A l'encontre de "wa" nous traitons "maÖa" comme une préposition légitimant un cas oblique. Nous considérons que dans, ce cas, les traits d’AgrO sont faibles et il n' y a pas de vérification du cas accusatif puisqu’il n’y a pas de projection de vP au dessus de P", comme c'est le cas avec les prépositions complexes du type "wa" . Nous supposons que le DP et la préposition vérifient un trait de cas dans AgrO et un trait de sens dans un domaine fonctionnel que nous indiquons par UP (AccomP).

    This article deals with the syntax of Double Object constructions (DOCs) in Standard Arabic (SA). Our purpose is to show the relevance of verb movement to the surface structure in SA. The first part analyses the process of V-movement and its relevance to the surface order of the subject in relation to the verb and to the order of tense and agreement morphemes in the verbal complex. In the second part of the article, we extend this analysis to DOCs. It will be seen that this analysis teams with the guidelines of the Minimalist approach to clause structure across languages.

    The aim of this paper is twofold. First ,I will show that the paradigmatic richness displayed in the verbal paradigms of Standard Arabic (SA) enables us to distinguish between different types of inflectional categories such as Tense, Aspect, Mood and Agreement. Second, I will argue for the hypothesis that SA is a 'rigid' VSO language on the grounds that the N-features of both T(ense) and Agr are weak. This entails that the normal position of thematic subjects in simple constructions is [Spec,VP]. In structures introduced by the auxiliary verb "kaana" 'be-past', the subject is raised to [Spec,AspP] so as to be adjacent to "kaana" under T. In begin-type constructions, the matrix subject occupies [Spec,VP] while the embedded subject (i.e. pro) appears in [Spec,AspP]. When a DP appears in preverbal position (i.e. in 'SVO' structures), it has the status of a Topic.

    Berber and Semitic 'states' comparable are not comparable. Indeed, the possibility of a comparison can only be entertained if the genitive use of 'state' is considered primary, and the other uses occurring in Berber only are somehow derived from it. If, on the other hand, the focussing function of 'state' in Berber is considered primary, also in genitive constructions, then no basis for comparison remains with the Semitic languages (i.e. Arabic and Hebrew) since 'state' obviously does not fulfil any such function in them, if only because they have lexical stress to the difference of Berber. Berber and Semitic 'states' thus have nothing in common, beyond the mere observation that one member in genitive constructions may show a particular segmental shape. This observation is what motivated the rapprochement in the first place. But even here it is misleading. As already mentioned, in Semitic expressions such as Hebrew beyt ha-mora 'the teacher's house' the CS form (i.e. beyt as opposed to FS bayit 'house') affects the first member, and it clearly corresponds to a process of segmental reduction, due to the fact that genitive phrases are stressed like compounds. In the case at hand, this means that the rightmost syllable $ra$ bears main stress. Stress assignment in genitive phrases in Semitic is thus a phonological process that is entirely insensitive to Focus assignment within the genitive phrase. That is to say, the genitive phrase as a whole is treated as an opaque unit from the point of view of the NSR which only 'sees' the main stress. In Berber, in contrast, Focus assignment within the phrase is what explains why the second, unfocussed member shows up in the CS form or, more accurately, why the CS alternant is selected from the lexicon to figure in that position. The operations involved in Semitic and in Berber thus belong to entirely different levels. Hence my conclusion that they have nothing in common, except the name.

    This article deals with cliticization in Berber within the Minimalist framework. Its main concern is to investigate the similarities and differences between clitics that appear on V in the light of the Minimalist approach (Chomsky 1992, 1995). More specifically, the paper purports to deal with the distinction between subject markers, accusative and dative clitics in Berber. The morphosyntactic properties of clitics are presented in an attempt to account for their categorial statuses and syntactic distribution. We argue that subject markers are not arguments, but expressions of AGRs as they are part of the agreement process. They are base-generated in AGR for they involve no movement, and when the lexical DP subject is absent, a pro fills its position in conformity with the Spec-head agreement. By contrast, accusative and dative clitics are arguments of V since they are subject to movement. Accusative and dative clitics exhibit a different syntactic behaviour. They are genuine clitics since they are X-O categories, subject to head-t- head movement. Dative clitics occur as both enclisis and proclisis according to the functional structure of the sentence in which they occur.

    This paper is aimed at studying the pragmatics and grammaticalization of two spatial deictic morphemes in Tamazight (Berber), which are d and nn glossed respectively as 'toward the speaker (Sp.)' and 'toward the addressee (Addr.)'. First, the paper presents the system of deixis in Tamazight language and studies the distribution and the meaning of the two deictic morphemes d and nn. Second, the study demonstrates that the two morphemes, which are generally optional, are grammaticalized with a specific set of verbs. Finally, the paper shows that the morpheme nn has evolved as a discourse marker particularly in narrative discourse.

    In Somali, the genitive complement occupies the same position as the other modifiers. A brief excursion into modification in other Cushitic languages shows that this peculiar property of Somali cannot be reduced to variation in terms of headedness and enclitic determiners. Harar Oromo shows the same fundamental word order properties (SOV, N-genitive) and enclitic determiners, while at the same time this language distinguishes several syntactic positions for the different types of noun modifiers and even allows direct modification of the head noun. We have further proposed an analysis deriving the prenominal genitive from the postnominal genitive, accounting for the complementary distribution of the modification patterns between the two constructions.

    The authors deal with the issue of interpretation and textual analysis in Standard Arabic. The authors reveal that literary, historical and philosophical texts may have different readings and interpretations depending on the reader's attitude and imagination. Arabic makes use of different stylistic and discursive devices like similes and metaphors, which are important for the interpretation and semantic understanding of texts.