الفهرس 
Introduction and Theoretical FrameworkOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 163 |  |  |
| | | from | 163 | | |
Abstract
This chapter summarizes the whole thesis and demonstrates that the research questions have been answered. This study is mainly concerned with comparing the terminology of the medieval CA grammarian Al-Jurjani (2001) in his theory ʔan-naẓm “syntactic theory”, and attempts to find their corresponding concepts in Chomsky’s generative enterprise, specifically, the theory he presented in 1981, 1993, and 1995. The study is comparative, with a special focus on the terms ʔat-taʔθiːr and ʔal-ħayyiz “scope” and “domain”, and explores them through Chomsky’s terms: Movement, Scope, C-Command, and LF. The term ʔat-taqdiːm wa ʔat-taʔxiːr “preposing and postposing” is compared to Focus movement. Moreover, the thesis investigates the secondary predicate ʔal-ħaːl depictive constructions in Al-Jurjani’s theory and compares them to the notion of SCs, under his phrasal term xabar laysa bi-dʒuzʔ-in min ʔal-dʒumla “a predicate that is not part of the sentence”.
This concluding chapter is divided into two sections. The first section (5.1) presents a summary of the principal assumptions and findings of the thesis. As for the second section (5.2), it provides recommendations for further study concerning exploring Al-Jurjani’s theory and CA syntactic phenomena through Chomsky’s approach.
5.1 Summary of the Main Assumptions and Findings
This section summarizes the findings of the study in relation to its objectives and illustrates the answers to the research questions. The present thesis consists of five chapters. Its structure and discussion can be well forwarded in the next lines.
Chapter one of this study is introductory. It presents the language and data used in the thesis, the scope of the study, the objectives, and the research questions. Furthermore, it presents the theoretical background within which the study is conducted. The theoretical framework contains the GG, the UG and language acquisition, the P&P theory with its modules: Binding theory, Case theory, Control theory, X-bar theory, Theta theory, and Movement theory. The Movement theory is overviewed in relation to the LF level and the Scope and C-command relation. The chapter also presents the developments in the MP. The MP contains the operations Merge, Move, and Agree. Chapter one ends with the organization of the study and a conclusion.
Chapter two is devoted to the review of the literature related to the study. It begins with an overview of Al-Jurjani’s theory ʔan-naẓm “syntactic theory”. Chapter two has five main sections. The first section is concerned with illustrating Al-Jurjani’s theory ʔan-naẓm “syntactic theory”. The second section discusses movement and focus. It involves the hypothesis of the Split CP and its relation to the concepts of focus and presupposition. It also reviews the concepts of movement and focus in Al-Jurjani’s theory. Moreover, the third section overviews distinction between focus and topic in both English and Arabic linguistic theory. The fourth section discusses the logical operators with a special focus on the negative operator, the universal quantifier, and the yes-no question operator. This is accompanied by a discussion of focus in the yes-no questions and in declaratives, and the concept of markedness versus unmarkedness with respect to word order in CA. Section five is concerned with secondary predication, which mainly denotes the depictive structures in CA, and its relation to the adjunct SC structure. Hence, the SC in both GG and in CA is reviewed.
The central concern of chapter three is the investigation of the scope of logical operators in CA adopting the Split CP analysis. This is in relation to Al-Jurjani’s two terms ʔat-taʔθiːr and ʔal-ħayyiz “scope” and “domain”, respectively. Applying the notions of Movement, Scope, and LF on structures of CA containing logical operators - namely, the universal quantifier, the negative, and the yes-no question operator- leads to highlighting Al-Jurjani’s contribution to the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface.
Moreover, it has been proven that meaning changes as a result of wide versus narrow scope interaction in CA. The syntactic movement of the universal quantifier with respect to the negative operator affects the semantics of the structure. Despite the fact that argument structure is the same in a number of sentences, the different word orders cause the meaning to change. Thus, in CA, meaning is determined by the word order, not only the argument structure.
In addition, chapter three also analyzes Al-Jurjani’s data that he presents subsumed under his term ʔat-taqdiːm wa ʔat-taʔxiːr “preposing and postposing”. This term involves focus movement and is analyzed using Split CP Hypothesis to identify the landing site of the moved focused element. Both yes-no questions c-commanded by the yes-no question operator, and negative structures c-commanded by the negative operator are examined. The yes-no question operator is base-generated in, not moved into, the Spec of the ForceP since it marks the force of the sentence as interrogative. Besides, the focused element moves into the Spec position of FocP. This A-bar movement into the left-periphery (the CP) is triggered by the strong features of the head Foc which, in turn, attracts the focused element to fill the Spec FocP position. The rest of the sentence is shared information, thus involving the discourse notion of presupposition. This, again, demonstrates Al-Jurjani’s contribution to not only syntactic-semantic, but also syntactic-semantic-pragmatic interface.
Chapter four deals with comparing the single-word depictive clause in CA to adjunct, non-subcategorized SC. This is in relation to Al-Jurjani’s term xabar laysa bi-dʒuzʔ-in min ʔal-dʒumla “a predicate that is not part of the sentence”. The chapter investigates the structure of the different types of depictive clauses in CA. It is concluded that depictive clauses in CA are mainly CPs. It is clarified that the SC in CA has no tense in itself but has the tense reference of the main clause. To satisfy the EPP feature on T (which requires the T to extend to have a subject), and to account for the violation of the Theta Criterion (which dictates that an argument must have only one theta role and a theta role must be assigned to only one argument), the SC in CA contains a null PRO subject. The head T carries the feature [-Tense] to account for the lack of tense in such SC.
In addition, the head T in depictive clauses containing overt DP subject, which is co-referential with the matrix subject, also has the feature [-Tense]. Furthermore, when the head T is occupied by the emphasis particle qad “indeed”, it is also [-Tense]; although in traditional Arabic grammar, this particle -qad “indeed”-must be followed by a tensed verb, namely, past tense.
In conclusion, the above-mentioned findings represent answers to the study’s proposed questions. They clarify to what extent Al-Jurjani’s terms correspond to their counterparts in Chomsky’s theory. Al-Jurjani’s theory ʔan-naẓm “syntactic theory” comprises terms that constitute the core of some concepts in Chomsky’s theory. These terms are ʔat-taʔθiːr and ʔal-ħayyiz “scope” and “domain” that are investigated in chapter three. In addition, the term ʔat-taqdiːm wa ʔat-taʔxiːr “preposing and postposing” corresponds to focus movement which is an instance of the more general principle of Move α, specifically, the A-bar movement i.e. argument movement to the left periphery. Such focus movement has been investigated in both yes-no interrogative, and negative structures. Furthermore, it becomes evident in chapter four that Al-Jurjani’s term xabar laysa bi-dʒuzʔ-in min ʔal-dʒumla “a predicate that is not part of the sentence”, which is the depictive clause, corresponds to the concept of adjunct SC as examined in GG, particularly, the single-word depictive structure with no overt Complementizer.
5.2 Suggestions for Further Study
The present thesis suggests more studies to be conducted on the rich legacy of the medieval CA grammarians and the linguistic phenomena they have discussed in their works, especially, from a Chomskyan approach. Moreover, the issues of movement, and the depictive SCs in CA presented in this study should be pursued in further research in order to acquire more substance and to gain deeper insights into the syntax of CA.