THE SYNTAX OF FOCUS PARTICLES IN SOUTHERN JORDANIAN ARABIC

By

HAMED ADBELHAMIYD ALJERADAAT

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2016
© 2016 Hamed Abdelhamiyd Aljeradaat
To the souls of my father and my mother
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to all who assisted me during my

Ph.D. study at the University of Florida.

First and foremost, I want to express my gratitude to my advisor Dr. Youssef Haddad. He

has been very supportive to me academically as well as socially. His insightful comments,

criticism, and suggestions enriched the research. His attentive and accurate remarks made the

content pure and the work smooth. I would like to specially thank him for his patience,

understanding, and kindness. Without his support this work would not have been possible.

I am also grateful to Dr. Eric Potsdam for redefining the concept of syntax. He taught me

to do syntax instead of passively reading it. I owe him for his inspiring comments on my papers.

I also extend my thanks to Dr. Brent Henderson and Dr. Sarra Tlili, for their advice, help, and

encouragement.

I am indebted to my late father and my late mother, may Allah rest their souls in mercy.

They offered a lot, and they were overburnt to see me holding a Ph.D., but the wisdom of Allah

has chosen them earlier. To them and to my whole family, I dedicate this work.

I wish to express many thanks to Mutah University in Jordan for offering me the honour

of being one of its students in the past and for funding my study. I will be honored to be working

with my academic family who taught me for years.

I was blessed as well as lucky to meet my wife Hadeel during this journey in the right

time, so we could share the experience together. I owe her for her patience, compassion, and

love. No words can express my appreciation and love to her. And to my little son, Abdelhameed,

I want to express my love. His endless warm smiles made the journey easier.

I will never forget the support and encouragement of my professors in Mutah University,

Dr. Thafer Asaraira, Dr. Ali Aljaafreh, and Dr. Mohammed Alkhwaldah, who added a distinctive

4
touch to my academic life. I am also thankful to the linguistic couple, Dr. Atef Alsarayreh and

Deema Tarawneh, whose friendship is priceless. They followed me and my family with their

help and care. Thank you for the times when you listened carefully and answered thoughtfully.

I am also thankful to the harsh moments I have been through. They taught me that who

believes in God will never be disappointed.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................................9

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................13

1.1 Focus .................................................................................................................................15

1.2 Focus Particles (FPs) ........................................................................................................19
1.2.1 Definition of FPs ....................................................................................................19
1.2.2 Classification of FPs ...............................................................................................20
1.2.2.1 Inclusive/Additive particles ..........................................................................21
1.2.2.2 Scalar particles .............................................................................................21
1.2.2.3 Exclusive/Restrictive particles .....................................................................22
1.3 Theoretical Background....................................................................................................23
1.3.1 The Minimalist Program.........................................................................................23
1.3.2 The Adjunct Approach to the Syntax of FPs ..........................................................25
1.4 Research Questions ...........................................................................................................29
1.5 Some Aspects of the Syntax of Southern Jordanian Arabic (SJA) ...................................30
1.5.1 Word Order Alternation in SJA ..............................................................................30
1.5.2 The Syntax of the Left-Periphery in SJA ...............................................................33
1.5.3 The Syntax of Sentential Negation in SJA .............................................................37
1.6 Transliteration and Representation of the Data ................................................................39
1.7 Organization of the Dissertation .......................................................................................40

2 A DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW OF FOCUS PARTICLES IN

SOUTHERN JORDANIAN ARABIC ...................................................................................42

2.1 The Inclusive FP in SJA ...................................................................................................42

2.1.1 The Distribution of kamaan ‘Also’ in SJA.............................................................42
2.1.1.1 kamaan in Pattern I ......................................................................................43
2.1.1.2 kamaan in Pattern II .....................................................................................47
2.1.2 Semantic Properties of kamaan ..............................................................................51
2.1.3 The Focus of kamaan .............................................................................................54
2.2 The Scalar FP in SJA ........................................................................................................57
2.2.1 The Distribution of ħatta ‘Even’ in SJA ................................................................57
2.2.1.1 ħatta in Pattern I ...........................................................................................58
2.2.1.2 ħatta in Pattern II..........................................................................................63
2.2.1.3 ħatta in Pattern III ........................................................................................66
2.2.2 Semantic Properties of ħatta ..................................................................................72
2.2.3 The Focus of ħatta ..................................................................................................78

6
 2.3 The Exclusive FPs in SJA.................................................................................................82
2.3.1 bas ‘Only’ ...............................................................................................................82
2.3.1.1 The distribution of bas ‘only’ in SJA ...........................................................82
2.3.1.2 Semantic properties of bas ...........................................................................91
2.3.1.3 The focus of bas ...........................................................................................94
2.3.2 ʔilla ‘Except’ ..........................................................................................................96
2.3.2.1 The distribution of ʔilla ‘except’ in SJA ......................................................96
2.3.2.2 Semantic properties of ʔilla ........................................................................102
2.3.2.3 The focus of ʔilla ........................................................................................104
2.4 Summary .........................................................................................................................106

3 FOCUS PARTICLES IN SOUTHERN JORDANIAN ARABIC AS ADVERBS: THE

ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................................109

3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................109
3.2 Pattern I of kamaan, ħatta, and bas ................................................................................109
3.2.1 The Proposed Analysis .........................................................................................109
3.2.2 The Proposed Analysis and the Previous Approaches .........................................111
3.2.3 The Interpretation of Pattern I of kamaan, ħatta, and bas....................................118
3.3 Pattern II of kamaan, ħatta, and bas ...............................................................................120
3.3.1 The Proposed Analysis .........................................................................................120
3.3.2 Movement of the FP-Focus to Spec, FocP ...........................................................122
3.3.3 The Interpretation of Pattern II of kamaan, ħatta, and bas ..................................127
3.4 Pending Issues ................................................................................................................129
3.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................137

4 FOCUS PARTICLES IN SOUTHERN JORDANIAN ARABIC AS

COORDINATORS: THE ANALYSIS ................................................................................138

4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................138
4.2 ħatta and ʔilla in the Adjunct Approach to the Syntax of Focus Particles .....................139
4.2.1 The Adjunct Approach to ħatta ............................................................................139
4.2.1.1 The account of ħatta under the Adjunct Approach ....................................139
4.2.1.2 Shortcomings of the Adjunct Approach to ħatta .......................................142
4.2.2 The Adjunct Approach to ʔilla .............................................................................144
4.2.2.1 The Account of ʔilla under the Adjunct Approach ....................................144
4.2.2.2 Shortcomings of the Adjunct Approach to ʔilla .........................................146
4.3 Previous Movement-Plus-Ellipsis Analyses ...................................................................148
4.3.1 Soltan’s (2014) Analysis of Exceptive Constructions ..........................................148
4.3.2. Merchant’s (2003) Approach to Stripping ..........................................................154
4.4 ħatta and ʔilla in SJA: The Analysis ..............................................................................155
4.4.1 ħatta ......................................................................................................................156
4.4.1.1 Analysis of ħatta ........................................................................................156
4.4.1.2 Recoverability of ellipsis with ħatta ..........................................................169
4.4.2 ʔilla .......................................................................................................................173
4.4.2.1 Analysis of ʔilla ..........................................................................................173
4.4.2.2 Recoverability of ellipsis with ʔilla............................................................186

7
 4.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................191

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .....................................................................................193

5.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................193

5.2 Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................................195

LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................199

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................204

8
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

* Ungrammatical

# Infelicitous or inappropriate

? Odd

3 3rd Person

ACC Accusative

AP Adjective Phrase

COMP Complementizer

CP Complementizer Phrase

DP Determiner Phrase

EA Egyptian Arabic

EMPH Emphatic

F Feminine

FocP Focus Phrase

FP Focus Particle

GEN Genitive

JA Jordanian Arabic

M Masculine

NEG Negative

NOM Nominative

NPI Negative Polarity Item

O Object

P Preposition

PL Plural

PP Prepositional Phrase

9
QP Quantifier Phrase

S Subject

SG Singular

SJA Southern Jordanian Arabic

TP Tense Phrase

UQ Universal Quantifier

V Verb

VP Verb Phrase

10
 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE SYNTAX OF FOCUS PARTICLES IN SOUTHERN JORDANIAN ARABIC

By

Hamed Abdelhamiyd Aljeradaat

August 2016

Chair: Youssef Haddad

Major: Linguistics

This dissertation investigates the syntax of focus particles (FPs) in Southern Jordanian

Arabic (SJA). It shows that SJA possesses an inclusive FP (kamaan ‘also’), a scalar FP (ħatta

‘even), and two exclusive FPs (bas ‘only’ and ʔilla ‘except). Based on the distribution of the FPs,

I divided them into patterns. kamaan and bas have two patterns, ħatta has three patterns, and

ʔilla has one pattern. kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern I attach to the focus in its canonical

position, which it would occupy without the presence of the FP, but in Pattern II they join the

focus in a clause-initial position. ħatta in Pattern III and ʔilla appear with the focus at the end of

the clause.

To account for kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern I, I propose that they are focusing

adverbs that adjoin to a maximal projection whose head has a semantic focus feature. The

Adjunct Approach to FPs succeeds to capture data representing this pattern. If after the focusing

adverb kamaan, ħatta, or bas adjoins to the focus, they move together to Spec, FocP, we get

Pattern II of these FPs. I argue that the movement of the FP-focus is triggered by the need to

check features with the head of FocP. This movement displays characteristics of A-bar

movement.

11
 For ħatta in Pattern III and ʔill, I propose a new analysis, which benefits from Soltan’s

(2014) account of exceptive constructions in Egyptian Arabic and Merchant’s (2003) analysis of

stripping. The analysis assumes that ħatta and ʔilla are coordinators combining two CPs. The

first CP holds the QP that denotes the alternatives of the focus, and the second CP encompasses

the focus. It is posited that the focused item moves and lands in Spec, FocP. Then, the TP in the

second CP is eliminated, and so is the NPI that occurs in the clause preceding ʔilla. This analysis

accounts for the distribution of ħatta and ʔilla and the restrictions they impose on word order.

12
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

‘Focus’ is one of the terms that frequently appear in discussions on information structure

phenomena. An important property of focus is that it implicates that there are alternatives to the

focused item. This can be exemplified by the pair of sentences (1-2). In (1), the presupposition is

that John gave the pictures to a person, who is identified to be Sarah, so it is focused. In (2), the

presupposition is that John gave Sarah something. This thing is emphasized to be the picture.

Even though the two sentences look identical in the constituents they have, differences in the

assignment of focus lead to different expectations about the alternatives that exist. Krifka (2006)

captures this property in his definition of focus as an element that “indicates the presence of

alternatives that are relevant for the interpretation of linguistic expressions” (248).

(1) John gave [Sarah]F the pictures.

(2) John gave Sarah [the picture]F.
Focus particles (henceforth, FPs) explicitly mark the focus and specify the relation

between the focus and its alternatives (Partee 1992, Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011). For

example, the FP also in (3) adds the focus to its alternative(s). In (4), the particle even adds the

focus to all of its alternatives and ranks it as the least likely among them to which the

background applies. The particle only in (5) excludes the focus from its alternatives, so the

background holds only to the focused element.

(3) He also failed [in English]F.

(4) He even failed [in English]F.
(5) He only failed [in English]F.
The current study is concerned with the syntax of FPs in Southern Jordanian Arabic

(SJA). Jordanian Arabic (JA) is a variety of Levantine Arabic that is spoken in Jordan, a Middle-

Eastern country in Western Asia, on the East Bank of the Jordan River. The linguistic situation in

13
Jordan, as in all Arabic-speaking countries, can be described as being diglossic, comprising a

low, colloquial variety, in this case JA, and a high, standard variety: Modern Standard Arabic

(Feguson 1971). JA, is used in all informal contexts, whereas Modern Standard Arabic, which is

formally learned at schools, is used in writing and formal settings, including religious

ceremonies, political speeches and in the media. Arabic, both the standard form and all of its

current varieties, is a Semitic language. Other Semitic languages include Akkadian, Amharic,

Aramaic, and Hebrew (Versteegh 1997).

Dialectal variation in JA exists at the level of phonology and morphology, but no

significant variation is believed to appear at the level of syntax (Cleveland 1963, Abdel-Jawad

1986). SJA is less susceptible to the types of linguistic changes that other varieties of JA have

experienced over the last few decades as a result of hosting huge numbers of refugees who fled

to the northern and central parts of Jordan from the surrounding countries (mainly Palestine, Iraq,

and Syria) after the wars and bloody clashes that took place in their countries (see Al-Wer 2007).

I chose SJA as I am a native speaker of this language variety, and I can easily access other native

speakers of SJA.

This chapter is structured as follows: Section 1.1 gives an overview of focus and other

closely related notions. Section 1.2 defines and classifies FPs into their basic categories. Section

1.3 reviews the theoretical background of the syntactic framework and the analytical approach to

the syntax of FPs that I adopt in the present study. In section 1.4, the research questions that the

dissertation addresses are formulated. Section 1.5 provides an overview of some relevant aspects

of the syntax of SJA. Section 1.6 presents conventions followed in the transliteration and

representation of the data. The organization of the dissertation is provided in section 1.7.

14
 1.1 Focus

Information structure refers to the organization of sentence content in a way that

facilitates communication. During information exchange, the addressee has a mental

representation of the world that consists of old information (or pragmatic presupposition1) and

new information (or pragmatic assertion). The new information is focused as it is informationally

important and has a role in updating the information status of the sentence (Dalrymple and

Nikolaeva 2011). This importance that the focused part acquires is because, in uttering a

sentence, the speaker assumes that this information is not shared between him or her and the

hearer. On the other hand, the old information denotes the proposition that is assumed to be

shared between the speaker and the hearer, so it need not be distinguished in prosodic

prominence (Jackendoff 1972, Sudhoff 2010).

As an example, in (6), the pragmatic presupposition is that David wrote a thing, and the

new information that is highlighted is that the thing which David wrote is a poem. In (6), the

focus is marked prosodically, but it may also be signaled syntactically, as in (7), where the cleft

structure denotes that Bill, but no one else, committed the crime (Rebuschi and Tuller 1999,

Krifka 2006).

(6) David wrote [a poem]F.

(7) It was [Bill]F who committed the crime.
Thus, it is necessary for interlocutors to agree on presuppositions so that discourse looks

natural (Jackendoff 1972). To illustrate, in (8) the suitable response to the question in (8a) is

(8b), as the speaker and the hearer share the same presupposition: someone writes poetry. The

1
I follow Lambrecht (1994) in distinguishing between pragmatic presupposition, which is related to the speaker’s
representation of the status of information in the context, and semantic presupposition, which pertains to truth
conditions, as to be shown in Chapter 2.

15
presupposition in (8c) is that someone writes short stories, which is different from the one in the

question in (8a). That is, (8c) sounds inappropriate as a response to (8a), since it does not have

the same presupposition.

(8) a. Is it [John]F who writes poetry?

b. No, it is [Bill]F who writes poetry.
c. No, it is [John]F who writes short stories.
(Jackendoff 1972:229 (1-3))
Based on the communicative goals of speakers, focus is basically subdivided into two

types: presentational (or information) focus and contrastive (or identificational) focus.

Presentational focus involves that part of a sentence that presents new information, which is

assumed by the speaker not to be shared with the hearer (Jackendoff 1972, Kiss 1998). Kiss

(1998) emphasizes that this kind of focus is marked by a pitch accent and it is not contrasted with

other entities. Gundel (1998), who refers to this type of focus as semantic focus, asserts that it

involves the part of a sentence that answers an implicit or explicit wh-question. For example,

Bell and Sarah, in (9b) and (10b) respectively, answer the questions in (9a) and (10a), so the

answers are highlighted, as they provide new information.

(9) a. Who opened the door?

b. [Bell]F opened the door.
(10) a. Who did John give the flowers?
b. John gave [Sarah]F the flowers.
Accordingly, Moutaouakil (1989), in examining focus structures in Standard Arabic,

uses the question and answer test to identify presentational focus, as appears in (11b), where the

focused constituent θariidan ‘tharid’ answers the wh-word maaða ‘what’ in (11a). Moutaouakil

maintains that in Standard Arabic presentational focus is marked in-situ, so the answer to the

16
same question may not have the focus fronted to a clause-initial position (11c) or in a pseudo-

cleft sentence (11d).

(11) a. maaða ʔakalta?

what you.ate
‘What did you eat?’
b. ʔakaltu [θariidan]F.
I.ate tharid
‘I ate tharid.’

c. #[θariidan]F ʔakaltu.

tharid I.ate
d. #l-laðii ʔakaltu [θariidun]F.
the-one I.ate tharid
‘What I ate is tharid.’
(Moutaouakil 1989:22-23 (6))
In contrastive focus, there is new information that is, implicitly or explicitly, contrasted

with other specific information (Gundel 1998). For example, in (12b), the focused item French is

contrasted with Spanish. Kiss (1998) deals with contrastive focus under the label of

identificational focus, and maintains that it “represents a subset of the set of contextually or

situationally given elements for which the predicate phrase can potentially hold” (245). That is,

contrastive focus has the function of expressing exhaustive identification, which can be taken as

one of the tests of contrastive focus. To run this test on (12b), of the set of languages present in

discourse, which include Spanish and French, French is identified as being the only language that

the subject speaks, to the exclusion of all languages. If this type of utterance appears in

presentational focus (13), the focused part French will be highlighted as new and

17
nonpresupposed information, without suggesting that French is the only language the person

speaks.

(12) a. He speaks Spanish.

b. No, he speaks [French]F.
(13) He speaks [French]F.
According to Moutaouakil (1989), one of the basic means to mark contrastive focus in

Standard Arabic is through moving the focused constituent to a clause-initial position (14). This

can also be noticed in (15), where the optional negative continuation shows how the focused item

is in contrast with a parallel item. This negative continuation ensures that the sentence will pass

the exhaustive identification test of contrastive focus, so the predicate jatakallamu ‘he speaks’

applies to the focus l-ʕarabiijjatu ‘Arabic’, but not to other contextually invoked alternatives,

which involve l-ʔiŋliiziijjatu ‘English’.

(14) [zajdan]F sˤaafaħtu.

Zayd I.greeted
‘It was Zayd that I greeted.’
(Moutaouakil 1989:24 (16))
(15) [l-ʕarabiijjatu]F jatakallamu , (wa-lajsa l-ʔiŋliiziijjatu).
the-Arabic he.is.speaking , and-NEG the-English
‘It is Arabic that he is speaking (but not English).’
Kiss (1998) provides one more test to distinguish contrastive focus, which she owes to

Szabolcsi 1981. This test requires that there be two sentences. In the first sentence two

coordinate DPs are focused, while the second sentence contains only one of the coordinate DPs.

The focus is contrastive if the second sentence is not one of the logical consequences of the first

sentence, illustrated in (16). In a simplified scenario, someone may want to tell others who

sponsored a project. He or she may report this information with either of the two sentences in

18
(16). The second sentence (16b), which contains only one focused DP David, is not one of the

logical consequences of the first sentence (16a), where the focused constituent includes the DP

David conjoined with another DP Marc. If it is true that David is the only one who sponsored the

project, it cannot be true that Marc participated with him in the act of sponsoring. Hence, the

predicate in (16b) applies only to the focused DP David, but not to other alternatives. I will refer

to this test as the coordination test of contrastive focus.

(16) a. It was [Marc and David]F who sponsored the project.

b. It was [David]F who sponsored the project.

1.2 Focus Particles (FPs)

1.2.1 Definition of FPs

In the English research tradition, the term ‘focus particle’ (FP) is used interchangeably

with many other terms, the most common of which include ‘focus adverb’, ‘focus sensitive

particle’, ‘focus inducer’, and ‘scalar particle’ (Sudhoff 2010). The best way to define FPs is to

see how they behave as particles and how they interact with focus. Generally speaking, a particle

refers to “an invariable item with grammatical function, especially one which does not readily fit

into a standard classification of parts of speech” (Crystal 2008:352). FPs meet such a

specification, as they are uninflectional, functional words, like the negative particles not and the

quantificatioanl adverb again, among others.

FPs are also characterized as being able to interact with the focus structure of a sentence.

They take a noticeable role in the identification and delimitation of their focus. As mentioned

above, focus implicates the existence of relevant alternatives, and the role of FPs is to specify the

relation between the focus and its alternatives. The relation may take the form of addition,

19
exclusion, or scalar ordering (König 1991, Foolen et al. 2009). These will be defined and

clarified below.

Positional variability is also a defining characteristic of FPs. That is, FPs may occur in

several positions in a sentence, as shown in (17), where the FP only freely moves throughout the

sentence. Closely related to this is that FPs may associate with every constituent type, with some

language-specific restrictions, as in the case of FPs that may not occur inside PPs and inside

genitive constructions in German and SJA, which will be illustrated below. In English, FPs may

attach to a DP (17a), a VP (17b), and a PP (17d), among other categories (Foolen et al. 2009).

(17) a. Only FRED could have shown the exhibition to Mary.

b. Fred could only have SHOWN the exhibition to Mary.
c. Fred could have shown only THE EXHIBITION to Mary.
d. Only FRED could have shown the exhibition only to MARY.
(König 1991:10 (1))
Sudhoff (2010) captures the characteristics of FPs in his definition of an FP as “an

uninflectional function word that shows a high positional variability and is related to one or more

focused elements in the sentence, which determine its meaning contribution” (7).

1.2.2 Classification of FPs

Traditionally, FPs are subdivided into three main groups, based on their function in

identifying the relevance of the focus to its alternatives. They are grouped into inclusive

(additive) particles, scalar particles, and exclusive (restrictive) particles. Plainly, FPs may

include or exclude the alternatives from the focus, or they may lay the focus on a scale in relation

to the alternatives. The rest of Section 1.2.2 will present and exemplify the classification of FPs

under the three categories: inclusive, scalar, and exclusive particles (König 1991, Sudhoff 2010).

20
1.2.2.1 Inclusive/Additive particles

In quantifying over the alternatives of the focus, inclusive particles include “some

alternative(s) as possible value(s) for the variable of their scope” (König 1991:33). Put

differently, the background part of the clause applies to the focus of inclusive FPs as well as to

its alternative(s). All sentences with such FPs entail the corresponding sentences without the

particles, and presuppose that one or more of the alternatives in the context can be added to the

focus when the background part of the clause applies to them. Examples of inclusive particles are

also and too in English and auch in German (König 1991).

Sentence (18) includes the FP also, which indicates the presence of alternative(s) to the

focus John. This sentence asserts and entails that John passed the exam, and presupposes that at

least someone else passed the exam. Importantly, nothing is mentioned here about whether John

is more or less likely than other individuals to pass the exam, unlike the case with scalar

particles.

(18) [John]F also passed the exam.

1.2.2.2 Scalar particles

König (1991) discusses scalar FPs within the class of inclusive/additive particles,

whereas Sudhoff (2010) treats them as a separate class of FPs. The difference of opinion between

König (1991) and Sudhoff (2010) results from the lack of lexical distinction between inclusive

particles and scalar particles in many languages. Hence, one lexical item appears in inclusive

contexts as well as scalar contexts, like the particle auch in German, which corresponds to both

the inclusive particle also and the scalar particle even in English. For explicitness of presentation

and analysis, I follow Sudhoff (2010) and take the scalar particles as an independent group of

FPs.

21
 Scalar particles add the focus to all of its alternatives and rank it as the least likely among

them to which the background part of the clause holds. It is evident that the scale on which

ranking is based is that of likelihood. This meaning component that reflects the ranking of the

focus is referred to as a conventional implicature, and it is what distinguishes scalar particles

from inclusive ones (Sudhoff 2010). Similar to sentences with inclusive particles, sentences with

scalar particles entail the corresponding sentences without the particles and presuppose the

existence of alternatives to the focus. As an illustration, (19) asserts and entails that John passed

the exam; presupposes that all John’s classmates passed the exam; and, most importantly,

conventionally implicates that John is the least likely one in his group to pass the exam.

(19) Even [John]F passed the exam.

1.2.2.3 Exclusive/Restrictive particles

Exclusive or restrictive particles serve to exclude “elements distinct from the focus from

the set of elements that yield a true proposition when the background is applied to them”

(Sudhoff, 2010:53). That is, the background part of the clause applies to the focus of exclusive

particles, but not to any of the laternatives. Only in English and nur in German are instances of

exclusive FPs. A sentence with an exclusive particle presupposes the relevant sentence without

the FP and entails that none of the alternatives can act as a substitute for the variable of the focus.

To illustrate, sentence (20), which involves the exclusive FP only, presupposes that John passed

the exam, and asserts and entails that no one other than John passed the exam.

(20) Only [John]F passed the exam.

22
 1.3 Theoretical Background

Section 1.3.1 briefly reviews the basic tenets of the latest development in the theory of

Generative Grammar, the Minimalist Program, upon which the current study is based. Section

1.3.2 surveys the Adjunc Approach to the syntax of FPs.2

1.3.1 The Minimalist Program

The current study is framed within the Minimalist Program, as developed by Chomsky

(1993, 1995, 2000). According to this program, language consists of a lexicon and a

computational system. Lexical items are selected from the lexicon and ordered into a lexical

array, which includes a list of the lexical items and the number of times each of these items can

be selected by the computational system. Technically, this array is termed as numeration. The

first step in the derivation is to select items from the numeration. The operation merge takes two

of these selected items to form a new syntactic object. Merge may apply successively to combine

any two syntactic objects, which may be simple, if neither of the elements merged before, or

complex, if one or both of the syntactic objects is the outcome of a previous merge operation.

The Inclusiveness Condition does not allow for the computational system to insert elements not

found in the numeration. Of the things that the Inclusiveness Condition rules out are traces,

indices, and bar levels on categories.

The last operation that can participate in forming larger units is move, which involves

copy and merge. That is, a part of the syntactic tree copies and merges with another constituent

in the tree. The moving item leaves a copy behind that is interpreted at logical form (LF), but is

not normally pronounced at phonetic form (PF). Although the operation select applies without

2
The Adjunct Approach is contrasted with the Adverbial Approach, which was develped byJacobs (1983) and
Buring and Hartmann (2001). Due to the many drawbacks in the Adverbial Approach that Reis (2005) refers to and
the calls she makes to give it up, I opt to emphasize solely on the Adjunct Approach.

23
restrictions, merge and move take place only when there is a need for it. In Minimalism, merge

has restrictions on it and obeys Last Reort. In one case, selectional features must be checked

under merge. Similarly, movement must occur as a Last Resort, driven by feature checking.

Lexical items enter the derivation with interpretable and uninterpretable features. For a

derivation to be successful, the uninterpretable features must be checked and eliminated before

the derivation reaches LF and PF. Thus, a constituent moves to be in a checking relation with

another constituent, eliminating the uniterpretable features. Generally, the derivation is said to

converge if it yields an interpretable representation at both PF and LF, but if the derivation

terminates while there are unchecked uniterpretable features, it is said to crash. A derivation

terminates if no lexical item is left in the numeration.

At some point in the computation, an operation known as spell-out applies, “which is

assumed to be a set of operations that apply to a syntactic object to give rise to a representation

which interfaces with the AP [Articulatory-Perceptual] system” (Adger 2003:145). That is, at

spell-out the derivation is sent to PF for pronunciation and to LF for interpretation. Accordingly,

the Minimalist Program reduces linguistic representations to only two: LF and PF, which are

conceived as interfaces with the Conceptual-Intentional (CI) system and the Articulatory-

Perceptual (AP) system, respectively. This shows that Minimalism exhibits economy in

representation.

To recap, in the Minimalist Program the operations select, merge, and move apply to the

numeration. At spell-out, the derivation is sent to PF and LF. In order for the derivation to

converge, all uninterpretable features must be checked. However, it is essential to call to mind

that the deatails of the Minimalist Program are more complex than briefly given above, but this

simplified description is suffiecient for the purposes of the current study.

24
1.3.2 The Adjunct Approach to the Syntax of FPs

Under the Adjunct Approach, FPs are termed ‘cross-categorical operators’ as they may

adjoin to a constituent of any maximal projection (Sudhoff 2010). Bayer (1996), who is one of

the main advocates of the adjunct analysis of FPs, analyzes FPs as minor functional heads, and

proposes that “the particle modifies its target (i.e., its syntactic domain) in the sense that its

features percolate to the top node XP while they do not affect the syntactic category XP” (14).

Bayer illustrates how an FP affects the focused constituent it adjoins to through the difference

between only (21) and even (22). Unlike even, only obligatorily induces subject-auxiliary

inversion. Bayer proposes that syntax detects a feature of negation in the phrase only George that

makes it an affective operator, causing negative inversion. On the other hand, even assigns a

different feature to the phrase even George, which does not require inversion. Bayer’s

representation in (23) shows that the upper XP inherits the categorical status of the daughter XP.

Certain semantic features percolate from the FP to the upper XP, which are encoded by the

superscript q.

(21) a. [Only George] would we invite.

b. *[Only George] we would invite.
(22) a. *[Even George] would we invite.
b. [Even George] we would invite.
(Bayer 1996:14 (12-13))
(23)

(Bayer 1996:15 (14))

25
 Regarding the relation that holds between FPs and their focused constituents, Bayer

emphasizes that an FP must c-command its focus. If they are not in such a configuration, the FP

does not associate with the focus, as in the ill-formed sentence in (24). The focus may be

unboundedly far from the FP, as in (25), where the focus is three constituents away from the FP.

(24) *[John even had an idea] and [he told it his BOSS].
(25) John even [had an idea [that his boss would be mad at him [when he wears
JEANS]]].
(Bayer 1996:16 (16-17))
Bayer raises two options for the focus: (i) to correspond to the syntactic domain (26a), or

(ii) to be a part of it (26b).

(26) a. John would invite [DP only [DP MARY]].

b. John would [VP only [VP invite MARY]].
(Bayer 1996:15 (15))
Because this model claims that an FP and the focused item associate to form one

constituent, it is expected for that constituent to be able to occur inside a PP and in a genitive

construction. However, the prediction is not borne-out, as seen in (27, his (24)) and (28, his

(27)), respectively. Hence, it becomes necessary for Bayer to find an explanation for the

ungrammaticality or unacceptability of sentences with an FP-DP sequence after a P (27b), or in a

genitive construction (28b).

(27) a. daB sie nur mit dem OPA plaudert.

that she only with the grandfather chats
‘That she chats only with grandfather.’
b. *daB sie mit nur dem OPA plaudert.
that she with only the grandfather chats
(28) a. daB sie sogar die Schuhe DER KINDER putzt.

26
 that she even the shoes the children.GEN cleans
‘That she cleans even the children’s shoes.’
b. ?daB sie die Schuhe sogar DER KINDER putzt.
that she the shoes even the children.GEN cleans
(Bayer 1996:18)
Bayer’s explanation for the ban on the occurrence of FPs in the positions marked in (27-

28) is in terms of LF-movement, where FP-XP has to move into a scope position in the domain

of quantification. FPs are quantifiers: they relate the focused constituent to the domain of other

relevant items. For example, in (29, his (17)), the scalar FP even takes the focused constituent

Alceste and relates it to the domain of other individuals, ranking such that Alceste appears to be

the least likely among the other individuals to be met by John. The syntactic reflex of this is that

the quantified expression even Alceste must be licensed to move at LF into a position where it

has scope over its domain. In this example, the quantified expression moves to the VP at LF, as

represented in (30, his (19)). In English, FPs can occur inside PPs (31, his (20)), unlike in

German (27). In order to explain this, Bayer maintains that the movement of the FP-XP must

obey the Condition of Global Harmony, according to which the governors of the empty category

must have a uniform orientation. In English, both V and P have the same direction of

government’ whereas in German, V agrees to the left, and P to the right. Further, Bayer argues

that the movement of the FP-XP from inside a genitive construction (28) is not licensed because

it violates island constraints.

(29) John invited even Alceste.

(30) John [VP even Alcestei [VP invited ei]].
(31) John will talk to even Alceste.
(Bayer 1996:51-52)

27
 Similarly, in their investigation of the grammar of the additive FP auch in German, Reis

and Rosengren (1997) argue that FPs are non-expanding XPs adjoining to XPs of all categories.

Reis and Rosengren take auch as a maximal projection of its own type (AuchP) and emphasize

that the V2 constraint may not be violated. Similarly, Nederstigt (2003) analyzes the German

additive FPs noch and the unstressed auch, which precedes its focus, as adjuncts attaching to

XPs of any kind. She analyzes the stressed variant auch, which follows its focus, as the head of a

functional projection adjoining to VP. In this projection, auch hosts the focus in its specifier.

The basic advantage of the Adjunct Approach is that it does not induce any violation to

the V2-structure of German. Clause-initial FPs are taken to be a part of the immediately

following XP, not c-commanding the root CP (Reis 2005, Sudhoff 2010). However, the Adjunct

Approach is not without its faults. One problem is conceptual in nature: adjunction of FPs to VP

cannot be excluded, which may “predict systematic syntactic ambiguities which, however, do not

correspond to semantic differences” (Sudhoff 2008:4). This appears to be the case in German, as

the domain and the focus of the FP may not match, giving rise to the ambiguity in (32). Because

German VPs are head-final, the FP nur ‘only’ may be analyzed as adjoining to the VP that holds

the focused DP (32a), or to the focused DP (32b).

(32) ich habe nur einen ROMAN gelesen.

I have only a novel read
a. ich habe [VP nur [VP [DP einen ROMAN] gelesen]]
I have only a novel read
b. ich habe [VP [DP nur [DP einen ROMAN]] gelesen]
I have only a novel read
(Buring and Hartmann 2001:231 (4))

28
 To summarize, the Adjunct Approach assumes that FPs can freely adjoin to any maximal

projection that holds the focus. It is emphasized in this approach that FPs c-command the focus.

The ban on the occurrence of FPs inside genitive constructions and PPs is explained in terms of

LF-movement.

1.4 Research Questions

The current study has two main goals. The first is to provide a descriptive account of the

grammar of FPs as they are used in SJA. The descriptive overview will present the inclusive,

scalar, and exclusive FPs in SJA. Specifically, it will document the distribution of FPs inside

clauses, the semantic contribution of each of the FPs, and the type of focus the FPs bring to the

clauses in which they appear. The second goal is to propose a syntactic analysis for the FPs in

SJA. To achieve this goal, I will test the validity of the Adjunct Approach in capturing the

patterns of FPs in SJA. It will be evident that this approach can successfully account for most of

the FPs used in SJA. In limited cases, two FPs appear to behave as coordinators, for which I will

advance a new analysis.

The study addresses the following descriptive and theoretical research questions:

(33) Descriptive Research Questions:

a. What are the FPs that occur in SJA?
b. What are the distributional properties of FPs in SJA?
c. What are the semantic contributions of each type of FP?
d. What type of focus (i.e., presentational or contrastive) is associated with each type
of FPs?
(34) Theoretical Research Questions:
a. What is the categrical status of each of the FPs?
b. What is the structural relation that holds between an FP and its focus?
c. What governs the distribution of FPs inside a clause?

29
 The present study is significant for two reasons. First, to the best of my knowledge, there

has not been any attempt to address the grammar of FPs in SJA or any other variety of Arabic,

including Standard Arabic. Thus, this dissertation will contribute to the research on FPs, focus,

and other related phenomena in all varieties of Arabic. Second, the existing account of the syntax

of FPs (i.e., the Adjunct Approach) has focused on German, so it seems of theoretical benefit to

test it on a language variety like SJA, which is typologically distinct from German. I will show

that the Adjunct Approach can account for a large part of the data representing FPs in SJA.

However, it will be evident that this approach fails to capture the data representing one of the

patterns of the scalar FP and one exclusive FP in SJA. In these cases, the FP acts as a coordinator

conjoining clauses. This will necessitate proposing a new analysis that will account for the FPs

that function as coordinators.

1.5 Some Aspects of the Syntax of Southern Jordanian Arabic (SJA)

This section highlights some aspects of the clause structure in SJA that are pertinent to

the investigation of the syntax of FPs in this Arabic variety. These aspects include the alternation

between the two main word orders: SVO and VSO, the syntax of the left-periphery, and the

syntax of sentential negation. As far as I know, these issues have been discussed only in relation

to other varieties of Arabic (e.g., Standard Arabic, Jordanian Arabic). The generalizations made

about these varieties also hold for SJA.

1.5.1 Word Order Alternation in SJA

Like Standard Arabic and all spoken varieties of Arabic, SJA displays the two main word

orders: SVO (35) and VSO (36).

(35) l-walad ʔakal ruz.

the-boy ate rice
‘The boy ate rice.’

30
 (36) ʔakal l-walad ruz.
ate the-boy rice
‘The boy ate rice.’
Many analyses have been proposed to account for the derivation of SVO and VSO word

orders in Standard Arabic and in other varieties of Arabic; these include Bakir (1980), Fassi

Fehri (1993), Benmamoun (2000), Mohammad (2000), Harbert and Bahloul (2002), and Soltan

(2007). These analyses can be assembled into two groups: a movement analysis, which proposes

that the two word orders have one underlying structure, and a non-movement analysis, which

assumes that the two word orders are derived from two underlying structures.

One of the representatives of the movement analysis is Mohammad (2000). According to

Mohammad, the SVO order is derived if the VP-internal subject moves to Spec, TP, as displayed

in (37). On the other hand, if this subject stays in-situ, and Spec, TP is filled with an expletive

null pro, the VSO order surfaces, as shown in (38).

(37)

31
 (38)

The non-movement analysis takes the SVO and VSO orders as distinct from each other.

As proposed in Soltan (2007), who is one of the proponents of this approach, the subject in the

SVO order is a topic or a left-dislocated element that is base-generated in the left-periphery and

binds a null pronominal in the A-domain inside the clause, as shown in (39). As in the previous

approach, this analysis assumes that the VSO order is obtained if the subject remains in its

position in Spec, VP and there is no topicalized item in the left-periphery, as represented in (38).

(39)

32
 In brief, SJA, like Standard Arabic and all spoken varieties of Arabic, exhibits both word

orders: SVA and VSA. It remains a matter of controversy whether the preverbal subject is a

subject in the A-domain or a topicalized constituent in the A-bar domain.

1.5.2 The Syntax of the Left-Periphery in SJA

The left-periphery in SJA may host topicalized items, focus-fronted elements, and wh-

words. I will follow Mohammad (2000) and Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri (2010) in

referring to the topicalized items that are linked to resumptive pronominals in the clause as citic-

left dislocated (CLLD) items. As specified for CLLDed items in Standard Arabic and Lebanese

Arabic (Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri 2010), in SJA they have to be definite NPs, as

exemplified in (40).

(40) *(l)-ktaabi ʕumar tardgam-uhi,

the-book Omar translated-it
‘The book Omar translated it.’
One of the distinguishing characteristics of CLLD constructions in Standard Arabic and

Lebanese Arabic, and that also applies to SJA, is that they are not sensitive to islands constraints.

That is, the CLLDed item can be linked to a resumptive pronominal inside an island, as in (41-

43), which contain a resumptive pronominal inside a sentential subject island, a wh-island, and

an adjunct island, respectively. It is worth mentioning that resumption is one of the strategies that

can ameliorate islands violations (Ross 1967). The insensitivity of CLLD constructions to islands

constraints led Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri (2010) to conclude that the CLLD element in

these constructions is base-generated in the left-periphery.

(41) Sentential Subject Island Constraint

t-tadxiini ʔinnuh waɡɡaf-uhi faad-uh.
the-smoking COMP stopped-it benefited-him

33
 ‘Smoking that he stopped it helped him.’
(42) Wh-Island Constraint
smiʕt ʔinnuh l-ktaabi ʕirfuu miin saraq-uhi.
I.heard COMP the-book they.knew who stole-it
‘I heard that the book they knew who stole it.’
(43) Adjunct Island Constraint
riimi ʔinbasˤatˤit liʔahum saaʕaduu-haai.
Reem I.got.happy because.they helped-her
‘Reem I got happy because they helped her.’
The other type of constituents that may surface in the left-periphery involves focus-

fronted elements. Similar to what Moutaoukil (1989) notes with regard to focus constructions in

Standard Arabic, in SJA focus fronting marks contrast between the focused item and pre-existing

alternative(s) for the focus, so a sentence with contrastive focus, as in (45a), may not be an

answer to the question in (44). Instead, the sentence with presentational focus, (45b), can be the

answer to that question. In addition, the optional negative continuation in (46) shows how the

focus-fronted item ɡahwah ‘coffee’ is in contrast with a parallel item ʃaaj ‘tea’.

(44) ʃuu ʃiribit bi-l-maqhaa?

what you.drank in-the-café
‘What did you drink in the café?’
(45) a. #[ɡahwah]F ʃiribit bi-l-maqhaa.
coffee I.drank in-the-café
‘It was coffee that I drank in the café.’
b. ʃiribit [ɡahwah]F bi-l-maqhaa.
I.drank coffee in-the-café
‘I drank coffee in the café.’
(46) [ɡahwah]F ʃiribit bi-l-maqhaa (muʃ ʃaaj).

34
 coffee I.drank in-the-café not tea
‘It was Coffee that I drank in the café, (not tea).’
It is noted in (46) that the focus-fronted item may be indefinite, unlike a CLLDed item,

which has to be definite, as noted in (40). Of the other characteristics of focused phrases in SJA

is that they, unlike CLLDed elements, are related to a gap inside the clause, as observed in

Standard Arabic and Lebanese Arabic (see Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri 2010). This

explains why focus-fronted phrases exhibit sensitivity to islands constraints, as exemplified in

(47-49), which show that the focused item may not be linked to a gap inside a sentential subject

island, a wh-island, and an adjunct island, respectively.

(47) Sentential Subject Island Constraint

*[riim]F ʔinhum tˤaraduu t ʔazʕadʒnii.
Reem COMP.they fired bothered.me
‘Reem that they fired bothered me.’

(48) Wh-Island Constraint

*[l-ktaab]F ʕirift miin tardʒam t .
the-book I.knew who translated
‘The book I knew who translated.’
(49) Adjunct Island Constraint
*[hadiil]F tˤiliʕ baʕd maa ʃaaf t .
Hadeel he.left after COMP he.saw
‘Hadeel he left after he saw.’
Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri (2010) hold that in Standard Arabic and Lebanese

Arabic there may not be more than one fronted focus item in a clause. This can be extended to

SJA, as witnessed in (50), where it appears that only one constituent can be focus-fronted (50a-

35
b). This restriction on the number of focus-fronted items explains the ungrammaticality of (50c),

where there are two focused constituents.

(50) a. [bi-l-ʕarabii]F ʕumar rasab (muʃ bi-l-iŋliizii).

in-the-Arabic Omar failed not in-the-English
‘It was in Arabic that Omar failed, not in English.’
b. bi-l-ʕarabii [ʕumar]F rasab (muʃ raamii).
in-the-Arabic Omar failed not Ramy
‘In Arabic it was Omar who failed, not Ramy.’
c. *[bi-l-ʕarabii]F [ʕumar]F rasab (muʃ bi-l-iŋliizii raamii rasab).
in-the-Arabic Omar failed not in-the-English Ramy failed
‘It was in Arabic that Omar failed, not in English Ramy failed.’
Ouhalla (1994) draws attention to the incompatibility of questions with focus-fronted

items in Standard Arabic, which is also witnessed in SJA, as in (51). To account for this, Ouhalla

(1994) argues that there is a focus phrase (FocP) above TP, which bears the [+F] feature. This

[+F] feature is identified by moving the item that bears [+F] to land in Spec, FocP or by merging

the focused item with the head of FP. This analysis explains the restriction on the number of the

focused phrases in a clause to be no more than one and accounts for the incompatibility of wh-

questions with focus, since, as argued in Ouhalla (1994), both compete for the same position.

(51) *miin [ɡahwah]F ʃirib?

who coffee drank
‘Who coffee drank?’
Ouhalla’s (1994) analysis of the derivation of focus-fronted phrases by movement

explains the presence of gaps, the sensitivity to island constraints, the restriction on the number

of focus phrases in a clause, and the incompatibility of focus-fronted phrases with wh-questions.

One of the problems in Ouhalla’s analysis, as noted by Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri (2010),

36
is that it excludes the possibility of having CLLDed items after focus phrases, which occurs in

Lebanese Arabic. As to be shown below, in SJA it is evident that CLLDed items may follow as

well as precede focus-fronted phrases. In order to capture the freedom in ordering CLLDed

elements and focus phrases in SJA, I will refer to the account advanced by Shlonsky (2000). In

the spirit of Rizzi (1997), Shlonsky (2000) proposes that the CP in Lebanese Arabic is better

taken as consisting of layered projections in the following order:

(52) ForceP > TopP > FP > TopP > FinP

This analysis can successfully predict the free ordering of focus phrases and CLLDed

items in SJA. As shown below, the CLLDed item l-xabar ‘the news’ may precede (53) as well as

follow (54) the focus-fronted phrase ʕa-l-dʒaziirah ‘on the Jazeera’.

(53) l-xabari [ʕa-l-dʒaziirah]F smiʕt-uhi.

the-news on-the-Jazeera I.heard-it
‘The news it was on the Jazeera that I heard it.’
(54) [ʕa-l-dʒaziirah]F l-xabari smiʕt-uhi.
on-the-Jazeera the-news I.heard-it
‘It was on the Jazeera that the news I heard it.’
To recap, it is evident that CLLDed items, focus phrases, and wh-words can appear in the

left-periphery in SJA. The account provided by Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri (2010) can

capture the distribution of CLLDed items in SJA, and the analysis proposed by Ouhalla (1994)

for focus-fronted phrases and wh-question in Standard Arabic can be extended to SJA.

Shlonsky’s (2000) proposal with regard to the cartography of the left-periphery can successfully

predict the free ordering of the CLLDed items and focus phrases in SJA.

1.5.3 The Syntax of Sentential Negation in SJA

Alsarayreh (2012) provides a descriptive and an analytical account of sentential negation

in JA which I will adopt for SJA. According to Alsarayreh, the negative markers in JA are the

37
proclitic maa- for verbal negation (55), and the Pronouns of Negation for predicate negation

(56).

(55) jazan maa laʕib fatˤbool.

Yazan NEG played soccer
‘Yazan did not play soccer.’
(56) jazan m-uu tˤawiil.
Yazan NEG-he tall
‘Yazan is not tall.’
(Alsarayreh 2012:42-43 (44-45))
As for the syntactic status of these negative markers, Alsarayreh argues that they head

their own projection. The support for this argument comes from the fact that these negative

markers can host clitics (57), and can show agreement (58).

(57)
m-ana I + NEG
m-int You.MS + NEG
m-inti You.FS + NEG
m-uu He + NEG
m-ii She + NEG
m-ħna We + NEG
m-intu You.P + NEG
m-umma They + Neg
(58) haaða m-uu ktaabii
this.3MS NEG-3MS my.book
‘This is my book.’
(Alsarayreh 2012:44 (46-47)))

38
 Finally, Alsarayreh argues that the negative phrase in JA is higher than TP, along the

lines of the high-Neg analysis, as propounded by Shlonsky (1997) and Soltan (2007), among

others. An alternative to this type of analysis is the low-Neg analysis, which postulates that

negation is between VP and TP, as proposed in Benmamoun (2000) and Ouhalla (2002). While

both analyses can account for a wide range of data, Alsarayreh points out that the high-Neg

analysis is preferred to the low-Neg analysis in accounting for data in JA, like (59), where the

negative marker maa- appears with an expletive particle that is assumed to be residing in Spec,

TP.

(59) maa-fii ħada dʒa.

NEG-there one came.3SM
‘No one came’
(Alsarayreh 2012:48 (59))
To sum up, in this section I have explored certain aspects of clause structure in SJA that

are relevant to the study of FPs in that language variety. It has been shown that SJA licenses two

basic word orders (SVO and VSO). The left-periphery may host CLLDed items, focus-fronted

elements, and wh-words, and the distribution of these items may be captured by the account put

forth by Shlonsky (2000). As regards sentential negation, I follow Alsarayreh (2012) in assuming

that the negative markers in SJA head their own projection above TP. This is particularly

significant when addressing identity conditions on the ellipsis that happens to the TP after the

exclusive FP ʔilla in SJA (see Chapter 4).

1.6 Transliteration and Representation of the Data

In transcribing the data from SJA, I use the symbols of the International Phonetic

Alphabet (IPA). Geminated sounds are transcribed with two adjacent consonants, as in ħurr

‘free’. The definite article in Arabic l- ‘the’ assimilates to the first consonant in the word it is

39
prefixed to if that consonant is a coronal, like t, d, s, z, ʃ, θ, r, l, tˤ, ðˤ, sˤ. In all other cases, the

definite article does not change. The transcription of this definite l- represents it as it is

pronounced, as in r-radʒul ‘the man’ versus l-walad ‘the boy’. For sake of consistency, when I

cite examples from other sources, I transcribe and gloss them in the same way I transcribe and

gloss the data from SJA.

Importantly, in the data from SJA and in the examples I construct in English, I place the

focus between square brackets with a subscript F to the right of the closing bracket, as in (60).

With regard to examples from other sources, I mark the focus as it is marked in the cited

reference.

(60) bas [raamii]F zaarnii.

only Ramy visited.me
‘It was Ramy who visited me.’

1.7 Organization of the Dissertation

The dissertation is organized as follows. Chapter 2 provides a descriptive overview of

FPs in SJA. It introduces the FPs as used in SJA in terms of the classification of FPs into

inclusive (kamaan ‘also’), scalar (ħatta ‘even’), and exclusive FPs (bas ‘only’ and ʔilla

‘except’). For each of the FPs, I give examples illustrating their use and distribution. I also

present the semantic contribution and the focus properties of each FP.

Chapter 3 delineates an analysis for Pattern I and Pattern II of kamaan ‘also’, ħatta

‘even’, and bas ‘only’. In Pattern I, the FP (kamaan, ħatta, or bas) associates with the focus in its

canonical position, whereas in Pattern II the FP occurs with the focus in a clause-initial position.

The chapter starts by showing how the analysis works for Pattern I, and more technical details

about the analysis are presented. The predictions of the Adjunct Approach to FPs are examined.

The second part of the chapter focuses on Pattern II. It shows that this pattern involves A-bar

40
movement. It also highlights some of the advantages of the proposed analysis. For each pattern, I

examine the effects of the analysis on the interpretation of clauses containing the FPs under

discussion. Finally, issues related to both patterns are addressed in one section.

Chapter 4 begins by testing the validity of the Adjunct Approach in accounting for ħatta

‘even’ in Pattern III and ʔilla ‘except’. I show that this approach can successfully capture some

of the distributional patterns of these particles, but it fails to predict restrictions they impose on

word order. This motivates introducing a new analysis, which relies on Soltan’s (2014) account

of exceptive constructions in Egyptian Arabic and Merchant’s (2003) analysis of stripping. Some

arguments supporting the analysis are presented.

Chapter 5 concludes by summarizing the main findings of the dissertation.

41
 CHAPTER 2
A DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW OF FOCUS PARTICLES IN
SOUTHERN JORDANIAN ARABIC

This chapter provides a descriptive account of FPs in SJA. For each of the FPs, I will

present examples illustrating their use and distribution in the clause. The semantic contributions

of the FPs will also be highlighted. I will present the semantic components of the FPs with

reference to the model proposed in Horn (1969) and adopted as a standard model in Sudhoff

(2010). In addition, I will point out the type of focus that is associated with each FP. This chapter

is structured as follows. Section 2.1 describes the inclusive FP kamaan ‘also’. The scalar FP

ħatta ‘even’ is addressed in Section 2.2. Section 2.3 provides an account of the exclusive FPs bas

‘only’ and ʔilla ‘except’. Finally, Section 2.4 summarizes the chapter. As we will see, kamaan

and bas may be realized in two patterns, ħatta in three patterns, and ʔilla in only one pattern.

kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern I adjoin to the focused item in its canonical position, whereas

in Pattern II they appear with the focus clause-initially. ħatta in Pattern III and ʔilla surface with

the focus clause-finally.

2.1 The Inclusive FP in SJA

kamaan ‘also’ is an inclusive FP in SJA. It adds the focus to an alternative or a set of

alternatives that produce a true proposition when the background part of the clause applies to it.

Section 2.1.1 provides examples illustrating the use of kamaan. Section 2.1.2 presents the

semantic properties of kamaan. Section 2.1.3 investigates the type of focus that kamaan brings to

the clause in which it appears.

2.1.1 The Distribution of kamaan ‘Also’ in SJA

The FP kamaan shows up in two patterns in SJA. In Pattern I, kamaan appears with the

focus in its ordinary position that it would occupy without the particle.In Pattern II, kamaan and

42
the focus occur in a clause-initial position. The following sections will provide more examples of

each pattern.

2.1.1.1 kamaan in Pattern I

In Pattern I, the FP kamaan associates with the focused constituent in its canonical

position that it would occupy without the appearance of kamaan. It has to be adjacent to the

focused item, and it may precede and follow the focus1. When kamaan follows the focus, there is

a pause between the focused constituent and kamaan, as noted in Potsdam (1999) for adverbs

coming after their domains.

A DP is one of the constituents that may occur with kamaan in Pattern I, including a DP

in an object position (1) and a subject DP in a preverbal position (2) as well as in a postverbal

position (3). It is evident in these examples that kamaan focuses the constituent it occurs

immediately next to, and not any further constituent. For example, in (1), kamaan focuses ʕalii

‘Ali’, but not ktaab ‘book’.

(1) ʔaʕtˤaa {kamaan} [ʕalii]F {kamaan} ktaab.

he.gave also Ali also book
‘He also gave [Ali]F a book.’
(2) {kamaan} [dʒaarnaa]F {kamaan} saaʕadnaa.
also our.neighbor also helped.us
‘[Our neighbor]F also helped us.’
(3) zaarnaa {kamaan} [xaalii]F {kamaan} ʔimbaariħ.
visited.us also my.uncle also last.night
‘[My uncle]F also visited us last night.’

1
Since in many cases an FP can focus on the constituent before and after it, judgements and discussion of data are
based on the assumption that the focus of the FP is that what lies between the brackets.

43
 In addition, a PP may be focused by kamaan in Pattern I, whether it acts as an adjunct to

VP (4), an adjunct to AP (5), a complement to VP (6), or a complement to AP (7).

(4) ɡaabalt {kamaan} [fi-l-maktabih]F {kamaan} riim.

I.met. also in-the-library also Reem
‘I met Reem [in the library]F also.’
(5) t-tadxiin mamnuuʕ {kamaan} [fi-l-dʒaamʕah]F {kamaan}.
the-smoking prohibited also at-the-university also
‘Smoking is prohibited [at university]F also.’
(6) ʔarsalt {kamaan} [li-l-mudiir]F {kamaan} daʕwah.
I.sent also to-the-director also invitation
‘I sent an invitation [to the director]F also.’
(7) ʔanaa muhtamm {kamaan} [bi-l-ʔadab]F {kamaan}.
I interested also in-the-literature also
‘I am interested [in literature]F also.’
It is noteworthy that kamaan may not intervene between a P and its complement, as

exhibited in (8).

(8) a. ʃuftuh kamaan [bi-s-suuɡ]F ʔimbaariħ.

I.saw.him also in-the-market last.night
‘I saw him last night [in the market]F also .’
b. *ʃuftuh bi-kamaan [s-suuɡ]F ʔimbaariħ.
I.saw.him in-also the-market last.night
Similarly, an adjunct CP and an argument CP can be put into focus by kamaan in Pattern

I, as in (9) and (10), respectively.

(9) raħ titxaalaf {kamaan} [law dʒibt t-tasˤriiħ]F {kamaan}.

you.will be.ticketed also if you.got the-permit also
‘You will be ticketed also [if you get the permit]F.’

44
 (10) ʔabsatˤnii {kamaan} [ʔinnuh ħasˤal ʕalaa l-biʕθih]F {kamaan}.
pleased.me also COMP he.got on the-scholarship also
‘What pleased me is [that he got a scholarship]F also.’
Furthermore, an adverbial (11), a VP (12), and a TP (13) may appear with kamaan in

Pattern I.

(11) jidaawim {kamaan} [jom l-ʔaħad]F {kamaan} fi-l-maħall.

he.works also day the-Sunday also in-the-shop
‘He works in the shop on [Sunday]F also.’
(12) naadir {kamaan} [jiħkii luɣaat]F {kamaan}. (muʃ bas
Nader also speaks languages also not only
jiʕrif jibarmidʒ).
he.knows to.program
‘Nader also [speaks many languages]F. (Not only does he know how to program.)’
(13) l-waðˤiʕ kulluh kaan ɣariib . ʔistaɣrabt ʔinnuh
the-situation entirely was unusual I.was.surprised COMP
{kamaan} [kaanat tilʕab ɡabl l-ʔimtiħaan]F {kamaan}.
also she.was she.play before the-exam also
‘The situation was entirely unusual. I was surprised that [she was playing before
the exam]F also.’
However, kamaan may not occur inside a genitive construction, as exhibited in (14). Here

it is worth noting that kamaan may either precede or follow the whole genitive construction

luʕbit ʕumar ‘Omar’s toy’ (14a), but may not appear inside it (14b). Interestingly, when kamaan

associates with such a genitive construction, it may focus on the whole construction luʕbit ʕumar

‘Omar’s toy’, on the first element luʕbit ‘toy’, or on the second element ʕumar ‘Omar’. In the

first case, the interpretation is that Omar’s toy was stolen, along with at least one more item

belonging to at least one person besides Omar (e.g., Karim’s book); in the second case, it is

45
understood that Omar’s toy was stolen, along with at least one more item that belongs to Omar

(e.g., Omar’s book); and in the last case, the interpretation is that Omar’s toy was stolen in

addition to a toy belonging to at least one person besides Omar (e.g., Karim’s toy).

(14) a. saraɡuu {kamaan} [luʕbit ʕumar]F {kamaan}.

they.stole also toy.GEN Omar also
‘They stole [Omar’s toy]F also.
b. *saraɡuu [luʕbit kamaan ʕumar]F.
they.stole toy.GEN also Omar
In Pattern I, adjacency between kamaan and its focus is maintained to be essential, as

evident in the examples (1-14) above. This can also be illustrated in the two examples below,

where the locative adverbial bi-l-matˤaar ‘in the airport’ (15) and the temporal adverbial

ʕimbaariħ ‘last night’ (16) may occur either after (15a, 16a) or before (15b, 16b), kamaan and its

focus, but not between them (15c, 16c). These latter sentences (15c, 16c) are judged to be

ungrammatical based on the assumption that the focus of kamaan is maʕ ʕalii ‘with Ali’ and ʕa-

l-dʒaziira ‘on the Jazeera’, respectively. If kamaan focuses on the constituents immediately

following it, then both of the sentences would be well-formed.

(15) a. ʔiltaʔɡeet kamaan [maʕ ʕalii]F bi-l-matˤaar.

I.met also with Ali in-the-airport
‘I also met [Ali]F in the airport.’
b. ʔiltaʔɡeet bi-l-matˤaar kamaan [maʕ ʕalii]F.
I.met in-the-airport also with Ali
c. *ʔiltaʔɡeet kamaan bi-l-matˤaar [maʕ ʕalii]F.
I.met also in-the-airport with Ali
(16) a. smiʕt l-xabar kamaan [ʕa-l-dʒaziira]F ʕimbaariħ.
I.heard the-news also on-the-Jazeera last.night

46
 ‘I heard the news [on the Jazeera]F also last night.’
b. smiʕt l-xabar ʕimbaariħ kamaan [ʕa-l-dʒaziira]F.
I.heard the-news last.night also on-the-Jazeera
c. *smiʕt l-xabar kamaan ʕimbaariħ [ʕa-l-dʒaziira]F.
I.heard the-news also last.night on-the-Jazeera
In brief, kamaan in Pattern I occurs immediately to the left or to the right of the focused

constituent in the position that the focus would occupy without the presence of kamaan. In this

pattern, kamaan may focus on constituents of many categories. It has been noted that kamaan

may not appear between a P and its complement or inside genitive constructions.

2.1.1.2 kamaan in Pattern II

As regards the distribution of kamaan in Pattern II, it associates with the focus in a

clause-initial position, and it may occur to the left or to the right of the focused item. It is notable

that there is a pause after kamaan when it follows the focus. As exemplified below, kamaan can

focus on constituents of different categories. One of them is a DP (17).

(17) {kamaan} [xuðˤaar]F {kamaan} maa jaakul.

also vegetables also NEG he.eats
‘[Vegetables]F also he does not eat.’
Of the other categories that may be focused by kamaan in Pattern II is a PP, whether

serving as an adjunct to VP (18), an adjunct to AP (19), a complement to VP (20), or a

complement to AP (21).

(18) {kamaan} [bi-l-dʒaamʕah]F {kamaan} ʔaʃuufuh.

also at-the-university also I.see.him
‘[At university]F also I see him.’
(19) {kamaan} [bi-l-quraa]F {kamaan} l-ʔizʕaadʒ mawdʒuud.
also in-the-villages also the-annoyance existing

47
 ‘[In the villages]F also annoyance is existing.’
(20) {kamaan} [li-l-muħtaadʒiin]F {kamaan} maa jiʕtˤii masˤaarii.
also to-the-needy also NEG he.gives money
‘[To the needy]F also he does not give money.’
(21) {kamaan} [bi-l-ʔadab]F {kamaan} huu mubdiʕ.
also in-the-literature also he creative
‘[In literature]F also he is creative.’
Likewise, a CP can be the focus of kamaan in Pattern II, whether it occurs in an adjunct

position (22), or in an argument position (23). In the latter sentence (23), the CP ʔinnak twaɡɡif

tadxiin ‘that you stop smoking’ is an argument of the V jifiid ‘help’.

(22) {kamaan} [law darasit]F {kamaan} maa raħ tindʒaħ.

also if you.studied also NEG would succeed
‘You would not succeed [if you studied]F also.’
(23) {kamaan} [ʔinnak twaɡɡif tadxiin]F {kamaan} raħ jifiidak.
also COMP stop smoking also will help.you
‘It will help you [that you stop smoking]F also.’
In addition, a VP (24) and an adverbial (25) can surface with kamaan in the pattern under

consideration. In (24), the optional negative continuation muʃ bas ʔaxað ruxsˤit swaaɡaha ‘not

only he got a driving license’ shows clearly that kamaan focuses on the whole VP tʕallam ʕibrii

‘learnt Hebrew’.

(24) {kamaan} [tʕallam ʕibrii]F {kamaan} ʕumar. (muʃ bas ʔaxað

also learnt Hebrew also Omar not only he.got
ruxsˤit swaaɡaha).
license driving
‘Omar also [learnt Hebrew]F. (Not only had he got a driving license.)’

48
 (25) {kamaan} [jom s-sabt]F {kamaan} jidaawim.
also day the-Saturday also he.works
‘[On Saturday]F also he works.’
At the beginning, I put forth the generalization that kamaan and its focus occur clause-

initially. Yet, I need to slightly refine this generalization, by saying that two types of constituents

may precede kamaan and the focus in Pattern II: (i) a topicalized constituent (26), and (ii) a

sentence adverb (27).

(26) naadir kamaan [madʒallaat]F maa jiqraʔ.

Nader also magazines NEG he.reads
‘[Magazines]F also Nader does not read.’
(27) ʕumuuman kamaan [bi-l-ʕutˤlah]F laazim tiʃtaɣluu.
generally also in-the-holiday have.to you.work
‘Generally, [in the holiday]F also you have to work.’
Adjacency between kamaan and its focus, which I maintain to be essential, is evident in

(17-27). It can also be illustrated by providing further examples showing that no other

constituents can be inserted between kamaan and the focused constituent. In (28) and (29), it is

evident that the locative adverbial bi-fluridaa ‘in Florida’ and the temporal adverbial ʔaaxir l-

ʔisbuuʕ ‘during the weekend’ may either precede, (28a) and (29a), or follow, (28b) and (29b),

the sequence of kamaan and the focus, but they may not intervene between kamaan and its focus,

(28c) and (29c). It is worth noting that (28c) and (29c) are judged to be ungrammatical under the

reading in which the focus is on bi-sˤ-sˤeef ‘in the summer’ and dʒaraajid ‘newspapers’,

respectively. Changing the focus to be on the constituents immediately following kamaan in

(28c) and (29c) renders the sentences grammatical.

(28) a. bi-fluridaa kamaan [bi-sˤ-sˤeef]F timtˤir.

in-Florida also in-the-summer it.rains

49
 ‘[In summer]F also it rains in Florida.’
b. kamaan [bi-sˤ-sˤeef]F bi-fluridaa timtˤir.
also in-the-summer in-Florida it.rains
c. *kamaan bi-fluridaa [bi-sˤ-sˤeef]F timtˤir.
also in-Florida in-the-summer it.rains
(29) a. ʔaaxir l-ʔisbuuʕ kamaan [dʒaraajid]F maa jiqraʔ.
end the-week also newspapers NEG he.reads
‘[Newspapers]F also he does not read during the weekend.’
b. kamaan [dʒaraajid]F ʔaaxir l-ʔisbuuʕ maa jiqraʔ.
also newspapers end the-week NEG he.reads
c. *kamaan ʔaaxir l-ʔisbuuʕ [dʒaraajid]F maa jiqraʔ.
also end the-week newspapers NEG he.reads
Before closing the section, I will add a piece of data relevant to both patterns: wh-words

may appear in clauses with kamaan in Pattern I (30), but they do not co-occur with kamaan in

Pattern II (31).

(30) miin jiħkii (kamaan) [faransii]F (kamaan)?

who speaks also French also
‘Who speaks [French]F also?’
(31) *miin (kamaan) [faransii]F (kamaan) jiħkii?
who also French also speaks
‘Who also French speaks?’
To recap, kamaan in Pattern II may focus on constituents of different categories, both

adjuncts and arguments. It occurs immediately to the left or to the right of the focus. One of the

contrasts between Pattern I and Pattern II is that kamaan may appear in wh-questions in Pattern

I, but not in Pattern II.

50
2.1.2 Semantic Properties of kamaan

I will represent the semantic contribution of kamaan with reference to the model that

Horn (1969) provides for the meaning of the inclusive FP also. In Horn’s model, sentences with

the inclusive FP have the semantic components schematized in (32).

(32) [A]F is also B.

Assertion and Entailment: A is B.
Presupposition: Someone distinct from A is B
Sentences with Pattern I (33) and Pattern II (34) of kamaan have all the meaning

components in (32). First, both (33-34) assert and entail the parallel sentences without kamaan;

that Nader translates poems also entails that Nader translates poems. The basic test of entailment

is that “a proposition X ENTAILS a proposition Y if the truth of Y follows necessarily from the

truth of X” (Hurford, Heasley, and Smith 2007:111). This is realized in (33-34); if it is true that

Nader translates poems also, it must be true that Nader translates poems. This explains the

contradiction that results if the speaker asserts the first proposition, and denies the latter, or

denies the first, and asserts the latter. In addition, I can successfully run the non-reinforcement

test of entailment on (33, 34). According to this test, redundancy ensues if both propositions are

asserted (Chierchia and McConnell-Ginnet 2000). The prediction is borne out, as asserting that

Nader translates poems also and that Nader translates poems leads to redundancy.

(33) naadir jitardʒim kamaan [qasˤaaʔid]F.

Nader translates also poems
‘Nader also translates [poems]F.’
(34) kamaan [qasˤaaʔid]F naadir jitardʒim.
also poems Nader translates
‘[Poems]F also Nader translates.’

51
 The second meaning component that sentences with kamaan (33, 34) have is the

presupposition that there is at least one alternative to the focused item qasˤaaʔid ‘poems’. That

is, there is at least one more type of text, besides poems, which Nader translates. The set of the

alternatives of the focus and their number can be specified with reference to the text and the

context. One of the tests of presupposition is that it is not affected by what are termed ‘holes’,

which include questions, negation, and conditionals, among others (Karttunen 1973, Griffiths

2010, Sudhoff 2010). In questions with kamaan in Pattern I (35) and Pattern II (36), the

presupposition that there is at an alternative, or more, of the focused constituent qasˤaaʔid

‘poems’ is preserved.

(35) tsaaʔalt ʔiðaa ʔinnuh naadir jitardʒim kamaan

I.wondered if COMP Nader translates also
[qasˤaaʔid]F.
poems
‘I wondered if Nader also translates [poems]F.’
(36) tsaaʔalt ʔiðaa ʔinnuh kamaan [qasˤaaʔid]F naadir jitardʒim.
I.wondered if COMP also poems Nader translates
‘I wondered if [poems]F also Nader translates.’
Similarly, negating the sentences with kamaan in Pattern I (37) and Pattern II (38) keeps

the same presupposition unaffected.

(37) naadir maa jitardʒim kamaan [qasˤaaʔid]F.

Nader NEG translates also poems
‘Nader does not also translate [poems]F.’
(38) kamaan [qasˤaaʔid]F naadir maa jitardʒim.
also poems Nader NEG translates
‘[Poems]F also Nader does not translate.’

52
 Adopting the notation provided in König (1991), I can formally represent the meaning

contributed by kamaan as in (39). It is shown in (39a) that kamaan appears in a sentence

consisting of focus (β) and background (α). What is asserted and entailed in (39a) is the sentence

without kamaan. The presupposition that there are alternatives to the focus of kamaan is

represented in (39b), which can be read as follows: there exists some (x), where (x) is not the

focus (β), and the background (α) applies to (x).

(39) a. kamaan (λ x(α) , β).

b. (Ǝx) [(x ≠ β) & α(x)].
The difference between kamaan in Pattern I and Pattern II lies in the illocutionary force

of the clauses encompassing kamaan, as each pattern serves its own speech acts. kamaan in

Pattern I is used to report truth about the focus and the alternative(s) to which it is added. With

reference to Searle’s taxonomy of speech acts (1976), the speech acts in which kamaan

participates here can be grouped under the category of representatives, which “commit the

speaker (to varying degrees) to something’s being the case, to the truth of the expressed

proposition” (Searle 1976:10). For example, sentence (33), which is presented again in (40),

makes the assertion that Nader translates poems and other kinds of texts. Importantly, assertion,

which is one of the representative speech acts, is the act that the sentence would perform without

kamaan. It is worth noting that the focused item in Pattern I is pronounced with a falling pitch

accent2.

(40) naadir jitardʒim kamaan [qasˤaaʔid]F.

Nader translates also poems
‘Nader also translates [poems]F.’

2
For more on the prosodic markers of different types of focus, see Sudhoff (2010).

53
 On the other hand, the use of kamaan in Pattern II can perform actions that are grouped,

in terms of Searle’s model (1976), under the category of expressives, which “express the

psychological state specified in the sincerity condition about a state of affairs specified in the

propositional content” (Searle 1976:12). That is, expressive speech acts convey the speaker’s

feelings and attitudes about the addition of the focus to its alternative(s). Hence, starting the

clause with kamaan and its focus puts special emphasis on the addition of the focus to its

alternative(s), which can perform special discourse functions, like expressing complaint,

criticism, boast, or praise, among other similar acts. For example, in (34), which is reproduced in

(41), starting with kamaan qasˤaaʔid ‘also poems’ can be used to praise and recognize Nader as

an excellent translator, since he translates poems in addition to other kinds of texts. Contrary to

Pattern I, the focus in Pattern II is pronounced with a falling pitch accent.

(41) kamaan [qasˤaaʔid]F naadir jitardʒim.

also poems Nader translates
‘[Poems]F also Nader translates.’
To sum up, a sentence with the inclusive FP kamaan in Pattern I and Pattern II entails the

parallel sentence without kamaan, and presupposes that there are other alternatives added to the

focus. I argued that the two patterns of kamaan differ in terms of the speech acts in which they

participate.

2.1.3 The Focus of kamaan

In order to specify the type of focus that kamaan carries in each of its patterns, I perform

the tests of presentational focus and contrastive focus, which were defined and illustrated in

Chapter 1. First, I run the question and answer test of presentational focus on the focus of

kamaan in Patterns I and II. As evident in (42), kamaan in Pattern I (42a) and in Pattern II (42b)

54
may not occur in an answer to a question. Accordigly, the conclusion is that the focus of kamaan

is not presentational.

(42) - ʃuu ʔakalit?

what you.ate
‘What did you eat?’
a. #ʔakalit kamaan [ruz]F.
I.ate also rice
‘I also ate [rice]F.’
b. #kamaan [ruz]F ʔakalit.
also rice I.ate
‘[Rice]F also I ate.’
Now I implement the two tests of contrastive focus to see if the focus of kamaan is

contrastive. First, running the exhaustive identification test on sentences with Pattern I (43) and

Pattern II (44) of kamaan, we find that that there is no exhaustive identification; there is no

subset of a set only to which the predicate holds. The predicate ʃribit ‘I drank’ holds to the focus

ʕasˤiir ‘juice’, and to all contextually invoked alternatives, which here involve gahwah ‘coffee’.

There is no contrast between the focus and the alternatives.

(43) ʃiribit kamaan [ʕasˤiir]F (muʃ bas ɡahwah).

I.drank also juice not only coffee
‘I drank [juice]F, too (not only coffee).’
(44) kamaan [ʕasˤiir]F ʃribit (muʃ bas ɡahwah).
also juice I.drank not only coffee
‘I drank [juice]F, too (not only coffee).’
Similarly, the focus of kamaan in Pattern I (45) and Pattern II (46) does not pass the

coordination test of contrastive focus. We may imagine a situation in which a boy wants to tell

his friends what he did in his free time. He may report that with either of the sentences in (45) or

55
in (46). The second sentence of each set (45b, 46b) is one of the logical consequences of the first

sentence (45a, 46a). If it is true that the boy also played tennis and football, it must be true that

he also played football.

(45) a. liʕibit kamaan [tinis w-fatˤbool]F.

I.played also tennis and-football
‘I also played [tennis and football]F.’
b. liʕibit kamaan [fatˤbool]F.
I.played also football
‘I also played [football]F.’
(46) a. kamaan [tinis w-fatˤbool]F liʕibit.
also tennis and-football I.played
‘[Tennis and football]F also I played.’
b. kamaan [fatˤbool]F liʕibit.
also football I.played
‘[Football]F also I played.’
To conclude, I cannot obtain any positive evidence that may help identify the type of

focus here. It is predicted for the focus of kamaan to fail the test of presentational focus. Since

kamaan presupposes that there are alternatives to the focused item, which are not known to the

person who asks the question, it is reasonable that kamaan does not to surface in an answer to a

wh-question. Likwise, it is expected that the focus is not contrastive, as there is no contrast

between the focus and its alternatives in the applicability of the background. One important

conclusion that may be drawn after testing the type of focus that is carried by the other FPs (in

the upcoming sections in this chapter) is that the distinction between presentational focus and

contrastive focus does not hold in SJA, as found in Italian by Brunetti (2003).

56
 In this section, I examined the inclusive FP kamaan ‘also’ in both of its patterns and

highlighted its semantic and focus contribution to the clause in which it occurs. In the next

section, I will present the scalar FP ħatta ‘even’.

2.2 The Scalar FP in SJA

In SJA ħatta ‘even’ is a scalar FP. It adds the focus to all of its alternatives and ranks it as

the least likely among them to which the background part of the clause holds. Section 2.2.1

provides examples illustrating the use of ħatta in SJA. Section 2.2.2 delineates the semantic

properties of ħatta. Section 2.2.3 explores the type of focus in clauses encompassing ħatta.

2.2.1 The Distribution of ħatta ‘Even’ in SJA

Before digging deep into the details of ħatta as an FP, I would like to cover other uses of

ħatta in SJA, even though they are not relevant to the current research. Besides its use as an FP,

ħatta can be used as a preposition of time, similar to until in English, as exemplified in (47). In

addition, ħatta can act as a subordinating conjunction that expresses purpose, having the

meaning of the English in order to/so that, as illustrated in (48). When used as a subordinating

conjunction, the clause that ħatta attaches to may follow, (48a), as well as precede, (48b), the

main clause.

(47) ðˤall judrus ħatta l-fadʒir.

he.kept he.studies till the-dawn
‘He kept studying till dawn.’
(48) a. ʔudrus ħatta tindʒaħ.
study.you in.order.to you.succeed
‘Study in order to succeed.’
b. ħatta tindʒaħ ʔudrus.
in.order.to you.succeed study.you

57
 In its use as an FP in SJA, ħatta appears in three patterns, as exemplified in (49-51).

Pattern I and Pattern II are similar to those of kamaan ‘also’, which were presented in section 2.1

above. In Pattern I, ħatta associates with the focus in-situ, as in (49). This is the position that the

PP bi-l-ʕarabii ‘in-the-Arabic’ occupies in a parallel sentence without ħatta.

(49) l-walad maa nadʒaħ ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.

the-boy NEG passed even in-the-Arabic
‘The boy did not even pass [in Arabic]F.’

In Pattern II, ħatta and its focus bi-l-ʕarabii ‘in Arabic’ occur in a clause-initial position,

as in (50).

(50) ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F l-walad maa nadʒaħ.

even in-the-Arabic the-boy NEG pass
‘Even [in Arabic]F the boy did not pass.’
Pattern III is illustrated by (51), in which a Quantifier Phrase (QP), kull n-naas ‘all the

people’, precedes ħatta. This QP denotes the alternatives of the focused DP l-ʔatˤfaal ‘the kids’.

One more distinguishing characteristic of this pattern is that ħatta and its focused DP l-ʔatˤfaal

‘the kids’ may not be fronted, as shown in (51b).

(51) a. kull n-naas tikrah l-mutahawwer ħatta [l-ʔatˤfaal]F.

all the-people hate the-reckless even the-kids
‘All people hate the reckless person, even [the kids]F.’
b. *kull n-naas ħatta [l-ʔatˤfaal]F tikrah l-mutahawwer.
all the-people even the-kids hate the-reckless
I will provide more examples of each pattern in the following sections.

2.2.1.1 ħatta in Pattern I

As mentioned above, in Pattern I ħatta joins the focus in the position that it would occupy

without the presence of the FP ħatta. In addition, ħatta has to be as close as possible to the focus.

58
I begin with the observation that ħatta may not follow its focus (52b); ħatta has to precede it

(52a).

(52) a. ʔiltaquu ħatta [maʕ ʕalii]F fi l-barnaamidʒ.

they.interviewed even with Ali in the-program
‘They even interviewed [Ali]F in the program.’
b. *ʔiltaquu [maʕ ʕalii]F ħatta fi l-barnaamidʒ.
they.interviewed with Ali even in the-program
Additionally, there is little restriction on the type of constituents that can be the focus of

ħatta in this pattern. The first set of these constituents involves adjuncts, including a PP adjunct

to VP (53), a PP adjunct to AP (54), a CP adjunct to VP (55), and an adverbial (56). It is

witnessed here that ħatta focuses only the constituent that immediately follows. For example, in

(53), it focuses the closest PP bi-l-leel ‘at night’, but not the further one fi-l-matˤʕam ‘in the

restaurant’.

(53) jiʃtaɣil ħatta [bi-l-leel]F fi-l-matˤʕam.

he.works even at-the-night in-the-restaurant
‘He even works [at night]F in the restaurant.’
(54) n-nit mitwaffer ħatta [fi l-quraa]F.
the-Net available even in the-villages
‘The Net service is available even [in the villages]F.’
(55) maa raħ tindʒaħ ħatta [law raamii darrasak]F.
NEG will you.succeed even if Ramy teaches.you
‘You will not succeed even [if Ramy teaches you]F.’
(56) ʔamtˤarat ħatta [ʔams]3F bi-l-ʔurdun.
it.rained even yesterday in-the-Jordan

3
In this sentence, ħatta can also be taken as a preposition of time, having the meaning of ‘until’.

59
 ‘It rained even [yesterday]F in Jordan.’
However, ħatta in Pattern I may not occur between a P and its complement, as shown in

(57).

(57) a. smiʕt l-xabar ħatta [ʕa-l-BBC]F ʔimbaariħ.

I.heard the-news even on-the-BBC last.night
‘I heard the news even [on the BBC]F last night.’
b. *smiʕt l-xabar ʕa-ħatta [l-BBC]F ʔimbaariħ.
I.heard the-news on-even the-BBC last.night
Second, a VP and a TP may be focused by ħatta in-situ, as in (58) and (59), respectively.

(58) sˤaddiɡ ʔinnuh bintii ħatta [titkallam faransii]F.

believe.me COMP my.daughter even speaks French
‘Believe me that my daughter even [speaks French]F.’
(59) l-waðˤiʕ kulluh kaan ɣariib . ʔistaɣrabt ʔinnuh
the-situation entirely was unusual I.was.surprised COMP
ħatta [kaanat tilʕab ɡabl l-ʔimtiħaan]F.
even she.was she.play before the-exam
‘The situation was entirely unusual. It even surprised me that [she was playing
before the exam]F.’
Third, arguments may be focused by ħatta in Pattern I. These include PP complements,

such as a PP complement to VP (60) and a PP complement to AP (61).

(60) ʔarsal ħatta [l-riim]F. daʕwah.

he.sent even to-Reemin invitation
‘He even sent [to Reem]F an invitation.’
(61) ʔabuuj muhtamm ħatta [bi-s-sijaasih]F.
my.father interested even in-the-politics
‘My father is even interested [in politics]F.’

60
 A CP argument may also appear with ħatta in Pattern I, as in (62), where the CP ʔinnak

ʔitɡaddim ʔistirħaam ‘that you submit a petition’ is an argument of the V jinfaʕ ‘helps’.

(62) maa raħ jinfaʕak ħatta [ʔinn-ak ʔitɡaddim ʔistirħaam]F.

NEG will help.you even COMP-you submit petition
‘It will not help you even [if you submit a petition]F.’
DP arguments parallel CP arguments in their ability to occur in Pattern I. This can be

illustrated by a DP in an object position (63) as well as by a subject DP in a postverbal position

(64) and in a preverbal position (65).

(63) naadir maa jiʕtˤii ħatta [l-muħtaadʒiin]F masˤaarii.

Naader NEG helps even the-needy money
‘Nader did not even give [the needy]F money.’
(64) jisaaʕadnii ħatta [l-mudiir]F ʔaħiaanan.
helps.me even the-director sometimes
‘Even [the director]F helps me sometimes.’
(65) ħatta [hind]F maa zaarat ʔabuuha.
even Hind NEG visited her.father
‘Even [Hind]F did not visit her father.’
As for genitive constructions, ħatta in Pattern I may precede the genitive construction

(66a), but may not occur inside it (66b). It is worth noting that, like kamaan in Pattern I, when

ħatta occurrs to the left of the genitive construction, it may focus on the whole construction

sidʒdʒaadit dʒaarnaa ‘our neighor’s carpet’, only on the first element sidʒdʒaadit ‘carpet’, or

only on the second element dʒaarnaa ‘our neighbor’. If the focus is on the whole construction,

the interpretation is that the speaker washed many things for many people (e.g., their neighbor’s

carpet, their brother’s car), but his or her neighbor’s carpet was the least expected among them to

be washed. Focusing only on sidʒdʒaadit ‘carpet’ indicates that the speaker washed more than

61
one of the neighbor’s belongings (e.g., his carpet, his car, his clothes), but his carpet was the

least expected among them for him or her to wash. Finally, focusing on dʒaarnaa leads to the

interpretation that the speaker washed many carpets for many people (his or her neighbor’s

carpet, his or her brother’s carpet), but the carpet of the neighbor was the least likely for the

speaker to wash.

(66) a. ɣassalt ħatta [sidʒdʒaadit dʒaarnaa]F ʔams.

I.washed even carpet.GEN our.neighbor yesterday
‘I even washed [our neighbor’s carpet]F yesterday.’
b. *ɣassalt [sidʒdʒaadit ħatta dʒaarnaa]F ʔams.
I.washed carpet.GEN even our.neighbor yesterday
The adjacency between ħatta and its focus in Pattern I, which is argued to be inviolable,

can be further illustrated by pointing out that no other constituent may occur between them, as

observed in (67) and (68). The adverbials can either follow (67a, 68a) or precede (67b, 68b) the

sequence of ħatta and the focus, without inducing ungrammaticality. Sentences (67c) and (68c)

are unacceptable under the designated reading, because the adverbials ʔaħjaanan ‘sometimes’

and ʔams ‘yesterday’ occur between ħatta and its focus. It is worth mentioning that (68c) is

judged to be ungrammatical if the focus is on ʔams, but not on bi-ʕammaan. Focusing on the

latter constituent makes the sentence grammatical.

(67) a. jidaawim ħatta [bi-l-leel]F ʔaħjaanan.

he.works even at-the-night sometimes
‘He even works [at night]F sometimes.’
b. jidaawim ʔaħjaanan ħatta [bi-l-leel]F.
he.works sometimes even at-the-night
c. *jidaawim ħatta ʔaħjaanan [bi-l-leel]F.
he.works even sometimes at-the-night

62
 (68) a. ʔamtˤarat ħatta [ʔams]F bi-ʕammaan.
it.rained even yesterday in-Amman
‘It rained even [yesterday]F in Amman.’
b. ʔamtˤarat bi-ʕamman ħatta [ʔams]F.
it.rained in-Amman even yesterday
c. *ʔamtˤarat ħatta bi-ʕammaan [ʔams]F.
it.rained even in-Amman yesterday
To recap, ħatta in Pattern I associates with the focus in-situ. There is little restriction on

the type of constituent that can be focused by ħatta in this Pattern. I have shown that ħatta may

not appear inside a PP or inside a genitive construction. I also noted that in both patterns, ħatta

precedes, but does not follow, the focused constituent.

2.2.1.2 ħatta in Pattern II

As shown below, in Pattern II ħatta and its focus are located clause-initially, where ħatta

has to immediately precede its focus. ħatta may not follow its focus, as exemplified in (69).

(69) a. ħatta [maʕ ʕalii]F ʔiltaquu fi l-barnaamidʒ.

even with Ali they.interviewed in the-program
‘Even [Ali]F they interviewed in the program.’
b. *[maʕ ʕalii]F ħatta ʔiltaquu fi l-barnaamidʒ.
with Ali even they.interviewed in the-program
In this pattern, ħatta may adjoin to constituents of any category, with a few restrictions as

shown below. One of these categories is a DP, as in (70).

(70) ħatta [madjallih]F qaraʔ raamii.

even magazine read Ramy
‘Even [a magazine]F Ramy read.’
In addition, PPs that function as adjuncts and arguments of VP may surface with ħatta in

Pattern II, exemplified in (71) and (72), respectively.

63
 (71) ħatta [bi-l-leel]F jiʃtaɣil.
even at-the-night he.works
‘Even [at night]F he works.’
(72) ħatta [bi-l-ɣurabaa]F jiθaq.
even in-the-strangers he.trusts
‘Even [strangers]F he trusts.’
Likwewise, PPs that act as adjuncts and arguments of AP may be focused by ħatta in a

clause-initial position, as in (73) and (74), respectively.

(73) ħatta [fi l-quraa]F n-nit mitwaffer.

even in the-villages the-Net available
‘Even [in the villages]F the Net service is available.’
(74) ħatta [bi-s-sijaasih]F ʔabuuj muhttam.
even in-the-politics my.father interested
‘Even [in politics]F my father is interested.’
Moreover, both adjunct and argument CPs can be the focus of ħatta in Pattern II, as in

(75) and (76), respectively. In (76), the CP ʔinnak ʔitɡaddim ʔistirħaam ‘that you submit a

petition’ is an argument of the verb jinfaʕ ‘helps’.

(75) ħatta [law raamii darrasak]F maa raħ tindʒaħ.

even if Ramy teaches.you NEG will you.succeed
‘Even [if Ramy teaches you]F, you will not succeed.’
(76) ħatta [ʔinnak ʔitɡaddim ʔistirħaam]F maa raħ jinfaʕak.
even COMP.you submit petition NEG will help.you
‘Even [should you submit a petition]F, it will not help you.’

Adverbials may also occur in Pattern II. In (77), ħatta precedes the adverbial ʔams

‘yesterday’.

64
 (77) ħatta [ʔams]F ʔamtˤarat
even yesterday it.rained
‘Even [yesterday]F it rained.’
In addition, ħatta may associate with a VP in a clause-initial position, as in (78), where

ħatta and the VP titkallam faransii ‘speaks French’ occur at the beginning of the embedded

clause introduced by the complementizer ʔinnuh ‘that’.

(78) sˤaddiɡ ʔinnuh ħatta [titkallam faransii]F bintii.

believe.me COMP even speaks French my.daughter
‘Believe me that my daughter even [speaks French]F.’
At the outset, I put forth a generalization that in Pattern II ħatta and its focus appear

clause-initially. Yet, I have to weaken this, adding that two items may precede this kind of ħatta.

One of them is a topicalized constituent, like naader ‘Nader’ in (79), and the other is a sentence

adverb, as exemplified in (80), where the adverb lilʔasaf ‘regrettably’ comes before ħatta and its

focus.

(79) naader ħatta [l-ɣurabaa]F jisaaʕidhum.

Nader even the-foreigners helps.them
‘Even [the foreigners]F Nader helps.’
(80) li-l-ʔasaf ħatta [riim]F rasabat.
to-the -regret even Reem failed
‘Regrettably, even [Reem]F failed.’
As in Pattern I, the adjacency between ħatta in Pattern II and its focus is essential. The

following examples illustrate that no material can intervene between ħatta and its focus. For

example, sentence (81) shows that the sentence adverb bsˤaraaħah ‘frankly’ may not occur

between ħatta and the focus. Similarly, in (82) it appears that the time adverbial bi-l-ʕutˤlah

‘during the holiday’ may either precede (82a) or follow (82b) the sequence of ħatta and it focus,

65
bur may not occur between them (82c). Sentence (82c) is judged as ungrammatical under the

designated reading (i.e., with the focus on dʒaraajid ‘newspapers’).

(81) a. b-sˤaraaħah ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F maa jiʕrif juktub.

with-frankness even in-the-Arabic NEG he.knows to.write
‘Frankly, even [in Arabic]F he does not know to write.’
b. *ħatta b-sˤaraaħah [bi-l-ʕarabii]F maa jiʕrif juktub.
even with-frankness in-the-Arabic NEG he.knows to.write
(82) a. bi-l-ʕutˤlah ħatta [dʒaraajid]F maa jiqraʔ.
during-the-holiday even newspapers NEG he.reads
‘Even [newspapers]F he does not read during the holiday.’
b. ħatta [dʒaraajid]F bi-l-ʕutˤlah maa jiqraʔ.
even newspapers during-the-holiday NEG he.reads
c. *ħatta bi-l-ʕutˤlah [dʒaraajid]F maa jiqraʔ.
even during-the-holiday newspapers NEG he.reads
In summary, in Pattern II ħatta and its focus come in a clause-initial position. The focus

is category-insensitive and may be an adjunct or an argument constituent.

2.2.1.3 ħatta in Pattern III

As illustarted in the examples below, ħatta in Pattern III occurs with its focus in a clause-

final position, and with a QP before ħatta denoting the alternatives of the focus. The focus of

ħatta can be of many categories, one of which is a DP, as in (83-84). It appears in these examples

that the QP, which corresponds to the alternatives of the focus, is a universal quantifier (UQ),

kull l-maʕzuumiin ‘all the invitees’ in (83) and kull tˤ-tˤaalibaat ‘all the students’ in (84). In all of

the following examples which represent the categories that can be the focus of ħatta in Pattern

III, example (b) shows that ħatta and its focus may not move to any position to the left.

66
 (83) a. kull l-maʕzuumiin itʔaxxaruu ħatta [ʕumar]F.
all the-invitees got.late even Omar
‘All the invitees got late, even [Omar]F.’
b. *kull l-maʕzuumiin ħatta [ʕumar]F itʔaxxaruu
all the-invitees even Omar got.late
(84) a. ʃuft kull tˤ-tˤaalibaat bi-s-saaħah ħatta [riim]F.
I.saw all the-students in-the-yard ħatta Reem.

‘I saw all the students in the yard, even [Reem]F.’

b. *ʃuft kull tˤ-tˤaalibaat ħatta [riim]F bi-s-saaħah.
I.saw all the-students even Reem in-the-yard
Additionally, the QP preceding ħatta can be a negative polarity item (NPI), like ħada

‘anyone’ in (85-86). The focus in these two examples is also a DP.

(85) a. maa ħada nadʒaħ ħatta [ʕalii]F.

NEG anyone succeeded even Ali
‘No one succeeded, not even [Ali]F.’
b. *maa ħada ħatta [ʕalii]F nadʒaħ.
NEG anyone even Ali succeeded
(86) a. maa saaʕadit ħada ħatta [ʔibnii]F.
NEG I.helped anyone even my.son
‘I did not help anyone, not even [my brother]F.’
b. *ħatta [ʔibnii]F maa saaʕadit ħada.
even my.son NEG I.helped anyone
The other category that can be the focus of ħatta in Pattern III is a PP, as (87-88) show.

In these two examples, the QP that holds the alternatives is a UQ kull l-mawaad ‘all the courses’

in (87) and an NPI ħada ‘anyone’ in (88).

67
 (87) a. nadʒaħ bi-kull l-mawaad ħatta [bi-l-fiizjaa]F.
he.passed in-all the-courses even in-the-physics
‘He passed in all courses, even [in physics]F.’
b. *ħatta [bi-l-fiizjaa]F nadʒaħ bi-kull l-mawaad.
even in-the-physics he.passed in-all the-courses
(88) a. maa jitwaasˤal maʕ ħada ħatta [maʕ ʔabuuh]F.
NEG he.communicates with anyone even with his.father
‘He does not communicate with anyone, not even [with his father]F.’
b. *ħatta [maʕ ʔabuuh]F maa jitwaasˤal maʕ ħada.
even with his.father NEG he.communicates with anyone
It is worth mentioning that when the focused constituent is a PP denoting time, like bi-sˤ-

sˤeif ‘in the summer’, the expression that denotes the alternatives may be an adverb of

quantification, such as daaʔiman ‘always’ (89). Such kind of adverbs can be taken as a UQ (see

Chapter 4).

(89) a. timtˤir daaʔiman bi-fluridaa ħatta [bi-sˤ-sˤeif]F.

it.rains always in-Florida even in-the-summer
‘It always rains in Florida, even [in the summer]F.’
b. *ħatta [bi-sˤ-sˤeif]F timtˤir daaʔiman bi-fluridaa
even in-the-summer it.rains always in-Florida
Moreover, adverbs of place can be the focus of ħatta, like ɡuddaam l-maħkamih ‘in front

of the court’ in (90), where the UQ bi-kull makaan ‘in every place’ bears the alternatives of the

focused item.

(90) a. jilʕabuu kurah bi-kull makaan ħatta [ɡuddaam l-maħkamih]F.

they.play football in-every place even in.front.of the-court
‘They play football in every place, even [in front of the court]F.’

68
 b. *ħatta [ɡuddaam l-maħkamih]F jilʕabuu kurah bi-kull
even in.front.of the-court they.play football in-every
makaan.
place
Similarly, adverbs of time can occur as the focus of ħatta in Pattern III, like jom s-sabit

‘Saturday’ in (91). Here, the QP preceding ħatta is the adverbial NPI ʔabadan ‘at all’.

(91) a. maa jirtaaħ ʔabadan ħatta [jom s-sabit]F.

NEG he.has.rest ever even day the-Saturday
‘He never has a rest, not even [on Saturdays]F.’
b. *ħatta [jom s-sabit]F maa jirtaaħ ʔabadan
even day the-Saturday NEG he.has.rest ever
A CP can also be put into the the focus of ħatta, as in (92), where the expression that

holds the alternatives of the focused expression law timtˤir ‘if it rains’ is the UQ fii kull l-

ʔaħwaal ‘in all conditions’.

(92) a. raħ nilʕab fii kull l-ʔaħwaal ħatta [law timtˤir]F.

will we.play in all the-conditions even if it.rains
‘We will play in all conditions, even [if it rains]F.’
b. *ħatta [law timtˤir]F raħ nilʕab fii kull l-ʔaħwaal
even if it.rains will we.play in all the-conditions
Some remarks are in order regarding the QPs and the distribution of ħatta and the

focused item. First, ħatta in Pattern III may not appear in sentences with existential quantifiers

denoting the alternatives of the focus, as seen in (93). It is shown there the sentence is well-

formed only if the alternatives are expressed by the UQ kull ‘all’, whereas with an existential

quantifier, like muʕðˤam ‘most’, kθiir ‘many’, or baʕð ‘some’, the sentence turns to be ill-formed

(93) kull / *muʕðˤam / *kθiir min / *baʕð l-wlaad rasabu ħatta [raamii]F.
all / most / many of / some the-boys failed even Ramy

69
 ‘All/*Most/*Many/*Some of the boys failed, even [Ramy]F.’

Second, as in Pattern I and Pattern II, ħatta in Pattern III may not follow its focus, as

exhibited in (94-95).

(94) a. kullhum ħiðˤruu l-mubaaraah ħatta [l-dʒiddih]F.

all.them watched the-match even the-grandmother
‘All of them watched the match, even [the grandmother]F.’
b. *kullhum ħiðˤruu l-mubaaraah [l-dʒiddih]F ħatta.
all.them watched the-match the-grandmother even
(95) a. maa jiʃrab ʔiʃii sˤ-sˤubiħ ħatta [ɡahwah]F.
NEG he.drinks anything the-morning even coffee
‘He does not drink anything in the morning, not even [coffee]F.’
b.*maa jiʃrab ʔiʃii sˤ-sˤubiħ [ɡahwah]F ħatta .
NEG he.drinks anything the-morning coffee even
Third, nothing may intervene between ħatta and the focused item. Even the adjuncts

which can freely move throughout the sentence, as noted for the temporal adverbial jom s-sabt

‘on Saturday’ in (96), may not be realized between ħatta and the focus (97).

(96) (jom s-sabt) kullhum (jom s-sabt) jiʃtaɣluu

day the-Saturday all.them day the-Saturday they.work
(jom s-sabt).
day the-Saturday
‘On Saturday, all of them work.’
(97) *kullhum jiʃtaɣluu ħatta jom s-sabt [naadir]F.
all.them they.work even day the-Saturday Nader
‘All of them work, even on Saturday [Nader]F.’

70
 Fourth, adjuncts may not follow ħatta and the focused item (98), even though it was

shown in (96) that this adjunct (jom s-sabt ‘Saturday’) can occupy a final position in the sentence

without focus.

(98) *kullhum jiʃtaɣluu ħatta [naadir]F jom s-sabt

all.them they.work even Nader day the-Saturday
‘All of them work, even [Nader]F on Saturday.’
Finally, ħatta may not occur inside a genitive construction, as exhibited in (99).

(99) a. saraguu kull ʔiʃii ħatta [luʕbit l-walad]F.

they.stole every thing even toy.GEN the-boy
‘They stole everything, even [the boy’s toy]F.’
b. *saraguu kull ʔiʃii [luʕbit ħatta l-walad]F.
they.stole every thing toy.GEN even the-boy
Based on these observations, I conclude that ħatta in Pattern III occurs immediately to

the left of its focus in a clause-final position. However, I need to slightly weaken this

generalization by saying that two types of constituents may follow the focus of ħatta in Pattern

III: (i) an adjunct related to the focus, as in (100), and (ii) a sentence adverb, as in (101).

(100) maa zaar ħada ħatta [ʔaxuuh]F lamma kaan mariiðˤ.

NEG he.visited anyone even his.brother when he.was sick
‘He did not visit anyone, not even [his brother], when he was sick.’
(101) maa ħada nadʒaħ ħatta [riim]F li-l-ʔasaf.
NEG anyone succeeded even Reem to-the-regret
‘No one succeeded, even [Reem]F, regrettably.’
The last piece of data that I want to highlight is relevant to all patterns of ħatta: wh-words

may occur in clauses with ħatta in Pattern I (102) and Patern III (104), but they may not appear

with ħatta in Pattern II (103).

71
 (102) miin rasab ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F?
who failed even in-the-Arabic
‘Who even failed [in Arabic]F?’
(103) *miin ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F rasab?
who even in-the-Arabic failed
‘Who even [in Arabic]F failed?’
(104) miin rasab bi-kull l-mawaad ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F?
who failed in-all the-courses even in-the-Arabic
‘Who failed in all of the courses, even [in Arabic]F?’
To summarize, ħatta in Pattern III immediately precedes the focus in a clause-final

position. The focus can be a DP, a PP, a CP, or an adverbial. The QP that holds the alternatives

of the focus can be a UQ or an NPI. It was also shown that ħatta may not be realized inside a

genitive construction. Finally, ħatta can co-occur with wh-words in Pattern I and Pattern III, but

not in Pattern II.

2.2.2 Semantic Properties of ħatta

The semantic contribution of ħatta can be delineated along the lines of the model that

Horn (1969) proposes for the scalar particle even in English, which is sketched in (105). It

appears that the scalar FPs (ħatta and even) have the same semantic properties as the inclusive

FPs (kamaan and also), except for one difference: only the scalar FPs have the semantic property

of conventionally implicating that the focus is ranked as the least likely among the alternatives to

which the background part of the clause applies. In the following paragraphs, I will detail the

three semantic properties of ħatta captured in (105).

(105) Even [A]F is B.

Assertion and Entailment: A is B.
Presupposition: Someone distinct from A is B.

72
 Conventional Implicature: A is unlikely to be B.
First, sentences with Pattern I (106) and Pattern II (107) of ħatta assert and entail the

parallel ones without ħatta; that Omar failed even in Arabic asserts and entails that Omar failed

in Arabic. This is also realized in the sentence with Pattern III of ħatta (108), if we assume that

the predicate that applies to the QP in the part of the sentence that precedes ħatta also applies to

the focus of ħatta. That is, if we take the predicate rasab ʕumar ‘failed Omar’ to hold for the

focus bi-l-ʕarabii ‘in Arabic’, we get ħatta bi-l-ʕarabii rasab ʕumar ‘even in Arabic Omar

failed’, which also asserts and entails that bi-l-ʕarabii rasab ʕumar ‘in Arabic Omar failed.’

(106) rasab ʕumar ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.

failed Omar even in-the-Arabic
‘Omar even failed [in Arabic]F.’
(107) ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F rasab ʕumar.
even in-the-Arabic failed Omar
‘Even [in Arabic]F Omar failed.’
(108) rasab ʕumar bi-kull l-mawaad ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.
failed Omar in-all the-courses even in-the-Arabic
‘Omar failed in all the courses, even [in Arabic]F.’
As I mentioned earlier, the basic test of entailment is that “a proposition X ENTAILS a

proposition Y if the truth of Y follows necessarily from the truth of X” (Hurford, Heasley, and

Smith 2007:111). This test can be successfully run on (106-108); if it is true that Omar failed

even in Arabic, it must be true that Omar failed in Arabic. Hence, there will be contradiction if

the speaker asserts that Omar failed even in Arabic, and denies that Omar failed in Arabic, or if

the speaker denies the former proposition, and asserts the latter one. Moreover, performing the

non-reinforcement test of entailment on (106-108) supports the result of the first test: asserting

that (i) Omar failed even in Arabic and that (ii) Omar failed in Arabic gives rise to redundancy.

73
 Second, the sentences with ħatta presuppose that there are alternatives to the focus. Thus,

in (106-107), it is understood that there are other courses in which Omar failed, which involve all

the courses he registered in. However, in sentences with Pattern III of ħatta, like (108), the

alternatives are stated, not implicitly assumed. In (108), these alternatives of the focus are given

explicitly in the QP kull l-mawaad ‘all the courses’. For this reason, I see that there is no need to

perform the tests of presupposition on sentences with Pattern III.

One of the tests of presupposition that can be successfully run on Pattern I and Pattern II

of ħatta shows that it is not affected by question and negation (Karttunen 1973, Griffiths 2010,

Sudhoff 2010). In questions encompassing ħatta in Pattern I (109) and Pattern II (110), the same

presupposition exists, namely that there are alternatives to the focused item.

(109) tsaaʔalt ʔiðaa ʔinnuh rasab ʕumar ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.

I.wondered if COMP failed Omar even in-the-Arabic
‘I wondered if Omar failed even [in Arabic]F.’
(110) tsaaʔalt ʔiðaa ʔinnuh ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F rasab ʕumar.
I.wondered if COMP even in-the-Arabic failed Omar
‘I wondered if even [in Arabic]F Omar failed.’
Likewise, negating the same sentences semantically by embedding them after a verb like

nafaa ‘denied’ keeps the same presupposition unaffected, as exhibited in (111-112).

(111) nafat ʔinnuh ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F rasab ʕumar.

she.denied that even in-the-Arabic failed Omar
‘She denied that even [in Arabic]F Omar failed.’
(112) nafat ʔinnuh rasab ʕumar ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.
she.denied that failed Omar even in-the-Arabic
‘She denied that Omar failed even [in Arabic]F.’

74
 Third, the focus is ranked as the least likely among all the alternatives to which the

background part of the clause applies. The scale or order induced by ħatta, in terms of

likelihood, is what makes the difference between additive and scalar FPs. This semantic

contribution is what is termed as conventional implicature in (105). To show how this is realized,

in (106-108) it is implicated that Arabic is the least likely for Omar to fail in among the courses

that he is taking. Two tests can be successfully performed to show that ħatta conventionally

implicates that its focus scores the least on the scale of likelihood (Potts 2005). The first is that of

detachability: replacing ħatta with another particle, like kamaan ‘also’ in (113-114) or ʔilla

‘except in (115), leaves the focus l-ʕarabii ‘Arabic’ without any ordering in relation to the

alternatives. Hence, the conventional implicature appears to be associated with the word ħatta.

(113) rasab ʕumar kamaan [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.

failed Omar also in-the-Arabic
‘Omar also failed [in Arabic]F.’
(114) kamaan [bi-l-ʕarabii]F rasab ʕumar.
also in-the-Arabic failed Omar
‘Also [in Arabic]F Omar failed.’
(115) rasab ʕumar bi-kull l-mawaad ʔilla [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.
failed Omar in-all the-courses except in-the-Arabic
‘Omar failed in all the courses, except [in Arabic]F.’
The second test is the non-cancellability test: once the conventional implicature is

established by ħatta, it cannot be cancelled later without oddity. To illustrate, the focused item l-

ʕarabii ‘Arabic’ is given the lowest rank in likelihood with the help of ħatta in Pattern I (116),

Pattern II (117), and Pattern III (118). In these examples, the attempt to eliminate this rank by

stating that the Arabic course is the most difficult one brings about a noticeable contradiction.

75
 (116) !rasab ʕumar ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F ʕilman ʔinhaa
failed Omar even in-the-Arabic though COMP.it
ʔasˤʕab maaddih.
the.most.difficult course
‘Omar even failed [in Arabic]F, even though it is the most difficult course.’
(117) !ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F rasab ʕumar ʕilman ʔinhaa
even in-the-Arabic failed Omar though COMP.it
ʔasˤʕab maaddih.
the.most.difficult course
‘Even [in Arabic]F Omar failed, even though it is the most difficult course.’
(118) !rasab ʕumar bi-kull l-mawaad ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F
failed Omar in-all the-courses even in-the-Arabic
ʕilman ʔinnuh l-ʕarabii ʔasˤʕab maaddih.
though COMP the-Arabic the.most.difficult course
‘Omar failed in all the courses, even [in Arabic]F, even though Arabic the most
difficult course’
The meaning contributed by ħatta is formally represented in (119), employing notation

developed in König (1991). (119a) shows that ħatta joins a sentence consisting of focus (β) and

background (α). What is asserted and entailed in (119a) is the corresponding sentence without

ħatta. (119b) is taken as a presupposition that there are alternatives to the focus. Formally

speaking, there exists some (x), where (x) is not the focus (β), and the background (α) applies to

(x). (119c) is a conventional implicature, where the focus (β) is assigned the minimum value in

likelihood in relation to the other values.

(119) a. ħatta (λ x(α) , β).

b. (Ǝx) [(x ≠ β) & α(x)].
c. Minc [λ x(α), β].

76
 So far, the discussion indicates that the three patterns of ħatta are similar in their

semantic properties. However, I suggest that ħatta in Pattern I and Pattern III differs from ħatta

in Pattern II in the illocutionary force of the clauses containing them. That is, clauses containing

ħatta in Pattern I and Pattern III have their own speech acts, which are different from those

served by parallel clauses with Pattern II of ħatta. ħatta in Pattern I and Pattern III, like Pattern I

of kamaan, only contributes information about the focus and its alternatives. To employ Searle’s

taxonomy (1976), the speech acts that ħatta participates in here are termed representatives. As an

illustration, the sentences with Pattern I (106) and Pattern III (108), repeated in (120) and (121),

respectively, assert that Omar failed in Arabic as well as in all courses that he is enrolling in. The

focus in these two patterns is pronounced with a falling pitch accent.

(120) rasab ʕumar ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.

failed Omar even in-the-Arabic
‘Omar failed even [in Arabic]F.’
(121) rasab ʕumar bi-kull l-mawaad ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.
failed Omar in-all the-courses even in-the-Arabic
‘Omar failed in all the courses, even [in Arabic]F.’
On the other hand, Pattern II of ħatta occurs in expressive speech acts, in terms of

Searle’s taxonomy of speech acts (1976), as noted for Pattern II of kamaan ‘also’. The speech

acts in clauses containing ħatta in Pattern II express the speakers’ feelings and attitudes with

respect to the lowest rank in likelihood given to the focused item among all of its alternatives. In

other words, fronting ħatta and its focus here not only to provides information about the focus

and its alternatives, but also highlights the extreme value of likelihood given to the focus, which

is mainly used to express either goodness or badness.

77
 For example, in (107), which is presented again in (122), starting the clause with ħatta l-

ʕarabii ‘even Arabic’ can be used to criticize Omar as a poor achiever since he has failed in all

courses. The focus, however, is on Arabic, which is known to be the least likely for one like

Omar to fail in. Unlike in Pattern I and Pattern III, the focus of ħatta Pattern II is pronounced

with a rising pitch accent.

(122) ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F rasab ʕumar.

even in-the-Arabic failed Omar
‘Even [in Arabic]F Omar failed.’
To summarize, sentences with the scalar FP ħatta in all of its patterns entail the

corresponding ones unaccompanied by ħatta, and rank the focus as the least likely among all its

alternatives to which the background part of the clause holds. In addition, sentences with Pattern

I and Pattern II of ħatta presuppose that there are alternatives added to the focus, whereas in

Pattern III the alternatives are stated in a QP preceding ħatta. It has been argued that Pattern I

and Pattern III of ħatta differ from Pattern II in terms of the speech acts which they perform.

2.2.3 The Focus of ħatta

I will run the tests of presentational focus and contrastive focus in an attempt to identify

the type of focus carried by ħatta in all three of its patterns. First, performing the question and

answer test of presentational focus shows that ħatta may not occur in an answer to a question in

Pattern I (123a) and Pattern II (123b), but in Pattern III (123c) this may happen. The explanation

for this contrast is that ħatta in Pattern I and Pattern II presupposes that there are alternatives to

the focus, so it does not surface in an answer to a question, which brings new information, as

noted for kamaan in Pattern I and Pattern II (see Section 2.1.3). On the other hand, ħatta in

Pattern III legitimately occurs in an answer, since the alternatives are stated in the QP kull ʔiʃii

78
‘every thing’. Accordingly, I can conclude that the focus carried by ħatta is presentational in

Pattern III, but not in Pattern I and Pattern II.

(123) - ʃuu ʃiribit?

what you.drank
‘What did you drink?’
a. #ʃiribit ħatta [ɡahwah]F.
I.drank even coffee
‘I even drank [coffee]F.’
b. #ħatta [ɡahwah]F ʃiribit.
even coffee I.drank
‘Even [coffee]F I drank.’
c. ʃiribit kull ʔiʃii ħatta [ɡahwah]F.
I.drank evey thing even coffee
‘I drank everything, even [coffee]F.’
Now I implement the exhaustive identification test of contrastive focus on sentences with

Pattern I (124), Pattern II (125), and Pattern III (126) of ħatta. As shown in (124-126), there is no

subset of a set only to which the predicate holds. The predicate ʔiltaɡat ‘she met’ holds to the

focus l-mudiir ‘the director’ as well as to all the alternatives. Therefore, (124-126) are

inflelicitous, since the predicate ʔiltaɡat ‘she met’ has to apply to the focus bi-l-mudiir as well as

to all of its alternatives, including the l-muħaasib ‘the accountant’.

(124) #ʔiltaɡat ħatta [bi-l-mudiir]F, bas maa ʔiltaɡat bi-l-muħaasib.

she.met even with-the-director but NEG met with-the-accountant
‘She even met [the director]F, but she did not meet the accountant.’
(125) #ħatta [bi-l-mudiir]F ʔiltaɡat, bas bi-l-muħaasib maa ʔiltaɡat.
even with-the-director she.met but with-the-accountant NEG met
‘Even [the director]F she met, but the accountant she did not meet.’

79
 (126) #ʔiltaɡat bi-l-kull ħatta [bi-l-mudiir]F, bas maa ʔiltaɡat
she.met with-the-all even with-the-director but NEG met
bi-l-muħaasib.
with-the-accountant.
‘She met all of them, even [the director]F, but she did not meet the accountant’
Likewise, the focus of ħatta in Pattern I (127), Pattern II (128), and Pattern III (129) fails

the coordination test of contrastive focus. If someone from Jordan living in the USA calls his

mother back there to ask if it has rained in Jordan, she may reply with any of the sentences in

(127), (128), or (129), which represent Patterns I, II, and III, respectively. Here, it is evident that

the sentence in which the focus is one PP, (127b), (128b), or (129b), follows as one of the logical

consequences of the sentence in which that PP is coordinated with another one, (126a), (127a), or

(128a), respectively. Examples (127b), (128b), and (129b) do not denote that in Maan it rained,

but Maan is assumed to be one of the alternatives of the focus. This shows that the focus of ħatta

in all of its patterns is not contrastive focus.

(127) a. ʔamtˤarat ħatta [bi-l-ʕaɡabah w-mʕaan]F.

it.rained even in-the -Aqaba and-Maan
‘It even rained [in Aqaba and Maan]F.’
b. ʔamtˤarat ħatta [bi-l-ʕaɡabah]F.
it.rained even in-the -Aqaba
‘It even rained [in Aqaba]F.’
(128) a. ħatta [bi-l-ʕaɡabah w-mʕaan]F ʔamtˤarat.
even in-the-Aqaba and-Maan it.rained
‘Even [in Aqaba and Maan]F it rained.’
b. ħatta [bi-l-ʕaɡabah]F ʔamtˤarat.
even in-the-Aqaba it.rained
‘Even [in Aqaba]F it rained.’

80
 (129) a. ʔamtˤarat bi-kull makaan ħatta [bi-l-ʕaɡabah w-mʕaan]F.
it.rained in-every place even in-the -Aqaba and-Maan
‘It rained everywhere, even [in Aqaba and Maan]F.’
b. ʔamtˤarat bi-kull makaan ħatta [bi-l-ʕaɡabah]F.
it.rained in-every place even in-the -Aqaba
‘It rained everywhere, even [in Aqaba]F.’
To recap, we have negative evidence that the focus of ħatta in Pattern I and Pattern II is

neither presentational nor contrastive. As for Pattern III, I have obtained positive evidence

showing that the focus is presentational plus negative evidence that its focus is not contrastive.

As mentioned for kamaan, the test of the contrastive focus is expected to fail in all the patterns,

since the background applies to the focus of ħatta as well as to all of its alternatives. However,

the focus carried by ħatta in Pattern III can be identified as presentational. On the other hand, for

Pattern I and II, the type of focus cannot be specified, since running the test of presentational

focus does not obtain positive results.

Importantly, the inability to specify the type of focus brought by ħatta in Pattern I and

Pattern II, as well as kamaan in Pattern I and Pattern II, leads me to conclude that the distinction

between presentational focus and contrastive focus does not always hold in SJA. We will see if

the attempt to chracterize the type of focus with the exclusive FPs in SJA lends support to this

conclusion.

This section shed light on the three patterns of the scalar particle ħatta ‘even’, highlighted

its semantic properties, and tried to identify the type of focus ħatta contributes to the clause. In

the next section, I will consider two exclusive FPs: bas ‘only’ and ʔilla ‘except’.

81
 2.3 The Exclusive FPs in SJA

There are two exclusive FPs used in SJA: bas ‘only’ and ʔilla ‘except’. These particles

express an exclusive contrast between the focus and all of its alternatives. Thus, the background

part of the clause applies to the focus, to the exclusion of all of its alternatives. First, I will deal

with bas ‘only’ in Section 2.3.1. The data representing patterns of bas in SJA will be presented in

Section 2.3.1.1. Its semantic properties will be highlighted in Section 2.3.1.2. The type of focus

that bas brings to the sentence will be investigated in Section 2.3.1.3. Next, Section 2.3.2 deals

with the second exclusive FP ʔilla ‘except’, which appears only in one pattern. Section 2.3.2.1

provides examples of ʔilla in SJA. Section 2.3.2.2 delineates the semantic components of ʔilla.

Finally, Section 2.3.2.3 addresses the type of focus in clauses containing ʔilla.

2.3.1 bas ‘Only’

2.3.1.1 The distribution of bas ‘only’ in SJA

Before tackling bas as an FP in SJA, I want to highlight two uses for this particle, even

though they will be beyond the scope of the current study. First, bas may be used as a

subordinating conjunction denoting a point in time related to an action, similar to when in

English. In this usage, a bas-clause may precede and follow the matrix clause, as exemplified in

(130).

(130) a. bas tʃuufuh xabbirnii.

when you.see.him tell.me
‘When you see him, let me know.’
b. xabbirnii bas tʃuufuh.
tell.me when you.see.him
Second, bas may be used as a coordinating conjunction expressing contrast between the

clauses it connects, as in (131). In this sense, it is similar to ‘but’ in English. It is worth

82
mentioning that a bas-clause in the case under consideration may only follow, but not precede,

the matrix clause, as illustrated in (131).

(131) a. daras bas maa nadʒaħ.

he.studied but NEG he.succeeded
‘He studied, but he did not succeed.’
b. *bas maa nadʒaħ daras.
but NEG he.succeeded he.studied
As an FP, bas shows up in two patterns. In Pattern I, bas accompanies the focus in its

normal position that it would occupy without the particle, but in Pattern II bas and its focus occur

clause-initially. In the following sections, I will provide more examples of each pattern.

2.3.1.1.1 bas in Pattern I: In this pattern, bas joins the focus in-situ. That is, association

with the focused constituent takes place in the position that the constituent would occupy without

the presence of bas. In addition, bas has to be adjacent to the focus, and it may immediately

follow or precede the focus. It is noteworthy that when bas comes after the focus, there is a pause

preceding bas.

The type of constituents that bas in Pattern I may attach to involves adjuncts, like a PP

adjunct to VP (132), a PP adjunct to AP (133), a CP adjunct to VP (134), and an adverbial (135).

It is shown here that bas focuses the constituent it directly adjoins, but not other further items.

For instance, in (132), the focus of bas is the PP fi-l-maktabih ‘in the library’, but not other

constituents, including the PP maʕ zumalaaʔii ‘with my clolleagues’ that occurs in the last

position to the right of the clause.

(132) ʔaltaɡii {bas} [fi-l-maktabih]F {bas} maʕ zumalaaʔii.

I.meet only in-the-library only with my.colleagues
‘I meet my colleagues [in the library]F only.’

83
 (133) furasˤ l-ʕamal mitwwafrih {bas} [fi-l-ʕaasˤimih]F {bas}.
opportunities the-job available only in-the-capital only
‘Job opportunities are available [in the capital]F only.’
(134) tiɡdar tsaafir {bas} [ʔiðaa ħasˤsˤalt l-muwaafaqah]F {bas}.
you.can travel only if you.got the-permit only
‘You can travel only [if you get the permit]F.’
(135) jidaawim {bas} [jom s-sabt]F {bas} fi-l-maħall.
he.works only day the-Saturday only in-the-shop
‘He works [on Saturday]F only in the shop.’
Additionally, bas in Pattern I may occur with a PP complement to VP (136) and a PP

complement to AP (137).

(136) l-mudiir jiθaq {bas} [bi-riim]F {bas}.

the-director trusts only in-Reem only
‘The director trusts [Reem]F only.’
(137) huu muhttam {bas} [bi-l-ʔadab]F {bas}.
he interested only in-the-literature only
‘He is interested [in literature]F only.’
The particle bas may not intervene between a P and its DP complement, as shown in

(138).

(138) a. ʔaʃuufuh bas [fi-l-madrasih]F.

I.saw.him only in-the-school
‘I saw him [at school]F only.’
b. *ʔaʃuufuh fi-bas [l-madrasih]F.
I.saw.him in-only the-school

84
 Of the arguments that may appear in Pattern I of bas are a CP complement to VP (139)

and a DP in an object position (140). In (139), the CP ʔinnak tutruk d-duxxaan ‘that you quit

smoking’ is an argument of the verb jinfaʕ ‘helps’.

(139) jinfaʕak {bas} [ʔinnak tutruk d-duxxaan]F {bas}.

helps.you only COMP.you quit the-smoking only
‘The only thing that helps you is [that you quit smoking]F.’
(140) ʔanaa ʃiribt {bas} [ʃaaj]F {bas}.
I drank only tea only
‘I drank [tea]F only.’
Likewise, bas can focus a subject DP in-situ, in both a preverbal and a postverbal

position, as in (141) and (142), respectively.

(141) {bas} [ʕalii]F {bas} zaarnii.

only Ali only visited.me
‘Only [Ali]F visited me.’
(142) saaʕadatnaa {bas} [riim]F {bas}.
helped.us only Reem only
‘Only [Reem]F helped me.’
In addition, a VP can be focused by bas in-situ (143). The optional negative continuation

in (143) is to show how the whole VP liʕib tinis ‘played tennis’ is in contrast with the VP in the

continuation maa ʕimil ʔiʃii θaanii ‘did not do anything else’.

(143) naadir {bas} [liʕib tinis]F {bas} (w-maa ʕimil

Nader only played tennis only and-NEG he.did
ʔiʃii θaanii).
thing else
‘Nader only [played tennis]F, (and he did not do anything else).’
The last category that may appear with bas in Pattern I is a TP (144).

85
 (144) maa sˤaddaɡt ʔinnuh {bas} [kaanuu jidursuu]F {bas}
NEG I.believed COMP only they.were they.study only
(w-maa kanuu jiʕmaluu ʔaj ʔiʃii θaanii).
and-NEG they.were they.do any thing else
‘I did not believe that [they were studying]F only (and they were not doing
anything else’
In addition, in Pattern I bas may not occur inside a genitive construction (145). It is worth

mentioning that when bas associates with a genitive construction, it may focus on the whole

construction baab l-beet ‘the door of the house’, the first element baab ‘door’, or the second

element l-beet ‘house’. In the first case, the interpretation is that the person has painted the door

of the house, but not anything else (e.g., the car). In the second case, it is understood that of the

many things in the house that may be painted (e.g., the window of the house, the wall of the

house), only the door has been painted. In the last case, the interpretation is that the person has

painted the door of the house, but not the door of anything else (e.g., the door of the car).

(145) a. dahan bas [baab l-beit]F.

he.painted only door.GEN the-house
‘He painted [the door of the house]F only.’
b. *dahan [baab bas l-beit]F.
he.painted door.GEN only the-house
In Pattern I, adjacency between bas and its focus is required, and can be further shown

with reference to the fact that no material may occur between bas and the focused constituent.

This is demonstrated in (146-147), where the adverbials ʔimbaariħ ‘last night’ and fi-l-masaa ‘in

the afternoon’, respectively, may either follow (146a) and (147a) or precede (146b) and (147b)

the sequence of bas and its focus, but they may not intervene between them (146c) and (147c).

Examples (146c) and (147c) are judged to be ungrammatical when the focus is on the DP

86
sandwiiʃih ‘sandwich’ and the temporal adverbial fi-l-masa ‘in the evening’, respectively.

Focusing on the constituents coming immediately after bas in (146c) and (147c) renders the

sentences grammatical.

(146) a. ʔakal bas [sandwiiʃih]F ʔimbaariħ.

he.ate only sandwich last.night
‘He ate [a sandwich]F only last night.’
b. ʔakal ʔimbaariħ bas [sandwiiʃih]F.
he.ate last.night only sandwich
c. *ʔakal bas ʔimbaariħ [sandwiiʃih]F.
he.ate only last.night sandwich
(147) a. jiʃtaɣil bas [fi-l-masaa]F bi-l-mazraʕah.
he.works only in-the-afternoon in-the-farm
‘He works [in the afternoon]F only in the farm.’
b. jiʃtaɣil bi-l-mazraʕah bas [fi-l-masaa]F.
he.works in-the-farm only in-the-afternoon
c. *jiʃtaɣil bas bi-l-mazraʕah [fi-l-masaa]F.
he.works only in-the-farm in-the-afternoon
In brief, bas in Pattern I comes immediately to the left or the right of the focused item in

its canonical position. There is little restriction on the type of constituents that may appear in this

pattern. It has been noted that bas may not occur in the following positions: (i) between a P and

its DP complement, and (ii) inside a genitive construction.

2.3.1.1.2 bas in Pattern II: In Pattern II, bas joins the focus at the beginning of the

clause, and has to occur immediately to the left or to the right of the focus. There is a pause after

bas when it follows the focus. The focused constituent may be of a range of categories. One of

them is a DP (148).

87
 (148) {bas} [ʃaaj]F {bas} ʃirib ʕumar.
only tea only drank Omar
‘It was only [tea]F that Omar drank.’
Of the other categories that can be focused by bas in Pattern II is a PP, whether serving as

an adjunct, (149) or an argument (150).

(149) {bas} [fi-l-maktabih]F {bas} ʔaʃuufuh.

only in-the-library only I.see.him
‘It is only [in the library]F that I see him.
(150) {bas} [ʕala raamii]F {bas} jiʕtamid ʔabuuj.
only on Ramy only depends my.father
‘It is only [on Ramy]F that my father depends.’
The PPs in (149) and (150) are an adjunct and an argument of VP, respectively. Likewise,

a PP that is an adjunct (151) and an argument (152) of AP may surface with bas in this pattern.

(151) {bas} [fi-l-ʕaasˤimih]F {bas} l-xadamaat mitwafrrih.

only in-the-capital only the-utilities available
‘It is only [in the capital]F that utilities are available.’
(152) {bas} [bi-l-ʔadab]F {bas} huu muhttam.
only in-the-literature only he interested
‘It is only [in literature]F that he is interested.’
Similarly, an adjunct and an argument CP can be the focus of bas in Pattern II, as in (153)

and (154) respectively. In (154), the CP ʔinnak ʔitɡaddim ʔistirħaam ‘that you submit a petition’

is an argument of the verb jifiid ‘help’.

(153) {bas} [ʔiðaa darast]F {bas} raħ tindʒaħ.

only if you.studied only you.will pass
‘Only [if you study]F will you pass.’

88
 (154) {bas} [ʔinnak ʔitɡaddim ʔistirħaam]F {bas} raħ jifiidak.
only COMP.you submit petition only will help.you
‘Only [that you submit a petition]F will help you.’
Furthermore, an adverbial (155) and a VP (156) may occur with bas in Pattern II.

(155) {bas} [ʔaaxir l-ʔusbuuʕ]F {bas} ʔaʃuufuh.

only end the-week only I.see.him
‘It is only [at the weekend]F that I see him.’
(156) {bas} [jiħðˤar ʔaflaam]F {bas} ʔibnii (w-maa jiʕmal
only watches movies only my.son and-NEG he.does
ʔaj ʔiʃii θaanii).
any thing else
‘My son only [watches movies]F (and he does not do anything else).’
As with the other FPs, the sequence of bas and the focus in a clause-initial position may

be preceded by one of two items: (i) a topicalized constituent (157), or (ii) a sentence adverb

(158).

(157) ʕumar {bas} [ʃaaj]F {bas} ʃirib.

Omar only tea only drank
‘It was only [tea]F that Omar drank.’
(158) b-sˤaraaħah {bas} [ʔaɣaanii]F {bas} ʔasmaʕ.
with-frankness only songs only I.listen.to
‘Frankly, it is only [songs]F that I listen to.’
The adjacency between bas and the focused constituent is mandatory, as seen in the

examples provided above. This can also be illustrated by showing that no material may intervene

between bas and the focus, including sentence adverbs, like li-l-ʔasaf ‘regrettably’ in (159), and

adverbials, like the locative adverbial bi-l-muħaaðˤarah ‘in the class’ in (160). Sentence (160) is

89
judged as ungrammatical if the focus is on faransii ‘French’, but not on the adverbial bi-l-

muħaaðˤarah ‘in the class’. If the focus is on the latter, the sentence becomes grammatical.

(159) a. li-l-ʔasaf bas [bi-l-ʕarabii] nadʒaħ.

to-the-regret only in-the-Arabic he.passed
‘Regrettably, it was only [in Arabic]F that he passed.’
b. *bas li-l-ʔasaf [bi-l-ʕarabii] nadʒaħ.
only to-the-regret in-the-Arabic he.passed
(160) a. bi-l-muħaaðˤarah bas [faransii]F jitkallam.
in-the-class only French he.speaks
‘It is only [French]F that he speaks in class.’
b. *bas bi-l-muħaaðˤarah [faransii]F jitkallam.
only in-the-class French he.speaks
Finally, I want to call attention to an observation relevant to both patterns of bas: as with

the two patterns of kamaan ‘also’and the first two patterns of ħatta ‘even’, it is possible for wh-

words to co-occur with bas in Pattern I (161), but that is not possible with bas in Pattern II (162).

(161) mataa ʃuft bas [riim]F?

when you.saw only Reem
‘When did you see [Reem]F only?’
(162) *mataa bas [riim]F ʃuft?
when only Reem you.saw
‘When was it only [Reem]F that you saw?’
In brief, the focus of bas in Pattern II occupies the the position immediately to the left or

to the right of the particle in a clause-initial position. The focused item may be of different

categories, and it may be an adjunct or an argument. Moreover, in Pattern I, but not in Pattern II,

bas may appear in wh-questions.

90
2.3.1.2 Semantic properties of bas

As I did with the previous two FPs (kamaan ‘also’ and ħatta ’even’), I will adopt Horn’s

(1969) account of the semantic contribution of the exclusive FP only, which is schematized in

(163), to represent the semantic components of bas.

(163) Only [A]F is B.

Assertion and Entailment: No one distinct from A is B.
Presupposition: A is B.
Sentences with Pattern I (164) and Pattern II (165) of bas have all of the meaning

components in (163). First, (164-165) assert and entail that Omar speaks no languages other than

Arabic. If it is true that Omar speaks only Arabic, it must be true that Omar speaks no other

languages. Therefore, a contradiction ensues if the speaker asserts that Omar speaks Arabic only,

and denies that Omar speaks no languages other than Arabic. Moreover, I can successfully run

the non-reinforcement test of entailment on (164-165): redundancy results when asserting that (i)

Omar speaks Arabic only, and that (ii) Omar speaks no languages other than Arabic.

(164) ʕumar jitkallam bas [ʕarabii]F.

Omar speaks only Arabic
‘Omar speaks [Arabic]F only.’
(165) bas [ʕarabii]F ʕumar jitkallam.
only Arabic Omar speaks
‘It is only [Arabic]F that Omar speaks.’
Second, the sentences with the exclusive particle bas presuppose the corresponding

sentences without bas. This is evident in (164-165), as they presuppose that Omar speaks Arabic.

As predicted, the presupposition here is not affected by questions and negation (Karttunen 1973,

Griffiths 2010, Sudhoff 2010). In questions with bas in Pattern I (166) and Pattern II (167), the

presupposition that Omar speaks Arabic is unaffected.

91
 (166) tsaaʔalat ʔiðaa ʔinnuh ʕumar jitkallam bas [ʕarabii]F.
she.wondered if COMP Omar speaks only Arabic
‘She wondered if Omar speaks [Arabic]F only.’

(167) tsaaʔalat ʔiðaa ʔinnuh bas [ʕarabii]F ʕumar jitkallam.

she.wondered if COMP only Arabic Omar speaks
‘She wondered if it is only [Arabic]F that Omar speaks.’
Likewise, negating bas in Pattern I (168) and Pattern II (169) semantically by embedding

the propositons after a verb like nafaa ‘denied’ preserves the same presupposition.

(168) nafaa ʔinnuh ʕumar jitkallam bas [ʕarabii]F.

he.denied COMP Omar speaks only Arabic
‘He denied that Omar speaks [Arabic]F only.’
(169) nafaa ʔinnuh bas [ʕarabii]F ʕumar jitkallam.
he.denied COMP only Arabic Omar speaks
‘He denied that it is only [Arabic]F that Omar speaks.’
The meaning contributed by bas is formally presented in (170). (170a) shows that the

exclusive FP bas joins a sentence consisting of focus (β) and background (α). What is

presupposed here is the sentence minus bas. The entailment brought by bas is given in (170b).

To show that the focus is distinct from all of its alternatives, the universal quantifier (∀x) is used

to represent the value of the focus (β), so the background (α) applies only to the focus, and to the

exclusion of all the alternatives.

(170) a. bas (λ x(α) , β).

b. (∀x) [(x (α)) → (x= β)].

The difference between Pattern I and Pattern II of bas lies in the illocutionary force of the

clauses containing them, as was observed while discussing the difference between Pattern I and

Pattern II of kamaan as well as ħatta above. bas in Pattern I conveys information about the focus

92
and its distinctness from the alternatives, as in Pattern I of kamaan and ħatta. The speech acts

that bas occurs with in Pattern I fall under the category of representatives. As an illustration,

(164), repeated as (171), expresses the speech act of assertion that Omar speaks Arabic only,

which is one of the representative speech acts. Importantly, the sentence without bas also makes

an assertion. As expected, the focused constituent in this pattern is pronounced with a falling

pitch accent.

(171) ʕumar jitkallam bas [ʕarabii]F.

Omar speaks only Arabic
‘Omar speaks [Arabic]F only.’
By contrast, Pattern II of bas occurs in speech acts that fall under the category of

expressives. That is, the speech acts here convey the speaker’s feelings and attitudes about the

exclusion of focus from all of its alternatives. Starting the clause with bas and its focus

highlights the distinction drawn between the focus and all of its alternatives, which can function

to complain, criticize, boast, praise, and other similar actions.

As an example, in (165), which is repeated as (172), starting with bas ʕarabii ‘only

Arabic’ expresses complaint or criticism about Omar that he does not speak other languages.

Determining the speech acts that the sentence with Pattern I of bas serves depends on the

pragmatics of the context. For instance, to say that only Reem passed the test may express praise

or boast for Reem, but may also express complaint or criticism for Reem’s classmates. Similar to

what was noted for Pattern II of kamaan and ħatta, the focus of bas in the pattern under

consideration is marked with a rising pitch accent.

(172) bas [ʕarabii]F ʕumar jitkallam.

only Arabic Omar speaks
‘It is only [Arabic]F that Omar speaks.’

93
 In summary, sentences with Pattern I or Pattern II of the exclusive FP bas entail that the

focused constituent is excluded from all of its alternatives, and presupposes the corresponding

sentence without bas. I argued that the difference between the two patterns of bas is found in the

speech acts that they perform.

2.3.1.3 The focus of bas

That bas excludes its focus from all of its alternatives may lead to the prediction that the

type of focus which bas brings to the sentence is contrastive, but not presentational. To see

whether the prediction is correct, I will implement the tests of presentational focus and

contrastive focus. I start with the question and answer test of presentational focus. As shown in

(173), bas in Pattern I (173a) and in Pattern II (173b) may occur in an answer to a question. This

shows that the focus of bas is presentational.

(173) - ʃuu ʃiribit?

what you.drank
‘What did you drink?’
a. ʃiribit bas [ʃaaj]F.
I.drank only tea
‘I drank [tea]F only.’
b. bas [ʃaaj]F ʃiribit.
only tea I.drank
‘It was only [tea]F that I drank.’
Now I will run the tests of contrastive focus. Applying the exhaustive identification test

of contrastive focus to sentences with bas in Pattern I (174) and Pattern II (175), we find that

there is exhaustive identification. It is clear that there is a subset of a set of alternatives only to

which the predicate holds. The predicate ʃiribit ‘I drank’ applies to the focus ʃaaj ‘tea’, but not to

other contextually invoked alternatives, which here involve ʕasˤiir ‘juice’.

94
 (174) ʃiribit bas [ʃaaj]F (w-maa ʃiribit ʕasˤiir). .

I.drank only tea and-NEG drank juice

‘I drank [tea]F only (and I did not drink juice).’
(175) bas [ʃaaj]F ʃiribit (w-maa ʃiribit ʕasˤiir).
only tea I.drank and-NEG drank juice
‘It was only [tea]F that I drank (and I did not drink juice).’
Similarly, implementing the coordination test of contrastive focus on Pattern I and

Pattern II of bas gives further support to the result of the previous test. To run the test, we may

imagine a situation in which a lady wants to tell whom she invited to her party, which she reports

using one of the sentences in (176) or (177). In all cases, it is evident that the second sentence in

each example (176b) and (177b), in which the focus of bas is one DP (hudaa ‘Huda’), does not

follow as a logical consequence of the first sentence in the corresponding example (176a) and

(177a), where the focus involves that DP conjoined with one more DP (riim ‘Reem’). If it is true

that the lady invited Huda only, it cannot be true that she invited Reem also. Hence, the

prediction that the focus of bas is contrastive is borne out.

(176) a. ʕazamit bas [riim w-hudaa]F ʕa-l-ħaflih.

I.invited only Reem and-Huda on-the-party
‘I invited [Reem and Huda]F only to the party.’
b. ʕazamit bas [hudaa]F ʕa-l-ħaflih.
I.invited only Huda on-the-party
‘I invited [Huda]F only to the party.’
(177) a. bas [riim w-hudaa]F ʕazamit ʕa-l-ħaflih.
only Reem and-Huda I.invited on-the-party
‘It was only [Reem and Huda]F that I invited to the party.’
b. bas [hudaa]F ʕazamit ʕa-l-ħaflih.
only Huda I.invited on-the-party

95
 ‘It was only [Huda]F that I invited to the party.’
Contrary to the situation with kamaan and ħatta in Pattern I and Pattern II, where it has

been found that the focus brought by them is neither presentational nor contrastive, the focus

carried by bas is both presentational and contrastive. However, obtaining positive evidence that

the focus of bas is both presentational and contrastive lends further support to the conclusion

reached while discussing the focus of kamaan and ħatta: the distinction between presentational

focus and contrastive focus is not well-defined in SJA.

This section examined the exclusive particle bas in both of its patterns and provided a

descriptive account of its semantic and focus properties. In the next section, I will deal with the

other exclusive particle ʔilla ‘except’.

2.3.2 ʔilla ‘Except’

2.3.2.1 The distribution of ʔilla ‘except’ in SJA

Before providing a description of ʔilla as an FP in SJA, I would like to highlight other

uses of ʔilla in SJA, even though the current study will not address them. First, ʔilla may be used

as a modal verb expressing emphasis or power of action. This entails its use in the act of

swearing (178); after certain verbs, like ʔasˤarr ‘insisted’ (179); and as an epistemic modal

expressing high likelihood, similar to must in English (180).

(178) ħalaf ʔilla jizuurnii.

he.swore EMPH he.visit.me
‘He swore he will visit me.’
(179) ʔasˤarr ʔilla jiqaabil l-mudiir.
he.insisted EMPH meet the-director
‘He insisted to meet the manager.’
(180) ʔilla tinħall l-muʃkilih.
must be.solved the-problem

96
 ‘The problem is bound to get solved.’
Second, ʔilla can be used as an exceptive particle, as exemplified in (181), where ʔilla

serves to limit the domain of the QP kθiir ‘many’ that precedes it. In this use, ʔilla subtracts the

exceptive phrase naadir ‘Nader’ from the QP kθiir ‘many’. Thus, the proposition zaarnii ‘visited

me’ applies to all the entities denoted in QP to the exclusion of the item after exceptive ʔilla4.

(181) zaarnii kθiir min.hum ʔilla naadir.

visited.me many of.them except Nader
‘Many of them visited me, except Nader.’
As an exclusive FP, ʔilla appears with its focus at the end of the clause. The presence of

negation is essential, as exemplified in (182). It is also noted here that an NPI (ħada ‘anyone’)

may optionally appear before exclusive ʔilla. In this use, ʔilla excludes from a generality claim

preceding it. Hence, the proposition applies only to the item mentioned after ʔilla, which is its

focus. In the example under consideration, the speaker excludes naadir ‘Nader’ from the claim

that no one visited him or her. This leads to the interpretation that Nader is the only one who

visited the speaker. Exceptive ʔilla, on the other hand, as noted in (181), excludes the constituent

following it from an overt QP kθiir ‘many’. Therefore, the proposition applies to all the

individuals denoted in the QP, to the exclusion of Nader. It is understood, thus, that Nader is the

one who did not visit the speaker, contrary to the interpretation of the sentence with exclusive

ʔilla, (182).

(182) *(maa) zaarnii (ħada) ʔilla [naadir]F.

NEG visited anyone except Nader
‘No one visited me, except [Nader]F.’

4
see Perez-Jimenez and Moreno-Quiben (2012) and Soltan (2014) for more on exceptive constructions.

97
 It is obvious in (182) that ʔilla precedes the focus. Here, I will emphasize that ʔilla may

not follow the focus. If it does, ungrammaticality ensues, as seen in (183b).

(183) a. maa jitkallam (ʔaj luɣah) ʔilla [ʕarabii]F.

NEG he.speaks any language except Arabic
‘He does not speak any language, except [Arabic]F.’
b. *maa jitkallam (ʔaj luɣah) [ʕarabii]F ʔilla.
NEG he.speaks any language Arabic except

Unlike the other FPs in SJA, ʔilla appears only in one pattern. In this pattern, the focus of

ʔilla can be of different categories, including a DP (184), a PP (185), a CP (186), and an

adverbial (187).

(184) *(maa) (ħada) ħall l-masʔalih ʔilla [ʕumar]F.

NEG anyone solved the-problem except Omar
‘No one solved the problem, except [Omar]F.’
(185) *(maa) tudrus l-bint (ʔbadan) ʔilla [bi-l-leil]F.
NEG studies the-girl at.all except at-the-night
‘The girl does not study at all, except [at night]F.’
(186) *(maa) raħ jiɡdar jisaafir maʕ-kum (ʔbadan) ʔilla
NEG going.to be.able.to travel with-you at.all except
[ʔiða ħasˤsˤal l-vizaa]F.
if he.gets the-visa
‘He is not going to be able to travel with you at all, except [if he gets the visa]F.’
(187) *(maa) jilʕab maʕ-naa (ʔbadan) ʔilla [jom l-dʒomʕah]F.
NEG plays with-us at.all except day the-Friday
‘He does not play with us at all, except [on Friday]F.’
In (185) and (186), ʔilla associates with an adjunct PP and an adjunct CP, respectively. In

addition, ʔilla may occur with an argument PP (188) and an argument CP (189).

98
 (188) *(maa) jiʕtˤii masˤaarii (li-ʔaj-ħad) ʔilla [li-l-muħtaadʒiin]F.
NEG gives money to-anyone except to-the-needy
‘He does not give money to anyone, except [to the needy]F.’
(189) *(maa) raħ jifiidak (ʔiʃii) ʔilla [ʔinnak ʔitqaddim
NEG going.to helps.you anything except COMP.you submit
ʔistirħaam]F.
petition
‘It is not going to help you, except [if you submit a petition]F.’
Importantly, when the focus of ʔilla is a PP, the P may not be dropped (190a) and it may

not precede ʔilla (190b).

(190) a. maa jiθaq ʔilla [*(b)-ʕumar]F.

NEG he.trusts except in-Omar
‘He does not trust anyone, except [Omar]F.’
b. *maa jiθaq b-ʔilla [ʕumar]F.
NEG he.trusts in-except Omar
With regard to the distribution of ʔilla, I note that it has to be at the end of the clause

followed only by the focus, as seen in the data above (182-190). This claim is also supported by

the observation that what is focused by ʔilla has to stick to the clause-final position, even though

word order is free in declarative clauses in Arabic provided that ambiguity does not result

(Mohammad 2000). I illustrate this point further with reference to the position of the object in

the declarative clauses. As (191) shows, the object tuffaħah ‘apple’ may freely move from its

canonical position after the subject (191a) to the position before the subject (191b), as there is no

ambiguity resulting from this shifting of positions. Interestingly, with the exclusive FP ʔilla, the

object has to stay in its clause-final position (192a). Attempting to move that object to the left

renders the sentence ungrammatical (192b).

99
 (191) a. maa ʔakal ʕalii tuffaħaha.
NEG ate Ali apple
‘Ali did not eat an apple
b. maa ʔakal tuffaħaha ʕalii.
NEG ate apple Ali
(192) a. maa ʔakal ʕalii ʔilla [tuffaħah]F.
NEG ate Ali except apple
‘Ali did not eat anything, except [an apple]F.’
b. *maa ʔakal ʔilla [tuffaħah]F ʕalii.5
NEG ate except apple Ali
A further observation corroborating the claim that ʔilla and its focus have to occupy the

final position in a clause is that adjuncts focused by ʔilla may not be followed with verbal

arguments. If we compare (193a) and (193b), we see that in the latter the sequence of ʔilla and

the temporal adverbial jom l-dʒumʕah ‘on Friday’ comes before the verbal argument ʔammuh

‘his mother’, resulting in ungrammaticality. Example (194) shows that this word order is licit in

clauses without ʔilla.

(193) a. maa jizuur ʔammuh ʔilla [jom l-dʒumʕah]F.

NEG he.visits his.mother except day the-Friday
‘He does not visit his mother, except [on Friday]F.’
b. *maa jizuur ʔilla [jom l-dʒumʕah]F ʔammuh.
NEG he.visits except day the-Friday his.mother
(194) maa jizuur jom l-dʒumʕah ʔammuh
NEG he.visits day the-Friday his.mother
‘He does not visit his mother on Friday.’

5
This sentence may turn to be grammatical if the subject ʕalii ‘Ali’ is taken to be an afterthought.

100
 The above observations indicate clearly that the focus of ʔilla has to be at the end of the

clause by itself. However, I need to slightly weaken this statement by specifying two types of

constituent that may follow the focus of ʔilla. First, a sentence adverb may go after the focus, as

in (195), where the adverb li-l-ʔasaf ‘regrettably’ comes after the focused DP ʔibnii ‘my son’.

(195) maa rasab ʔilla [ʔibnii]F li-l-ʔasaf.

NEG failed except my.son to-the-regret
‘No one failed, except [my son]F regrettably.’
Second, the focus of ʔilla may be followed by an adjunct related to it, as in (196), where

the focus ʃaaj ‘tea’ comes before an adjunct clause ʔiðaa kaan maʕ naʕnaʕ ‘if it is with mint’.

Importantly, this clause acts as a modifier to the focus ʃaaj, but to no other items preceding ʔilla.

(196) maa ʔaʃrab ʔiʃii sˤ-sˤubiħ ʔilla [ʃaaj]F

NEG I.drank anything the-morning except tea
ʔiðaa kaan maʕ naʕnaʕ,
If it.was with mint
‘I do not drink anything in the morning, except [tea]F if it is with mint.’
We can observe that in all of the data presented above, nothing intervenes between ʔilla

and its focus. Here, I maintain that adjacency between ʔilla and its focus is mandatory and

inviolable. Even the sentence adverb li-l-ʔasaf ‘regrettably’ that follows the focus of ʔilla (ʔibnii

‘my son’) in (195) may not come between ʔilla and the focus (197).

(197) maa rasb ʔilla (*li-l-ʔasaf) [ʔibnii]F.

NEG failed except to-the-regret my.son
‘No one failed, except [my son]F regrettably.’
In addition, ʔilla may not occur inside a genitive construction, as shown in (198). As with

the other FPs, ʔilla can focus on the whole genitive construction sajjaarit riim ‘Reem’s car’; the

first member of the construction sajjaarit ‘car’; or the second member riim ‘Reem’. The

101
interpretation in the first case is that only Reem’s car has been fixed, but not anything else (e.g.

Ali’s motor). In the second case, it is understood that of the many things that belong to Reem

(e.g. her phone, her laptob), it is only her car that has been fixed, but not anything else of Reem’s

possessions. In the third case, the interpretation is that the car that belongs to Reem has been

fixed, but not the car of anyone else (e.g. Karim’s car, Hurda’s car).

(198) a. maa sˤallaħ ʔilla [sajjaarit riim]F.

NEG he.fixed except car.GEN Reem
‘He did not fix anything, except [Reem’s car]F.’
b. *maa sˤallaħ [sajjaarit ʔilla riim]F.
NEG he.fixed car.GEN except Reem
The last observation that will be highlighted about ʔilla and its focus is that they can

occur in interrogatives headed with wh-questions (199).

(199) miin maa nadʒaħ ʔilla [bi-l-ʕarabii]F?

who NEG passed except in-the-Arabic
‘Who did not pass, except [in Arabic]F?’
To recap, as an FP, ʔilla has to be preceded by negation, and its focus may be of many

categories, whether adjuncts or arguments. In addition, ʔilla must precede its focus in a clause-

final position, although it is possible for sentence adverbs and adjuncts modifying the focus to

follow. No elements may come between ʔilla and the focused constituent. Further, Wh-words

can co-occur with ʔilla and its focus.

2.3.2.2 Semantic properties of ʔilla

Horn’s (1969) account of the semantic components of FPs does not deal with an

exclusive FP corresponding to ʔilla. Thus, I cannot fully employ that model to represent the

semantic properties of ʔilla. Nevertheless, with some technical benefit from Horn’s account, I

propose that ʔilla has the contribution schematized in (1200).

102
 (200) No one/Nothing is B except [A]F.
Assertion and Entailment: No one/Nothing distinct from A is B.
A sentence with the exclusive FP ʔilla, like (201), has the single meaning component in

(200). This sentence asserts and entails that no one other than Nader passed the test. If it is true

that no one passed the test except Nader, it must be true that all of Nader’s other classmates

failed that test. The truth of the latter proposition follows necessarily from the first proposition

(see Hurford, Heasley, and Smith 2007). This predicts the contradiction that ensues if the speaker

states that no one passed the test except Nader, and denies that all of Nader’s classmates failed

the test. In addition, the non-reinforcement test of entailment can be successfully run on (201):

asserting (i) that no one passed the test except Nader, and (ii) that all of Nader’s classmates failed

the test results in noticeable redundancy.

(201) maa (ħada) nadʒaħ bi-l-ʔimtiħaan ʔilla [naadir]F.

NEG anyone passed in-the-test except Nader
‘No one passed the test, except [Nader]F.’
It is evident that the sentence with ʔilla (201) does not presuppose the paralleling one

without ʔilla, unlike the case with the other exclusive FP bas (see Section 2.3.1.2). The sentence

under consideration directly states (i) that Nader passed the test, and (ii) that all of Nader’s

classmates failed the same test. Both of these propositions are new, and neither is presupposed.

This can be captured under the assumption that the predicate (maa nadʒaħ bi-l-ʔimtiħaan ‘did

not pass the test’) which holds of the NPI (ħada ‘anyone’) also holds of the focus (naadir

‘Nader’) when the negation is subtracted.

The formal representation of the meaning contributed by ʔilla is similar to that provided

for the previous exclusive FP bas. In (202) it is represented that the exclusive FP ʔilla appears in

a sentence consisting of focus (β) and background (α). With the purpose of representing the

103
entailment that the focus is distinct from all of its alternatives, the universal quantifier (∀x), in

(202b), is used to stand for the focus (β), so the background (α) applies to the focus but to none

of its alternatives.

(202) a. ʔilla (λ x(α) , β).

b. (∀x) [(x (α)) → (x= β)].

As for the speech acts in which the clauses with the exclusive FP ʔilla occur, they are

representatives, similar to Pattern I of kamaan, ħatta, and bas, as seen above. This means that

clauses with ʔilla are used to contribute information about the focus and it exclusion from all of

its alternatives. For example, in example (201) above, the speaker intends to assert that Nader is

the only student who passed the test. The focus of ʔilla is pronounced with a falling pitch accent,

also paralleling the focus of kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern I.

In brief, sentences with the exclusive FP ʔilla entail that the focused item is distinct from

all of its alternatives, and in these sentences what holds to the optional NPI before ʔilla does not

hold to the focus of ʔilla. It has also been noted that the sentences with ʔilla serve representative

speech acts.

2.3.2.3 The focus of ʔilla

Running the tests of presentational focus and contrastive focus on sentences containing

ʔilla obtains results that lead to the general conclusion that all exclusive FPs in SJA (bas and

ʔilla) induce presentational focus as well as contrastive focus. I start with the question and

answer test of presentational focus. As demonstrated in (203), ʔilla may occur as an answer to a

question. This shows that the focus carried by ʔilla is presentational.

(203) - ʃuu ʔakalt?

what you.ate
‘What did you eat?’

104
 - maa ʔakalt ʔilla [xubiz]F.
NEG I.ate except bread
‘I did not eat anything, except [bread]F.’
In similar fashion, implementing the tests of contrastive focus yields positive evidence.

First, a sentence with ʔilla, like (204), passes the exhaustive identification test; there is a subset

of a set solely to which the predicate holds. The predicate ʕirf l-dʒawaab ‘knew the answer’

applies to the focus raamii ‘Ramy’, but not to any of the contextually invoked alternatives,

which involve Ramy’s classmates. There is a clear contrast between the focus and all of the

alternatives in the applicability of the predicate.

(204) maa ʕirf l-dʒawaab ʔilla [raamii]F.

NEG knew the-answer except Ramy
‘No one knew the answer, except [Ramy]F.’
Likewise, applying the coordination test of contrastive focus confirms the result of the

previous test. To run the test, we may imagine a situation in which a gentleman had been to the

library, and later wanted to report whom he had seen there. He may report that with either of the

sentences in (205). Here, it is evident that that the second sentence (205b), whose focus is one

DP (Reem), does not follow as one of the logical consequences of the first sentence (205a),

where the focus involves that DP (Reem) conjoined with another one (Huda). If that person met

only Reem (205b), it must be true that he did not meet anyone else, including Huda. This shows

conclusively that the focus of ʔilla identifies a subset of a closed set of individuals.

(205) a. maa ʃuft fi-l-maktabih ʔilla [riim w-hudaa]F.

NEG I.saw in-the-library except Reem and-Huda
‘I did not see anyone in the library, except [Reem and Huda]F.’
b. maa ʃuft fi-l-maktabih ʔilla [riim]F.
NEG I.saw in-the-library except Reem

105
 ‘I did not see anyone in the library, except [Reem]F.’
That the focus ʔilla brings to the sentence is presentational and contrastive gives support

to the conclusion previously drawn while discussing the type of focus carried by kamaan, ħatta,

and bas in Pattern I and Pattern II: the distinction between presentational focus and contrastive

focus does not always manifest itself in SJA.

This section highlighted the distributional properties of the exclusive FP ʔilla, and

delineated the semantic and focus contribution that ʔilla makes to the sentence in which it

occurs. With the exception of the property of presupposition belonging solely to bas, it was

shown that ʔilla parallels bas in all of its semantic and focus properties. This parallel is expected

in light of the fact that both of these particles belong to the same subfamily of FPs (exclusives),

which serve the function of excluding the focus from all of its alternatives when the background

part of the clause applies to the focus.

2.4 Summary

This chapter provided a descriptive account of FPs in SJA. It was shown that SJA

licenses an inclusive FP (kamaan ‘also’), a scalar FP (ħatta ‘even), and two exclusive FPs (bas

‘only’ and ʔilla ‘except). With regard to the distribution of FPs, I presented data exemplifying

the two patterns of kamaan, the three patterns of ħatta ‘even’, the two patterns of bas ‘except’,

and the one pattern of ʔilla ‘except’. kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern I associate with the focus

in its canonical position that it would occupy without the presence of the FP, and in Pattern II

they occur with their focus in a clause-initial position. ħatta in Pattern III and ʔilla join the focus

in a clause-final position.

With respect to semantic properties, it was shown that sentences with the inclusive

particle (kamaan) and the scalar particle (ħatta) entail the corresponding sentences without the

particle, and presuppose that there are alternatives to the focus. However, sentences with ħatta in

106
Pattern III do not presuppose the existence of alternatives, as they are stated in the QP preceding

ħatta. The distinguishing semantic property of the scalar particle ħatta is that, unlike the

inclusive FP kamaan, it ranks the focus as the least likely among the alternatives to be a value for

the variable in the focus position. Concerning the exclusive FPs (bas ‘only’ and ʔilla ‘except),

the sentenes containing them were shown to entail that the focus is distinct from all of its

alternatives when the background part of the clause applies to the focus. Further, a sentence with

bas, but not ʔilla, presupposes the parallel sentence without that particle.

As for the communicative function of the FPs, it was shown that sentences with kamaan,

ħatta, and bas in Pattern I, ħatta in Pattern III, and ʔilla normally occur with representative

speech acts. On the other hand, kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern II generally perform expressive

speech acts.

With regard to the type of focus that the FPs bring to the sentences in which they occur, it

was shown the inclusive particle (kamaan) and the scalar particle (ħatta) in Pattern I and Pattern

II carry neither presentational nor contrastive focus. ħatta in Pattern III brings presentational, not

contrastive, focus. The focus of the exclusive FPs (bas ‘only’ and ʔilla ‘except) was

demonstrated to be presentational and contrastive.

Before closing the chapter, I will give a summary of the facts that I presented and that

need to be accounted for. I put forth the facts for the FPs in groups: kamaan, ħatta, and bas in

Pattern I; kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern II; ħatta in Pattern III and ʔilla.

(206) kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern I:

a. The FP (i.e., kamaan, ħatta, or bas in Pattern I) associates with the focus in-situe.

b. The FP has to be adjacent to the focus.

c. The FP may not occur inside a PP or inside a genitive construction.

107
d. The FP is compatible with a fronted wh-phrase.

e. kamaan and bas may precede as well as follow the focus, but ħatta precedes, but does

not follow, the focus.

f. Sentences with these FPs normally serve representative speech acts.

(207) kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern II:

a. The FP (i.e., kamaan, ħatta, or bas in Pattern II) occurs with the focus in a clause-

initial position.

b. The FP has to be adjacent to the focus.

c. The FP and the focus may be preceded by a sentence adverb or a topicalized item.

d. The FP is not compatible with a fronted wh-phrase.

e. kamaan and bas may precede as well as follow the focus, but ħatta precedes, but does

not follow, the focus.

f. Sentences with these FPs normally perform expressive speech acts.

(208) ħatta in Pattern III and and ʔilla:

a. The FP (i.e., ħatta in Pattern III or ʔilla) occurs with the focus in a clause-final

position.

b. The FP has to be adjacent to the focus.

c. The FP may not occur inside a PP or inside a genitive construction.

d. The FP is compatible with a fronted wh-phrase.

e. The FP precedes, but does not follow, the focus.

f. The FP and the focus may be followed by a sentence adverb or an adjunct modifying

the focus.

g. Sentences with these FPs normally occur with representative speech acts.

108
 CHAPTER 3
FOCUS PARTICLES IN SOUTHERN JORDANIAN ARABIC AS ADVERBS: THE
ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction

This chapter proposes an analysis for Pattern I and Pattern II of kamaan ‘also’, ħatta

‘even’, and bas ‘only’, a descriptive account of which was given in Chapter 2. I argue that each

of kamaan, ħatta, and bas, in both patterns, is an adverb that is licensed by the head of the

maximal projection it is adjoined to. This head has a semantic focus feature that determines its

ability to license the adverb in the adjunct position, along the lines of the analysis that Ernst

(2002) provides for adverbs. This indicates that the distribution of the adverbs follows from

semantic principles.

Specifically, I deal with kamaan, ħatta, and bas as focusing adverbs, on a par with also,

even, and only in English, which have the function of highlighting the focus part of the clause

vis-à-vis the background part. Hence, the constituent that each of the FPs in question attaches to

is marked as the focus part of the clause. Ernst (2002) subsumes focusing adverbs under the

category of functional adverbs, which also include adverbs of time, like still, already, and soon;

quantificational adverbs, like again and habitually; and negation, like not, among other adverbs.

I begin with Pattern I in section 3.2. Pattern II is dealt with in section 3.3. Pending issues

related to the two patterns are addressed in section 3.4. Finally, section 3.5 concludes.

3.2 Pattern I of kamaan, ħatta, and bas

3.2.1 The Proposed Analysis

As mentioned above, I propose that kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern I are focusing

adverbs that freely adjoin to a maximal projection in which the head bears a semantic focus

feature. Thus, the head functions as a licensor to the adverb. These adverbs, kamaan, ħatta, and

bas, in Pattern I adjoin to the focused constituent in-situ, without inducing any noted movement.

109
 As focusing adverbs, kamaan, ħatta, and bas mark the focus part of the clause and

modify it. For example, in (1), the focus on the PP ʕa-l-BBC ‘on the BBC’ suggests that other

channels broadcasted the news, but the role of the FPs kamaan, ħatta, and bas is to specify the

relationship between the focus and its alternatives. The inclusive FP kamaan adds the BBC to

other channels that broadcasted the news; the scalar FP ħatta adds the BBC to all the other

channels, and ranks it as the least likely among them to broadcast the news; and the exclusive FP

bas excludes the BBC from all the other channels. The adjunction of kamaan, ħatta, and bas to

the focused item, thus, sounds reasonable and semantically justified, as the role of these particles

is to identify clearly the relation that exists between the focused item and its alternatives, whether

it takes the form of inclusion, ranking, or exclusion (König 1991, Sudhoff 2010).

(1) smiʕt l-xabar kamaan / ħatta / bas [ʕa-l-BBC]F.

I.heard the-new also / even / only on-the-BBC
‘I also/even/only heard the news [on the BBC]F.’
Accordingly, sentence (1) has the structure in (2). It appears there that kamaan, ħatta, and

bas are adverbs that are integrated into the structure as adjuncts to the maximal projection PP.

This PP has the semantic feature of focus, [F], which does not have checking needs, as it is an

interpretable feature (see Chomsky 1995, Adger 2003).

(2)

110
 This section delineated an analysis proposed for Pattern I of kamaan, ħatta, and bas. The

next section relates the currently proposed analysis to previous accounts of the syntax of adverbs

and the syntax of FPs.

3.2.2 The Proposed Analysis and the Previous Approaches

First, analyzing kamaan, ħatta, and bas as an adverb that is integrated into the structure

as an adjunct is compatible with the adjunction analysis of adverbs, which is advocated by

Potsdam (1999), Ernst (2002), and others. This analytical position is opposed to the functional

specifier analysis, which is propounded by Jackendoff (1981), Alexiadou (1994), and Cinque

(1999), among others. The adjunction analysis is known to be associated with the standpoint that

the semantics of adverbs determines their distribution. This is exhibited in the case under

consideration, as the licensing and distribution of kamaan, ħatta, and bas is determined by the

semantic focus feature [F] that the focused constituent has (Haumann 2007).

In addition, the current analytical account looks to be consistent with the Adjunct

Approach to FPs, which is pioneered by Bayer (1996), Reis and Rosengren (1997), and

Nederstigt (2003). The basic principles of this approach are reviewed in (3) below (see Chapter

1). The FPs kamaan, ħatta, and bas adjoin to the maximal projection that holds the focus. As

they adjoin to the maximal projection in which the head bears the focus feature, it is ensured that

the c-command condition is met.

(3) In the Adjunct Approach:

a. FPs adjoin to a maximal projection.

b. FPs c-command their focus.

c. FPs freely adjoin to constituents as long as there is no violation to basic principles.

Under the assumption that the FP kamaan, ħatta, or bas directly adjoins to the constituent

that bears the focus feature, the adjacency between the FP and the focus, which is witnessed to

111
be essential (see Chapter 2), can be accounted for. To illustrate, in (4), the sentence is

grammatical when the FP kamaan, ħatta, or bas is in the closest position to the focused adverbial

ʔams ‘yesterday’ (4a), but the sentence turns to be ill-formed when the adjunct bi-ʕammaan ‘in

Amman’ intervenes between the FP and the focused item (4b). The explanation for this is that

the FP kamaan, ħatta, or bas adjoins only to the constituent that has the focus feature (i.e., ʔams).

This is what takes place in (4a), whereas in (4b), the FP is not adjacent to the constituent with the

focus feature, so it fails to adjoin to the focus. As a result, ungrammaticality of the sentence

ensues.

(4) a. ʔamtˤarat kamaan / ħatta / bas [ʔams]F bi-ʕammaan.

it.rained also / even / also yesterday in-Amman

‘It rained also/even/only [yesterday]F in Amman.’

b. *ʔamtˤarat kamaan / ħatta / bas bi-ʕammaan [ʔams]F.

it.rained also / even / also in-Amman yesterday

The Adjunct Approach predicts for the FPs in Pattern I to appear to the left as well as to

the right of the focus. The prediction is realized with kamaan (5) and bas, (6), but not with ħatta,

(7).

(5) ʔiʃtaraa ʕalii {kamaan} [saaʕah]F {kamaan}.

bought Ali also watch also
‘Ali also bought [a watch]F.’
(6) jiʃrab {bas} [ʕasˤiir]F {bas}.
he.drinks only juice only
‘He only drinks [juice]F.’
(7) a. judrus ħatta [bi-l-ʕutˤlah].
he.studies even in-the-holiday
‘He even studies [in the holiday]F.’

112
 b. *judrus [bi-l-ʕutˤlah] ħatta.
he.studies in-the-holiday even
In order to explain the inability of ħatta to follow its focus (7b), in a way that is

compatible with the Adjunct Approach to FPs, I assume that the direction of adjunction for ħatta

is lexically specified to be always to the left of the focused item. This is evident also in the other

uses of ħatta. For example, in its use as a preposition (8), and as conjunction expressing purpose

(9), ħatta always precedes the item it modifies, and may not follow it.

(8) a. ðˤall judrus ħatta l-fadʒir.

he.kept he.studies till the-dawn
‘He kept studying till dawn.’
b. *ðˤall judrus l-fadʒir ħatta.
he.kept he.studies the-dawn till
(9) a. ʔudrus ħatta tindʒaħ.
study.you in.order.to you.succeed
‘Study in order to succeed.’
b. *ʔudrus tindʒaħ ħatta.
study.you you.succeed in.order.to
In the light of the adjunct Approach, (3c), it is predicted that kamaan, ħatta, and bas may

freely adjoin to a constituent of any type. This prediction is borne out, as the focus of these

focusing adverbs may be of any category, whether a non-argument or an argument constituent.

The first set of data that shows the ability of kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern I to attach to any

constituent involves non-argument items, like a PP adjunct to VP (10), a PP adjunct to AP (11), a

CP adjunct to VP (12), and an adverbial (13).

(10) jiʃtaɣil kamaan / ħatta / bas [bi-l-leel]F.

he.works also / even / also at-the-night

113
 ‘He also/even/only works [at night]F.’
(11) ʔammii muɣramah kamaan / ħatta / bas [bi-l-ʔadab]F.
my.mother fond.of also / even / only in-the-literature
‘My mother is also/even/only fond [of literature] F.’
(12) jiʃbaʕ b-surʕah kamaan / ħatta / bas [lamma jikuun sˤaajim]F.
he.gets.full with-quickness also / even / only when he.is fasting
‘He also/even/only gets full quickly [when he is fasting] F.’
(13) ʔamtˤarat kamaan / ħatta / bas [ʔams]F.
it.rained also / even / only yesterday
‘It also/even/only rained [yesterday]F.’
Likewise, kamaan, ħatta, and bas may occur with a VP (14) and a TP (15), respectively.

(14) naadir kamaan / ħatta / bas [liʕib tinis]F.

Nader also / even / only played tennis
‘Nader also/even/only [played tennis]F.’
(15) a. l-waðˤiʕ kulluh kaan ɣariib . ʔistaɣrabt ʔinnuh
the-situation entirely was unusual I.was.surprised COMP
kamaan / ħatta [kaanat tilʕab ɡabl l-ʔimtiħaan]F.
also / even she.was she.play before the-exam
‘The situation was entirely unusual. I was also/even surprised that [she was
playing before the exam]F.’
b. maa sˤaddaɡt ʔinnuh bas [kaanuu jidursuu]F.
NEG believed COMP only they.were they.study
‘I did not believe that [they were studying] F only.’
In addition, the FPs under discussion can appear with all arguments of AP and arguments

of VP. The first set of examples that represents these arguments include: (i) a PP complement of

VP (16), (ii) a PP complement of AP (17), and (iii) a CP complement of VP (18).

114
 (16) ʔarsalt daʕwah kamaan / ħatta / bas [li-l-mudiir]F.
I.sent invitation also / even / only to-the-director
‘I also/even/only sent an invitation [to the director]F.’
(17) ʔabuuj muhttam kamaan / ħatta / bas [bi-s-sijaasih]F.
my.father interested also / even / only in-the-politics
‘My father is also/even/only interested [in politics]F.’
(18) maa raħ jinfaʕak kamaan / ħatta / bas [ʔinnak ʔitɡaddim
NEG will help.you also / even / only COMP.you submit
ʔistirħaam]F.
petition
‘It will not also/even/only help you [that you submit a petition]F.’
The second set of the argument constituents involves all DP arguments of VP, including a

DP in an object position (19) and a subject DP in a preverbal position (20) as well as in a post-

verbal position (21).

(19) titkallam kamaan / ħatta / bas [faransii]F.

she.speaks also / even / only French
‘She also/even/only speaks [French]F.’
(20) kamaan / ħatta / bas [ʕalii]F zaarnii.
also / even / only Ali visited.me
‘Also/Even/Only [Ali]F visited me.’
(21) saaʕadnii kamaan / ħatta / bas [l-mudiir]F.
helped.me also / even / only the-director
‘Also/Even/Only [the director]F helped me.’
However, it has been notable that kamaan, ħatta, and bas may not show up in two

positions: (i) between a P and its DP complement (22) and (ii) inside a genitive construction

(23).

115
 (22) a. ʔiltaqaa kamaan / ħatta / bas [bi-l-mudiir]F.
he.met also / even / only with-the-director
‘He also/even/only met [the director]F.’
b. *ʔiltaqaa bi-kamaan / ħatta / bas [l-mudiir]F.
he.met with-also / even / only with-the-director
(23) a. ɣassalt kamaan / ħatta / bas [sidʒdʒadit dʒaarnaa]F.
I.washed also / even / only carpet.GEN our.neighbor
‘I also/even/only washed [our neighbor’s carpet]F.’
b. *ɣassalt [sidʒdʒadit kamaan / ħatta / bas dʒaarnaa]F
I.washed carpet.GEN also / even / only our.neighbor
Bayer (1996), as one of the main advocates of the Adjunct Approach to FPs, documents

the ungrammaticality or unacceptability of German sentences with an FP-DP sequence after a P

(24, his (24)) and inside a genitive construction (25, his (27)) (see Chapter 1).

(24) a. daB sie nur mit dem OPA plaudert.

that she only with the grandfather chats
‘That she chats only with grandfather.’
b. *daB sie mit nur dem OPA plaudert.
that she with only the grandfather chats
(25) a. daB sie sogar die Schuhe DER KINDER putzt.
that she even the shoes the children.GEN cleans
‘That she cleans even the children’s shoes.’
b. ?daB sie die Schuhe sogar DER KINDER putzt.
that she the shoes even the children.GEN cleans
(Bayer 1996:18)
Bayer’s explanation is with reference to LF-movement, where FP-XP has to be allowed

to move to a scope position in the domain of quantification. For example, in (26, his (17)), the

116
scalar FP even takes the focused constituent Alceste and ranks it in relation to the other

individuals, so Alceste appears to be the least likely among the other individuals to be met by

John. Syntactically, the quantified expression even Alceste must be licensed to move into a

position where it has scope over its domain. In this example, the quantified expression moves to

the VP at LF, as represented in (27, his (19)). For Bayer, the movement from inside the PP in

German is not allowed as this incurs a violation to ‘the Condition of Global Harmony’, according

to which the governors of the empty category must have a uniform orientation. In German, the

verb agrees to the left, and the P to the right. With regard to the movement of the FP-XP from

inside a genitive construction (25), it is not allowed as it violates island constraints.

(26) John invited even Alceste.

(27) John [VP even Alcestei [VP invited ei]].
(Bayer 1996:51-52)
I adopt Bayer’s (1996) explanation to account for the inability of kamaan, ħatta, and bas

to occur after a P (22b) and inside a genitive construction (23b) in SJA. Based on that, for the

constructions that involve these FPs to be interpretable at LF, kamaan, ħatta, or bas and the

focused DP l-mudiir ‘the director’, in (22b), and dʒaarnaa ‘our neighbor’, in (23b), have to be

able to move to VP at LF. The movement of the sequence of kamaan, ħatta, or bas and l-mudiir

‘the director’, in (22b), is not acceptable, because the P cannot be stranded in Arabic, and PPs are

known to be islands for movement in Arabic (Mohammad 2000). In a similar fashion, the

movement of kamaan, ħatta, or bas and dʒaarnaa ‘our neighbor’, in (23b), is not allowed, as

genitive constructions are islands for movement (Bayer 1996, Mohammad 2000).

Interestingly, one more explanation for the inability of FPs to occur inside a genitive

construction can be provided with reference to properties of genitive constructions in Arabic.

According to Benmamon (2000), members of a genitive construction form a single prosodic unit,

117
and they behave as a word, not as a phrase, so they have to be adjacent. This is why kamaan,

ħatta, and bas may not intervene between the two elements in a genitive construction.

Finally, it is worthy of attention that the analysis I defend can account for the occurrence

of wh-questions with kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern I (28). Under the assumption that the FPs

in question adjoin to the focus in-situ, there is no objection to the movement of the wh-word miin

‘who’ to Spec, FocP in the left-periphery (see Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri 2010).

(28) miin jitkallam kamaan / ħatta / bas [faransii]F?

who speaks also / even / only French
‘Who also/even/only speaks [French]F?’
After addressing the analysis advanced to Pattern I of kamaan, ħatta, and bas, I will shed

light in the next section on the interpretation of clauses with these FPs.

3.2.3 The Interpretation of Pattern I of kamaan, ħatta, and bas

kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern I adjoin to the focused item in its canonical position, so

they are interpreted as objectively reporting truth about the focus and its alternatives. One way to

show how this is evident is to refer to the observation that, as shown in Chapter 2, a clause with

one of the FPs under discussion normally serves representative speech acts. It is worth recalling

that these speech acts convey truth of the clause, and they are served by the paralleling clauses

without the FPs (Searle 1976). This informative function of kamaan, ħatta, and bas explains why

the focused item in this pattern is pronounced with a falling pitch accent, which is an unmarked

prosodic marker (Sudhoff 2010).

To illustrate the interpretive role of the FPs in Pattern I, the clause with kamaan in (29)

asserts that Nader translates poems with at least one more type of text, without usually

expressing feelings and attitudes about Nader. Again, if kamaan is eliminated from the clause, it

will serve the same assertive speech act minus the presupposition that alternatives exist.

118
 (29) naadir jitardʒim kamaan [qasˤaaʔid]F.
Nader translates also poems
‘Nader also translates [poems]F.’
Likewise, sentence (30), which contains ħatta, objectively reports that Reem writes on

Politics and other related fields, but politics is highlighted as the least expected topic for one like

Reem to write on.

(30) tuktub riim ħatta [bi-s-sijaasih]F.

writes Reem even in-the-politics
‘Reem even writes [on the topic of politics]F.
In the same way, a sentence with bas in (31) asserts that Omar speaks only Arabic, to the

exclusion of other languages.

(31) ʕumar jitkallam bas [ʕarabii]F.

Omar speaks only Arabic
‘Omar only speaks [Arabic]F.’
To sum up, I argue that kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern I are focusing adverbs that

adjoin to the focus in-situ. These adverbs are licensed by the head of the focused constituent that

bears a focus feature. The Adjunct Approach accounts for the distribution of kamaan, ħatta, and

bas in the pattern under discussion. It also provides an explanation for the ban on the occurrence

of FPs inside PPs and genitive constructions. The proposed analysis captures the observation that

clauses with Pattern I of kamaan, ħatta, and bas serve representative speech acts. The next

section provides an analysis for Pattern II. Some issues that are common to both patterns will be

addressed in Section 3.4.

119
 3.3 Pattern II of kamaan, ħatta, and bas

3.3.1 The Proposed Analysis

In pattern II, I posit that after the FP kamaan, ħatta, or bas adjoins as a focusing adverb

to the focus in-situ (in Pattern I), the sequence of FP-focus moves to Spec, FocP in the left-

periphery. In other words, if Pattern I involves adjoining the FP to the focus, in Pattern II there is

adjunction for the FP into the focus and movement for both of them to Spec, FocP. That is to say,

Pattern I is the earliest step in deriving Pattern II. As to be represented below, the head of FocP

has a focus feature, which is needed to motivate the movement of the FP and the focused element

from inside the clause to a local (Spec) position.

In his analysis of the distribution of adverbs in Standard Arabic, Fassi-Fehri (1998) refers

to three classes of adverbs. In one of them (class three), the adverbs occur clause-initially, as in

(32, his (10)), and belong to the illocutionary positions licensed in the left-periphery in the CP.

Based on the distribution of these adverbs as clause-initial elements, this class seems to include

kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern II.

(32) tˤabʕ-an lam jaʔkul r-rajul-u t-tuffaaħ-a.

eveidence-ACC NEG eats the-man-NOM the-apples-ACC
‘Evidently, the man did not eat apples.’
To show the working of the proposed analysis, the configuration in (34) represents the

structure of a sentence with Pattern II of kamaan, ħatta, or bas (33). First, the FP kamaan, ħatta,

or bas adjoins to the focused DP l-walad ‘the boy’ in-situ. Since the DP is the head, it projects

the category feature and the focus feature [F]. This way, it is ensured that the focusing adverb

and the focus are always in the same projection. Then, the FP kamaan, ħatta, or bas and the

focused DP l-walad ‘the boy’ move as one constituent from the object position to land in Spec,

FocP. Along the lines on the Minimalist Program, this movement is feature-driven; the head of

120
FocP has a strong uninterpretable feature [uF*], as it is a functional projection, and the focused

DP has an interpretable feature [F]. Thus, the movement of kamaan, ħatta, or bas and the

focused constituent l-walad ‘the boy’ to Spec, FocP, where it is in a local relationship with Foc,

is sufficient to eliminate the strong feature [uF*] (see Chomsky 1995, Adger 2003).

(33) kamaan / ħatta / bas [madʒallih]F qaraʔ l-walad.

also / even / only magazine read the-boy
‘Also/Even/Only [a magazine]F the boy read.’

(34)

It is notable that in Pattern II, kamaan (35) and bas (36) may appear to the left as well as

to the right of the focus, but ħatta (37) may occur only to the left of the focus. This shows

beyond doubt that the direction of adjunction for the focusing adverbs in Pattern I and Pattern II

is the same. This is predictable under the assumption that after the focusing adverb adjoins to the

focused item in Pattern I, the sequence of the adverb and the focus moves as one constituent to

Spec, FocP. Since ħatta selects to adjoin only to the left of the focused item in Pattern I, it is

121
expected that it does not appear to the right of the focus after they move together to the left-

periphery in Pattern II.

(35) {kamaan} [ʕibrii]F {kamaan} jitkallam.

also Hebrew also he.speaks
‘Also [Hebrew]F he speaks.’
(36) {bas} [ʃaaj]F {bas} ʃirib ʕumar.
only tea only drank Omar
‘It was only [tea]F that Omar drank.’
(37) a. ħatta [xubiz]F maa ʔakal.
even bread NEG he.ate
‘Even [bread]F he did not eat.’
b. *[xubiz]F ħatta maa ʔakal.
bread even NEG he.ate
This is my attempt to set forth an analysis that captures the data representing Pattern II of

kamaan, ħatta, and bas. I need to shed light on the movement of the FP and the focused item

from the clause to Spec, FocP. That is what I undertake in the next section.

3.3.2 Movement of the FP-Focus to Spec, FocP

That the FP kamaan, ħatta, or bas and the focus move to land in a non-argument position

(Spec, FocP) indicates that the type of movement is an A-bar movement. Other characteristics of

A-bar movement can be noted here (see Muller 1995). First, the focus of the FPs under

consideration is of different categories. As exemplified below, the focus is not only a DP (38), it

may also be a PP (39), an adverbial (40), a CP (41), and a VP (42).

(38) kamaan / ħatta / bas [xubiz]F maa ʔakal.

also / even / only bread NEG he.ate
‘Also/Even/Only [bread]F he did not eat.’

122
 (39) kamaan / ħatta / bas [maʕ ʕalii]F ʔiltaqeet.
also / even / only with Ali I.met
‘Also/Even/Only [with Ali]F I met’.
(40) kamaan / ħatta / bas [jom s-sabt]F jiʃtaɣil.
also / even / only day the-Saturday he.works
‘Also/Even/Only [on Saturday]F he works.’
(41) kamaan / ħatta / bas [lamma timtˤir]F nilʕab.
also / even / only when it.rains we.play
‘Also/Even/Only [when it rains]F, we play.’
(42) kamaan / ħatta / bas [tuktub maqaalaat]F riim.
also / even / only writes essays Reem
‘Reem also/even/only [writes essays]F.’
Second, the movement of the focus of kamaan, ħatta, and bas does not change binding

options. One way to show how this can be observed is with reference to Condition A of Binding

Theory, which states that an anaphor must be bound in its binding domain (Chomsky 1981,

Buring 2005). It is evident in (43) that the anaphor nafsuh ‘himself’ is bound by the DP ʕalii

‘Ali’, even though the binder does not c-command the reflexive. The explanation for this is that

the reflexive nafsuh ‘himself’ exhibits reconstruction to the position in which it generates, which

is below the binder, right after the object ʔakil ‘food’.

(43) kamaan / ħatta / bas [la-nafsuhi]F ʕaliii maa ʔiʃtara ʔakil.

also / even / only to-himself Ali NEG bought food
‘Also/Even/Only [to himself]F Ali did not buy food.’
One more characteristic of A-bar movement that fronting the FP-focus displays is that it

is unbounded, but sensitive to island constraints. Unboundedness is evident in a sentence like

(44), where the focused DP faransii ‘French’ crosses two CPs.

123
 (44) kamaan / ħatta / bas [faransii]F smiʕt ʔinnuh l-mudiir
also / even / only French I.heard COMP the-headmaster
ballaɣ l-ʔustaað ʔinnuh maa jitkallam t fi-l-muħaaðˤarah.
told the-teacher COMP NEG speaks in-the-class
‘Also/Even/Only [French]F I heard that the headmaster told the teacher not to
speak in the class.’
It is also witnessed that the movement under discussion is subject to island constraints,

including sentential subject island constraint (45), complex DP island constraint (46), relative

clause island constraint (47), and adjunct island constraint (48). (In each of the examples

instantiating the islands, (45-48), (a) is to spot the FP kamaan, ħatta, or bas and the focused

element in its position before movement). The category of the focused constituents in (45-48) is

a PP. Resumptive pronouns, hence, cannot be employed to repair the island violations, as in

Arabic there are no pronouns that can resume PPs (Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri 2010).

Sentential subject island: The FP and the focused PP bi-riim ‘in Reem’ moves from

inside the CP ʔinnuh jiθaq kamaan/ ħatta/ bas bi-riim ‘that he trusts also/ even/ only Reem’. This

CP functions as a subject of the matrix TP.

(45) a. ʔazʕadʒnii [CP ʔinnuh jiθaq kamaan / ħatta / bas [bi-riim]F].

bothered.me COMP he.trusts also / even / only in-Reem
‘What bothered me is that he also/even/only trusts [Reem]F.’
b. *kamaan / ħatta / bas [bi-riim]F ʔazʕadʒnii [CP ʔinnuh jiθaq t ].
also / even / only in-Reem bothered.me COMP he.trusts
Complex DP island: The FP and the focused PP bi-l-fiizjaa ‘in physics’ moves from

inside the complex DP xabar ʔinnuh nadʒaħ kamaan/ ħatta/ bas bi-l-fiizjaa ‘the news that he

passed also/ even/ only in physics’.

124
 (46) a. maa sˤaddaɡt [DP xabar ʔinnuh nadʒaħ kamaan / ħatta / bas
NEG I.believed news COMP passed also / even / only
[bi-l-fiizjaa]F].
in-the-physics
‘I did not believe the news that he also/even/only passed [in Physics]F.’
b. *kamaan / ħatta / bas [bi-l-fiizjaa]F maa sˤaddaɡt [DP xabar ʔinnuh
also / even / only in-the-physics NEG I.believed news COMP
nadʒaħ t ].
passed
Relative clause island: The FP and the focused PP maʕ sijaasjjiin ‘with politicians’

moves from inside the relative clause illii jiltaqii kamaan/ ħatta/ bas maʕ sijaasjjiin ‘who

interviews also/even/ only politicians’.

(47) a. ʃuft sˤ-sˤaħafii [RC illii jiltaqii kamaan / ħatta / bas

I.saw the-journalist who interviews also / even / only
[maʕ sijaasjjiin]F].
with politicians
‘I saw the journalist who also/even/only interviews [politicians]F.’
b. *kamaan / ħatta / bas [maʕ sijaasjjiin]F ʃuft sˤ-sˤaħafii [RC illii
also / even / only with politicians I.saw the-journalist who
jiltaqii t ].
interviews
Adjunct island: The FP and the focused PP bi-l-ʕarabii ‘in Arabic’ moves from inside

the adjunct CP liʔannuh ʕalii rasab kamaan/ ħatta/ bas bi-l-ʕarabii ‘because Ali failed also/

even/ only in Arabic’.

(48) a. ʔistaɣrabt [CP liʔannuh ʕalii rasab kamaan / ħatta / bas [bi-l-ʕarabii]F].
I.was.surprised because Ali failed also / even / only in-the-Arabic

125
 ‘I was surprised because Ali also/even/only failed [in Arabic]F.’
a. *kamaan / ħatta / bas [bi-l-ʕarabii]F ʔistaɣrabt [CP liʔannuh
also / even / only in-the-Arabic I.was.surprised because
ʕalii rasab t ].
Ali failed
One of the advantages of the proposed analysis is that it explains why a wh-word may not

be extracted from a clause containing kamaan, ħatta, or bas in Pattern II, as in (49) (see Chapter

2). A wh-word is assumed to move to Spec, FocP in order to check the focus feature [uF*] on the

head Foc (Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri 2010). Based on this, it competes with kamaan,

ħatta, or bas and its focus to occupy the same position. If the focus feature [uF*] on the head Foc

is checked by the wh-word, the FP-focus will not be triggered to move. This is in line with the

explanation that Ouhalla (1994) proposes for the incompatibility of questions with focus fronted

phrases in Arabic. In fact, if the FP-focus does not move, the result will be kamaan, ħatta, or bas

in Pattern I, which may co-occur with the wh-word, as in (28), repeated in (50).

(49) *miin kamaan / ħatta / bas [faransii]F jitkallam?

who also / even / only French speaks
‘Who also/even/only [French]F speaks?’
(50) miin jitkallam kamaan / ħatta / bas [faransii]F?
who speaks also / even / only French
‘Who also/even/only speaks [French]F?’
Finally, as a remark pertinent to the cartography of the left-periphery, the proposed

analysis is consistent with the ‘Split CP Hypothesis’, as advanced in Rizzi (1997). The

hypothesis states that a CP consists of projections ordered as in (51). It is worth mentioning that

Shlonsky (2000) finds that the CP in Lebanese Arabic exhibits this ordering as well.

(51) ForceP > TopP* > FocP > TopP* > FinP

126
 In harmony with (51), it has been found that a topicalized constituent may precede (52) as

well as follow (53) the sequence of kamaan, ħatta, or bas and the focused item.

(52) ʕumar kamaan / ħatta / bas [bi-l-ʕarabii]F rasab.

Omar also / even / only in-the-Arabic failed
‘Also/Even/Only [in Arabic]F Omar failed.’
(53) kamaan / ħatta / bas [bi-l-ʕarabii]F ʕumar rasab.
also / even / only in-the-Arabic Omar failed
‘Also/Even/Only [in Arabic]F Omar failed.’
So far the emphasis has been on the syntactic analysis of Pattern II of kamaan, ħatta, and

bas. The next section briefly touches on the interpretation of clauses with the FPs in question.

3.3.3 The Interpretation of Pattern II of kamaan, ħatta, and bas

Placing the focused item at the beginning of the clause next to kamaan, ħatta, or bas is to

especially highlight, respectively, the addition, scalarity, or exclusion of the focus with relation

to its alternatives, in addition to delivering information about the focus. I claim that the saliency

of the focus obtained from moving it with the FP to a clause-initial position explains why clauses

with Pattern II of kamaan, ħatta, and bas normally serve expressive speech acts, like boosting,

praising, complaining, criticizing, and other similar ones (see Chapter 2). That is to say, the

emphasis on the focused item clause-initially comes to serve speech acts related to the speaker’s

feelings and attitudes about the focus and its alternatives (see Searle1976).

In other words, the speaker tends to use Pattern II of kamaan, ħatta, or bas in order to

bring the addition, scalarity, or exclusion of the focus into prominence from his or her

standpoint. Importantly, this affective function that kamaan, ħatta, or bas has provides an

explanation for why the focused item in Pattern II is pronounced with a rising pitch accent,

which is known to be one of the cues for contrastiveness (Sudhoff 2010).

127
 To illustrate, in (54), focusing on qasˤaaʔid ‘poems’ with the inclusive FP kamaan is to

add qasˤaaʔid to other kinds of texts that Nader translates. This piece of information can be

transferred without moving the focused DP qasˤaaʔid from the object position. Hence, fronting

this focus with the company of the FP is to make the addition of the focus to the alternative/s

more salient and to emphasize on in, which may be to express praise or recognition for Nader as

he is a distinguished translator.

(54) kamaan [qasˤaaʔid]F naadir jitardʒim.

also poems Nader translates
‘Also [poems]F Nader translates.’
In a similar vein, (55) is an instance of highlighting the extreme in likelihood. Reem

writes on many topics, but politics is the least expected for Reem to write on. Emphasizing on

this extreme at the beginning of the clause is to show her distinction, giving rise to the speech act

of praise. It seems obvious that fronting the focused item is responsible for the added

illocutionary force.

(55) ħatta [bi-s-sijaasih]F tuktub riim.

even in-the-politics writes Reem
‘Even [on the topic of politics]F Reem writes.’
Likewise, in (56), focusing on ʕarabii ‘Arabic’ with the FP bas excludes Arabic from all

the contextually induced alternatives, which involve all languages. The speaker would be able to

report this piece of information while keeping the object DP ʕarabii in its canonical position

after the verb. However, the fronting of ʕarabii marks the special emphasis on excluding the

focus, which may be to express the criticism that Omar is not a qualified person.

(56) bas [ʕarabii]F ʕumar jitkallam.

only Arabic Omar speaks
‘It is only [Arabic]F that Omar speaks.’

128
 To recap, in accounting for kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern II, I propose that they are

focusing adverbs that after they adjoin to the focused item, they (the FP and the focus) move to

Spec, FocP in the left-periphery. The head of FocP is assumed to have a strong uninterpretable

focus feature [uF*] that derives the movement of the FP and the focus. This movement exhibits

many characteristics of A-bar movement. Of the advantages of the analysis I advocate is that it

explains why wh-words may not surface in clauses with Pattern II of kamaan, ħatta, and bas and

why clauses with the FPs under discussion are marked with expressive speech acts.

A few issues related to both Pattern I and Pattern II of kamaan, ħatta, and bas are

addressed in the next section.

3.4 Pending Issues

In the corpus of the data I could single out three cases in which the FPs kamaan, ħatta,

and bas can be taken as standing for Pattern I as well as Pattern II. Now, we will see how the

analysis I am proposing for the FPs in question can capture this multiplicity of pattern

assignment. The first case is when the focus of kamaan, ħatta, and bas is a subject DP in a

preverbal position, as in (57).

(57) kamaan / ħatta / bas [hind]F rasabat.

also / even / only Hind failed
‘Also/Even/Only [Hind]F failed.’
In this sentence, the FPs may be treated as belonging to Pattern I if I posit that kamaan,

ħatta, or bas adjoins as a focusing adverb to the subject hind ‘Hind’ in its position before the

verb rasabat ‘failed’. One more way to account for (57) is to postulate that kamaan, ħatta, or bas

adjoins the focused DP hind ‘Hind’ in-situ (Pattern I), and then they move to Spec, FocP,

constituting an instance of Pattern II. In the latter case, the focused DP, with the focusing adverb

129
adjoined to it, is assumed to have moved from the subject position which may be either pre- or

post-verbal, since in Arabic both word orders (VSO and SVO) are possible (see Chapter 1).

I cannot provide any structural evidence to support the view that the FPs in a sentence

like (57) may belong to either of the two patterns. The only proof that can be offered is in terms

of the speech acts that the sentence can serve. Sentence (57) may be with a representative speech

act, as expected in Pattern I, as well as an expressive speech act, which has an affinity with

Pattern II. The representative speech act with kamaan or ħatta may be when the speaker asserts

that Reem and other classmate/s, known from the context, failed. With bas, the representative

speech act may be in objectively reporting that only Hind failed. On the other hand, the

expressive speech act in the case the FP is kamaan or ħatta may be in a situation in which the

teacher is complaining about the performance of students in an exam, as Hind and her classmates

failed in the exam. When the FP is bas, the expressive speech act may be in a context where the

teacher is speaking positively about the students’ performance in a test that only one of the

students (Hind) failed.

The second case involves the occurrence of kamaan, ħatta, or bas with a clitic-left

dislocated (CLLD) item. An instance of a CLLDed element can be observed in (58), where the

CLLDed item l-kamiraa ‘the camera’ is a definite DP obligatorily related to a pronominal clitic

(–haa ‘it’) in the object position.

(58) kamaan / ħatta / bas [l-kamiraa]F sˤallaħ-*(haa) ʕalii.

also / even / only the-camera fixed-it Ali
‘Also/Even/Only [the camera]F Ali fixed.’
According to Aoun and Benmamoun (1998) and Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri

(2010), the basic test that tells whether the CLLDed elements in Arabic are base-generated in the

left-periphery is their insensitivity to island constraints. As witnessed in (59-61), the CLLDed

130
constituents that are focused on by kamaan, ħatta, or bas can link a pronominal clitic inside a

complex DP island, a wh-island, and an adjunct island, respectively. Accordingly, I can conclude

that the CLLDed items that are focused on by kamaan, ħatta, or bas are base-generated in the

left- periphery.

Complex-DP island: The CLLDed element hadiil ‘Hadeel’ is resumed by the

pronominal clitic –haa ‘her’ inside the complex DP xabar ʔinhum xaalafuu-haa ‘the news that

they ticketed her’

(59) kamaan / ħatta / bas [hadiili]F maa sˤaddaɡt [DP xabar ʔinhum
also / even / only Hadeel NEG I.believed news COMP.they
xaalafuu-haai].
they.ticketed-her
‘Also/Even/Only [Hadeel]F I did not believe the news that they ticketed her.’
Wh-island: The clitic -h ‘him’ is inside the embedded CP headed by the wh-word keif

‘how’, and it is linked to the CLLDed constituent ʕalii ‘Ali’ in the left-periphery of the matrix

CP.

(60) kamaan / ħatta / bas [ʕaliii]F ʔastaɣrib [CP keef saaʕadtii-(*hi)]?

also / even / only Ali I.wonder how help.you-him
‘Also/Even/Only [Ali]F I wonder how you helped him?’
Adjunct island: The pronominal clitic –h ‘him’ is inside the adjunct clause liʔanhum

ʕajjanuu-h ‘because they appointed him’, and it relates to the CLLDed constituent ʕumar

‘Omar’.

(61) kamaan / ħatta / bas [ʕumari]F ʔistaɣrabt [CP liʔanhum

also / even / only Omar I.was.surprised because.they
ʕajjanuu-hi].
they.aappointed-him

131
 ‘Also/Even/Only [Omar]F I was surprised because they hired him.’
It is worth mentioning that the island violations in (59-61) are ameliorated by resorting to

resumptive pronouns (-haa ‘her’, -h ‘him’) (see Ross 1967). Resumption cannot rescue islands

when the focus is a PP in (45-48), because in Arabic there are no resumptive pronouns that can

resume PPs (Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri 2010).

I will illustrate the influence of the category of the CLLDed element on repairing island

violations through examples (62) and (63). In (62), the island violation is repaired with the help

of the resumptive pronoun -haa, ‘her’ that relates to the CLLDed item riim ‘Reem’. By contrast,

the island violation in (63) cannot be remedied due to the fact that there is no clitic that can be

linked to the focused PP fi riim ‘in Reem’, causing the sentence to be ungrammatical.

(62) kamaan / ħatta / bas [riimi]F ʔistaɣrabt [CP liʔanhum jiθaquu fii-*(haai)].
also / even / only Reem I.was.surprised because.they trust in-her
‘Also/Even/Only [Reem]F I was surprised that they trust her.’
(63) *kamaan / ħatta / bas [fi-riimi]F ʔistaɣrabt [CP liʔanhum jiθaquu].
also / even / only in-Reem I.was.surprised because.they trust
Back to (58), if kamaan, ħatta, or bas adjoins to the CLLDed item in its position in the

left-periphery, as schematized in (64), there will be an instantiation of Pattern I.

(64)

132
 On the other hand, kamaan, ħatta, and bas constitute an example of Pattern II if after one

of these FPs adjoins to the CLLDed element in Spec, TopP (Pattern I), they move as one

constituent to Spec, FocP in order to check the focus feature [F] with that of the head of FocP, as

represented in (65).

(65)

As in the first case in (57), the only evidence that I can offer to support the view that the

FPs in a sentence like (58) may belong to Pattern I as well as Pattern II is in terms of speech acts.

Sentence (58) may serve representative speech acts, which are associated with Pattern I, as well

as expressive speech acts, which are tied up with Pattern II. When the FP is kamaan or ħatta, the

representative speech act may be found in a context where the speaker objectively reports that

Ali could fix the camera and other things specified with reference to the context. Similarly, bas

may be used to assert that Ali fixed only the camera. On the other hand, the expressive speech

act in the case the FP is kamaan or ħatta may be imagined in a situation in which the speaker is

recognizing and praising Ali, since he could fix the camera and other things. With bas, the

expressive speech act may be in the context of complaining about Ali that he fixed only one of

the many items that he has to fix.

133
 The topicalized constituent hind ‘Hind, in (57), and the CLLDed element l-kamiraa ‘the

camera’, in (58), have interpretive properties of topics and foci simultaneously. This leads one to

treat each of them as a contrastive topic, which generally “is topical in the sense that it comes

from a potential topic and somewhat focal in the sense that the choice of the particular part is not

known to the hearer” (Lee 2003:155). Here, hind ‘Hind’ and l-kamiraa ‘the camera’ are topics,

which the sentences are about, and they are instances of focus, since they do not constitute old

information to the hearer, and because they implicate the existence of alternatives.

Finally, kamaan, ħatta, and bas may represent Pattern I and Pattern II when they appear

with a PP (66) or an adverbial (67) in a clause-initial position. The focused constituents here are

not taken as contrastive topics, because they do not denote the topics the sentences are about.

(66) kamaan / ħatta / bas [ʕa-CNN]F smiʕnaa l-xabar.

also / even / only on-CNN we.heard the-news
‘Also/Even/Only [on the CNN]F we heard the news.’
(67) kamaan / ħatta / bas [jom l-ʔaħad]F jidaawim.
also / even / only day the-Sunday he.works
‘Also/Even/Only [on Sunday]F he works.’
In one case, kamaan, ħatta, or bas instantiates Pattern I if the PP, as represented in (68),

and the adverbial, as in (69), are base-generated in the left-periphery, and the FP kamaan, ħatta,

or bas adjoins to them.

(68)

134
 (69)

However, if one of the FPs under discussion adjoins to the PP ʕa-CNN ‘on the CNN’ and

the adverbial joom l-ʔaħad ‘Sunday’ (Pattern I), and then the FP and the focused PP, as sketched

in (70), or adverbial, as in (71), move to land in Spec, FocP, there will be an instance of Pattern

II.

(70)

135
 (71)

In pertinence to interpretation, the speech acts that (66-67) serve can be representative as

well as expressive. In (66), the representative speech acts may be in reporting the channels that

broadcasted the news, which include the CNN and other channels if the FP is kamaan or ħatta,

but only the CNN, if the FP is bas. On the other hand, the expressive acts with kamaan and ħatta

may be in a situation in which the speaker is positively describing the popularity of an event, as

the CNN and other channels broadcasted news about it. In the case of bas, the expressive speech

act may be imagined in a context of criticizing the media coverage of some event that only one

channel (the CNN) broadcasted news about it.

Likewise, in (67), the representative speech acts may be found in asserting the fact of the

days the person works, which include Sunday and other days, when kamaan or ħatta is there, but

they are limited to Sunday, with bas. Yet, the expressive speech acts may be, with kamaan and

ħatta, in a context of praising the person under consideration as he is a hard-worker, but, in case

of bas, it may be imagined in criticizing the person for being a lazy person.

136
 At the end, a remark is in order. It has been noted above that representative and

expressive speech acts may be served by the sentences that contain Pattern I and Pattern II of

kamaan, ħatta, and bas. Importantly, the marker of each set of speech acts is prosodic; the falling

pitch accent is associated with representative speech acts, whereas the rising pitch accent signals

expressive speech acts.

To recap, the analysis I am advocating predicts that kamaan, ħatta, and bas represent

Pattern I as well as Pattern II when the focus is a preverbal subject, a CLLDed item, a fronted

PP, or a fronted adverbial. The only evidence that can be provided to support the standing that

the FPs in these positions may represent Pattern I and Pattern II is in terms of speech acts.

3.5 Conclusion

In an attempt to provide an analytical account of Pattern I and Pattern II of kamaan,

ħatta, and bas, I argued that these FPs are focusing adverbs that adjoin to the focused

constituent. In Pattern I, the focusing adverb kamaan, ħatta, or bas adjoins to the focused

constituent in-situ. The head of that focused constituent has a semantic focus feature that licenses

the adverb in the adjunct position. The proposed analysis adopts the Adjunct Approach to FPs. In

Pattern II, kamaan, ħatta, or bas adjoins to the focused item in its canonical position (Pattern I),

and then they move to Spec, FocP in the left-periphery. This movement, which is assumed to be

motivated by feature checking, is attested to be an instance of A-bar movement. In addition, I

showed that the analysis accommodates the structures in which kamaan, ħatta, and bas seem to

belong to Pattern I as well as Pattern II when they associate with a preverbal subject, a CLLDed

item, a fronted PP, and a fronted adverbial. As for interpretation, it was evident that clauses with

Pattern I of the FPs under discussion normally serve representative speech acts, but clauses with

Pattern II usually tend to serve expressive speech acts.

137
 CHAPTER 4
FOCUS PARTICLES IN SOUTHERN JORDANIAN ARABIC AS COORDINATORS: THE
ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an analysis of the FPs ħatta1 ‘even’ in Pattern III and ʔilla ‘except’,

a detailed descriptive account of which was given in Chapter 2. As appears in the examples

below, what is common to both ħatta (1), and ʔilla (2), is that they associate with the focus in a

clause-final position, and there is a QP preceding them, even though it is optional in the case of

ʔilla.

(1) kull l-banaat ʔidʒan ħatta [riim]F.

all the-girls came even Reem
‘All the girls came, even [Reem]F.’
(2) maa (ħadaa) wasˤal ʔilla [naadir]F.
NEG anyone arrived except Nader
‘No one arrived, except [Nader]F.’
The analysis I propose is based on the assumptions that ħatta and ʔilla are coordinators

that conjoin two CPs; the focused item in the second CP originates in the same position of the

QP in the first CP. The focused constituent then moves to Spec, FocP. Finally, the TP in the

second CP undergoes ellipsis, a step that may also apply to the QP in the case of ʔilla. This

proposed analysis relies on the analytical account that Soltan (2014) provides for exceptive

constructions in Egyptian Arabic (EA), which has much in common with the account that

Merchant (2003) provides for stripping.

1
In this chapter, wherever ħatta is mentioned without specifying the number of the pattern (I, II, or III), Pattern III is
assumed to be the intended one, unless otherwise stated.

138
 This chapter is organized as follows. Section 4.2 shows how the Adjunct Approach to the

syntax of FPs (see in Chapter I) succeeds and fails to account for the two FPs ħatta and ʔilla.

Section 4.3 reviews previous movement-plus-ellipsis accounts, namely Soltan’s (2014) account

of exceptive constructions and Merchant’s (2003) analysis of stripping. Section 4.4 delineates the

analysis I propose for ħatta and ʔilla. Section 4.5 concludes.

4.2 ħatta and ʔilla in the Adjunct Approach to the Syntax of Focus Particles

In this section, I show how the Adjunct Approach to FPs accounts for the data that

represent ħatta and ʔilla in SJA (see Chapter 2). I start with ħatta then move on to ʔilla.

4.2.1 The Adjunct Approach to ħatta

4.2.1.1 The account of ħatta under the Adjunct Approach

Here I examine the account that can be given to ħatta in terms of the Adjunct Approach

to FPs as advanced in Bayer (1996). The basic principles of this approach are given in (3).

(3) In the Adjunct Approach:

a. FPs adjoin to a maximal projection.

b. FPs freely adjoin to constituents as long as there is no violation to basic principles.

c. FPs c-command their focus.

(Bayer 1996)

We saw that ħatta associates with constituents of many categories, like a DP (4), a PP

(5), an adverbial (6), and a CP (7). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that ħatta is an adjunct that

does not select a constituent of only one category. In its association with the focus, ħatta

modifies it, and ranks it in relation to the other alternatives denoted in the preceding QP. For

example, in (11), Omar is focused and ranked as the least likely among all the invitees to arrive

late.

(4) kull l-maʕzuumiin itʔaxxaruu ħatta [ʕumar]F.

139
 all the-invitees got.late even Omar
‘All the invitees got late, even [Omar]F.’
(5) nadʒaħ bi-kull l-mawaad ħatta [bi-l-fiizjaa]F.
he.passed in-all the-courses even in-the-physics
‘He passed all courses, even [physics]F.’
(6) jilʕabuu kurah bi-kull makaan ħatta [ɡuddaam l-maħakamih]F.
they.play football in-every place even in.front.of the-court
‘They play football in every place, even [in front of the court]F.’
(7) raħ nilʕab fii kull l-ʔaħwaal ħatta [law timtˤir]F.
will we.play in all the-conditions even if it.rains
‘We will play in all conditions, even [if it rains]F.’
The FP ħatta has to be adjacent to its focus, as demonstrated in (8), where it appears that

the adverbial ʔimbaariħ ‘last night’ may not occur between ħatta and its focus naadir ‘Nader’,

even though this adverbial can freely occur in more than one position in the sentence (9). Along

the lines of the Adjunct Approach, this closeness between ħatta and its focus can be accounted

for if I assume that the condition which requires an FP c-command its focus is at work, and that

the domain of the FP matches its focus.

(8) *kullhum zaaruunii ħatta ʔimbaariħ [naadir]F.

all.them visited.me even last.night Nader
‘All of them visited me, even last night [Nader]F.’
(9) (ʔimbaariħ) kullhum (ʔimbaariħ) zaaruunii ħatta [naadir]F.
last.night all.them last.night visited.me even Nader
‘All of them visited me last night, even [Nader]F.’
The observation that ħatta may not follow its focus, as in (10b), can be captured under

the assumption that ħatta is lexically specified to appear only to the left of the focus.

(10) a. kullhum ħiðˤruu l-mubaaraah ħatta [l-dʒiddih]F.

140
 all.them watched the-match even the-grandmother
‘All of them watched the match, even [the grandmother]F.’
b. *kullhum ħiðˤruu l-mubaaraah [l-dʒiddih]F ħatta.
all.them watched the-match the-grandmother even
The inability of ħatta to occur between a P and its complement (11) and inside a genitive

construction (12) can be explained under the Adjunct Account. Assuming that the sequence of

ħatta and the focus move at LF to be in a position where it has scope over its domain (Bayer

1996), which in the case of ħatta involves the QP, predicts that ħatta may not occur inside the

two constructions in (11b) and (12b). LF-movement of ħatta-focus from a position after a P

(11b) is not allowed since a P cannot be stranded in SJA, and movement from inside the genitive

construction (12b) is illicit as a genitive construction is an island to movement (Bayer 1996,

Mohammad 2000).

(11) a. ʔiltaɡeet bi-kull l-kaadir ħatta [bi-l-mudiir]F.

I.met with-all the-staff even with-the-director
‘I met all the staff, even [the director]F.’
b. *ʔiltaɡeet bi-kull l-kaadir bi-ħatta [l-mudiir]F.
I.met with-all the-staff with-even the-director
(12) a. saraguu kull ʔiʃii ħatta [luʕbit l-walad]F.
they.stole every thing even toy.GEN the-boy
‘They stole everything, even [the boy’s toy]F.’
b. *saraguu kull ʔiʃii [luʕbit ħatta l-walad]F.
they.stole every thing toy.GEN even the-boy
I have presented my analysis of ħatta in Pattern III under the Adjunct Approach.

However, the model has its own drawbacks in this regard, which I will present in the next

subsection.

141
4.2.1.2 Shortcomings of the Adjunct Approach to ħatta

In SJA there are data relevant to ħatta that the Adjunct model fails to account for. The

first is pertinent to the restrictions that ħatta imposes on word order (see Chapter 2). For

example, (13-14) show that ħatta and its focus may not be preposed.

(13) a. ʃuft kull tˤ-tˤaalibaat bi-s-saaħah ħatta [riim]F.

I.saw all the-students in-the-yard even Reem
‘I saw all the students in the yard, even [Reem]F.’
b. *ʃuft kull tˤ-tˤaalibaat ħatta [riim]F bi-s-saaħah.
I.saw all the-students even Reem in-the-yard
(14) a. maa ħada nadʒaħ ħatta [ʕalii]F.
NEG anyone succeeded even Ali
‘No one succeeded, not even [Ali]F.’
b. *maa ħada ħatta [ʕalii]F nadʒaħ.
NEG anyone even Ali succeeded
Similarly, in (15) it is demonstrated that the temporal adverbial jom s-sabt ‘on Saturday’

may not appear immediately after the focus of ħatta, even though this type of adverbial is known

to be able to freely move throughout the sentence, as in (16). Example (17) shows that the same

adverbial may occur in a clause-final position in a sentence without ħatta and its focus.

(15) *kullhum jiʃtaɣluu ħatta [naadir]F jom s-sabt.

all.them they.work even Nader day the-Saturday
‘All of them work, even [Nader]F on Saturday.’
(16) (jom s-sabt) kullhum (jom s-sabt) jiʃtaɣluu
day the-Saturday all.them day the-Saturday they.work
ħatta [naadir]F.
even Nader
‘On Saturday all of them work, even [Nader]F.’

142
 (17) kullhum jiʃtaɣluu jom s-sabt.
all.them they.work day the-Saturday
‘All of them work on Saturday.’
Similarly, as in the case of temporal adverbials, the locative adverbial bi-l-maqha ‘in the

café’ may not show up after ħatta and its focus (18). This locative adverbial can occupy the same

positions as temporal adverbials (19). The last sentence in the set (20) shows that the adverbial

may appear clause-finally in a sentence that does not contain ħatta and its focus.

(18) *ʃuft kull ʔasˤħaabak ħatta [ʕalii]F bi-l-maqha.

I.saw all your.friends even Ali in-the-café
‘I saw all your friends, even [Ali]F in the café.’
(19) (bi-l-maqha) ʃuft (bi-l-maqha) kull ʔasˤħaabak (bi-l-maqha)
in-the-café I.saw in-the-café all your.friends in-the-café
ħatta [ʕalii]F.
even Ali
‘In the café I saw all your friends, even [Ali]F.’
(20) ʃuft kull ʔasˤħaabak bi-l-maqha.
I.saw all your.friends in-the-café
‘I saw all your friends in the café.’
Based on these observations, I conclude that the sequence of ħatta and its focus has to

appear clause-finally, with nothing occurring after them. The Adjunct model predicts that, as an

adjunct, ħatta and the focus should be free to move to higher positions and be able to host

adverbials after them. However, these predictions are not borne-out. Thus, it remains

unexplained why ħatta and the focus are confined to the right edge of the clause and why

adverbials may not occur after the sequence of ħatta and the focused XP.

143
 It appears that the Adjunct Approach fails to predict certain distributional constraints that

ħatta imposes on the constructions hosting it. In the next section, I will examine the account that

the Adjunct Approach provides to the exclusive FP ʔilla.

4.2.2 The Adjunct Approach to ʔilla

4.2.2.1 The Account of ʔilla under the Adjunct Approach

The focus of ʔilla can be of different categories, including a DP (21), a PP (22), an

adverbial (23), and a CP (24). To account for this under the Adjunct Approach, I assume that

ʔilla is an adjunct that does not select a constituent of a specific category. As an adjunct, ʔilla

associates with the focus, modifies it, and excludes it from all the alternatives when the

background applies to it. For example, in (21), it is understood that Omar is distinct from all the

classmates who did not solve the problem, so Omar is the only one who solved the problem.

(21) maa ħall l-masʔalih ʔilla [ʕumar]F.

NEG solved the-problem except Omar
‘No one solved the problem, except [Omar]F.’
(22) maa tudrus l-bint ʔilla [fi-l-maktabih]F.
NEG studies the-girl except in-the-library
‘The girl does not study, except [in the library] F.’
(23) maa jilʕab maʕ-naa ʔilla [jom l-dʒomʕah]F.
NEG plays with-us except day the-Friday
‘He does not play with us, except [on Friday]F.’
(24) maa raħ jiɡdar jisaafir maʕ-kum ʔilla [ʔiða
NEG going.to be.able.to travel with-you except if
ħasˤsˤal l-vizaa]F.
he.gets the-visa
‘He is not going to be able to travel with you, except [if he gets the visa]F.’

144
 In addition, it has been noted that ʔilla has to be in the closest position to the focus. Thus,

no other constituent can intervene between ʔilla and its focus, even an adverb like li-l-ʔasaf

‘regrettably’ in (25). Hence, it appears that the c-command condition has to be met, and that the

domain of ʔilla always coincides with its focus, as held in Bayer (1996).

(25) maa rasb ʔilla (*li-l-ʔasaf) [ʔibnii]F

NEG failed except to-the-regret my.son
‘No one failed, except [my son]F regrettably.’
Moreover, ʔilla always precedes the focus, as shown in (26). To capture this, it may be

assumed that the direction of adjunction for ʔilla is lexically specified to be always to the left of

the focus.

(26) a. maa jitkallam ʔilla [ʕarabii]F.

NEG he.speaks except Arabic
‘He does not speak, except [Arabic]F.’
b. *maa jitkallam [ʕarabii]F ʔilla.
NEG he.speaks Arabic except
The inability of ʔilla to occur between a P and its complement (27) and inside a genitive

construction (28) can be explained in terms of the LF-movement under the Adjunct Approach.

Similar to the analysis presented for ħatta in Section 4.2.1.2, the movement of ʔilla and the focus

from inside a PP is not allowed since the P cannot be stranded in SJA, and from inside a genitive

construction the movement is illicit, as this induces a violation to islands constraints (Bayer

1996, Mohammad 2000).

(27) a. maa jiθaq ʔilla [b-ʕumar]F.

NEG he.trusts except in-Omar
‘He does not trust anyone, except [Omar]F.’

145
 b. *maa jiθaq b-ʔilla [ʕumar]F.
NEG he.trusts in-except Omar
(28) a. maa sˤallaħ ʔilla [sajjaarit riim]F.
NEG he.fixed except car.GEN Reem
‘He did not fix anything, except [Reem’s car]F.’
b. *maa sˤallaħ [sajjaarit ʔilla riim]F.
NEG he.fixed car.GEN except Reem
This is my attempt to provide an analysis for the data representing ʔilla from the

standpoint of the Adjunct Approach. As seen above, it can capture many patterns of ʔilla. Yet, it

fails to account for others, which I will present in the following section.

4.2.2.2 Shortcomings of the Adjunct Approach to ʔilla

There are some patterns of ʔilla that the Adjunct Approach fails to account for. One of

them is related to the obligatoriness of the negation as a licenser for ʔilla, seen in the whole data

representing ʔilla above. In order to account for ʔilla in terms of the Adjunct Approach, I need to

stipulate that negation is required. That is, that obligatoriness does not come as one of the

predictions of the Approach. One might argue that negation is required to license an NPI, which

sometimes optionally surfaces, as in (29). This leaves many questions about the optionality of the

NPI and the relation that holds between the NPI and the focused item.

(29) maa nadʒaħ (bi-ʔaj maaddih) ʔilla [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.

NEG passed in-any course except in-the-Arabic
‘He did not pass any course, except [Arabic]F.’
Second, ʔilla imposes restrictions on word order. One such restriction is that if ʔilla

attaches to the object, the object has to occur in a clause-final position, following the subject, as

in (30). However, when ʔilla is absent, as in (31), the object can precede as well as follow the

subject.

146
 (30) a. maa ʔakal ʕalii ʔilla [tuffaħah]F.
NEG ate Ali except apple
‘Ali did not eat anything, except [an apple]F.’
b. *maa ʔakal ʔilla [tuffaħah]F ʕalii2.
NEG ate except apple Ali
(31) a. maa ʔakal ʕalii tuffaħah.
NEG ate Ali apple
b. maa ʔakal tuffaħah ʕalii.
NEG ate apple Ali
‘Ali did not eat an apple
A similar constraint is observed when the focus of ʔilla is an adjunct, as in (32), where it

appears that ʔilla and the focused adjunct jom l-dʒumʕah ‘on Friday’ have to occupy a clause-

final position (32a), and cannot be taken to the front to precede the object ʔammuh ‘his mother’

(32b). Example (33) shows that the same word order that is ungrammatical in (32b) is licit in

clauses without ʔilla. Again, the conclusion is that ʔilla joins its focus only clause-finally.

(32) a. maa jizuur ʔammuh ʔilla [jom l-dʒumʕah]F.

NEG he.visits his.mother except day the-Friday
‘He does not visit his mother, except [on Friday]F.’
b. *maa jizuur ʔilla [jom l-dʒumʕah]F ʔammuh.
NEG he.visits except day the-Friday his.mother
(33) maa jizuur jom l-dʒumʕah ʔammuh.
NEG he.visits day the-Friday his.mother
‘He does not visit his mother on Friday.’

2
This sentence may be grammatical if the subject ʕalii ‘Ali’ is taken to be an afterthought.

147
 In the Adjunct Approach, ʔilla is treated as an adjunct. It is known that adjuncts do not

induce any change in word order (Hornstein and Nunes 2008). Therefore, it remains unexplained

why ʔilla and its focus have to occur clause-finally.

To summarize, this section highlighted the strengths and the weaknesses of the Adjunct

Approach to the syntax of FPs in accounting for the scalar FP ħatta in Pattern III and the

exclusive FP ʔilla in SJA. I will advance a new analysis that draws on Soltan’s (2014) account of

Egyptian exceptive constructions and Merchant’s (2003) analysis of stripping. This new

approach is an improvement on the Adjunct Approach in that it accounts for the data

exemplifying the two particles. I start with a review of Soltan (2014) and Merchant (2003).

4.3 Previous Movement-Plus-Ellipsis Analyses

The movement-plus-ellipsis analysis I am proposing for both the scalar FP ħatta and the

exclusive FP ʔilla in SJA relies on the analytical account that Soltan (2014) provides for

exceptive constructions in Egyptian Arabic (EA). I will start this section by reviewing Soltan’s

descriptive and analytical account, which has much in common with the account that Merchant

(2003) provides for stripping. I will briefly touch on the latter analysis as well.

4.3.1 Soltan’s (2014) Analysis of Exceptive Constructions

Soltan (2014) investigates exceptive constructions in Egyptian Arabic (EA) that are

headed by the exceptive particle ʔilla. This particle and the XP that follows it together form the

exceptive phrase, and the sentence in which the exceptive phrase occurs is the exceptive

construction. When the XP of the exceptive phrase is a DP, ʔilla-XP appears in a position

adjacent to the licensor, as exemplified in (34a, his (5b)), or in the right-periphery with one or

more constituents separating ʔilla-XP from the licenser, as illustrated in (34b, his (5a)).

148
 (34) a. ʔanaa ʃuft kull ʔil-tˤalaba ʔilla Ahmad fii ʔil-muħaadˤra
I saw all the-students except Ahmad at the-lecture
ʔil-nahaar-da.
the-day-this
‘I saw all the students, except Ahmad, at the lecture today.’
b. ʔanaa ʃuft kull ʔil-tˤalaba fii ʔil-muħaadˤra ʔil-nahaar-da
I saw all the-students at the-lecture the-day-this
ʔilla Ahmad.
except Ahmad
‘I saw all the students at the lecture today, except Ahmad.’
When the XP of the exceptive construction is not a DP, ʔilla-XP has to occur clause-

finally, as in (35, his (4)), where the PP maʕa Ahmad ‘with Ahmad’ appears in the right-

periphery. This PP cannot move to the left to be adjacent to the licenser kull tˤaalib ‘every

student’ (36, his (7)).

(35) ʔanaa ʔitkallimt maʕa kull tˤaalib talat saʕaat ʔilla

I talked with every student three hours except
maʕa Ahmad.
with Ahmad
‘I talked with every student for three hours, except with Ahmad.’
(36) *ʔanaa ʔitkallimt maʕa kull tˤaalib ʔilla maʕa Ahmad
I talked with every student except with Ahmad
talat saʕaat.
three hours
‘I talked with every student, except with Ahmad, for three hours.’
Soltan (2014) argues that ʔilla in EA is a coordinating conjunction that conjoins two DPs

or two CPs. Here, Soltan refers to the distinction Hoeksema (1987) makes between connected

149
exceptives, where the exceptive phrase coordinates with another DP, and free exceptives, where

the coordination is at the CP level with some ellipsis. In connected exceptives, things are

straightforward: the two DPs are adjacent, as in (34a) above. The structure of the coordinated

DPs is represented in (37, his (22)).

(37)

In the case of non-adjacency between the exceptive phrase and the licensor, as in (34b),

Soltan takes the coordination to be between two CPs. In the second CP, the exceptive XP is

assumed to move to the left-periphery, followed by the deletion of the remaining TP. The

derivation of the sentence (34b) is represented in (38).

(38)

150
 Assuming that ʔilla is a coordinator helps to explain why the exceptive phrase headed by

ʔilla may not appear clause-initially, as shown in (39, his (8)). In such a case, the exceptive

phrase after the particle is treated as the second conjunct, so it cannot move to a position before

the first conjunct.

(39) *ʔilla Ahmad ʔanaa ʃuft kull ʔil-tˤalaba fii ʔil-muħaadˤra

except Ahmad I saw all the-students at the-lecture
ʔil-nahaar-da.

the-day-this
‘Except for Ahmad, I saw all the students at the lecture.’
Soltan (2014) relates this to the observation that the same restriction is imposed on word

order by other coordinators in EA, like wi ‘and’ in (40, his (25)), which cannot be fronted with

the second conjunct Huda (40b).

(40) a. ʔanaa ʃuft Ahmad wi Huda.

I saw Ahmad and Huda
‘I saw Ahmad and Huda’
b. *wi Huda ʔanaa ʃuft Ahmad.
and Huda I saw Ahmad
Soltan presents some empirical arguments for the presence of ellipsis in the second CP

and for the coordination structure, one of which is that the second CP may appear without

aspects of ellipsis, as in (41, his (28)), where the exceptive DP Ahmad is linked to a resumptive

pronoun –uu- ‘him’ in the place where it originates. In the case under consideration, the verb in

the second CP is negative, which Soltan ascribes to the inverse polarity that exceptive

constructions induce.

(41) ʔanaa ʃuft kull ʔil-tˤalaba ʔilla Ahmad maa ʃuftuuʃ.

I I.saw all the-students except Ahmad NEG I.saw

151
 ‘I saw all the students, except Ahmad, I didn’t see him.’
Moreover, more than one XP may follow the exceptive particle, as in (42, his (31)),

which can be explained in terms of the assumed ellipsis that drops only the verb in such a case,

so that it looks more like a gapping structure. Another piece of evidence can be provided here in

terms of P-stranding. In (42), the DP complement of the P may not appear without the P. This is

because in non-P-stranding languages, like EA, P-stranding is not allowed in ellipsis sites

(Merchant 2001).

(42) kull ʔil-wilaad bijiħibbuu jitkallimuu maʕa kull

all the-boys they.like they.talk with all
ʔil-banaat ʔilla Ahmad *(maʕa) Maha.
the-girls except Ahmad (with) Maha
‘All the boys like to talk with all the girls, except Ahmad with Maha.’
In addition, sentences with free-exceptives (43a, his (35a)) can host more than one

speaker-oriented adverb, but in those with connected exceptives (43b, his (35b)), only one such

adverb can occur. Based on such data, Soltan concludes that (43a), unlike (43b), has a bi-clausal

underlying structure, so two speaker-oriented adverbs find their position there.

(43) a. ʔil-ħamdu-li-laah kull ʔil-tˤalaba nagaħuu fii

the-thanking-to-Allah all the-students they.succeeded in
ʔil-ʔimtiħaan ʔilla Ahmad li-l-ʔasaf.
the-exam except Ahmad to-the-regret
‘Thank God, all the students passed the test, except for Ahmad, regrettably.’
b. *ʔil-ħamdu-li-laah kull ʔil-tˤalaba ʔilla Ahmad.
the-thanking-to-Allah all the-students except Ahmad
nagaħuu fii ʔil-ʔimtiħaan li-l-ʔasaf.
they.succeeded in the-exam to-the-regret
‘Thank God, all the students, except for Ahmad, passed the test regrettably.’

152
 The last piece of evidence that Soltan provides to prove that sentences with free-

exceptives have an underlying conjunction structure is based on the observation that conjunction

freezes scope relations. For example, (44a, his (38a)) is ambiguous as the UQ every woman may

take a wide scope, if it raises at LF to be in a position higher than the subject a man, or a narrow

scope, if it stays in-situ. In the former case, the meaning is that for every woman there was a man

who met her, and in the latter there was one man who met every woman. However, (44b, his

(38b)) is not ambiguous, as the QP does not take wide scope, due to the scope-freezing effect

that the conjunction and causes.

(44) a. A man met with every woman.

b. A man met with every woman and then left.
Similarly, ʔilla in a free exceptive freezes scope effects, as observed in (45, his (39).

Example (45a) is ambiguous, as the UQ kull safiir ‘every ambassador’ may have a wide scope

over the other QP talat sˤaħafijjiin ‘three journalists’, in addition to its narrow scope. In (45b),

that ambiguity vanishes; the UQ kull safiir ‘every ambassador’ has only narrow scope. This can

be explained if ʔilla in (45b) is analyzed as a conjunction linking two clauses.

(45) a. talat sˤaħafijjiin ʔitʔaabluu maʕa kull safiir ʔaɡnabii.

three journalists met with every ambassador foreign
‘Three journalists met with every foreign ambassador.’ 3 > kull; kull > 3
b. talat sˤaħafijjiin ʔitʔaabluu maʕa kull safiir ʔaɡnabii
three journalists met with every ambassador foreign
ʔilla maʕa safiir ɣaanaa.
except with ambassador Ghana
‘Three journalists met with every foreign ambassador, except with the
ambassador of Ghana.’ 3 > kull; *kull > 3

153
 To sum up, Soltan (2014) analyzes the exceptive particle ʔilla in EA as a coordinator that

conjoins either two DPs, in connected exceptives, or two CPs, in free exceptives. In free

exceptives, the exceptive constituent is assumed to move to the left-periphery of the second CP,

and then the remaining TP undergoes ellipsis. Before setting forth the analysis of ħatta and ʔilla

in SJA, more is needed about the theoretical grounding of the movement-plus-ellipsis analysis

provided for the exceptive particle ʔilla in EA and other similar constructions across languages.

Merchant’s (2003) analysis of stripping can provide just this theoretical grounding.

4.3.2. Merchant’s (2003) Approach to Stripping

Stripping, or bare argument ellipsis, refers to “a rule that deletes everything in a clause

under identity with corresponding parts of a preceding clause, except for one constituent”

(Hankamer and Sag 1976:409). Examples (46, 47) illustrate this structure, in which there is a

coordinator (and/but) followed by only one remaining XP, which may be accompanied with a

focusing adverb, like too in (46), or a negative marker (not) and a modal adverb, like perhaps, as

in (47). What undergoes ellipsis after the coordinator is assumed to be identical at LF to the

antecedent in the first conjunct (Merchant 2003).

(46) John plays football, and Mary (too).

(47) He drinks coffee in the morning, but not juice, (perhaps).
Merchant (2003) emphasizes that stripping exclusively occurs in coordinate structures

and may not be found in subordinate clauses, as exemplified in (48, 49).

(48) *Abby wanted to take Dutch, because Ben.

(49) *Abby claimed Ben would ask her out, but she didn’t think that Bill (too).
(Merchant 2003:3-4 (20-21))
Merchant (2003) argues for a movement-plus-deletion analysis to account for the

derivation of the constituent in the stripping construction. That is, the remaining constituent

154
moves into Spec, FP, and then the TP is deleted, as depicted in (50), which represents the

structure of stripping in (46). The [E] feature that appears on the head F calls for deleting all the

material below that head before it reaches the phonetic form (PF). Merchant (2003) proposes that

the [E] feature is specified to have two features: (i) the strong uninterpretable feature (*uF),

which motivates the movement of the remaining constituent, and (ii) the weak uninterpretable

feature (uConj), which ensures that stripping is restricted to occur with coordinators only. The

first is checked by the focus that moves to the spec of F, and the latter is checked by the

conjunction by agreement without any movement.

(50)

This section reviewed two analytical accounts in which a coordinator relates two CPs,

and a constituent is motivated to move to Spec, FP in the second CP, and followed by the ellipsis

of the remaining TP. The account I propose for ħatta and ʔilla adopts this synthesis of the two

accounts. The next section delineates the analytical account of both of these FPs.

4.4 ħatta and ʔilla in SJA: The Analysis

In the analysis proposed for the scalar FP ħatta and the exclusive FP ʔilla, I assume that

movement-plus-deletion (stripping) occurs. Accordingly, ħatta and ʔilla are taken to be

coordinators joining two CPs, with movement of the focused item in the second CP into Spec,

FocP, and subsequent deletion of the remaining TP in the second CP. In the case of ʔilla, the NPI

155
in the first CP is also deleted. I will analyze each of the two FPs in turn, starting with ħatta in

Section 4.4.1, and then turning to ʔilla in Section 4.4.2. I will provide supporting arguments for

each analysis and discuss the recoverability of the ellipsis.

4.4.1 ħatta

4.4.1.1 Analysis of ħatta

I argue that ħatta should be treated as a coordinator that conjoins two CPs. By and large,

I postulate that the two CPs are similar in every respect, except that the QP exists in the first CP

and the focused item in the second CP. The focused element in the second CP is assumed to

generate in the same position as the QP in the first CP. The focused constituent moves to the

left-periphery of the second CP. Finally, the remaining TP in the second CP undergoes ellipsis.

I will adopt Munn’s (1992) configuration, diagrammed in (51), to represent the structure

of conjunction with ħatta. Based on this structure, the first conjunct CP (α) is the head, and

second conjunct (β) is the complement of the coordinator, as ħatta has its own requirements in

the second CP. This helps to explain the essential adjacency between ħatta and the focused

constituent in the second conjunct. Both ħatta and the second conjunct act as an adjunct to the

first conjunct, as they relate the focus to the QP there that holds the alternatives of the focus.

(51)

To illustrate how this analysis works, (52) is assumed to have the structure represented in

(53), where it is displayed that the two CPs are identical except that CP1 has the QP kull tˤ-

156
tˤaalibaat ‘all the residents’; whereas CP2 has the focused DP riim ‘Reem’, which moves to

Spec, FocP in CP2, so that it is adjacent to ħatta. Here, I am suggesting that in CP1 there is an

identical copy of remaining TP in CP2, so that the latter can be deleted. To make theoretical

sense of this, I assume that the head of FocP in CP2 has a feature (E) which calls for the omission

of the TP before the derivation reaches the PF, if identity conditions are met. This will be dealt

with later in the section.

(52) kull tˤ-tˤaalibaat itʔaxxaran ʔimbaariħ ħatta [riim]F.

all the-students came.late last.night even Reem
‘All the students came late last night, even [Reem]F.’
(53)

The same takes place in (54), whose structure is represented in (55); the UQ l-kull ‘all of

them’ is in the object position of the first CP and the focus l-ɣurabaa ‘the foreigners’ is in the

same position in the second CP. The focus moves to Spec, FocP in CP2, and then TP2 is deleted.

(54) saaʕadit l-kull ħatta [l-ɣurabaa]F.

I.helped the-all even the-foreigners
‘I helped all of them, even the [foreigners]F.’

157
 (55)

At first glance, the two conjuncts, CP and FocP, may look to be of two different

categories, but this can be resolved if we take CP as an umbrella that includes FocP. This idea is

in harmony with Rizzi’s (1997) ‘Split-CP Hypothesis’, according to which the CP can be split

into a set of projections in the following order: ForceP > TopP > FocP > TopP > FinP.

In consistency with the Minimalist Program, movement has to be motivated by the need

to check features (Chomsky 1995). Here, I will follow Merchant (2003) in taking the [E] feature

in Foc to be lexically specified to have two features: (i) the strong uninterpretable feature [*uF]

that can be checked with the interpretble feature [F] of the focused XP when it moves to Spec,

FocP, and (ii) the weak uninterpretable feature [uConj] that can be checked by agreement with

the weak feature [uConj] of the coordinator ħatta has without any movement. Thus, the focused

DPs riim ‘Reem’ and ʔibnii ‘my son’, which have the feature [F], move to Spec, FocP in order to

check the feature of [*uF] in [E] at the head Foc. The feature [uConj] in [E] ensures the

connection between the existence of an item such as ħatta with [uConj] feature, and the [E]

feature in F, which calls for deleting the remaining TPt.

158
 The currently proposed analysis predicts that wh-words may appear in sentences

containing ħatta, which is borne out in (56). In such a construction, ħatta is taken to be a

coordinator relating two CPs, as represented in (57). Hence, the wh-word miin ‘who’ is extracted

from the first CP to land in Spec, FocP in the first CP, and the second copy of the wh-word miin

can be assumed to be deleted before it reaches PF.

(56) miin rasab bi-kull l-mawaad ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F?

who failed in-all the-courses even in-the-Arabic
‘Who failed in all courses, even [in Arabic]F?’
(57) [CP1 rasab miin bi-kull l-mawaad] ħatta [CP2 rasab miin bi-l-ʕarabii]
failed who in-all the-courses even failed who in-the-Arabic
Now, I will provide some arguments in favor of the analysis I am proposing. First, the TP

following ħatta may optionally appear for emphasis, as in (58), even though this repetitive part is

deaccentuated in such a case.

(58) kullhum baarakuu-l-ii ħatta [ʕalii]F baarak-l-ii.

all.them congratulated-to-me even Ali congratulated-to-me
‘All of them congratulated me, even [Ali]F congratulated me.
Moreover, the conjunction structure explains the restrictions imposed on the word order

of sentences with ħatta. As displayed in (59) below, ħatta and its focus cannot be preposed

(59b), constituents preceding ħatta may not immediately follow it (59c), and the focused item

may not precede ħatta (59d). These observations are easily accounted for if I deal with ħatta as a

coordinator that combines two CPs. Accordingly, ħatta cannot move with the second conjunct to

be in a position before the first conjunct (59b), no constituents can move from the first conjunct

across the coordinator to reside in the second conjunct (59c), and no part from the second

conjunct can move to precede the coordinator (59d). In SJA, parallel constraints are imposed by

a coordinator like w- ‘and’, as observed in (60).

159
 (59) a. ʃuft kull tˤ-tˤaalibaat bi-s-saaħah ħatta [riim]F.
I.saw all the-students in-the-yard even Reem
‘I saw all the students at the yard, even [Reem]F.’
b. *ħatta [riim]F ʃuft kull tˤ-tˤaalibaat bi-s-saaħah.
even Reem I.saw all the-students in-the-yard
c. *ʃuft kull tˤ-tˤaalibaat ħatta [riim]F bi-s-saaħah.
I.saw all the-students even Reem in-the-yard
d. *ʃuft kull tˤ-tˤaalibaat bi-s-saaħah [riim]F ħatta
I.saw all the-students in-the-yard Reem even
(60) a. daras bidʒid w-nadʒaħ.
he.studied hard and-he.succeeded
‘He studied hard, and succeeded.’
b. *w-nadʒaħ daras bidʒid.
and-he.succeeded he.studied hard.
c. *daras w-nadʒaħ bidʒid.
he.studied and-he.succeeded hard
d. *daras bidʒid nadʒaħ-w.
he.studied hard he.succeeded-and.
It has been noted that two types of constituents can come after the focus of ħatta: (i) a

sentence adverb (61), and (ii) an adjunct related to the focus (62). The proposed analysis predicts

this distributional variation. As for sentence adverbs, they are posited to reside in the left-

periphery in Arabic (Fassi-Fehri 1998). Hence, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the sentence

adverb li-l-ʔamaanih ‘honestly’ in (61) lies above the TP which is deleted. Similarly, in (62), the

adjunct clause lamma kaan mariiðˤ ‘when he was sick’ is modifying the focus ʔaxuuh ‘his

brother’. That is, there is no copy of this clause in the first CP, as it does not modify the NPI

ħada ‘anyone’ there. In terms of the proposed analysis, it seems that the adjunct clause generates

160
after the focused DP ʔaxuuh ‘his brother’, and then it moves with the focus to the left-periphery

in the second CP. Thus, the adjunct clause will be in a higher structural position than the TP that

undergoes ellipsis.

(61) saaʕadithum kullhum ħatta [naadir]F li-l-ʔamaanih.

I.helped.them all.them even Nader to-the-honesty
‘I helped all of them, even [Nader]F, honestly.’
(62) maa zaar ħada ħatta [ʔaxuuh]F lamma kaan mariiðˤ.

NEG he.visited anyone even his.brother when he.was sick

‘He did not visit anyone, not even [his brother]F when he was sick.’
An important piece of evidence showing that there is movement and ellipsis in sentences

containing ħatta is the appearance of more than one constituent focused by ħatta, as shown in

(63), where the focus includes the DP ʕalii ‘Ali’ and the PP maʕ riim ‘with Reem’. Ali is ranked

as the least likely among all the boys to speak with Reem, who is the least likely to be spoken to

by any of the boys. Importantly, the construction exhibited here is reminiscent of that of gapping,

which differs from stripping in the existence of two remnants, instead of one. If movement and

ellipsis were not posited as steps in the derivation of (63), it would be difficult to identify the

type of structure given to the sequence ʕalii maʕ riim ‘Ali with Reem’. To avoid intricacies, I

will leave the gapping derivation in such a case for future research (See Coppock (2001) and

Toosarvandani (2013) for a review of approaches to the syntax of gapping).

(63) kull l-wlaad ħakuu maʕ kull l-banaat ħatta [ʕalii

all the-boys spoke with all the-girls even Ali
*(maʕ) riim]F.
with Reem
‘All the boys spoke with all the girls, even [Ali with Reem]F.’

161
 Furthermore, that the focused element moves and the TP then gets deleted explains why

the P maʕ ‘with’ attaching to the focus of ħatta in a sentence like (63) may not be dropped. If the

complement of the P riim ‘Reem’ moves to be in the left-periphery of the second CP, the P will

be left stranded there in the TP that will undergo ellipsis, which is not allowed in non-P-

stranding languages, including SJA (see Mohammad 2000, Merchant 2001).

In addition, the analysis proposed for ħatta explains why this particle may not appear

inside a genitive construction (64) or between a P and its complement (65). Each of the focused

constituents, the DP sajjaarit dʒaarhum ‘their neighbor’s car’ in (64) and the PP ʕa-naadir ‘on

Nader’ in (65), is taken as one constituent that has to move to Spec, FP as a whole unit, and then

no movement is allowed from CP2 to CP1 as movement can never take place across coordinators

(see Ross 1967)

(64) a. ɣassal kull s-sajjaaraat ħatta [sajjaarit dʒaarhum]F.

he.washed all the-cars even car.GEN their.neighbor
‘He washed all cars, even [their neighbor’s car]F.’
b. *ɣassasl kull s-sajjaaraat [sajjaarit ħatta dʒaarhum]F.
he.washed all the-cars car.GEN even their.neighborr
(65) a. jiʕtamid ʕa-l-kull ħatta [ʕa-naadir]F.
he.depends on-the-all even on-Nader
‘He depends on all of them, even [on Nader]F.’
b. *jiʕtamid ʕa-l-kull ʕa-ħatta [naadir]F.
he.depends on-the-all on-even Nader
An argument in favor of the bi-clausal structure for sentences with ħatta may be provided

in terms of scope-freezing effects that conjunctions exert. In SJA, scopal ambiguity can be

detected in a sentence like (66): the UQ kull sajjaarah ‘every car’ may take a wide scope over

the other QP ʃurtˤjjein iθnein ‘two policemen’, which implicates that for each car there were two

162
policemen to inspect, or the UQ may take a narrow scope if it does not raise at LF, suggesting

that there were only two policemen on scene (see Fox 2000).

(66) ʃurtˤjjeen iθneen fattaʃuu kull sajjaarah marrat

two.policemen two inspected each car passed.by
bi-ʃ-ʃariʕ.
in-the-street
‘Two policemen inspected each car that passed by the street.
2>kull; kull>2
A coordinator like w- ‘and’ freezes scope in (67), so the ambiguity seen in the previous

example disappears here. The meaning obtained is that there were only two policemen who

inspected all cars and found the criminal, which indicates that the UQ kull sajjaarah ‘every car’

does not move at LF.

(67) ʃurtˤjjeen iθneen fattaʃuu kull sajjaarah marrat

two.policemen two inspected each car passed.by
bi-ʃ-ʃariʕ w-laɡuu l-mudʒrim.
in-the-street and-found the-criminal
‘Two policemen inspected each car that passed by the street, and found the
criminal.’
2>kull; *kull>2
Importantly, ħatta exhibits a similar scope-freezing behavior, as attested in (68). The

ambiguity disappears here, so the meaning is that there were only two policemen who inspected

all cars, even the car of the security director, suggesting that the UQ kull sajjaarah ‘every car’

does not move at LF. The ban on that covert movement can be hypothesized to be due to the

underlying conjunction structure, which disallows movement of a constituent from one of two

conjuncts. Otherwise, the Coordinate Structure Constraint is violated (see Ross 1967).

163
 (68) ʃurtˤjjeen iθneen fattaʃuu kull sajjaarah marrat
two.policemen two inspected each car passed.by
bi-ʃ-ʃaariʕ ħatta [sajjaarit mudiir l-ʔamin]F.
in-the-street even car.GEN director the-security
‘Two policemen inspected each car that passed by the street, even [the security
director’s car]F.’
2>kull; *kull>2
An additional piece of evidence indicating that there is movement and ellipsis in

sentences with ħatta can be provided in terms of case-matching connectivity effects between the

focused constituent and the QP. SJA lacks case marking, but I will resort to Standard Arabic, as

in (69-70), to show that the focused DP l-mudiir ‘the director’ receives the same case marking as

that assigned to the QP l-dʒamiiʕ ‘all’. The explanation for this is that simply both of them

originate in the same position and receive the case marking from the same case assigner.

(69) l-dʒamiiʕ-u ħadˤara ħatta [l-mudiir-u]F.

the-all-NOM came even the-director-NOM
‘All of them came, even [the director]F.’
(70) qaabla l-dʒamiiʕ-a ʕalii-un ħatta [l-mudiir-a]F.
met the-all-ACC Ali-NOM even the-director-ACC
‘Ali met all of them, even [the director]F.’
Finally, an important piece of evidence showing that the focused XP undergoes

movement is that it exhibits sensitivity to islands constraints, including relative clause island

constraint (71), complex DP island constraint (72), sentential subject island constraint (73), and

adjunct island constraint (74) (in each of these examples, (71-74), (b) represents the underlying

structure of the sentences before ellipsis takes place). This clearly indicates that TP deletion at

PF in such a case cannot repair island violations that result from the movement of the focus.

164
 Relative clause island: The focus l-ɣariibiin ‘the foreigners’ moves from inside the

relative clause illii saaʕad l-ɣariibiin ‘who helped the foreigners’.

(71) a. *ʔaʕtˤa l-wald illii saaʕad l-kull hadijjih ħatta l-ɣariibiin.

he.gave the-boy who helped the-all gift even the-foreigners
‘He gave the boy who helped all of them a gift, even [the foreigners]F.’
b. *[CP1 ʔaʕtˤa l-wald illii saaʕad l-kull hadijjih] ħatta
he.gave the-boy who helped the-all gift even
[CP2 [DP l-ɣariibiin] <[TP ʔaʕtˤa l-wald [RC illii saaʕad t ] hadjjih]>]
the-foreigners he.gave the-boy who helped gift
Complex DP island: The focus ʕa-l-marah ‘on the woman’ moves from inside the

complex DP xabar ʔinnuh raamii sabb ʕalmarah ‘the news that Ramy insulted the woman’.

(72) a. *xabar ʔinnuh raamii sabb ʕa-l-kull ʔazʕadʒnii ħatta

news that Ramy insulted on-the-all bothered.me even
ʕa-l-marah.
on-the-woman
‘The news that Ramy insulted all of them, even [Ramy] F.’
b. *[CP1 [DP xabar ʔinnuh raamii sabb ʕa-l-kull] ʔazʕadʒnii]
news that Ramy insulted on-the-all bothered.me
ħatta [CP2 [PP ʕa-l-marah] < [TP [DP xabar ʔinnuh raamii sabb t]
even on-the-woman news that Ramy insulted
ʔazʕadʒnii] >]
bothered.me
Sentential subject island: The focus ʕumar ‘Omar’ moves from inside the CP ʔinnuh

ʕumar nadʒaħ ‘that Omar succeeded’ that serves as a subject in the TP in CP2.

(73) a. *ʔinnuh l-kull nadʒaħ ʔabsatˤnii ħatta ʕumar.

that the-all succeeded pleased.me even Omar

165
 ‘That all of them succeeded made me happy, even [Omar]F.’
b. *[CP1 [CP ʔinnuh l-kull nadʒaħ] ʔabsatˤnii] ħatta [CP2 [DP ʕumar]
that the-all succeeded] pleased.me even Omar
< [TP [CP ʔinnuh t nadʒaħ] ʔabsatˤnii] >]
that passed pleased.me
Adjunct island: The focus bi-l-ʕarabii ‘in Arabic’ moves from inside the adjunct CP

liʔannuh rasb bilʕarabii ‘because he failed in Arabic’.

(74) a. *liʔannuh rasb bi-kull l-mawaad ʕaaqabuh ʔabuuh

because he.failed in-all the-courses punished.him his.father
ħatta bi-l-ʕarabii.
even in-the-Arabic
‘Because he failed in all courses, his father punished him, even [in Arabic]F.’
b. *[CP1 liʔannuh rasb bi-kull l-mawaad ʕaaqabuh ʔabuuh]
because he.failed in-all the-courses punished.him his.father
ħatta [CP2 [PP bi-l-ʕarabii] < [TP [CP liʔannuh rasb t ] ʕaaqabuh
even in-the-Arabic because he.failed punished.him
ʔabuuh] >]
his.father
This adherence to locality conditions is reminiscent to that found in other types of

constructions that have been analyzed as involving movement-plus-deletion, as in the case of

stripping, in which movement of the remnant is sensitive to islands constraints, including relative

the clause island constraint (75), complex DP island constraint (76), sentential subject island

constraint (77), and wh-island constraint (78). Importantly, sensitivity to island constraints in the

case of ħatta and in stripping shows beyond doubt that ellipsis does not repair island violations in

such cases.

166
 (75) *Adam bought the book that Bill had recommended to Susan for five dollars, but
not Betty.
(76) *The claim that Dan liked Chris was lubricous, but not Daniele.
(77) *That Mark wanted to Kiss Emily was obvious, but not Jessica.
(78) *I speculated which politician would give Bob a prize, but not Sally.
(Jones 2004:2 (8-11)
Drawing on Soltan’s (2014) analysis of the exceptive construction, I proposed an analysis

of ħatta in Pattern III and provided some supporting arguments. Now I touch on the

interpretation of sentences containing ħatta. I argued that ħatta relates two CPs, but does not

moves with the focus to be in a clause-initial position, as in Pattern II (see Chapter 3). Therefore,

the prediction is that it does not mark the illocutionary force of the clauses in which it surfaces.

The prediction is correct, keeping in mind that sentences with ħatta in Pattern III generally

perform representative speech acts, which objectively assert the truth of the sentence, and which

exist in the parallel sentences free of ħatta (see Chapter 2). To illustrate, in (79), the speaker is

reporting that Omar failed in all courses, but the emphasis is on Arabic, as it is the least likely for

Omar to fail in. A sentence without ħatta, and the focus, serves the same speech act.

Interestingly, this can be linked to the observation that the focus in this pattern is pronounced

with a falling pitch accent, which is an unmarked prosodic cue (Sudhoff 2010).

(79) rasab ʕumar bi-kull l-mawaad ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.

failed Omar in-all the-courses even in-the-Arabic
‘Omar failed in all the courses, even [in Arabic]F.’
It is obvious that sentences with Pattern I and Pattern III of ħatta are associated with the

same set of speech acts and with the same type of prosodic markers (see Chapter 2). This leads

one to ask if Pattern I and Pattern III are related to each other in structure. On the surface, one

167
may think that a Pattern III sentence (79) differs from a parallel Pattern I sentence (80) in the

presence of the QP bi-kull l-mawaad ‘in all courses’.

(80) rasab ʕumar ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.

failed Omar even in-the-Arabic
‘Omar even failed [in Arabic]F.’
One way to test if Pattern I and Pattern III are structurally related is to see whether the

constraints that ħatta in Pattern III imposes on word order may be noted in parallel sentences

with Pattern I of ħatta. As mentioned above, one of these constraints is that a sentence with

Pattern III, like (18), which is repeated in (81), may not host an adverbial after the focus, since

ħatta is a coordinator, so the adjunct in the first CP cannot move to the second CP. If the

sentence with Pattern I (82) is structurally related to (81), it should not accept the adverbial after

the focus. Yet, (82) is well formed with the same adverbial in a clause-final position, leading to

the conclusion that Pattern I and Pattern III are structurally independent.

(81) *ʃuft kull ʔasˤħaabak ħatta [ʕalii]F bi-l-maqha.

I.saw all your.friends even Ali in-the-café
‘I saw all your friends, even [Ali]F in the café.’
(82) ʃuft ħatta [ʕalii]F bi-l-maqha.
I.saw even Ali in-the-café
‘I even saw [Ali]F in the café.’
To recap, in an attempt to account for Pattern III of ħatta in SJA, I argue that this particle

is a coordinator that conjoins two CPs, which are identical in every respect except that the first

CP holds a QP and the second CP has the focus in the position that parallels that of the QP; the

focused constituent moves to Spec, FP in the second CP, and the TP in the second CP undergoes

ellipsis. The arguments supporting the analysis are related to the following facts:

(83) a. Optionality of the TP in the second CP.

168
 b. The restrictions ħatta imposes on word order.

c. The obligatory occurrence of the P when the focus of ħatta is a PP.

d. The inability of ħatta to occur inside a genitive construction and a PP.

e. Scope freezing effects.

f. Case matching connectivity effects between the QP and the focus.

g. The sensitivity of the movement of the focus to islands constraints.

Finally, it was shown that the proposed analysis correctly predicts that ħatta in Pattern III

does not mark the illocutionary force of the sentences in which it occurs.

4.4.1.2 Recoverability of ellipsis with ħatta

The last issue to be addressed is whether the material that is assumed to undergo ellipsis

is recoverable, as it is known that a constituent can be omitted only if it is recoverable from an

antecedent in the linguistic context (Merchant 2001, Potsdam 2007). The PF Deletion Approach

can successfully account for the ellipsis I am assuming in the analysis provided for Pattern III of

ħatta in the present study.

According to the PF Deletion Account, “the computational system of human language

hands on the fully derived sentence to the interfaces, PF and LF. At LF the incoming sentence is

interpreted. At PF, ellipsis is achieved by deletion of redundant material” (Winkler 2006:5).

Depending on whether the identity between the antecedent site and the ellipsis site is syntactic or

semantic, two basic approaches to recoverability can be identified in the literature: syntactic

parallelism and semantic parallelism. The syntactic parallelism condition on TP ellipsis states

that “an IP E can be deleted only if E is morphosyntactically identical to an antecedent IP A at

LF” (Potsdam 2007:586). On the other hand, according to the semantic condition on IP ellipsis,

“an IP E can be deleted only if there is an antecedent IP A such that A and E entail each other”

(Potsdam 2007:587).

169
 I will examine how syntactic and semantic identity conditions are met so that the TP

coming immediately after the focus of ħatta can undergo ellipsis. In the analysis I am defending

in the current study, I take the clause with ħatta (84) to have the underlying structure in (85).

(84) kullhum zaaruunii ħatta [ʕumar]F.

all.them visited.me even Omar
‘All of them visited me, even [Omar]F.’
(85) [CP1 kullhum zaaruunii] ħatta [CP2 [DP1 ʕumar] <[TP t1 zaarnii]>]
all.them visited.me even Omar visited.me
The syntactic approach captures the ellipsis that the TP in CP2 undergoes as the two

clauses are identical. This triggers the deletion of one of the copies, in order to avoid

redundancy. However, I take the elided TP to be identical with its counterpart in the first CP at

LF, as the morphological form of the verbs is different at PF: zaar-uu-nii ‘visited-3PLM-me’ v.s.

zaar-Ø-nii ‘visited-3SGM-me’:

(86) a. Clause A: [ x zaaruunii] ‘x visited me.’

b. Clause B: [ y zaarnii] ‘y visited me.’
In terms of the semantic approach, each of the two clauses in (85) entails the other.

According to Merchant (2001:31), a TP can be deleted only if it is e-GIVEN, and he defines e-

GIVENESS as follows:

(87) An expression E counts as e-GIVEN iff E has a salient antecedent A and modulo

∃-type shifting:
(i) A entails F-clo(E), and
(ii) E entails F-clo(A)
We will see how this applies to the case in (88). The TP in the first CP kullhum zaaruunii

‘all of them visited me’ contains the QP kullhum ‘all of them’, which cannot be existentially

bound. I will adopt a solution proposed in Merchant (2001), according to which the QP is

170
assumed to leave a trace when it raises at LF. Merchant also assumes “that traces of constituents

moved out of the ellipsis site will be ∃-bound for purposes of satisfaction of various Focus

conditions” (Merchant 2001:26). Thus, the trace of the focused XP that moves to Spec, FocP in

CP2 can be ∃-bound.

(88) [CP1 kullhum [TP ti zaaruunii] ħatta [CP2 [DP1 ʕumar] <[TP tj zaarnii]>]
all.them visited.me even Omar visited.me
As the trace of the QP in the first TP and the trace of the focus constituent in the second

TP can be ∃-bound, e-GIVENNESS looks to be satisfied:

(89) a. TPA= F-clo(A)=∃x.x visited me.

b. TPE= F-clo(E)=∃x.x visited me.

Similarly, e-GIVENESS is satisfied in (90), which has the structure in (91). Both the

trace of the focused PP bi-l-ʕarabii ‘in Arabic’ and the trace of the NPI bi-ʔaj-maddih ‘in any

course’, which undergoes quantifier raising, can be ∃-bound. Accordingly, the deleted TP

appears to be e-GIVEN, as shown in (92).

(90) l-walad maa nadʒaħ bi-ʔaj maaddih ħatta [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.

the-boy NEG passed in-any course even in-the-Arabic
‘The boy did not pass in any course, not even [in Arabic]F.’
(91) [CP1 bi-ʔaj maaddih [TP l-wlad maa nadʒaħ ti ]] ħatta
in-any course the-boy NEG passsed even
[CP2 [PP1 bi-l-ʕarabii] < [TP l-wlad maa nadʒaħ tj ]]>.
in-the-Arabic the-boy NEG passe

(92) a. TPA= F-clo(A)=∃x.the boy did not pass in x.

b. TPE= F-clo(E)=∃x.the boy did not pass in x.

Finally, in the case where a quantificational adverb daaʔiman ‘always’ denotes the

alternatives of focus, as in (93), I hypothesize that this adverb also raises at LF on a level with

171
the other QPs. This is supported by the observation that this adverb can be modified by taqriban

‘almost’, as attested in (94), which is a diagnostic of UQs (Penka 2011).

(93) timtˤir daaʔiman bi-fluridaa ħatta [bi-sˤ-sˤeif]F.

it.rains always in-Florida even in-the-summer
‘It always rains in Florida, even in [the summer]F.’
(94) timtˤir taqriban daaʔiman bi-fluridaa.
it.rains almost always in-Florida
‘It almost always rains in Florida.’
Hence, as configurationally represented in (95), the adverb daaʔiman ‘always’ moves at

LF, leaving a trace behind, and the movement of the focused PP bi-fluridaa ‘in Florida’ leaves a

trace. Thus, as displayed in (96), e-GIVENESS is satisfied.

(95) [CP1 daaʔiman [TP timtˤir ti bi-fluridaa] ħatta [CP2 [PP bi-sˤ-sˤeif]

always it.rains in-Florida even in-the-summer

<[TP timtˤir tj bi-fluridaa]>.
it.rains in Florida

(96) a. TPA= F-clo(A)=∃x.it rains x in Florida.

b. TPE= F-clo(E)=∃x.it rains x in Florida.

In brief, the PF-Deletion Approach to recoverability, represented by both the syntactic

parallelism and semantic parallelism approaches, captures the recoverability of the TP that is

eliminated from the clause after ħatta in Pattern III.

Section 4.4.1 proposed an analysis for ħatta in Pattern III, provided some arguments in

favor of the analysis, and explored the recoverability of the ellipsis that the TP in the second CP

is assumed to undergo. Now, I will explore these same issues for ʔilla in Section 4.4.2.

172
4.4.2 ʔilla

4.4.2.1 Analysis of ʔilla

The analytical account I am proposing for the exclusive FP ʔilla is along the lines of the

account that Soltan (2014) provides for exceptive constructions. Soltan (2014) refers to the

distinction that Hoeksema (1987) draws between connected exceptives and free exceptives. The

former operate at the level of DPs and subtract from a universal quantifier, whereas the latter join

CPs and denote exceptions to generalizations. I will deal with the exclusive FP ʔilla as a free

exceptive, as it subtracts from a generalization. Positing that there is an NPI in the first CP helps

to capture this generality, as NPIs in Arabic are known to be referentially non-specific, and

denote entities of a general nature (Alsarayreh 2012).3 Before I proceed with further analytical

issues, I will maintain that exceptive ʔilla, which Soltan (2014) analyzes, subtracts from an overt

QP; whereas exclusive ʔilla subtracts from a generality claim preceding it. The latter type of ʔilla

is preceded by either an overt or covert NPI, which contributes to that generality. As the

constituent that follows exclusive ʔilla is excluded of a claim that applies to all of the

alternatives, it is highlighted and focused on.

It is remarkable that the analysis proposed for ʔilla, the supporting arguments, and several

of the technical issues parallel those advanced in accounting for ħatta in Section 4.4.1 above.

Now I will show the working of the proposed analysis. As appears in the derivation in (98),

which represents the structure of (97), there are two CPs conjoined by ʔilla. There is an optional

NPI ʔiʃii ‘anything’ in the first clause. With this NPI, the first CP denotes the generalization that

3
There will be more elaboration on the issue of generality induced by negation and NPI in Section 4.4.2.2, while
tackling the issue of recoverability of ellipsis

173
the person did not eat anything. Accordingly, negation, which is asserted to be obligatory before

ʔilla, is needed in order to license the NPI.

(97) maa ʔakal (ʔiʃii) ʔilla [xubiz]F.

NEG he.ate anything except bread
‘He did not eat anything, except [bread]F.’
(98) [CP1 maa ʔakal <ʔiʃii> ] ʔilla [CP2 xubiz <[TP ʔakal t ]>]
NEG he.ate anything except bread he.ate
When the NPIs appear in the first CP, they are deaccentuated, since they denote given

information. As to be shown later, they are predictable from the text and the context. In fact, I

cannot state a general rule predicting exactly which NPI occurs in every sentence containing

ʔilla, but I can provide some generalizations about the identity of the NPI. When the focus is a

DP, the NPI is more likely to be ʔiʃii ‘anything’ or ħada ‘anyone’. The former is found when the

focus is inanimate (98), and the latter when the focus is animate (99).

(99) maa ʔidʒaa <ħada> ʔilla [ʕumar]F.

NEG came anyone except Omar
‘No one came, except [Omar]F.’
In cases where the focus is a PP, the same P that surfaces in the focused PP precedes the

NPI. This NPI involves the determiner NPI ʔaj ‘any’ followed with a general nominal that

denotes the alternatives distinct from the focus, as in (100).

(100) maa jiʕtˤii masˤaarii (l-ʔaj-ʃaxsˤ) ʔilla [li-l-muħtaadʒiin]F.

NEG gives money to-any-person except to-the-needy
‘He does not give money to anyone, except to the needy.’
And when the focus is an adjunct, the NPI tends to be the adverbial NPI ʔabadan ‘at all’,

as in (101).

(101) maa jilʕab maʕ-naa <ʔabadan> ʔilla [jom l-dʒomʕah]F

174
 NEG plays with-us at.all except day the-Friday
‘He does not play with us at all, except [on Friday]F.’
To proceed in the analysis proposed in (98), I assume that the focus in CP2 xubiz ‘bread’

moves to land in Spec, FocP in the left-periphery, and then the remaining TP in CP2 ʔakal ‘he

ate’ and the NPI in CP1 ʔiʃii ‘anything’ undergo ellipsis.

I will offer one more example to illustrate the proposed analysis and elaborate on some

technical details. A sentence like (102) has a structure as in (103). We can observe that the two

CPs differ in polarity: whereas the first CP is negative, the second is affirmative. An additional

difference between them is that the first CP has the NPI ħada ‘anyone’, but the second has the

focus ʕumar ‘Omar’ generated in the same position of the NPI. The focused DP ʕumar ‘Omar’

moves to Spec, FP in the CP2. Then, the NPI ħada ‘anyone’ gets deleted, and the TP in CP2

saaʕadit ‘I helped’ undergoes ellipsis, because there is a copy of it in the first CP. In order to

theoretically capture the ellipsis of the TP in the second conjoined clause, I assume that the head

of FocP has a feature [E] which calls for the omission of the TP before the derivation reaches the

PF. Recoverability of the ellipsis of the TP and the NPI will be dealt with in Section 4.4.2.2.

(102) maa saaʕadit ʔilla [ʕumar]F.

NEG I.helped except Omar
‘I did not help anyone, except [Omar]F.’
(103)

175
 To be in harmony with the Minimalist Program, which maintains that movement has to

be motivated by the need to check features (Chomsky 1995), I will assume that, in the spirit of

Merchant (2003), the [E] feature in Foc is lexically specified to have two features. The first is the

strong uninterpretable feature [uFoc*] that can be checked with the interpretable feature [F] of

the focused DP ʕumar ‘Omar’. The checking can take place once the moving item ʕumar lands

in Spec, FP, such that it is in a local relationship with the head Foc that is the locus of the strong

feature. The second feature is the weak uninterpretable feature [uConj]. This can be checked by

agreement, without any movement, with the weak feature [uConj] that the coordinator ʔilla has.

Thus, the focused DP (ʕumar ‘Omar’) that has the feature [F] moves to Spec, FP to check the

strong feature of [*uFoc] in [E] at the head F, and the feature [uConj] in [E] ensures the

association between the occurrence of an item with [uConj] feature, like ʔilla, and the [E] feature

in F, which calls for deleting the remaining TP.

An important merit of the analysis proposed here is that it explains how ʔilla can

legitimately occur in wh-questions, (104). As displayed in the underlying structure of the

question in (105), I can postulate that the first copy of the wh-word miin ‘who’ moves to Spec,

FocP, and the second copy undergoes ellipsis.

(104) miin maa nadʒaħ ʔilla [bi-l-ʕarabii]F?

who NEG passed except in-the-Arabic
‘Who did not pass, except [in Arabic]F?’
(105) [CP1 miin maa nadʒaħ bi-ʔaj-maaddih] ʔilla [CP2 miin nadʒaħ
who NEG passed in-any-course except who passed
bi-l-ʕarabii]
in-the-Arabic

176
 Now, more arguments in favor of the proposed analysis are provided. First, the NPI that I

assume to exist in the first CP and the TP in the second CP may be optionally spelled out, as in

(106). Here, it is evident that the TP ʃuftuh ‘I saw him’ sounds more natural when the NPI ħada

‘anyone’ surfaces.

(106) maa ʃuft (ħada) ʔilla [ʕalii]F (ʃuftuh)

NEG I.saw anyone except Ali I.saw.him
‘I did not see anyone, except [Ali]F I saw him.’
Second, that ʔilla is a coordinator relating two CPs explains why ʔilla has to come to the

left of the focus in a clause-final position. It was previously noted that whenever the object is

focused by ʔilla, it has to stay at the end of the clause, as in (107), which was presented in (30)

above. In contrast, in sentences without ʔilla, this same object can freely shift position with the

subject, as long as no ambiguity results, as in (108), previously given in (31).

(107) a. maa ʔakal ʕalii ʔilla [tuffaħah]F.

NEG ate Ali except apple
‘Ali did not eat anything, except [an apple]F.’
b. *maa ʔakal ʔilla [tuffaħah]F ʕalii4.
NEG ate except apple Ali
(108) a. maa ʔakal ʕalii tuffaħah.
NEG ate Ali apple
‘Ali did not eat an apple.’
b. maa ʔakal tuffaħah ʕalii.
NEG ate apple Ali

4
This sentence may turn to be grammatical if the subject ʕalii ‘Ali’ is taken to be an afterthought.

177
 In a similar fashion, when the focus of ʔilla is an adverbial, it cannot be moved before

any preceding arguments, as displayed in (109), presented in (32) above, even though this word

order is licit without ʔilla, as in (110), given before in (33).

(109) a. maa jizuur ʔammuh ʔilla [jom l-dʒumʕah]F.

NEG he.visits his.mother except day the-Friday
‘He does not visit his mother, except [on Friday]F.’
b. *maa jizuur ʔilla [jom l-dʒumʕah]F ʔammuh.
NEG he.visits except day the-Friday his.mother
(110) maa jizuur jom l-dʒumʕah ʔammuh
NEG he.visits day the-Friday his.mother
‘He does not visit his mother on Friday.’
Likewise, it has been noticed that ʔilla precedes, but does not follow, the focused item, as

illustrated in (26), reproduced in (111).

(111) a. maa jitkallam ʔilla [ʕarabii]F.

NEG he.speaks except Arabic
‘He does not speak, except [Arabic]F.’
b. *maa jitkallam [ʕarabii]F ʔilla.
NEG he.speaks Arabic except
These restrictions are predicted along the lines of the proposed analysis. Because ʔilla is a

coordinator that combines two CPs, it is expected for the focused XP in CP2 to attach to the right

of ʔilla as it is a part of a separate CP. Hence, the focus cannot move to be a part of the first CP

(107); no material from CP1 can cross the coordinator passing to CP2 (109), and the focus may

not precede the coordinator ʔilla (111). As mentioned while discussing the arguments supporting

the analysis of ħatta as a coordinator (see Section 4.4.1.1), other coordinators in SJA require

178
similar restrictions on word order, as witnessed with w- ‘and’ in (112), previously presented in

(60).

(112) a. daras bidʒid w-nadʒaħ.

he.studied hard and-he.succeeded
‘He studied hard, and succeeded.’
b. *w-nadʒaħ daras bidʒid.
and-he.succeeded he.studied hard.
c. *daras w-nadʒaħ bidʒid.
he.studied and-he.succeeded hard
d. *daras bidʒid nadʒaħ-w.
he.studied hard he.succeeded-and.
It has been noted that a sentence adverb, like li-l-ʔasaf ‘regrettably’, may show up after

the focus of ʔilla, as in (113). In light of the currently proposed analysis, this is expected as such

adverbs are taken to be residing in the left-periphery (Fassi-Fehri 1998). Hence, I can posit that

li-l-ʔasaf lies above the TP in the second CP which I argue to undergo ellipsis.

(113) maa rasab ʔilla [ʔibnii]F li-l-ʔasaf.

NEG failed except my.son to-the-regret
‘No one failed, except [my son]F, regrettably.’
Similarly, one of the constituents that may appear after ʔilla and its focus is an adjunct

that modifies the focus, as in (114). Here, the clause ʔiðaa kaan maʕ naʕnaʕ ‘if it is with mint’

modifies the focus ʃaaj ‘tea’. In terms of the analysis, the occurrence of this clause in that

position is predictable. I assume that the NPI ʔiʃii ‘anything’ in the first CP and the focus in the

second CP ʃaaj ‘tea’ occupy parallel positions as objects in their respective CPs. This indicates

that there is no copy of the adjunct clause ʔiðaa kaan maʕ naʕnaʕ in the first CP, as it cannot

occur as modifying the NPI ʔiʃii there. It seems that the clause generates after the focused DP

179
ʃaaj, and it is fronted to the left-periphery after the movement of the focus to Spec, FocP.

Accordingly, the adjunct clause can survive ellipsis when the remaining TP is eliminated.

(114) maa ʔaʃrab ʔiʃii sˤ-sˤubiħ ʔilla [ʃaaj]F ʔiðaa

NEG I.drank anything the-morning except tea if
kaan maʕ naʕnaʕ.
it.was with mint
‘I do not drink anything in the morning, except [tea]F if it is with mint.’
An important piece of data that supports the movement-plus-ellipsis analysis I am

defending is that there might be more than one constituent focused on by ʔilla, as in (115), where

both the DP ʕumar ‘Omar’ and the PP bi-l-ʕarabii ‘in Arabic’ are the foci of ʔilla. In this

sentence, the focus is on Omar and on Arabic, as no one passed any course, except for Omar,

who passed only the Arabic course. This construction, which surfaced also with ħatta in (63)

above, draws an analogy with the gapping structure. As stated above, I will leave analysis of

such a construction for future research. The sentence in (115) lends further support to my

analysis by showing that there is an NPI in the first CP paralleling the focus in the second CP.

(115) maa ħada nadʒaħ bi-ʔaj maaddih ʔilla [ʕumar bi-l-ʕarabii]F.

NEG anyone passed in-any course except Omar in-the-Arabic
‘No one passed any course, except [Omar Arabic]F.’
In addition, the movement-plus-ellipsis analysis makes it clear why a P may not be

dropped from the PP complement of ʔilla (116). If it happens that the complement of the P,

ʕumar ‘Omar’, moves to the left-periphery, the P bi- ‘in’ will be left stranded in the TP that will

undergo ellipsis, which is not allowed in non-P-stranding languages, like SJA (see Mohammad

2000, Merchant 2001).

(116) maa jiθaq ʔilla [*(bi)-ʕumar]F.

NEG he.trusts except in-Omar

180
 ‘He does not trust anyone, except [Omar]F.’
Likewise, the current analytical account provides an explanation for why ʔilla may not

occur inside a genitive construction (117) or between a P and it complement (118). Once again,

each of the genitive construction sajjaarit riim ‘Reem’s car’ in (117) and the PP bi-ʕumar ‘in

Omar’ in (118) is a whole constituent and the movement is not legal from a conjunct (CP2) to

another (CP1) (see Ross 1967).

(117) a. maa sˤallaħ ʔilla [sajjaarit riim]F.

NEG he.fixed except car.GEN Reem
‘He did not fix anything, except [Reem’s car]F.’
b. *maa sˤallaħ [sajjaarit ʔilla riim]F.
NEG he.fixed car.GEN except Reem
(118) a. maa jiθaq ʔilla [bi-ʕumar]F
NEG he.trusts except in-Omar
‘He does not trust anyone, except [Omar]F.’
b. *maa jiθaq bi-ʔilla [ʕumar]F.
NEG he.trusts in-except Omar
An important advantage for the analysis defended here is that it solves a puzzle pertinent

to verb-subject agreement by assuming that there is an NPI in the first conjoined CP undergoing

ellipsis. In (119), the postverbal subject exhibits agreement in all phi-features (person, number,

and gender) with the verb. Yet, when the same subject acts as the focus of ʔilla (120), agreement

morphemes disappear. Only one form of the verb, rasab ‘failed’, appears regardless of the

quality of the subject. It is worth noting that this is one of the predictions of the proposed

analysis: that the verb agrees with the omitted NPI (ħada ‘anyone’, which has the features of

third person singular), but does not agree with the focused subject.

181
 (119) a. maa rasab l-walad.
NEG failed.3MSG the-boy
b. maa rasab-uu l-wlaad.
NEG failed-3MPL the-boys
c. maa rasab-at l-bint.
NEG failed-3FSG the-girl
d. maa rasab-an l-banaat.
NEG failed-3FPL the-girls
(120) a. maa rasab ʔilla l-walad.
NEG failed.3MSG except the-boy
b. maa rasab ʔilla l-wlaad.
NEG failed.3MSG except the-boys
c. maa rasab ʔilla l-bint.
NEG failed.3MSG except the-girl
d. maa rasab ʔilla l-banaat.
NEG failed.3MSG except the-girls
In addition, an important argument in favor of the assumption that sentences

encompassing ʔilla have a bi-clausal structure comes from scope-freezing effects that ʔilla

exerts. Without ʔilla, a sentence including negation and a QP (121) exhibits scopal ambiguity. In

one case, the negation maa takes scope over the QP masʔalteen ‘two problems’, leading to the

interpretation that the person did not solve two problems, so the number of the solved problems

may be more or less than two. In another case, the QP masʔalteen ‘two problems’ moves at LF to

take scope over the negation maa, giving the interpretation that there are exactly two problems

the person did not solve (see Fox 2000).

(121) maa ħall masʔalteen.

NEG he.solve two.problems

182
 ‘He did not solve two problems.’ NEG > 2; 2 >NEG
However, there is no ambiguity when the QP masʔalteen ‘two problems’ is focused by

ʔilla (122). There is only one interpretation, according to which the person solved only two

problems. This is expected in light of the current analysis, where there is no interaction between

negation and the QP, as the negation and the QP lie in separate CPs. At LF, there is no way for

the QP to raise from the second CP to a position where is has scope over negation, as this would

violatie the Coordinate Structure Constraint (Ross 1967).

(122) maa ħall ʔilla masʔaltein

NEG he.solve except two.problems
‘He did not solve, except [two problems]F.’
Finally, as shown in the examples below, the movement of the focued item exhibits

sensitivity to island constraints, including the relative clause island constraint (123), complex DP

island constraint (124), sentential island constraint (125), and adjunct island constraint (126), (in

each of these examples (123-126), (b) represents the underlying structure of the sentences before

ellipsis applies). Once again, TP deletion would not ameliorate island violations; hence the

ungrammaticality of the sentences.

Relative clause island: The focus xubiz ‘bread’ moves from inside the relative clause illii

iʃtaraa xubiz ‘who bought bread’ in the second CP.

(123) a. *maa ʃuft l-walad illii iʃtaraa ʔilla xubiz.

NEG I.saw the-boy who bought except bread
‘I did not see the boy who bought anything, except [bread] F.’
b. *[CP1 maa ʃuft l-walad [RC illii iʃtaraa <ʔiʃii>]] ʔilla
NEG I.saw the-boy who bought anything except
[CP2 [DP xubiz] <[TP ʃuft l-walad [RC illii iʃtaraa t ]]>]
bread I.saw the-boy who bought

183
 Complex DP island: The focus bi-l-ʕarabii ‘in Arabic’ moves from inside the DP xabar

ʔinnuh rasab bi-l-ʕarabii ‘the news that he failed in Arabic’.

(124) a. *maa sˤaddaɡt xabar ʔinnuh rasab ʔilla bi-l-ʕarabii.

NEG I.believed news COMP failed except in-the-Arabic
‘I did not believe the news that he failed except [in Arabic]F.’
b. *[CP1 maa sˤaddaɡt xabar ʔinnuh rasab <bi-ʔaj-maddih>] ʔilla
NEG I.believed news COMP failed in-any-course except
[CP2 [PP bi-l-ʕarabii] < [TP sˤaddaɡt [DP xabar ʔinnuh rasab t ]]>]
in-the-Arabic I.believed news COMP failed
Sentential subject island: The focus riim ‘Reem’ moves from inside the sentence ʔinnuh

saaʕad riim ‘that he helped Reem’, which acts as a subject to the verb θabat ‘proved’.

(125) a. *maa θabat ʔinnuh saaʕad ʔilla riim.

NEG proved COMP he.helped except Reem
‘It has not proved that he helped anyone, except [Reem]F.’
b. *[CP1 maa θabat [CP ʔinnuh saaʕad <ħada>]] ʔilla
NEG proved COMP he.helped anyone except
[CP2 [DP riim] <[TP θabat [CP ʔinnuh saaʕad t ]]>]
Reem proved COMP helped
Adjunct island: The focus ʕumar ‘Omar’ moves from inside the adjunct liʔannuh zaar

ʕumar ‘because he visited Omar’.

(126) a. *maa inzʕadʒit liʔannuh zaar ʔilla ʕumar.

NEG I.bothered because he.visited except Omar
‘I was not bothered because he visited anyone, except Omar.’

184
 b. *[CP1 maa inzʕadʒit liʔannuh zaar <ħada> ] ʔilla
NEG I.bothered because he.visited anyone except
[CP2 [DP ʕumar] <[TP inzʕadʒit [CP liʔannuh zaar t ]] >].
Omar I.bothered because he.visited
Before closing, I will briefly touch on the interpretation of sentences with ʔilla, in a

similar fashion to my previous discussion of the interpretation of sentences with Pattern III of

ħatta (see Section 4.4.1.1). The prediction is that ʔilla does not mark the illocutionary force of

the sentences in which it appears, under the assumption that ʔilla and the focus do not move to a

clause-initial position, but ʔilla conjoins two CPs. One way to show that the prediction is correct

is to observe that sentences with ʔilla serve representative speech acts, which report the truth that

the background applies solely to the focus. For example, in (127), the speaker asserts that Nader

was the only one among his classmates to pass the test. Further, the parallel sentence without

ʔilla serves the same assertive speech act, showing that ʔilla does not impact the illocutionary

force of the sentence. This is related to the observation that the focus of ʔilla is pronounced with

a falling pitch accent, which an unmarked prosodic marker (Sudhoff 2010).

(127) maa nadʒaħ bi-l-ʔimtiħaan ʔilla [naadir]F.

NEG passed in-the-test except Nader
‘No one passed the test, except [Nader]F.’
In summary, to account for the syntax of the exclusive FP ʔilla, I propose that it is a free

exceptive that relates two CPs. The focus lies in the second CP, and it subtracts from a

generalization in the first clause. I posited that there is an NPI that generates in the first CP, in a

position parallel to the focus in the second CP. The focused item moves to be in Spec-FocP in

the second CP, after which the NPI in the first CP and the TP in the second CP are omitted. The

proposed analysis can successfully account for the distribution of ʔilla and its focus, and for the

185
restrictions it imposes on word order. It was shown how the analysis I defend predicts that

sentences with ʔilla occur with representative speech acts. The proposed analysis is supported by

empirical arguments related to the following facts

(128) a. The optionality of an NPI preceding ʔilla and a TP following it

b. The restrictions ʔilla imposes on word order.

c. The requirement to have the P when the focus of ʔilla is a PP.

d. The inability of ʔilla to occur inside a genitive construction and a PP.

e. The absence of verb-subject agreement morphology when the subject is focused

by ʔilla.

f. The scope freezing effects induced by ʔilla

g. The adherence to locality constraints by the movement of the focus.

4.4.2.2 Recoverability of ellipsis with ʔilla

In accounting for ʔilla above, I assumed the deletion of an NPI in the first CP and of a TP

in the second CP. I will show how the Null-Proform Approach can account for the omission of

the NPI, and how the PF Deletion Approach can capture the ellipsis of the TP.

According to the Null-Proform Approach, the missing material is represented as a silent

pronominal and interpreted like nominal anaphora (Aelbrecht 2010). Lobeck (1995), who is one

of the main proponents of this approach, argues that ellipses are null proforms, and they are

constrained in the same way as the null nominal proform pro.

Hence, in order to account for the ellipsis of the NPI, like ħada in (130), which represents

the derivation of (129), I propose that the NPI ħada ‘anyone’ is a null pronominal that has to be

licensed and that can be easily identified. I suggest that the licensor is the negation maa. In fact,

the negation is needed for two reasons. First, it is one of the licensors of NPIs. Second, negation

is a downward-entailing context (Alsarayreh 2012). According to Progovac (1993:152), “an

186
expression is affective [=downward entailing] iff it licenses inferences in its scope from

supersets to subsets.” These inferences lead to generality claims, from which the exclusive FP

ʔilla subtracts, as predicted for free exceptives.

(129) *(maa) nadʒaħ ʔilla [ʕumar]F.

NEG succeeded except Omar
‘No one succeeded, except [Omar]F.’
(130) [CP1 maa nadʒaħ <ħada>] ʔilla [CP2 ʕumar < [TP nadʒaħ t ]>]
NEG succeeded anyone except Omar succeded
In (130), if a teacher reports how bad the performance of the students in one of the

classes he teaches by saying, “maa nadʒaħ ħada” ‘no one succeeded’, one of the inferences that

can be drawn is that each of the students in that class failed, including ʕumar ‘Omar’. Yet, when

the same teacher follows that statement with ʔilla ʕumar ‘except Omar’, he excludes Omar from

the superset. When the NPI ħada ‘anyone’ is dropped, but negation and ʔilla followed with its

focus exist, it will be easy to identify the superset from which the focused set is subtracted. That

is, the focused item (the subset) helps to identify the eliminated NPI.

Likewise, in (131), the negation maa is needed to license an NPI. ʔilla and its focus bi-l-

ʕarabii ‘in Arabic’ help to identify the NPI, which involves the superset from which the course

of Arabic is excluded. Accordingly the NPI will be something like bi-ʔaj-maaddih ‘in any

course’. Without ʔilla bi-l-ʕarabii ‘except in Arabic’, the inference will be that the person did not

pass any of the courses. By and large, I can conclude that the focus of ʔilla denotes a set, and the

NPI preceding ʔilla suggests a superset encompassing that set. The NPI is identified by the

focused item, and it is licensed by negation.

(131) *(maa) nadʒaħ ʔilla [bi-l-ʕarabii]F.

NEG he.passed except in-the-Arabic

187
 ‘He did not pass any course, except [Arabic]F.’
Such an account for the ellipsis of NPIs with the exclusive FP ʔilla is supported by the

observation that NPIs in SJA may be used as null preforms in non-exceptive constructions. This

can be illustrated by showing the optionality of NPIs in SJA, including DP, PP, and adverbial

NPIs in ordinary contexts, as in (132-135), respectively.

(132) min sˤ-sˤubiħ maa ʔakalt (ʔiʃii).

since the-morning NEG I.ate anything

‘I have not eaten (anything) since the morning.’

(133) laa tiftaħ l-baab bi-ɣeebtii (li-ʕaj ħada).

NEG open the-door in-my.absence to-any one

‘Do not open the door (to anyone) while I am not here.’

(134) ʕumar nabaatii. maa jakul laħam (ʔabadan).

Omar vegetarian NEG he.eats meat at.all

‘Omar is a vegetarian. He does not eat meat (at all).’

In addition to the Null-Proform Approach, the PF Deletion Approach (see Section

4.4.1.2) is needed to account for the elimination of the TP after ʔilla. Under this second

approach, I will see whether the syntactic and semantic identity conditions are met such that the

TP in the CP after ʔilla can undergo ellipsis. In the analysis I am defending, I take a sentence

with ʔilla (135) to have the derivation in (136). I will follow Giannakidou (1998) in treating NPIs

as existential quantifiers. Thus, the NPI ʔiʃii ‘anything’ in (136) undergoes quantifier raising at

LF to a position higher than the TP. Also, as mentioned in Chapter 1, the negative particle maa

in SJA is taken to be above the TP (see Alsarayreh 2012).

(135) maa ʃirib ʔilla [ʃaaj]F.

NEG he.drank except tea

188
 ‘He did not drink anything, except [tea]F.’
(136) [CP1 maa <ʔiʃii> [TP ʃirib t ] ʔilla [CP2 ʃaaj
NEG anything he.drank except tea
<[TP ʃirib t ]> ]
he.drank
Accordingly, the syntactic approach succeeds in capturing the ellipsis that the TP in CP2

undergoes, as the two TPs are identical (137). This triggers the deletion of the second copy in

order to avoid redundancy. The two TPs in the case of ʔilla are always identical at LF, as the

negation and the NPI in the first CP1 and the focus in the second CP2 are both above their

respective TPs.

(137) a. Clause A: [ʃirib x] ‘he drank x’

b. Clause B: [ʃirib y] ‘he drank y.’
Likewise, the semantic approach succeeds in predicting the recoverability of the TP that

is assumed to undergo ellipsis in the CP after ʔilla. According to this approach, TP deletion is

possible only when the e-GIVENNESS condition is met. This condition was defined in (87), and

it is repeated in (138) (see Merchant 2001).

(138) An expression E counts as e-GIVEN iff E has a salient antecedent A and modulo ∃-
type shifting:
(i) A entails F-clo(E), and
(ii) E entails F-clo(A)

Now we will see whether the e-GIVENNESS condition (138) is satisfied in (135). The

first TP contains a QP with the NPI ʔiʃii, which undergoes movement at LF to land above TP.

The negation is also located higher than the TP. I will follow Merchant (2001:26) in assuming

that “traces of constituents moved out of the ellipsis site will be ∃-bound for purposes of

satisfaction of various Focus conditions.” Therefore, both the trace of the NPI in the first TP and

189
the trace of the focused constituent in the second TP can be ∃-bound. Hence, e-GIVENNESS is

satisfied:

(139) a. TPA= F-clo(A)=∃x.he drank x

b. TPE= F-clo(E)=∃x.he drank x

Similarly, (138) is met when the focus is a PP, as in (140), which has the derivation in

(141). The traces are there, so they can be ∃-bound.

(140) maa nadʒaħ ʔilla [bi-l-ʕarabii]F

NEG he.passed except in-the-Arabic
‘He did not pass any course, except [Arabic]F.’
(141) [CP1 maa <bi-ʔaj-maaddih> [TP nadʒaħ t]] ʔilla
NEG in-any-course he.passed except
[CP2 bi-l-ʕarabii <[TP nadʒaħ t ] >]
in-the-Arabic he.passed
As appears below, e-GIVENNESS is satisfied:

(142) a. TPA= F-clo(A)=∃x.he passed in x

b. TPE=F-clo(E)=∃x.he passed in x

Finally, in cases where the focus is an adverbial (143), whose derivation is given in (144),

e-GIVENNESS is satisfied (145).

(143) maa jilʕab maʕ-naa ʔilla [jom l-dʒomʕah]F

NEG he.plays with-us except day the-Friday
‘He does not play with us, except [on Friday]F.’
(144) [CP1 maa <ʔabadan> [TP jilʕab maʕ-naa t ]] ʔilla [CP2 jom
NEG at.all he.plays with-us except day
l-dʒomʕah <[TP jilʕab maʕ-naa t ]> ]
the-Friday he.plays with-us

190
 (145) a. TPA= F-clo(A)=∃x.he plays with us x

b. TPE=F-clo(E)=∃x.he plays with us x

In brief, the Null-Proform Approach succeeds in capturing the recoverability of the

ellipsis of the NPI in the clause before ʔilla. Likewise, the PF-Deletion Approach, represented by

both the syntactic parallelism and semantic parallelism approaches, predicts that the omission of

the TP in the clause after ʔilla is recoverable.

4.5 Conclusion

This chapter began by testing the validity of the Adjunct Approach to the syntax of FPs in

accounting for the scalar FP ħatta in Pattern III and the exclusive FP ʔilla as used in SJA. I

showed that the Adjunct Approach can capture many observations about the distribution of the

FPs under consideration, but it fails to predict some restrictions they impose on word order.

In order to bridge the shortcomings of the Adjunct Approach, I proposed a new analysis

for ħatta and ʔilla. This analysis relies on the account that Soltan (2014) provides for exceptive

construction in Egyptian Arabic and the analysis Merchant (2003) advances for stripping.

Specifically, ħatta and ʔilla are taken to be coordinators combining two CPs. The focused item in

the second CP moves to land in Spec, FocP, followed by ellipsis for the remaining TP in the

second CP. In the case of ʔilla, the NPI in the first CP is also elided. I posited that the two CPs

agree in polarity when the coordinator is ħatta, whereas their polarity does not match when the

two CPs are conjoined by ʔilla. This analysis also successfully predicted that ħatta and ʔilla do

not mark the illocutionary force of the sentences containing them, and accounts for the

distribution of ħatta/ʔilla and the focus in the sentence. The distribution of these FPs is

supported by several facts related to the optionality of the omitted material, the obligatoriness of

the P attaching to the focused item, the ban on the occurrence of ħatta/ʔilla inside a genitive

construction and a PP, the scope freezing effects, and the sensitivity of the movement of the

191
focus to island constraints, among other empirical facts. Finally, it was shown that the identity of

the TP omitted from the clause after ħatta/ʔilla is recoverable in terms of the PF-Deletion

Approach, and the recoverability of the ellipsis of the NPI preceding ʔilla is captured by the

Null-Proform Approach.

192
 CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary

This study aimed at investigating the syntax of FPs in SJA. SJA has an inclusive FP

(kamaan ‘also’), a scalar FP (ħatta ‘even), and two exclusive FPs (bas ‘only’ and ʔilla ‘except). I

have shown that kamaan ‘also’ occurs in two patterns, ħatta ‘even’ in three patterns, bas ‘only’

in two patterns, and ʔilla ‘except’ in one pattern. kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern I attach to the

focus in its canonical position that it would occupy without the presence of the FP, and in Pattern

II they join the focus in a clause-initial position. ħatta in Pattern III and ʔilla occur with the focus

clause-finally.

As for the semantic contribution of the FPs, I have presented data showing that sentences

with the inclusive particle (kamaan) and the scalar particle (ħatta) entail the corresponding

sentences without the particle, and presuppose that there are alternatives to the focus. The

semantic property that characterizes the scalar particle ħatta is that it, unlike the inclusive FP

kamaan, conventionally implicates that its focus is ranked as the least likely among the

alternatives to be a value for the variable in the focus position. What distinguishes ħatta in

Pattern III from the other two patterns is that the alternatives of its focus are not presupposed, but

stated in a QP preceding it. By contrast, the exclusive particles (bas ‘only’ and ʔilla ‘except’)

entail that the focus is distinct from all of its alternatives when the background part of the clause

applies to the focus. Sentences with bas presuppose the corresponding sentences without the

particle. The other exclusive FP ʔilla does not bring about that presupposition.

With regard to the illocutionary force of the sentences containing FPs, kamaan, ħatta,

and bas in Pattern I, ħatta in Pattern III, and ʔilla occur with representative speech acts, which

are also performed by the parallel sentences without these particles. On the other hand, sentences

193
with kamaan, ħatta, and bas in Pattern II serve expressive speech acts. With regard to the type of

focus that the FPs bring to the sentence, the focus induced by kamaan and ħatta in Pattern I and

Pattern II has proven to be neither presentational nor contrastive. However, ħatta in Pattern III

brings presentational, not contrastive, focus. The focus of the exclusive FPs bas and ʔilla, on the

other hand, is both presentational and contrastive.

In providing an analysis for Pattern I and Pattern II of kamaan, ħatta, and bas, I proposed

that these FPs are focusing adverbs that adjoin to the constituent that bears the semantic focus

feature. Thus, they are licensed by the head of the projection they are adjoined to. In Pattern I,

the adverb kamaan, ħatta, or bas adjoins to the focused constituent in-situ. It was shown that the

Adjunct Approach to the syntax of FPs can successfully account for the distribution of these FPs.

It captures many observations for these FPs, like their ability to adjoin to any type of constituent,

their direction of adjunction, the adjacency between the FP and the focus, and the ban on the

occurrence of these FPs inside genitive constructions and PPs.

In Pattern II, I propose that after kamaan, ħatta, or bas adjoins to the focused constituent

in-situe (Pattern I), the sequence of the FP and the focus move together to Spec, FocP in the left-

periphery. This movement is assumed to be triggered by the need of the head of FocP to have the

strong uninterpretable feature [uF*] that it has to be checked. I showed that this movement is an

instance of A-bar movement. The analysis I advocate predicts that kamaan, ħatta, and bas

belong to Pattern I and Pattern II when they associate with a preverbal subject, a CLLDed

constituent, a fronted PP, and a fronted adverbial. This prediction is borne out by the data cited.

To account for Pattern III of ħatta and ʔilla, I based my analysis on Soltan’s (2014)

account of exceptive construction in Egyptian Arabic and Merchant’s (2003) account of

stripping. I proposed that ħatta in Pattern III and ʔilla should be treated as coordinators

194
conjoining two CPs. The focused item is assumed to lie in the second CP, and the QP that

denotes the alternatives of the focus in the first CP. The focus is motivated to move to Spec,

FocP in the second CP, and then the remaining TP undergoes ellipsis, in addition to the NPI in

the case of ʔilla. I provided several empirical arguments in favor of this analysis. These

arguments pertain to the optional appearance of the omitted material, the obligatoriness of the P

when the focus is a PP, the inability of ħatta and ʔilla to occur inside genitive constructions and

PPs, the scope freezing effects exerted by the two FPs, case matching connectivity effects, and

the sensitivity of the movement of the focus to locality constraints. An additional advantage of

the analysis is that it explains the lack of agreement morphology between the verb and post-

verbal subject when the latter is focused by ʔilla. Finally, it was shown that the PF-Deletion

Approach to the identity of ellipsis accounts for the recoverability the TP omitted from the clause

after ħatta and ʔilla, and the Null-Proform Approach captures the identity of the NPI that is

omitted from the clause preceding ʔilla.

As a general observation for all FPs in SJA, it is evident that the FP c-commands the

focused constituent, which is a maximal projection, and has to be as close as possible to the

focus.

5.2 Concluding Remarks

The study has shown that the Adjunct Approach to the syntax of FPs can account for FPs

in constructions that do not contain a QP denoting the alternatives of the focus (kamaan, ħatta, or

bas in Pattern I and Pattern II). I have confirmed several predictions of the Adjunct Approach,

regarding the direction of adjunction for the focusing adverbs, and the type of constituents that

the FPs can adjoin to. The Adjunct Approach succeeds in generating well-formed sentences. The

FPs kamaan, ħatta, or bas in Pattern I freely adjoins to the constituents that bear the semantic

focus feature, as long as there is no violation to basic principles, like the principles governing LF

195
movement. In other words, under the Adjunct Approach, FPs are free to adjoin to any

constituent, with two restrictions: (i) the existence of a semantic focus feature, and (ii) the

avoidance of violations to well-known principles. Thus, the current research gives support to the

Adjunct Approach to FPs, and to the more general adjunction analysis of adverbs, as the

distribution of the FPs appears to be governed by semantic principles.

As for the FPs that are preceded by QPs that denote the alternatives of the focus (ħatta in

Pattern III and ʔilla ‘except’), they have been found to behave as coordinators joining two

clauses. Hence, the sentences encompassing these two particles have a bi-clausal structure. This

accounted for the distribution of the FPs under consideration, and explained many facts,

including the constraints imposed on word-order by these two FPs.

A significant finding that I reached is that the focus carried by Pattern I and Pattern II of

kamaan and ħatta is neither presentational nor contrastive and that the focus of bas and ʔilla in

all of their patterns is both presentational and contrastive. This indicates that the distinction

between presentational focus and contrastive focus, as proposed in Kiss (1998), is not universal

and clear-cut. Similar to Brunetti (1998), who found that the contrast between presentational

focus and contrastive focus does not hold in Italian, I will conclude that the distinction between

these two types of focus is not well-defined in SJA. It is evident in this study that in SJA focus

may be presentational and not contrastive, as with ħatta in Pattern III; not presentational and

contrastive, as in the case of focus-fronted elements (see Section 1.5.2); neither presentational

nor contrastive, as with kamaan and ħatta in Pattern I and Pattern II; and both presentational and

contrastive, as observed with bas and ʔilla.

In addition, the finding that in SJA wh-words may occur in clauses with Pattern I of

kamaan, ħatta, and bas, as shown in (1), provides an argument against the principle of

196
uniqueness of focus, which prohibits having more than one instance of focus in a clause

(Lambrecht 1994). A wh-word is an instantiation of focus, and with the focus of the FP, the

result is having two foci. Nevertheless, the sentence is well-formed. Importantly, this supports

Polinsky’s (1999) finding that the principle of focus uniqueness is violated in many languages,

like Korean.

(1) miin jitkallam kamaan / ħatta / bas [faransii]F?

who speaks also / even / only French
‘Who also/even/only speaks [French]F?’
It is important to note that the analysis I proposed for Pattern II of kamaan, ħatta, or bas

gives some support to two analyses already found in the literature. First, ‘the Split CP

Hypothesis’, which was advanced by Rizzi (1997), and also maintained by Slonsky (2000) to

hold in Lebanese Arabic, as it has been evident that the topicalized constituent can precede as

well as follow the sequence of the FP-focused item in the left-periphery. Second, the explanation

I provided for the inability of the FPs to occur in wh-questions under the assumptions that the

focus and the wh-word compete to move to the same position is in accordance with the

explanation Ouhalla (1994) proposed for the inconsistency between focus-fronted phrases and

wh-questions.

All in all, I can conclude that FPs in SJA do not constitute a homogenous group that can

be captured by one analysis. Different FPs display different syntactic behavior, so more than one

analysis was needed to account for them. At the same time, the same FP may belong to different

patterns based on its versatility in structural behavior and may be a candidate for more than one

analysis.

As a general remark, since each pattern of the FPs is associated with its own set of speech

acts and is signaled by its own prosodic markers, it proves that the semantics and pragmatics of

197
FPs are encoded syntactically and prosodically. Any change in syntax has its own semantic and

pragmatic reflex. It also appears that prosodic cues help to disambiguate when the clause can

serve more than one speech act. This warrants more research on FPs at the syntax-pragmatics

and syntax-semantics interface, and more research on the perception of the focus of FPs with

varying prosodic cues.

198
 LIST OF REFERENCES

Abdel-Jawad, H. 1986. The emergence of an urban dialect in the Jordanian urban centers.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 61: 53-63.
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: a minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aelbrecht, Lobke. 2010. The syntactic licensing of ellipsis. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Alexiadou, Artemis. 1994. Issues in the syntax of adverbs. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Potsdam.
Alsarayreh, Atef. 2012. The licensing of negative sensitive items in Jordanian Arabic. Doctoral
Dissertation, the University of Kansas.
Al-Wer, Enam. (2007). The Formation of the dialect of Amman: From chaos to order. In Arabic
in the City: Issues in dialect contact and language variation, ed. by C. Miller, D. Caubet,
J. Watson and E. Al-Wer, 55-76. London: Routledge-Curzon.
Aoun, Joseph and Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1998. Minimality, reconstruction, and PF movement.
Linguistic Inquiry 29: 569-592.
Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E. and Choueiri, L. 2010. The syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bakir, Murtadha. 1980. Aspects of clause structure in Arabic. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
Bayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality and logical form: On the Scope of Focusing Particles and Wh-
in-situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The feature structure of functional categories: A comparative study
of Arabic dialects. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Brunetti, Lisa. 2003. Is there any difference between contrastive focus and information focus?. In
Proceedings of the Conference “sub7 – Sinn und Bedeutung, ed. by Matthias Weisgerber.
Arbeitspapier Nr. 114, FBSprachwissenschaft, Universit¨at Konstanz, Germany.

Buring, D. 2005. Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buring, D. and K, Hartmann . 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus sensitive particles in
German. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 229-281.
Chierchia, Gennaro and McConnell-Ginne, Sally. 2000. Meaning and grammar: An
introduction to semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building
20: Essays in Linguistic in Honor of Sylvian Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and
Keyser, Samuel, 1-58. The MIT Press

199
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky. 2000. Minimalist inquiry: the framework. In Step by Step, ed. by Roger Martin and
Dsvid Michael and Juan Uriagareka, 98-155. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cleveland, Ray. 1963. A Classification of the Arabic dialects of Jordan. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 171: 56-63.
Coppock, Elizabeth. 2001. Gapping: in defence of deletion. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, ed. by Mary Andronis, Christoper Ball, Heidi
Elston, and Sylvia Neuvel, 133-148. Chicago III: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Crystal, David. 2008. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing
Dalrymple, Mary and Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ernst, Thomas Boyden. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Fassi, Fehri, A. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Fassi-Fehri, A. 1998. Layers in the distribution of Arabic adverbs and adjectives and their
licensing, in Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XI, ed. by Benmamoun, E., Eid, M. and
Haeri, N, 9-46. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Ferguson, C. 1971. Language structure and language use: essays. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Foolen, Ad, van Gerrevink, Richard, Hogeweg, Lotte, and Prawiro-Atmodjo, Peia. 2009. The
placement of focus particles in Dutch. In Linguistics in the Netherlands, ed. by Bert
Botma and Jacqueline van Kampen, 51-63. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Fox, D. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Griffiths, Patrick. 2000. An introduction to English semantics and pragmatics. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Gundel, Jeanette. 1998. On different kinds of focus. In Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and
computational perspectives, ed. by Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hankamer, J. and Sag, I. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7:391-428.

200
Harbert, Wayne and Bahloul, Maher. 2002. Postverbal subjects in Arabic and the theory of
agreement. In Themese in Arabic and Hebrew syntax, ed. by U Shlonksy and J. Ouhalla,
40-70. Dodrecht: Kluwer.
Haumann, Dagmar. 2007. Adverb licensing and clause structure in English. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Hoeksema, J. 1987. The logic of exception. In Proceedings of the Fourth Eastern States
Conference in Linguistics, ed. by A. Miller and J. Powers, 100-113. The Ohio State
University: Columbus, OH.
Horn, Laurence. 1969. A presuppositional analysis of Only and Even. In Papers from the 5th
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Robert I. Binnick, Alice
Davidson, Georgia Green and Jerry Morgan, 98-107. University of Chicago.
Hornstein, Norbert and Nunes, Jairo. 2008. Adjunction, labelling, and bare phrase structure.
Biolinguistics 2 (1): 57-86.
Hurford, J., Heasley, B. and Smith, M. 2007. Semantics: A course book. Cambride: Cambridge
University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1981. Xbar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus and Skalen. Niemeyer, Tubingen.
Jones, J. 2004. Negation and movement in stripping constructions. A handout from Linguistics at
Santa Cruz (LASC), UC Santa Cruz.
Karttunen, L. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 167-193.
Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74, 245-273.
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. Routledge,
London.
Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In The Architecture of Focus, ed. by A.
Miller and J. Powers, (105-136). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental
representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, C. 2003. Contrastive topic and proposition structure. In Asymmetry in Grammar Volume 1:
Syntax and semantics, ed. by Di Sciullo, A. M., (345-71). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

201
Merchant, J. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Merchant, J. 2003. Remarks on stripping. Ms., University of Chicago.
Mohammad, Mohammad. 2000. Word order, agreement, and pronominalization in standard and
Palestinian Arabic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Moutaouakil, Ahmed. 1989. Pragmatic functions in a functional grammar of Arabic. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Muller, Gereon. 1995. A-bar syntax: A study in movement types. Berlin, New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Munn, A. 1992. A null operator analysis of ATB gaps. Linguistics Review 9:1-26.
Nederstigt, Ulrike. 2003. Auch and noch in child and ddult German. Berlin, New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Ouhalla, J. 1994. Focus in standard Arabic. Linguistics in Potsdam 1:65-92
Ouhalla, J. 2002. The structure and logical form of negative sentences in Arabic. In Themes in
Arabic and Hebrew Syntax, ed. by J.Ouhalla and U. Shlonsy, 299-320. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Partee, Barbara. 1992. Topic, focus, and quantification. In proceedings of SALT 1, ed. by Steven
Moore and Adam Wyner, 159-187. Cornell: CLC Publications.
Penka, D. 2011. Negative indefinites. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perez-Jimenez, I and Moreno-Quiben, N. 2012. On the syntax of exceptions. Evidence from
Spanish. Lingua 122:582-607.
Polinsky, Maria. 1999. Review of Topic, Focus, and Mental Representation, by Knud
Lambrecht. Linguistic Society of America 75 (3): 567-582.
Potsdam, Eric. 1999. A syntax for adverbs. In Proceedings of WECOL 98. California State
University, Fresco, CA, USA.
Potsdam, Eric. 2007. Malagasy sluicing and its consequences for the identity requirement on
ellipsis. Nat Lang Linguistic Theory 25:577-613
Potts, C. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures: Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Progovac, L. 1993. Negative polarity, entailment, and binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 16
(2):149-180.
Rebuschi, Georges and Tuller, Laurice. 1999. The grammar of focus. John Benjamins
Publishing: Amsterdam.

202
Reis, Marga. 2005. On the syntax of so-called focus particles in German- A reply to Buring and
Hartmann 2001. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 459-483.
Reis, Marga and Rosengren, Inger. 1997. A modular approach to the grammar of additive
particles: The case of German auch. Journal of Semantics, 14: 237-309.
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left-periphery. In Elements of Grammar, ed. by
Webelhuth, G, (pp. 281-337). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,
MA.
Searle, John. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5 (1):1-23.
Shlonsky, U. 1997. Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Shlonsky, U. 2000. Remarks on the complementizer layer of Standard Arabic. In Research in
Afroasiatic Grammar, ed. by J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm, and U. Shlonsky, 325-44.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Soltan, Usama. 2007. On formal feature licensing in minimalism: Aspects of Standard Arabic
morphosyntax. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Soltan, Usama. 2011. On issues of Arabic syntax: An essay in syntactic argumentation. Brill’s
Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 3:236-280
Soltan, Usama. 2014. On the syntax of exceptive constructions in Egyptian Arabic. In
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics 27.
Sudhoff, S. 2008. Focus Particles in the German Middlefield. In The Discourse Potential of
Underspecified Structures: Event Structures and Information Structure, ed. by
Webelhuth, G., 439-459. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter,
Sudhoff, S. 2010. Focus Particles in German: Syntax, prosody, and information structure. John
Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam.
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2013. Corrective but coordinate clauses not always but sometimes.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 827-863.
Versteegh, C. H. M. 1997. The Arabic language. Columbia University Press.
Winkler, S. 2006. Ellipsis. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition, ed. by
Webelhuth, G., 109-113. Oxford: Elsevier.

203
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Hamed Abdelhamiyd Aljeradaat was born in Jordan in 1982. In 2004, he graduated from

Mutah University in Jordan with a B.A. in English Language and Literature. He earned his M.A.

in 2008 also from Mutah University. His research for his master’s degree investigates rhetorical

transfer in the writings of Arabic-speaking EFL students of English. In fall 2012, he joined the

University of Florida to pursue a Ph.D. in Linguistics. He graduated in summer 2016. He is

interested in exploring ellipsis and movement phenomena in Standard Arabic and Jordanian

Arabic

204