Issues in word order

This work provides facts about word order in this language. In addition to listing the permissible word orders in matrix clauses and simple Wh-questions, I also document the semantic changes which result from the variation in word order. These facts of word order are analyzed within the Minimalist Program. Throughout this work I support the concept of no optionality and that movement has to be well-motivated. I propose that overt movement is not only morphologically motivated, as claimed in the Minimalist Program, but it is also semantically motivated. Such a proposal better accounts for the word order facts, both structural and semantic. In this proposal, I do not have to resort to optionality to explain the variation in word order. I look at the semantic difference between SV and VS word orders. In the SV order, an entity is chosen and a statement is given about it; in VS order, an event is displayed which has an entity that takes part in it. This variation in word order reflects the thetic/categorical distinction. In these word order, the verb raises overtly to the functional heads: T and AGR. This is an example of an overt movement which is morphologically driven. The subject in preverbal position in Gulf Arabic has to be information that is previously given in the discourse while if the subject is in postverbal position, it could either be new or given. Hence, I propose that the subject raises to be topicalized. Overt movement of the subject is not motivated by morphology but by semantics. Accordingly, Case and nominal agreement features are considered weak and they do not motivate the subject to move overtly. In Gulf Arabic, argumental Wh-phrases can be both fronted and left in-situ. I propose that the fronted argumental Wh-phrases raise to (Spec,CP) to be focused. Focus movement is an example of a semantically driven movement. Adjunct Wh-phrases in Gulf Arabic are base-generated in (Spec,CP)