Functional Categories in the Arabic DP

Arabia) Abstract ： In this paper, I discuss the basic structure of the determiner phrase in Standard Arabic. I show that this phrase houses three different categories that can project distinct functional heads beside the noun. These categories include: DP, GenP, and NumP. I argue that the noun undergoes cyclic movement to the left of GenP and NumP in order to check its unvalued features. The long-distance probe-goal relation cannot be established in this context due to intervention effects raised by the functional heads. However, the definiteness feature on the DP is valued in-situ, without resorting to movement, hence the appearance of this marker is a prefix on the noun. Thus, a new analysis of the determiner phrase in SA is proposed in terms of cyclic movement and probe-goal relation, where both operations are triggered by unvalued features on the noun. The new analysis can successfully account for the different features on the noun as well as the split of morphological markers on the noun as prefixes and suffixes. I claim that structural nominative/accusative Case on the head noun in the Arabic DP is licensed by higher functional heads, i.e. v and T. However, I argue that the genitive construction in Standard Arabic is mediated by a Poss head that has unvalued features and can license Case. The genitive Case on the complement noun is assigned by the Poss head as a reflex of establishing a probe-goal relation. The proposed position for the Poss head accounts for the inexplicable absence of the definiteness marker on the head noun, as well as the Case morphology mismatch between the head noun and the genitive


Introduction
In Standard Arabic (henceforth, SA), nouns are generally divided into three main categories: eventive, deverbal, and non-eventive. Eventive nouns are derived nouns which refer to an event and can have argument/event structure (Grimshaw, 1990). Deverbal nouns are argued to start out as a verbal projection and get transformed into a noun (Abney, 1987). def-teacher-nom def-teacher-nom-dual 'the teacher' 'the two teachers' (2) a. al-mua'allem-a b. al-mua'allem-ai-ni def-teacher-acc def-teacher-acc-dual 'the teacher' 'the two teachers' (3) a. al-mua'allem-at-u b. al-mua'allem-at-aa-ni def-teacher-fem-nom def-teacher-fem-nom-dual 'the (female) teachers' 'the two (female) teachers' (4) a. al-mua'allem-at-a b. al-mua'allem-at-ai-ni def-teacher-fem-acc, def-teacher-fem-acc-dual 'the (female) teachers' 'the two (female) teachers' The plural in SA has two main types: regular and irregular. The regular plural has two markers, the masculine plural and the feminine plural.
On the basis of the data above, one can assume that number features in SA reside in a functional head which projects above the head noun; consequently, it can be assumed that for the noun to surface with a number feature, it needs to move to the left of the number head.

Gender
It has been argued that gender in SA is grammatical (Kremers, 2003), and that's why all nouns in this language must be either feminine or masculine.
While most nouns in SA appear with a gender marker, masculine singular nouns, i.e. nouns that refer to a male person/animal or a supposedly masculine object, always surface without gender inflection: The nouns in (15) are both masculine since there is no feminine marker on them. This can be clear when these masculine nouns appear with other categories like adjectives or determiners. In this case, the modifying category must agree with the noun in gender: (16)  The (b) sentences above are ungrammatical because the adjective/determiner surfaces with a feminine marker that does not agree with the masculine noun.
Feminine singular nouns surface with the suffixal marker (-at) ① : While the dual noun, just like the singular, is marked for feminine gender by the suffixal marker (-at), the plural noun is marked by the slightly different suffix (-aat), i.e. the vowel in the suffix here is longer that the vowel with singular nouns. In addition, this suffix shows an instance of syncretism in SA since the same marker stands for feminine gender and plural number: The last type of nouns that needs to be addressed is the noun that refers to non-human objects/creatures. While the non-human singular noun can be masculine or feminine, the plural always triggers feminine singular agreement when it appears with other categories, despite that fact that it carries a plural marker: (26)  It can be seen in the examples above that the non-human plural noun is treated in SA as a feminine singular; hence the agreement patterns with the determiners. The data on non-human nouns clearly show that gender in this language is grammatical and the non-human plural nouns could be argued to carry a syntactic feminine gender feature.
The discussion in this sub-section on gender features lead us to assume that these features need to reside on some functional head inside the determiner phrase in SA and the head noun will need to move past that functional head in order to value its gender feature.

Definiteness
In SA, definiteness is expressed on a noun by means of attaching the morpheme (al-) to the beginning of the noun: It is to be noted that the definiteness marker (al-) is the only morpho-syntactic marker that appears as a prefix on the noun in SA. Other markers usually surface as suffixes that are attached to the end of the noun.
I have been tacitly assuming that similar features can be housed on a functional head above the head noun; and in order for the head noun to value its features; it needs to move up the tree past these functional categories.
However, the definiteness feature poses a problem for this assumption since it surfaces on the noun as a prefix, suggesting that the noun can get its definiteness feature checked/valued in-situ. To complicate this further, it is to be noted that SA has another morpheme to mark indefiniteness. When the noun in this language is indefinite, this is indicated by adding the suffix (-n) to the noun: The indefiniteness marker (-n) is usually unexpressed morphologically on the noun unless it is followed by another word, that's why it is not glossed in previous examples. However, as a general rule in the grammar of SA, most indefinite singular nouns take the suffix (-n) to mark indefiniteness and this suffix is always in complementary distribution with the definiteness marker (al-): It has been argued that the marker (-n) may stand for the singular number 'one' (Fassi Fehri, 1999). However, this claim fails to explain the appearance of the marker (-n) on some plural nouns (Kremers, 2003): An interesting assumption has been put forth by Kremers (2003) to account for checking the definiteness/indefineness features on the head noun. He claims that while both markers can be argued to reside in the D(efiniteness) head, the noun moves to the left of the D head only when the latter carries a [-def] feature, and that is why indefinite nouns show up with the marker (-n) as a suffix. On the other hand, when the head D carries a [+def] feature, the noun checks its definiteness feature in-situ, hence the prefixing of the definiteness marker (al-) to the noun.

Possessiveness
The possessive marker in SA appears on a noun when that noun is a complement of another noun. In this position, the complement noun is Case-marked genitive by adding the marker (-i) to the noun as a suffix: The possessive construction in SA is commonly referred to as the 'Construct State', which denotes a specific construction where a noun takes another noun as its complement, with certain conditions imposed on definiteness, and Case. As a rule, the complement noun, i.e. the noun with the genitive Case must follow the head noun. However, unlike other categories that might occur with the head noun and agree with it in all features like adjectives or demonstratives, the complement noun shows up with a definiteness marker while the head noun is not marked for definiteness. The other property is that while the Case on the head noun is licensed by a higher probe, T or v, and accordingly can be nominative or accusative, the Case of the complement noun is always genitive. I will briefly discuss each of these properties below.
The first interesting property of the possessive construction is the fact that the head noun cannot be marked for definiteness or indefiniteness (Kremers, 2003: It can be seen in the examples above that the head noun in the possessive construction must remain unmarked for definiteness/indefiniteness. This obligatory condition doesn't actually mean that the head noun is not intrinsically definite. The definiteness of the head noun can be seen when other categories occur with the head noun such as adjectives or quantifiers. In this context, the adjective appears with the definiteness marker (al-) in agreement with the head noun (Kremers, 2003:39 It is to be noted that even though the adjective in the sentences above modifies the head noun bayt 'house', it cannot follow the head noun. Instead, it follows the genitive complement. Another interesting fact to highlight in the examples above is that the adjective shows a definiteness marker similar to the one on the genitive complement, although it agrees with the head noun in Case. Kremers (2003) argues that the head noun does actually have a definiteness feature, even if it is not marked morphologically. Furthermore, he assumes that the definiteness feature on the head noun is inherited from the genitive complement.
The unorthodox nature of the possessive construction in SA where a head noun selects another noun as its complement, and the assignment of the genitive Case to the complement noun in this construction, calls for an explanation at this point of discussion. I will briefly review below kremers (2003) analysis that has been proposed to account for the possessive construction in SA. Kremers (2003) refutes the assumption that the genitive Case in SA is inherent. He argues that the genitive Case in the possessive construction in this language is a structural Case. He claims that this Case is assigned to the complement noun based on the position of that noun, independent of its theta role. He puts forth the idea that the genitive Case is licensed by a functional head in the same way the nominative/accusative Cases are licensed; and since genitive is a structural Case, it must be assigned by a functional head in the determiner phrase. This functional head has been assumed in the literature, as Kremers argues, to be the Poss head (Szabocsi, 1994;Longobardi, 1995). This Poss head is argued to be "a projection of the feature Poss, which indicates whether the head noun in the construction has a syntactic dependent" (Kremers, 2003:36).
Kremers assumes that the possessive construction does not have two separate functional heads for both definiteness features and possessiveness features. Instead, he claims that there is a hybrid functional head hat houses both a [+Def] and a [+Poss] features. This functional head, according to Kremers, has the property that the value of either feature is fixed if the other feature has a specific value. Therefore, when Poss has the value [+Poss], [+Def] is forced to remain unvalued. Kremers proposes the following structure for the possessive construction in SA (2003:41): To explain the definiteness inheritance assumption, i.e. to understand how the genitive noun appears with a definiteness marker while the head noun is not marked for the same feature, Kremers argues that when Poss has the value [+Poss], it forces [+Def] to remain unvalued. Thus, definiteness inheritance is linked to genitive Case assignment. In other words, Kremers argues that "the process that assigns genitive Case has a side effect that the head noun inherits the definiteness of its complement" (2003:41).
Kremers' account seems to be neat, but it does not answer some basic questions. First, if his assumption that Poss assigns genitive Case to the complement noun is on the right track, it is not clear what blocks the assignment of this Case on the head noun in the first place, given the proximity of the head noun to the Poss head? Second, would not be there problems of intervention effects for the Poss probe while targeting the complement noun down the tree, since the head noun has an active unchecked Case feature? Third, Kremers has not mentioned the source of the nominative Case on the head noun. If he assumes it be assigned by a higher probe from outside the determiner phrase, would not the head Poss block that probe from targeting the head noun?

Case
It has been argued in the literature, notably by Abney (1987), that Case projects an independent functional category KP. This claim is supported by some empirical evidence that shows Case markers in some languages to appear as independent morphemes. For example, Bittner & Hale (1996)  heading a Case projection. Abney reiterates the same idea and argues that the Case projection KP does exists right above DP. In the following subsections, I review the different markers for the three main values of Case in SA: nominative, accusative, and genitive. The aim of this discussion is to find out if Case in this language can actually project a separate functional head in the determiner phrase.
3.1 Nominative It has been argued in the literature that nominative is the default Case in SA (Fassi Fehri, 1993). Nominative Case in this language is assigned to subjects, topics, and predicates in copular/verbless constructions. Generally, the nominative Case in SA is expressed morphologically on the noun by three different markers, depending on the number and gender of the noun.
When the noun is singular, regardless of its gender feature, nominative Case on that noun is marked by the suffix (-u): (43) a. al-mua'allem-u b. al-mua'allem-at-u def-teacher-nom def-teacher-fem-nom 'the (male) teacher' 'the (female) teacher' Also, when the noun carries an irregular broken plural marker, nominative Case is indicated by the suffix (-u): However, when the noun has a dual number, whether it has a masculine or feminine feature, nominative Case is expressed by the morpheme (-aa): (46) a. al-mua'allem-aa-ni b. al-mua'allem-at-aa-ni def-teacher-nom-dual def-teacher-fem-nom-dual 'the two (male) teachers' 'the two (female) teachers' In addition, when the noun has a regular plural masculine marker, it is Case-marked nominative by means of attaching the suffix (-uu): (47) a. al-mua'allem-uu-na b. al-kaatib-uu-na def-teacher-nom-pl def-writer-nom-pl 'the (male) teachers' 'the (male) writers'

Accusative
The accusative Case in SA can be expressed morphologically on the noun by three different markers. When the noun is singular, regardless of its gender feature, accusative Case is indicated by the suffix (-a): 'the girl's house' In the same way, when the singular noun, irrespective of its gender feature, surfaces after a preposition, it is Case-marked genitive by the morpheme (-i): (55) min as-sooq-i from def-market-gen 'from the market' (56) ila al-madras-at-i to def-school-fem-gen 'to the school' However, when the possessor in a construct state carries a dual number, irrespective of its gender feature, the genitive Case is expressed morphologically by the suffix (-ai): (57) manzil-u al-kaatib-ai-ni house-nom def-writer-gen-dual 'the house of the two (male) writers' (58) manzil-u al-kaatib-at-ai-ni house-nom def-writer-fem-gen-dual 'the house of the two (female) writers' It is to be noted that the suffix (-ai) represents an instance of syncretism in SA since the same morpheme expresses the accusative and the genitive Case values.
Likewise, when the possessor in a construct state carries a regular masculine number, the genitive Case is expressed by the syncretic morpheme (-ii) which also expresses the accusative Case value: (59) manzil-u al-mua'allem-ii-na house-nom def-teacher-gen-pl 'the house of the two (male) teachers' (60) sayyar-at-u al-mushrif-ii-na car-fem-nom def-supervisor-gen-pl 'the car of the two (male) supervisors' Kremers (2003) rejects the assumption that Case in SA projects a separate functional head. He argues that Case is present as a 'roaming feature' on the noun, and when a functional head takes the noun as its complement, it inherits all features of the noun, including the Case features.

Number Case assignment
I differ with Kremers in his assumption that all the features on the head noun are inherited from outside the determiner phrase. I assume that Φ-features on nouns are intrinsic or at least local to its phrase, not inherited from outside the phrase, and these futures get valued on the noun phrase locally. Although Kremers rightly captures the notion of inter-phrasal agreement between the noun and other modifying categories, we don't actually need to appeal to a weakly motivated notion like feature inheritance in this context if we can use the existing minimalist probe-goal mechanism to value morpho-syntactic features. Chomsky (2001) argues that Case is valued on functional heads but unvalued on nouns, and Φ-features are valued on nouns but unvalued on functional heads.
Although I have listed Case morphology along with the other different morpho-syntactic features in the determiner phrase in SA in the preceding discussion, I don't consider Case to be a distinct category projecting a functional head in the Arabic determiner phrase. Instead, I claim that the head noun in a determiner phrase is consistently Case-marked by a probe that originates in a higher head, the functional head T for nominative and the functional head v for accusative (Chomsky, 2001): Under minimalist assumptions, uninterpretable features on a designated head are matched and valued via sending a probe to the nearest DP goal in a c-command local domain (Chomsky, 2001). For example, the uninterpretable Φ-features on the head T can be valued against those of the subject DP and then get deleted to enable the derivation to converge; and as a reflex of the operation Agree, the Case of the DP gets assigned as nominative. In the same vein, the Φ-features on the head v can be valued against those of the object DP and then get deleted to enable the derivation to converge; and as a by-product of the agreement operation the Case of the DP gets assigned as accusative. Under this discussion, Φ-features on functional heads and Case on the DPs can actually be valued in-situ without appealing to movement.
A major assumption in minimalist syntax is that movement is dissociated from formal feature valuation "Note that Case assignment is divorced from movement and reflects standard properties of the probes, indicating that it is a reflex of Agree holding of (probe, goal)." (Chomsky, 2001:17).

TP
In this subsection, I provide an alternative structure for the genitive construction in SA where I assume that there exists a Poss functional head mediating between the head noun and the genitive complement: In the configuration above, the head Poss probes the possessor noun in order to value its unvalued features. As a by-product of the probe-goal relation, the noun's Case is assigned genitive in-situ.
The proposed structure shows that the Poss head is positioned below the head noun. This obviously explains why the head noun is never marked genitive, since the head Poss will probe downward towards the possessor. Also, placing the head Poss in this position will now allow a higher probe by v/T to target the head noun and assigns its nominative Case.
It is to be noted that the absence of the definiteness marker on the head noun is accounted for since the D head is below the noun and cannot probe upward. Also, there is no agreement in Case or gender between the head noun and the possessor and this can be explained in terms of intervention effects that arise because of the intervening Poss head. Thus, the structure above can successfully account for the Case agreement mismatch between the head noun and its genitive complement as well as the absence of the definiteness marker on the head noun.
5. The structure of the determiner phrase I start the discussion in this section by taking Baker's (1988) 'Mirror Principle' as the basis for my proposed structure of the determiner phrase in SA. The relatively consistent order of morphemes on the noun in this language helps us predict the hierarchy of functional categories in the Arabic determiner phrase. The four morpho-syntactic features that can appear on the noun in this language at the same time are number features, gender features, definiteness features, and Case features. In the previous subsection, I argued that Case cannot be a distinct functional category in this language. This claim is based, in part, on the fact that SA does not have discrete Case morphemes. Also, structural Case in this language can be explained by the well-established minimalist probe-goal mechanism that N rajul-i man-gen The uniformly simialr patterns of the different morpho-syntactic markers on the nouns in the examples above clearly show that the relatively consistent order of features on the noun in SA is as follows: [D-(Noun)-Gen-Num] In the tree below, I provide a new structure for the different functional categories in the Arabic determiner phrase: In the configuration above, the head noun has unvalued features that need to be valued against matching features in the functional categories above the noun. It also has a Case feature that needs to be assigned. The probe-goal mechanism between the noun and the higher functional categories is immediately blocked by the intervening head immediately positioned above the noun, therefore the noun undergoes multiple cyclic movement to by-pass this constraint. It is to be noted that the noun does not need to move past the D head, because agreement here can be established in-situ through a probe, without resorting to movement. Thus, the definiteness marker (al-) surfaces as a prefix, while other markers surface as suffixes on the noun.

Conclusion
In this paper, I have presented an analysis of the determiner phrase in SA. I have argued that there exist several functional categories in the determiner phrase along with the noun, namely DP, GenP, and NumP. Each of these functional heads houses a feature that needs to be valued on the noun. Besides, Case markers are argued to be licensed by a higher probe originating in a functional category above the determiner phrase such as v or T.
In the genitive construction, the head Poss probes the possessor to check its unvalued features, and as a reflex assigns genitive Case to the complement noun. The head Poss which mediates between the head noun and the complement noun blocks any agreement between the head noun and the possessor. A new analysis is proposed to account for the empirical facts on Case, agreement, and word order in the genitive construction in SA.
The discussion of the data shows that in SA the noun undergoes cyclic movements searching for values for its unvalued features. It moves to the left of the functional categories that house the valued features. The noun does not move past the D head since DP N t Num NumP Gen GenP NP D the definiteness feature can be valued in-situ, hence the appearance of the definiteness marker as a prefix. A new structure for the determiner phrase in SA is proposed to account for the data discussed in previous sections.