A note on ħaqq in Yemeni … Qarabesh & Shormani

A Note on the Genitive particle ħaqq in Free Genitives Mohammed Ali Qarabesh, University of Albayda Mohammed Q. Shormani, University of Ibb الملخص: تتىاوه هذي اىىرقح ميمح "حق" فٍ اىيهجح اىُمىُح ورتثتها اىىحىَح فٍ تزمُة إضافح اىمينُح اىتحيُيُح، وتقذً ىها تحيُو وحىٌ وصفٍ، حُث َفتزض اىثاحثان أن هىاك وىػُه مه هذي اىنيمح فٍ اىيهجح اىُمىُح: ا( تيل اىتٍ ال تظهز ػيُها ػالماخ اىتطاتق، مثو "اىسُاراخ حق ػيٍ"، حُث وزي أن ميمح "اىسُاراخ" ىها اىسماخ )جمغ، مؤوث، غائة( وىنه ميمح "حق" ال تتطاتق مؼها فٍ أٌ مه هذي اىصفاخ، و ب( تيل اىتٍ تظهز ػيُها ػالماخ اىتطاتق مثو "اىسُاراخ حقاخ ػيٍ" حُث تتطاتق اىنيمتان "اىسُاراخ" و"حقاخ" فٍ مو اىسماخ. وؼَزض اىثاحثان أن اىىىع األوه َ ستخذً فٍ مىاطق مثو صىؼاء، ػذن، إب... اىخ، واىثاوٍ فٍ شثىج وحضزمىخ ... اىخ. وَخيص اىثاحثان إىً أن هىاك دىُو ػميٍ ىُس فقظ ػيً وجىد اىىحى اىنيٍ فٍ "اىمينح اىيغىَح" تو أَضا ػيً "تَ ْى َس َطح" هذا اىىحى، ىُس فقظ تُه اىيغاخ تو وتُه ىهجاخ اىيغح اىىاحذج.

الكلمات المفتاحية: اىيغاخ اىسامُح، اىؼزتُح اىُمىُح، اىؼثزَح، اى م ْينُح، "حق"

Abstract This paper provides a descriptive syntactic analysis of ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic (YA). ħaqq is a Semitic Free Genitive (FG) particle, much like the English of. A FG minimally consists of a head N, genitive particle and genitive DP complement. It (in a FG) expresses or conveys the meaning of possessiveness, something like of in English. There are two types of ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic: one not exhibiting agreement with the head N, and another exhibiting it. The former does not inflect for agreement features (ɸ- features), while the latter does. The former is used in areas like Sana‟a, Aden, Ibb, etc. and the latter in Shabwah, Hadhramout, etc. The article provides evidence that Universal Grammar (UG) parameterization exists in human language, not only interlingually, but also intralingually.

Keywords: Semitic, Yemeni Arabic, Hebrew, genitive particle ħaqq, possession

1. Introduction Possessiveness is a relation of possession between a noun and another noun; one is referred to as possessed and the other as possessor. Languages differ in the way they express possessiveness. As far as are

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 1 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

concerned, one way of expressing possessiveness is using what is so called analytic possessive constructions or Free Genitives (FGs) like (1) below. In Semitics (Arabic and Hebrew in this paper), a free genitive consists of a head N (possessum), genitive particle and genitive DP complement (GDC). This is exemplified in (1a) and (1b), from Yemeni Arabic (YA) and Modern Hebrew (MH), respectively.1

(1) a. al-bayt ħaqq ʕali the-house.M.SG of Ali „Ali‟s house‟

b. ha-beyt šel ali the-house.M.SG of Ali „Ali‟s house‟

In its minimal form, a FG consists of a head N, genitive particle and genitive DP complement.2 For example, (1a) represents a FG in YA, where al-bayt „the house‟ is the head N, ħaqq is the genitive particle and ʕali „Ali‟ is the GDC. In MH FGs, ha-bayt „the house‟ is the head N, šel „of‟ is the

1 The following abbreviations are used throughout this article: Acc = accusative, SG = Singular, DL = dual, DP = Determiner Phrase, N = Noun, PL = plural, F = Feminine, M = Masculine, Nom = Nominative Case; Gen = Genitive Case. Other abbreviations and/or acronyms used in the text are introduced at the first use. 2 Note that a Semitic FG can have an unlimited number of embedded FGs. This is formulated in (i): (i) FG = FG1 + FG2 + FG3 + FGn (i) is exemplified in (ii). (ii) a. al-bayt l-kabiir ħaqq l-midiir l-jadiid the-house.M.SG the-big.M.SG of the-manager the-new „The new manager‟s big house‟ b. ha-tmuna šel ha-xamaniot šel van gox the-picture of the-sunflowers of Van Gogh „Van Gogh‟s picture of the sunflowers‟ c. al-muftaaħ ħaqq l-baab ħaqq s-sayyaara ħaqq ʕali the-key of the-door of the-car of Ali „Ali‟s car‟s door‟s key‟

A Semitic FG can also have (embedded) coordinated FGs as illustrated in (iii). (iii) al-sayyaara wa l-baas ћaqq l-mudarris wa l-midiir the-car and the-bus of the-teachers and the-manager „The teacher‟s and the manager‟s car and bus‟

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 2 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

genitive particle and ali „Ali‟ is the GDC. From a structural point of view, both YA and MH in (1) seem to be identical in FG structuring.

The paper provides a descriptive syntactic analysis of ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic in examples like (1a). ħaqq is a Semitic FG particle. It expresses or conveys the meaning of possession, something like of in English. There are two types of ħaqq in YA: one not exhibiting agreement with the head N, and another showing it. The former is used in areas like Sana‟a, Aden, Ibb, etc. and the latter in Shabwah, Hadhramout, etc. The former does not inflect for agreement features (ɸ-features), while the latter does. (It inflects for person, number and gender).

The paper goes as follows. Section 2 discusses ħaqq as a lexical item, a content word listed in Arabic dictionary. Section 3 discusses ħaqq as a genitive particle. In this section, we attempt an account of how ħaqq has been changed from being a lexical item into a genitive particle. Section 4 contrasts the YA ħaqq with the English of. This section also presents some idiomatic uses of ħaqq in FGs. And section 5 concludes the paper.

2. ħaqq as a lexical item From an etymological point of view, the term “ħaqq” is actually a lexical item, i.e. a word, specifically a noun, in Arabic. It is part of the lexical entry of Arabic, be it Standard Arabic (SA) or any other variety. It has the meaning of „right‟, „property‟, etc. These two meanings are exemplified in (2), from SA and YA, respectively:

(2) a. ħuqquuq-u l-?insaan-i right-PL.NOM the-human-GEN „Human rights‟

b. haaðaa l-bayt ħaqq-i this the-house property-my „This house is my own property.‟

The term ħuqquuq-u „rights‟ in (2a) clearly indicates the lexical meaning of ħaqq. In fact, this lexical use/identity and the meaning of ħaqq exist in all Arabic verities.

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 3 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

It could be argued that the lexical meaning „right‟ of ħaqq has something to contribute to the genetiveness use of ħaqq in FGs in YA as in (1a). This is discussed in details in the following section.

3. ħaqq as a genitive particle If we take the lexical or nominal “identity” and the meaning of the term ħaqq into account, it could be argued that meaning also contributes in making it a genitive particle. In other words, since the meaning of ħaqq is „right/belonging to‟, for example, the genitive use comes from this aspect, thus deriving the genitive “identity” from the lexical identity and its meaning as well. It should be noted here that both uses, i.e. genitive and lexical, exist in YA. However, when it is used as a genitive particle, it loses this lexical identity. Consider (3) which shows the genitive use of the terms ħaqq.3

(3) al-bayt ħaqq ʕali the-house.M.SG of Ali „Ali‟s house‟

As can be observed, ħaqq in (3) has a meaning much like „belonging to‟. For example, in (3) the meaning of the whole construct can be The house belonging to Ali. In this sense, it seems that ħaqq is grammaticalized. It is grammaticalized in the sense that it loses its lexical identity and becomes a grammatical/functional word, much like of in English.

The fact that ħaqq in its genitive use loses its nominal identity comes from the fact that: i) it cannot be modified, and ii) it cannot have the definite article al-. These two properties are exemplified in (4) and (5).

(4) a. ħaqq-un zaahir-un right manifest „A manifest right‟

b. *al-bayt ħaqq zaahir the-house Gen manifest

3 By way of comparison, unlike YA ħaqq Hebrew‟s šel can only be used as a genitive particle. That is, the Hebrew šel does not have a lexical identity like that of the Yemeni Arabic ħaqq (we return to this point below).

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 4 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

(5) a. al-ħaqq zaahir the-right manifest „The right is manifest.‟

b. *al-bayt al-ħaqq ʕali the-house the-Gen Ali

While the lexical ħaqq can be modified as in (4a) by the adjective zaahir „manifest‟, the genitive equivalent cannot be as in (4b). The same logic can also be drawn with respect to having the definite article as illustrated in (5a & b).

In Arabic modern varieties, almost each variety has its own genitive particle. For example, (MA) has dyal, (PA) tabaʕ and (EA) bitaaʕ. Each of these genitive particles means ħaqq. These are exemplified in (6).

(6) a. l-beet dyal ʕali the-house.M.SG of Ali „Ali‟s house‟

b. al-bayt tabaʕ ʕali the-house.M.SG of Ali „Ali‟s house‟

c. al-beet bitaaʕ ʕali the-house.M.SG of Ali „Ali‟s house‟

In fact, these genitive particles have been investigated in a number of studies, but only in the course of investigating free genitive constructions in both Arabic and Hebrew (i.e. no study has been devoted to the genitive particle per se, see e.g. Wright 1898: II; Harrell 1962; Cowell 1964; Al- Tonsi 1982; Fassi Fehri 1993, 1999; Benmamoun 2003; Mohammad 1999; Ritter 1988, 1991; Danon 2001, et seq; Sichel 2002, 2003; Ouhalla 2004, 2009; Bardeas 2009; Assiri 2011; Shormani 2014, 2017).

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 5 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

The last variety of Arabic we would like to exemplify here is SA. There are two genitive particles in this language/, viz. ðuu and li-, the 4 demonstrative-like element and preposition, respectively.

(7) a. rajul-un ðuu sumʕat-in hasanat-in man of reputation-GEN good-GEN „A man of a good reputation‟

b. al-kitaab-u li-ʕali-in the-book-NOM to-Ali-GEN „Ali‟s book‟

It should be noted that the demonstrative-like particle ðuu agrees with the head N in all ɸ-features. In (7a), for instance, it agrees with the head N, here rajul-un, in that both are singular, masculine and 3 person (we return to this point below).

As far as Hebrew is concerned, some authors (see e.g. Ritter 1988, 1991; Borer 1996, 1999) regard šel as a dummy element/particle, while some others consider it a preposition (see e.g. Danon 2001, et seq; Siloni 1997; Shlonsky 2004; Pereltsvaig 2006; Kremers 2003; Ouhalla 2004, 2009). The former views are also considered for the Arabic FG particle. For instance, some authors (see Harrell 1962; Fassi Fehri 1993) consider MA dyal a dummy element necessitated by the syntax, say, for Case purposes, for example.

The idea that the genitive particle is a dummy element was based on the assumption that genitive particles in some varieties of Semitics like Hebrew and MA do not show agreement with the head N of the construct and/or the genitive DP complement. This also holds true of ħaqq in some varieties of YA like Sana‟ani, Ibbi, Adeni, Taizi, etc. as illustrated in (8).5

4 Arab grammarians (see e.g. Sibawayhi 1938) hold that in SA and the demonstrative-like element ðuu and the noun coming after it constitute a Construct State (CS). Thus, in (7), for instance, ðuu and sumʕat-in constitute a CS, where ðuu is the head and sumʕat-in is the GDC (for more on CSs, see e.g. Fassi Fehri 1999; Danon 2001 et seq; Shormani 2016). 5 Note that in Sana‟ani Arabic, ħaqq is pronounced as ħagg, in which the stop uvula voiced /q/ is substituted by the stop velar voiced /g/.

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 6 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

(8) a. al-kitaab ħaqq ŧ-ŧaalib the-book.SG of the-student.SG „The student‟s book.‟

b. al-kitaab-ayn ħaqq ŧ-ŧaalib the-book.DL of the-student.SG „The student‟s (two) books.‟

c. al-kitaab ħaqq ŧ-ŧulaab the-book.SG of the-students.PL „The students‟ book.‟

d. al-kutub ħaqq ŧ-ŧaalib The-book.PL of the-student.SG „The student‟s books‟

As is clear in (8a-d), ћaqq does not show any agreement in any of the ɸ- features with either the head N or its GDC. This characteristic gives some researchers (see e.g. the ones cited above) a room to argue that the genitive particle is a dummy element. In particular, they argue that the Semitic genitive particle is necessitated by the syntax, for Case assignment purposes, as noted above (see also Kremers 2003; Ouhalla 2004, 2009).

However, some other authors argue that the genitive particle is not a dummy element, but rather a preposition (see e.g. Siloni 1997, Shlonsky 2004, Pereltsvaig 2006, 2007; Danon 2001, et seq; for Hebrew and Bardeas 2009, for Mekkan Arabic), a noun (see Mohammed 1999, for Palestinian Arabic), an adjective-like construct (see Hoyt 2008, see also Ouhalla 2004; Kremers 2009). These authors based their arguments on the assumption that the genitive particle in such exhibits agreement with the head N.6

6 There are actually several frameworks that have been adopted in analyzing FGs in Semitics the most important of which are: head movement (see .e.g. Ritter 1991), phrasal movement (see e.g. Sichel 2002, 2003; Shlonsky 2004) and Spec-to-head movement (cf. e.g. Shormani 2014).

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 7 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

However, there are some dialects of YA in which ħaqq also exhibits agreement with the head N. In Shabwani and , ħaqq exhibits agreement with the head N in gender and number as in (9).7

(9) a. al-kitaab ħaqq ŧ-ŧaalib the-book.M.SG of.M.SG the-student „The student‟s book.‟

. b. s-sayyaara ħaqqat ʕali the-car.F.SG of.F.SG Ali „Ali‟s car.‟

c. s-sayyaarat ħaqaat ʕali the-car.F.PL of.F.PL Ali „Ali‟s cars.‟

There are indeed some other in which the genitive 8 particle exhibits agreement with the head N. These varieties include, for instance, the EA bitaaʕ, PA tabaʕ and SA ðuu as shown in (10-12), from these dialects, respectively.9

(10) a. al-kitaab bitaaʕ-i the-book.M.SG of.M.SG-my „My book‟ b. s-sayyaara bitaaʕat-i the-car.F.SG of.F.SG-my „My car‟

(11) a. al-kitaab tabaʕ-i the-book.M.SG of.M.SG

7 Shabwani and Hadhrami Arabic are spoken in Shabwah and Hadhramout, two (neighbor) provinces located in the Southern East of . 8 The agreement pattern shown between the head N and ћaqq mirrors the subject-verb agreement holding between the verb and the subject in SVO order in Arabic (see e.g. Mohammad 1999; Shormani 2015). 9 Note that the demonstrative-like element ðuu in SA is marked for Case, and has three forms according to whether it is Nom, Acc, or Gen, viz. ðuu, ðaa and ðii, respectively.

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 8 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

b. s-sayyaara tabaʕat-i the-car.F.SG of.F.SG-my „My car‟ (12) a. rajulun ðuu ?aʂlin yamani man.M.SG of.M.SG origin Yemeni „A man of a Yemeni national‟

b. mar?atun ðaat jamaal-in woman.NOM.F.SG of.F.SG beauty-GEN „A beautiful woman‟

The question, however, is: does exhibiting agreement or inflecting for agreement features give the genitive particle a nominal or adjectival identity/status? The answer is actually no. Articles in French, for instance, agree with the noun in all ɸ-features, but they are still articles. Consider (13), where the definite article in French agrees with the noun in masculinity, femininity, singularity and plurality. (13) a. Le fils the.M.SG son.M.SG b. La fille the.F.SG daughter.F.SG c. Les fils/filles the.M/F..PL son M.PL/daughter.F.PL Thus, if inflecting for agreement features gives a constituent a nominal status, then definite articles in French would have been considered nouns. Based on these facts, we propose that the Semitic genitive particle, be it ħaqq (or any equivalent) in Arabic or šel in Hebrew, is just a genitive particle. It has, in other words, a particle identity, as different from any other lexical class like nouns, adjectives, prepositions, etc.

4. ħaqq vs. of So far, we have been using ħaqq in the sense of the English of. However, there are several aspects in which ħaqq can be contrasted with of. First,

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 9 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

binominal constructions in the sense of Keizer (2007) as in a fool of a doctor cannot be formed with ħaqq. Second, partitive constructions in the sense of Keizer (2007) as in one of the stories cannot be formed with ħaqq. Apposition constructions in the sense of Keizer (2007) as in the city of San Francisco are not possible genitive constructions with ħaqq as well. Constructions like the best of friends are not possible with ħaqq, The English of can also express a wide range of semantic relations between the head N and its GDC (see also Alexiadou et al. 2007). In addition, in English of-phrase can be used as a modifier or complement (see Keizer 2007, Ch. 10), but ħaqq-phrase can only be used as a complement. ħaqq constructions in YA are left-headed while those of of are not always so, because they can 10 be left-headed or right-headed.

Apart from the English of, ħaqq can express several nonpossessive relations/meanings. However, these relations/meanings require the head N and the GDC to be indefinite. These relations include, for instance, association, genericity and idiomaticity. Consider (14a) and (14b & 14c), representing association and genericity relations, respectively.

(14) a. šaxş ħaqq mašaakil man of problems „A man creating problems‟

b. sayyaara ħaqq ?aʕraas car of weddings „A car used in weddings.‟

c. qaruura ħaqq maa? bottle of water „A bottle used for water.‟

In these examples, there is no relation of possessiveness. For example, in (14a) one cannot say problems possess a man or problems’ man. The

10 Keizer (2007) discusses these issues thoroughly, but only in English and some Romance languages (see also Alexiadou et al. 2007). As stated so far, there is, unfortunately, no study in Semitic DP literature that is devoted to addressing Semitic possessive particles. We think there is a dire need to do studies in this aspect to reveal the properties of these possessive particles in more than one Semitic language/variety.

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 10 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

relation expressed in these examples can be thought of as that of association between „a man‟ and „creating problems‟, or simply a man who creates problems. In (14b), there is a relation of „genericity‟. It is not a specific car, but rather a general car. It is not, in other words, a Toyota, Hilux, or Mercedes car. This use also includes constructions like (14c).

There are several idiomatic uses of ħaqq in YA. One of these idiomatic uses can be illustrated in (15).

(15) a. šaxş ħaqq laqfuh man of mouth.his „Literal meaning: A man of his mouth‟ „Idiomatic meaning: A man who speaks a lot, but does little/nothing.„

b. haaðeh ħaqq bin haadi This.F of son Hadi „Literal meaning: This is of Ibn Hadi‟ „Idiomatic meaning: (Money as) bribe‟

Another idiomatic meaning of (15a) is: A man who only eats, but does not frighten/scare. Furthermore, in (15b) ħaqq is not used in the possessive sense. The whole expression in (15b) is a common idiom used as a „covering term‟ of „bribe‟ in YA. These idiomatic uses/meanings in which ħaqq is involved perhaps add support to the assumption that ħaqq has or can express a range of meanings other than simply conveying a possessiveness meaning or relation.

5. Conclusion Possessiveness is a universal phenomenon; it exists in all human languages. However, languages differ in how possessiveness is expressed. In Semitics, there are two structures known as Synthetic Genitives and Free Genitives (Fassi Fehri 1999; Shormani 2016, 2017). In the latter type, an analytic construction is formed with the help of a genitive particle, which associates or regulates the possessiveness relation between a head N and a GDC. This article provides a descriptive syntactic analysis of ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic, a Semitic language/variety spoken in Yemen. It describes the cases in which ħaqq has a lexical identity and those where it is a genitive particle. As for

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 11 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

the latter, the article provides evidence that when ħaqq is used as a genitive particle it loses its lexical identity; it is, in other words, grammaticalized. The process of grammaticalization of ħaqq makes it lose its lexical identity, and becomes a particle. There are two types of ħaqq in YA, viz. one not inflecting for agreement features and the other inflecting for these features. The article has some implications the most important of which is that this property of ħaqq clearly adds support to Universal Grammar (UG) parameterization in human languages. It also illustrates that UG parameterization is not only interlingual, but also intralingual. The former exists in-between languages, and the latter within the same language/variety.

References Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. and Stavrou, M. 2007. Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Al-Tonsi, A. 1982. Egyptian Colloquial Arabic: A Structure Review. Cairo: American University, Egypt. Assiri, A. 2011. Arabic Adjectival Phrases: An Agree-based Approach. Memorial University of Newfoundland, available at: www.mun.ca/arts/research/publications/arts.../enewsletter_11_2011.pd. Bardeas, S. 2009. The Syntax of the Arabic DPs. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of York. Benmamoun, E. 2003. Agreement Parallelism between Sentences and Noun Phrases: A Historical Sketch. Lingua 113, 8, 747-764. Borer, H. 1996. The Construct in Review. In Lecarme, ., Lowenstamm, J. and Shlonsky, U. (eds.), Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar. Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague, 30–61. Borer, H. 1999. Deconstructing the Construct. In Johnson, K. & Roberts, I. (eds.), Beyond Principles and Parameters: Essays in Memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 43–89. Cowell, M. 1964. A Reference Grammar of Syrian Arabic. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Danon, G. 2001. Syntactic Definiteness in the Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Linguistics 39, 6, 1071-1116. Danon, G. 2002. Case and Formal Definiteness: the Licensing of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases in Hebrew‟, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University.

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 12 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

Danon, G. 2008. Definiteness Spreading in the Hebrew Construct State. Lingua 118, 872–906. Danon, G. 2011. Agreement and DP-Internal Feature Distribution. Syntax 14, 4, 297–317. Fassi Fehri, A. 1993. Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Fassi Fehri, A. 1999. Arabic Modifying Adjectives and DP Structures. Studia Linguitica 53, 105-1542. Harrell, R. 1962. A Short Reference Grammar of Moroccan Arabic. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Hoyt, F. 2008. The Arabic Noun Phrase. The Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics Brill 2-3. Keizer, E. 2007. The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kremers, J. 2003. The Arabic Noun Phrase. Netherlands: LOT. Kremers, J. 2009. Recursive Linearization. The Linguistic Review 26, 135– 166. Mohammad, M. 1999. Checking and Licensing inside DP in Palestinian Arabic. In Benmamoun, E. (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XIII Papers from the Twelfth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 27-44. Ouhalla, J. 2004. Semitic Relatives. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 288-300. Ouhalla, J. 2009. Variation and Change in Possessive Noun Phrases: The Evolution of the Analytic Type and Loss of the Synthetic Type. Brill’s Annual of and Linguistics 1, 311–337. Pereltsvaig, A. 2006. Head Movement in Hebrew Nominals: A Reply to Shlonsky. Lingua 116, A1–A40. Pereltsvaig, A. 2007. The Universality of DP: A View from Russian. Studia Linguistica, 61, 59-94. Ritter, E. 1988. A Head-Movement Approach to Construct State Noun Phrases. Linguistics 26: 909–929. Ritter, E. 1991. Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing. (Syntax and Semantics, 25.), London: Academic Press 25, 37–62. Shlonsky, U. 2004. The Form of Semitic Noun Phrases. Lingua 114, 1465– 1526.

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 13 A note on ħaqq in Yemeni Arabic … Qarabesh & Shormani

Shormani, M. 2014. Clitic Semitic Construct State. A Minimalist N-to-Spec Approach. Al-Qalam Journal 2, 1-47. Shormani, M. 2015. Is Standard Arabic a VSO Language? Evidence from Syntax and Semantics. Al-Qalam Journal 3, 1-49. Shormani, M. 2016. Are Noun Phrases Phases? Evidence from Semitic Construct State. International Journal of Arabic Linguistics 2, 96-132. Shormani, M. 2017. (In)definiteness Spread in Semitic Construct State: Does it Really Exist? Linguistik Online 80, 125-159. Sibawayhi, Amru ben Othman (796). 1938. Al-Kitaab. Cairo: Buulaaq. Sichel, I. 2002. Phrasal Movement in Hebrew Adjectives and Possessives. In Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. and Gärtner, H. (eds.), Remnant Movement, Feature Movement and the T-Model. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 297–339. Sichel, I. 2003. Phrasal Movement in Hebrew DPs. In Lecarme, J. (ed.), Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 447– 479. Siloni, T. 1991. Noun Raising and the Structure of Noun Phrases. In Bobaljik, J. and Bures, T. (eds.), Papers from the Third Student Conference in Linguistics. MITWPL 14, 255–270. Siloni, T. 1997. Noun Phrases and Nominalizations. The Syntax of DPs. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Wright, W. 1898. A Grammar of the Arabic Language, Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Issue(11)-( July-December 2018) Al-Qalam Journal (Semiannual-peer-reviewed( 14