Determinative Phrase : DP Movement or Scrambling ?

Arabic varieties show explicit linguistic behavior, especially at the syntactic level. This apparent diversity is mainly due to how syntactic rules confine the scope and the flexibility of movement of certain constituents inside and outside their syntactic domains. This paper examines solely how the mother tongue from which all these varieties have emanated, i.e. Standard Arabic can be obviously analyzed as a configurational language that tends to surface in a way similar to nonconfigurational languages at certain surface levels where determinative phrases ‘DPs’ lend themselves freely to move and result in various templates frequently realized as VSO, OVS, OSV and VOS. These configurational structures seem problematic to construe in many vernacular Arabic varieties, mainly, in Suburbanite Northern Jordanian Arabic because of the scarcity of effective inflectional morphology such varieties exploit rather than pragmatic factors.


Introduction
Arabic, the researcher's native language, is one of the major Semitic language, so it goes without saying that it shares many features with a bunch of dead or recently revived languages such as Hebrew, Acadian, Mesopotamian, and Aramaic.It's axiomatic, therefore, that such languages are morphologically rich languages par excellence; thus, their grammars and even pragmatics do frequently overlap in a subtle manner.Hundreds of vernacular dialects are deeply rooted and prevalent in the Arab World.Standard Arabic is a common denominator that all Arab countries have in common since it is the language of their Holy Book, official education, legal jargon as well as the innumerable space channels and other means of mass media.Evidently, there are half a dozen of major dialects in Jordan, the researcher's homeland.
Syntactic structures of Jordanian Arabic and Standard Arabic meet at certain points and show radical contrast oftentimes.To narrow the scope of the current research, this paper in principle aims at shedding light on some fundamental aspects of syntactic assumptions and their implementation as well as implications vis-a-vis Arabic determinative Phrases (henceforth DPs), more specifically whether such DPs technically undergo a process of movement or scrambling in the final analysis (see Larson 1988, Kayne 1994).This may trigger a need to hold some contrastive analysis between Arabic DPs and English ones when divergence substantially occurs.The data of this paper owes specific reference to both Standard Arabic (SA) and Suburbanite Northern Jordanian Arabic (SNJA), since the researcher strictly claims she is a native speaker of both.A review of the current relevant literature is briefly carried out to investigate the state of affairs of such movement/scrambling processes to see if there is any syntactic evidence that may trigger such a phenomenon and/ or if there is some more intricate pragmatic and morphological interface that may best support the analysis of the data (cf., Andrews 1996, N. Albzour 2015, et al).
It has been the prime concern of linguists, in general, and syntacticians, in particular to account for a universal premise that may best describe language under a unified universal umbrella despite the substantial differences among world languages.This linguistic interest has crucially crystallized since Chomsky set the distinct features of such universal grammar in his ambitious enterprise Syntactic Structures in 1957 and all through the past five decades where different complementary and sometimes clashing theories have emerged to solve the riddle that Chomsky spurred because this loose word grammar "is often extended in Chomskyan theories to encompass the whole knowledge of language in the individual's mind" (Cook & Newson 2007: 7).Hence, it is quite legitimate to further extend our perspective to cater for any potentially linguistic oriented analyses whether it be syntax, semantics, morphology or pragmatics in our ultimate quest for such a Chomskyan paradigm of grammar to annul any scrambling scenarios (Grewendorf and Sternefeld 1990).Consequently, this begs the question of the feasibility and the necessity of applying such generative theories to languages such as Arabic though substantially parametrical factors explicitly intervene.

Scope of the Study & Data Validity
We might expect that a language's sentence-structure and word-structure should mesh rather straightforwardly.For instance, if the syntax of a particular language distinguishes different arguments of the verb, and the morphology distinguishes different cases, it seems natural to assume that the two systems will line up.In real languages the situation is often more complex (Bearman, 2005:1).The argument over the DP and the NP seems one of the most heated topics that syntacticians have debated.Within the framework of X-bar theory, it was not until Abney (1987) that a cogent argument was presented in favor of DP hypothesis where the determiner is deemed as the head of the nominal phrase rather than the noun i.e. the noun is considered a head of the complement to the determiner.As a point of departure, we will assume that Arabic lends itself to the DP hypothesis at this level because any controversial argument relevant to this DP vs. NP distinction would seem futile at this stage as far as the scope of this paper may encompass in this very limited space.
To gradually develop this analysis, the researcher follows Carney's (2007) constituency tests in order to illustrate the entity of DP and NP in Arabic as a basic constituent through applying some basic syntactic tests to the following MSA example (1).To be consistent in her analysis at this earlier stage, the researcher will adopt one template, i.e.SVO rather than VSO which is permissible too in MSA, though controversially presented and argued for.The researcher has to note that each Arabic sentence is thoroughly glossed underneath.In addition, two English translations are provided: one is word for word-which is marked with an asterisk when ungrammatical as it is the case in most examples; the other translation is an idiomatic English rendition.These students are bright.

I.
Hypothesis: ha?ula?i and al are determiners.
Output: Positive: AP's can be inflected for comparative and superlative (more/most + nominal root).
Test 5: Assumption: A's can follow a linking verb yabdoo"seem/look" or the copula Be, which has null form in the present tense unlike the future and the past.A distinction is made in traditional grammar since the word 'nabeeh/bright' takes an accusative case in (a) and (c) while it takes a nominative case in (b), so it seems the Null constituent does not qualify to assign case to the following A' unlike the overt counterparts.Output: Positive: follow a linking verb yabdoo"seem/look" or the copula be.Conclusion: Based on these five tests, the hypothesis that ' nubaha? is an adjective' is right.

Results and Analysis
Thus far, we have illustrated the syntactic identity of Arabic DPs in broad terms to prove how such a constituent can be handled within the same generative perspective that English DPs can be perceived though some parametrical mismatches inevitably surface (Marantz 1995).However, the need arise to deeply explore another significant aspect that crucially strikes distinction between Standard Arabic vs. English, on the one hand, as well as Standard Arabic vs. Jordanian Arabic, on the other hand, i.e. how inflections operate surface.These two varieties of Arabic operate differently to a great extent in exploiting inflectional morphemes due to the basic distinctive role of morphological markers which evidently and subtly exist to presumably mark every single word in terms of gender, number, tense and case in SA unlike SNJA and many other vernaculars, (see N. In addition, these morphological distinctions give rise to the null finite subject in SA i.e. little pro, which is so prevalent and unequivocally recognized in terms of gender and number because it only occurs with the singular (feminine or masculine).The significant relevance of this pro is its crucial role in demarcating the binding domain of the DP as it will be thoroughly examined at a later stage/ DPs can occur in a nominative case or in the accusative form, i.e. either as subjects of the VP or as complements of transitive verbs in VPs or complements of prepositions in PPs as in (3): (3)

He too proud in her
He is too proud of her.
Bearing in mind the binding domain as it has been thoroughly discussed by many syntacticians such as Chomsky, (1981), Haegeman (1991), Radford (2004), Carnie (2007), we may realize that such morphological distinctions have undeniable bearings in SA as opposed to their counterparts in SNJA.This is the secret of the flexible word order in SA.In accordance with the Locality Principle, this explains how Principle A of the Binding Theory (BT) stipulates that an anaphor be bound in its local domain or governing category, unlike Principle B where personal pronouns must be free in their domain.Of course, the binding domain of a DP anaphor is the lowest clausal node dominating it, i.e. the (TP).
As a result of this morphological hiatus between SA and SNJA, it must be noted that any word order resulting from DP movement or scrambling (so far no distinction has been made) in SA is quite grammatical, while any equivalent word order in SNJA is deemed ungrammatical as in (5.a) and (5.b), respectively because the subject-object DPs can be easily discerned in SA by virtue of the nominative vs. accusative morphemes: The studenti cursed himselfi It can be hard evidence for such morphological role when the case marker is obligatorily absent in SA due to phonological constraints that precludes the overt phonological form of the nominative and the accusative case as it can be seen in ( 6):

*Mousa cursed Eisa
The subject-object DPs can be by no means discerned in SA by virtue of the nominative vs. accusative morphemes because they are phonologically absent, so a default Subject-Object reading is permissible, i.e. the first DP must be the one in the nominative case and the second DP is the one in the accusative case, so the absence of morphology in SA in this unique case explains why NJA, similar to English, can not allow such a flexible movement that exists in SA more often than not.Furthermore, this morphosyntactic interface in SA is of paramount importance in reflecting the significance of binding and trace as well as theta role since the trace of the reflexive, for example, in (7.d) prohibits any DP to take its theta role as opposed to (7: a-c): The significance of SA Arabic rich morphology can be seen more evident in the fact that it licenses topicalization at a wide range even when applied to anaphors, which are so sensitive to locality as it can be seen in (8: a-d):

Flourishing
These Phon/M Def/D the N/Pl student Nom/M A/Pl/Masc bright Nom.Ag *These the students bright.

D*
: D's can precede another D. Conclusion: Based on these three tests, the hypothesis that ' ha?ula?i and al are determiners' is right.II.Hypothesis:.Tullab is a noun.Test 1: Assumption: NP's can be preceded by a vocative particle in vocative sentences/phrases.Hey student, work the assignment.Hey student, work on the assignment.Output: Positive: NP's can be preceded by a vocative particle.Test 2: Assumption NP's can inflect for number (a. singular, b. dual & c. plural) D-the N/Sg student Nom/M Mod will V/Prs work Ag+T * This the student will work This student will work.b. haTHan al-Talib an sawfa ya9mal an D/ Dual These D-the N/Dual students Nom/M Mod will V/Prs work Ag+T * These the two students will work.These two students will work.c. ha?ula?i al-Tullab u sawfa ya9mal oona .D/ Pl These D-the N/Pl students Nom/M Mod will V/Prs work Ag+T *These the students will work.These students will work.Output: Positive: N's can inflect for number.Test 3: Assumption: NP's can inflect for gender /Fem This D-the N/Sg/Fem student Nom/M Mod will Fem/ V/Prs work Ag+T * This the student will work.This student will work./MascThis D-the N/Sg/Masc student Nom/M Mod will Masc/ V/Prs work Ag+T *This the student will work.This student will work.Output: Positive: NP's can inflect for gender.Test 4: Assumption: N's can inflect for case (a.nominative, b. accusative and c. genitive).saw Nom/M-I D The N/Pl/Masc students Acc./M Masc/ V/Prs work Ag+T I saw the students working.c.Object of a prep/ P-Complement: said Nom/M-I p. to D The N/Pl/Masc students Gen.M Inf. to Masc/ V/Prs work Ag+T I told the students to work. the N/Sg/Masc Nom/M D the A/Masc clever Nom.M Masc/ V/Prs work Ag+T *This the clever student works.This clever student works.Output: Positive: NP's can be post modified by adjectives.Conclusion: Based on these four tests, the hypothesis that ' Tullab is a noun' is right.III.Hypothesis: nubaha? is an adjective.Test 1: Assumption: AP's can inflect for number (a. singular, b. dual & c. plural), so they agree with the N they modify at these three levels.This D the N/Sg/Masc student Nom/M D-the A/Masc bright Nom.M. *This the bright student.This is the bright student./Masc These D the N/Dual/Masc students Nom/M D the A/Dual Masc bright Nom.M * These the two bright students.These are the two bright students.Assumption: A's can inflect for gender (masculine and feminine), so they agree with the N's they modify at these two levels./Masc This D the N/Sg/Masc student Nom/M D the A/Sg Masc bright Nom.M *This the bright student.This is the bright student./Fem This D the N/Sg/Fem student Nom/M D the A/Sg.Fem bright Nom.M * This the bright student.This is the bright student./Fem These D the N/Dual/Fem students Nom/M Phon D the A/Dual.Fem bright Nom.M *These the two bright students.These are the two bright students.Output: Positive: AP's can inflect for gender.Test 3: Assumption: AP's can post-modify N's./Masc This D the N/Sg/Masc student Nom/M D the A/Sg.Masc bright Nom.M *This the bright student .Assumption: AP's can be inflected for comparative and superlative (more/most + nominal root)./Masc This D the N/Sg/Masc student Nom/M D the SupA.Most .Nom.M Nomin.R brightNESS Nom.M *This the student is the brightest.
/Masc This D the N/Sg/Masc student Nom/M V/Pres.seemsA/Sg Masc bright Nom.M *This the student seems bright.This student seems bright./Masc This D the N/Sg/Masc student Nom/M V/Pst Masc.Morph A/Sg Masc bright Nom.M *This the student was bright This student was bright.
AlBzour 2015)..The first two examples (a) and (b) demonstrate this inflectional gap that exists between the standard and the vernacular version as in (c) and (d) where agreement, tense, number and gender are almost absent in SNJA unlike SA.