147–161. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Search in Google Scholar

Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2004. Nonstandard wh -questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto. In Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds.), The syntax and semantics of the left periphery, vol. 9, 343–384. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110912111.343Search in Google Scholar

Ouhalla, Jamal. 1994. Verb movement and word order in Arabic. In Lightfoot David & Hornstein Norbert (eds.), Verb movement, 41–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511627705.004Search in Google Scholar

Ouhalla, Jamal. 1996. Remarks on the binding properties of wh-pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 27(4). 676–707.Search in Google Scholar

Ouhalla, Jamal. 1997. Remarks on focus in standard Arabic. In Eid Mushira & Ratcliffe Robert (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics X: Papers from the tenth annual symposium on Arabic linguistics. 9–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.153.04ouhSearch in Google Scholar

Ouhalla, Jamal. 2005. Agreement features, agreement, and anti-agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23(3). 655–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-5927-z.Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh -in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Eric EJ Reuland & Alice Ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (In)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal Movement and its Kin. Cambridge MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.10.7551/mitpress/5365.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.101.14pesSearch in Google Scholar

Pešková, Andrea. 2014. Information structure and the use of pronominal subjects in Spanish. In Dina El Zarka & Steffen Heidinger (eds.), Methodological issues in the study of information structure, 43–67. Graz: Grazer Linguistische Studien.Search in Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. 53–94. https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82606.Search in Google Scholar

Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262013765.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2001a. On the position of “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 287–295. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1163/9780585473949_016Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2001b. Reconstruction, weak island sensitivity, and agreement. In Carlo Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia & Maria Teresa Guasti (eds.), Semantic interfaces, 145–176. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. On the cartography of syntactic structures. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, 3–16. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi & Lisa Lai-Shen. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Cheng Lisa Lai-Shen & Corver Norbert (eds.), WhMovement. Moving on, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.10.7551/mitpress/7197.003.0010Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2013. Notes on cartography and further explanation. Probus 25. 197–226. https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2013-0010.Search in Google Scholar

Ren, Fangning. 2023. Mandarin overt wh-fronting as focus movement. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 8(1). 54–91. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v8i1.5491.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantic 1. 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02342617.Search in Google Scholar

Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on Variables in syntax. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology University Unpublished PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Samo, Giuseppe. 2019. A criterial approach to the cartography of V2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.257Search in Google Scholar

Samo, Giuseppe & Paola Merlo. 2021. Intervention effects in clefts: A study in quantitative computational syntax. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1). 1–39. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5742.Search in Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C. L. Yu (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 435–484. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9781444343069.ch14Search in Google Scholar

Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative Semitic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195108668.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Steedman, Mark. 2000. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4). 649–689. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554505.Search in Google Scholar

Surányi, Balázs. 2003. Multiple operator movement in Hungarian. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.Search in Google Scholar

Tallerman, Maggie. 2019. Understanding syntax. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429243592Search in Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2). 219–255. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554048.Search in Google Scholar

Van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor. Massachusetts Institute of Technology University Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Vallduví, Enric & Maria Vilkuna. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. In Peter Culicoveer & Louise McNally (eds.), Syntax and semantics: 29: The Limits of syntax, 79–108. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Brill.10.1163/9789004373167_005Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Jian-Xin. 1999. Syntax and semantics of quantification in Chinese. University of Maryland at College Park Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29(3). 491–539. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0017.Search in Google Scholar