Deconstructing the Construct

Borer, Hagit

doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4822-1_3

Cited by 107 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Assuming (but see Bernstein, 1992Bernstein, , 1993Bernstein, , 1997, the construct adjectives discussed in Fassi-Fehri, 1999, in Borer, 1999aand, in greater detail, in Hazout, 2000and Siloni, 1991 that not only adjectives, but demonstratives, Brugé and Giusti (1996), and numerals are configured as specifiers, (37) is a plausible working hypothesis for the unique universal base order, realized in the S-structures of English-type NPs, where no overt movement has taken place.…”

Section: Phrasal Movement As Massive Pied Pipingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The following works are but a sample: Borer (1993Borer ( , 1996Borer ( , 1999a, Engelhardt (2000), Fassi-Fehri (1993), Hazout (1991Hazout ( , 1995, Ouhalla (1988Ouhalla ( , 1991 and Siloni (1991Siloni ( , 1996Siloni ( , 1997. The theoretical issues that lie at the center of the discussion revolve around the categorial derivation of these nominal expressions.…”

Section: The Construct State In Event Nominalizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The form of Semitic noun phrases

Shlonsky

2004

Lingua

252

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I propose a phrasal-movement analysis of word order in Hebrew and Arabic noun phrases. I argue that the positioning of nominal modifiers with respect to the head of simple nouns cannot be adequately handled by an N-raising derivation. This is so because nouns fail to move as heads in the grammars of Hebrew and Arabic. The only heads that seem to be able to move are those which do not assign genitive case. When modifiers (adjectives, numerals, demonstratives, etc.) appear to the right of the noun, it is the noun phrase itself which has raised to the left of the modifier, moving from specifier to specifier and pied piping all the material on its right. In this manner, inverse or mirror image ordering of post-nominal material is accounted for.Some modifiers have the option of appearing pre-nominally as well as post-nominally. I argue that these elements can be merged either as heads governing their complement and assigning genitive case to their sister or to the specifier of their sister, or as specifiers of projections containing a phonetically null head. In the former case, the modifier's sister is frozen in position, being licensed by genitive case. In the latter case, XP-movement of the sister of the null head is triggered, and agreement or concord is manifested on the modifier. I develop a configurational theory of agreement, which accounts for these phenomena. Many of the signature properties of the Semitic Construct-state fall out from the phrasal movement analysis.Finally, action nominalizations are dealt with. I provide arguments for a syntactic derivation in which a VP is associated with a nominalizing head configured in the clausal hierarchy as a functional head. I show that the position of the nominalizing head is above certain aspectual projections and lower than others. This explains why some adverbials, but not others, may occur inside a derived nominal. #

show abstract

Section: Phrasal Movement As Massive Pied Pipingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Construct State In Event Nominalizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The form of Semitic noun phrases

Shlonsky

2004

Lingua

252

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11 A similar analysis is proposed in Borer (1999), though definiteness is not taken to be an indication of the presence of D in the structure: it is base-generated in the NP. Most later studies adopted Borer's proposal.…”

Section: The Construct Statementioning

confidence: 93%

Exponence, allomorphy and haplology in the number and State morphology of Modern Hebrew

Faust

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an account of the regularities of plural exponence in Modern Hebrew. There are two genders in Modern Hebrew, each with its specific plural marker. Nouns can appear in the Construct or Free states, and the State of a noun also has an effect on the plural marking, though only in the case of masculine nouns. Finally, in nouns with possessive suffixes and in newly-formed dual nouns, plural number seems to be marked twice in the feminine noun, but only once in the masculine noun. The analysis first formalizes the distribution of the plural allomorphs of gender and State in the language using the Vocabulary Items of Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993). It is then claimed that the morpho-syntactic structures of N+possessive and of new duals involve two number projections, and therefore two plural exponents are expected in both constructions. However, in the masculine case the vocabulary Items provided in the paper result in the repetition of two overly similar exponents, creating an OCP violation. The repair is to delete one of the two, and so the double marking does not survive in the phonetic form. In the feminine case the two markers are not similar, and so there is no OCP violation, and double marking is surface-true.

show abstract

“…The main stress is shifted from the head noun in the CS to the genitive noun in the CS phrase (see Al Barrag, 2014 among many others; Al Sharifi & Sadler, 2009;Borer, 1999;Hazout, 2000;Kremers, 2005;Owens, 2006). It is the same semantically.…”

Section: Construct State or Free Statementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Semitic languages (Al Barrag, 2014;Aoun, 1978;Bardeas, 2010;Borer, 1999;Fassi Fehri, 1993;Mohammad, 1999;Ritter, 1987;1988;Shlonsky, 2004;Siloni, 1997).…”

Section: Da Vid Publishing Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Free State Constructions

Barrag¹,

Zahrani²

2017

SUET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper attempts to investigate Free State (FS) in Hijazi Arabic. This structure is not used in Modern Standard Arabic. It was introduced into the Arabic dialects later on as a competing structure to the Construct State (CS). First, we discuss the characteristics of this structure in comparison to its counterpart: the CS. we show that semantically FS can express only three semantic relations out of the five semantic relations CS can convey. Furthermore, the paper shows that the FS genitive exponent in HA "ħagg" agrees with the head noun of the matrix DP in phi-features. The discussion then shifts to the origin of the genitive exponent ħagg. The paper argues that it is originally a noun that has acquired a new meaning: an anaphor that means something like "one of". Hence, we gloss ħagg as ANAPH. Contrary to previous analyses for the FS genitive exponent, the paper proposes that ħagg, the noun, heads its own CS and it is linked to the preceding DP by a binding relationship, which involves feature agreement in gender and number. Consequently, we propose that ħagg-headed CS has the same structure of the nominal CS. Finally, we investigate the occurrence of both FS and CS structures in HA and show when one structure is preferred to the other.

show abstract

Deconstructing the Construct

Cited by 107 publications

References 8 publications

The form of Semitic noun phrases

The form of Semitic noun phrases

Exponence, allomorphy and haplology in the number and State morphology of Modern Hebrew

Free State Constructions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About