Attitude datives in Lebanese Arabic and the interplay of syntax and pragmatics

Lebanese Arabic licenses structures with non-argument dative pronouns that I call attitude datives (ADs). ADs may be co-referential with the subject of the sentence, with the speaker or hearer, or with a topic. ADs do not belong to the thematic grid of predicates, and they do not make truth-conditional contributions to expressions. However, they do make pragmatic contributions in the form of conventional implicatures, triggering an evaluative interpretation of events and depicting speech participants as attitude holders. The main purpose of this article is to provide details about the distribution and interpretation of ADs and to account for their choice of antecedent. I present an analysis within the framework of Accessibility Theory and Context-Linked Grammar to show that an AD is linked to its antecedent as a result of the interplay between syntax and pragmatics. I also address the issue of subject-oriented ADs and explain why they are exempt from Condition B of Binding Theory by adopting a movement approach to binding.

[1]  Halldor Armann Sigurðsson,et al.  The split T analysis , 2016 .

[2]  Form and function in explaining language universals , 1983 .

[3]  Chris Collins,et al.  Imposters: A Study of Pronominal Agreement , 2012 .

[4]  Mélanie Jouitteau,et al.  The French Ethical Dative. 13 syntactic tests , 2007 .

[5]  L. Nash,et al.  A higher applicative : Evidence from French , 2010 .

[6]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing , 1988 .

[7]  Elabbas Benmamoun,et al.  The Syntax of Arabic , 2009 .

[8]  Mira Ariel.  Accessibility theory: An overview , 2001 .

[9]  Edda Weigand,et al.  (In)coherence of Discourse , 2009 .

[10]  Yan Huang,et al.  Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Study , 2000 .

[11]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Bound Variables and C‐Command , 2002, J. Semant..

[12]  A. Stepanov.  Late Adjunction and Minimalist Phrase Structure , 2001 .

[13]  Hidekazu Tanaka,et al.  Syntactic identity and ellipsis , 2011 .

[14]  J. Maling,et al.  The Empty Left Edge Condition , 2010 .

[15]  A. Cardinaletti.  Against optional and null clitics. Right dislocation vs. marginalization , 2002 .

[16]  Laurence R. Horn,et al.  “I love me some him”: The landscape of non-argument datives , 2007 .

[17]  Jason Merchant,et al.  Voice and Ellipsis , 2013, Linguistic Inquiry.

[18]  Christopher Potts,et al.  Conventional Implicatures: A Distinguished Class of Meanings , 2007 .

[19]  Ángel J. Gallego.  L-syntax for adjuncts , 2010 .

[20]  M. O’Connor.  External possession and utterance interpretation: a crosslinguistic exploration , 2007 .

[21]  Christopher Potts.  The logic of conventional implicatures , 2004 .

[22]  N. Hornstein.  Movement and Control , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[23]  Paul Portner,et al.  Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning , 2011 .

[24]  Youssef A. Haddad.  The syntax of Southern American English personal datives: An anti-locality account , 2011, Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique.

[25]  Alice C. Harris.  Cross‐Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change , 2003 .

[26]  Richard S. Kayne.  Pronouns and Their Antecedents , 2008 .

[27]  Jordan Zlatev,et al.  The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity , 2008 .

[28]  John Bowers.  THE SYNTAX OF GOALS AND BENEFICIARIES IN STANDARD MODERN GREEK , 2006 .

[29]  Jairo Nunes.  Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement , 2004 .

[30]  Mira Ariel.  Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents , 1990 .

[31]  Jairo Nunes,et al.  Adjunction, Labeling, and Bare Phrase Structure , 2008, Biolinguistics.

[32]  Andrew Nevins,et al.  Multiple agree with clitics: person complementarity vs. omnivorous number , 2011 .

[33]  Robin I. M. Dunbar.  Gossip in Evolutionary Perspective , 2004 .

[34]  A. Kratzer.  More Structural Analogies Between Pronouns and Tenses , 1998 .

[35]  Kleanthes K. Grohmann,et al.  Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies , 2003 .

[36]  Christopher Potts.  Conventional implicature and expressive content , 2008 .

[37]  Halldor Armann Sigurðsson,et al.  The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features , 2004 .

[38]  Laurence R. Horn,et al.  The handbook of pragmatics , 2004 .

[39]  A. Goldberg.  Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure , 1995 .

[40]  David Adger,et al.  Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach , 2003 .

[41]  Susi Wurmbrand,et al.  The Merge Condition: A syntactic approach to selection , 2014 .

[42]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Minimalist Program , 1992 .

[43]  L. Buell.  Introducing Arguments above the Agent: the Case of Zulu Locative Applicatives , 2003 .

[44]  Bernard Comrie,et al.  Topics, Grammaticalized Topics, and Subjects , 1988 .

[45]  J. Rooryck,et al.  CLITIC CONSTRUCTIONS , 2000 .

[46]  Luigi Rizzi,et al.  Strategies of Subject Extraction , 2007 .

[47]  Solveig Bosse,et al.  Affected Experiencers , 2012 .

[48]  Gert Webelhuth,et al.  SOUTHERN AMERICAN ENGLISH PERSONAL DATIVES: THE THEORETICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF DIALECTAL VARIATION , 2006 .

[49]  María Cristina Cuervo.  Some Dative Subjects Are Born, SomeAre Made , 2010 .

[50]  Helena Halmari.  On Accessibility and Coreference , 1994, Nordic Journal of Linguistics.

[51]  Elizabeth Closs Traugott,et al.  Motives for Language Change: From subjectification to intersubjectification , 2003 .

[52]  Youssef A. Haddad.  Pronouns and intersubjectivity in Lebanese Arabic gossip , 2013 .

[53]  D. Edwards.  Discourse and Information , 1998 .

[54]  L. Rizzi.  The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery , 1997 .

[55]  S. Levinson.  Pragmatics and social deixis: Reclaiming the notion of conventional implicature , 1979 .

[56]  H. Grice.  Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[57]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics , 2007 .

[58]  Chris Barker,et al.  Quantificational Binding Does Not Require C-Command , 2012, Linguistic Inquiry.

[59]  V. Hacquard.  On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries , 2010 .

[60]  Nora Boneh,et al.  Coreferential Dative Constructions in Syrian Arabic and Modern Hebrew , 2010 .

[61]  T. Reinhart.  Anaphora and semantic interpretation , 1983 .

[62]  Mira Ariel.  Referring and accessibility , 1988, Journal of Linguistics.

[63]  Gregory Ward,et al.  Discourse and Information Structure , 2005 .

[64]  Hans Reichenbach,et al.  Elements of symbolic logic , 1948 .

[65]  Ronald W. Langacker,et al.  Investigations in Cognitive Grammar , 2009 .

[66]  Richard S. Kayne.  The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[67]  Yves Roberge,et al.  The high applicative syntax of the dativus commodi/incommodi in Romance , 2009 .

[68]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Beyond explanatory adequacy . Eliminating labels , 2001 .

[69]  Kyle Johnson,et al.  Double Objects Again , 2004, Linguistic Inquiry.

[70]  Maria Cristina Cuervo,et al.  Datives at large , 2003 .

[71]  N. Hornstein.  Move! : a minimalist theory of construal , 2000 .

[72]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Coherence in discourse , 2005 .

[73]  Ángel J. Gallego,et al.  CONSEQUENCES OF PAIR-MERGE (AT THE INTERFACES) , 2007 .

[74]  Martha McGinnis,et al.  Phases and the syntax of applicatives , 2000 .

[75]  T. Reinhart,et al.  The innateness of binding and coreference , 1993 .

[76]  E. Traugott.  (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment , 2010 .

[77]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .