Head movement in Hebrew nominals: A reply to Shlonsky

Pereltsvaig, Asya

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2005.11.001

Cited by 29 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In many languages, adjectives and other DP‐internal constituents agree with N in φ‐features. However, agreement in definiteness is much rarer, found primarily in Amharic and fellow Semitic languages Arabic and Hebrew (Shlonsky 2004, Pereltsvaig 2006, see also ) 30 . Definiteness agreement does not involve φ‐features, and the definiteness feature does not necessarily originate on the noun.…”

Section: The Analysis Of Definite Marking: Definiteness Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relevant analyses include Fassi Fehri 1999, Wintner 2000, Shlonsky 2004, and Pereltsvaig 2006, 36 and they almost uniformly assume the noun and adjective have definiteness features that correspond morphologically to definite markers. The features on the adjective are then licensed through a structural relationship with the noun or NP.…”

Section: The Analysis Of Definite Marking: Definiteness Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Amharic Definite Marker and the Syntax-Morphology Interface

Kramer¹

2010

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The definite marker in Amharic has an unusually complex pattern of distribution—its position varies depending on whether the DP contains an adjective, a relative clause, multiple adjuncts, a demonstrative, or just a noun. In this paper, a minimalist/Distributed Morphology analysis of the definite marker is developed based on the idea that the definite marker is the realization of D when it is obligatory, and the reflex of a definiteness agreement process when it is optional. Evidence is presented that D undergoes the morphological operation Local Dislocation (Embick & Noyer 2001) in Amharic, and that Local Dislocation is subject to the Phase Impenetrability Condition—the definite marker cannot attach within a phase that has been previously spelled out. Definiteness agreement, however, does not seem to respect phase impenetrability, which leads to the suggestion that phase impenetrability is only relevant after Linearization. From a broader perspective, the paper explores the effect of minimalist assumptions about syntactic cyclicity (cyclic spell‐out by phase, phase impenetrability) on the cyclicity of morphological operations.

show abstract

Section: The Analysis Of Definite Marking: Definiteness Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Analysis Of Definite Marking: Definiteness Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Amharic Definite Marker and the Syntax-Morphology Interface

Kramer¹

2010

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(7) ti -lli -k'-u t'i -k'ur(-u) bet big-def black(-def) house "the big black house" (Kramer, 2010, p. 229) (8) ti -nni -∫ -wa k'äyy(-wa) mäkina small-def.f red(-def.f) car "the small red car" (Kramer, 2010, p. 230) Kramer (2010) argues that the first suffix in both (7) and (8) is in fact the syntactic determiner in Amharic; the suffix on the second adjective (which is optional) is definiteness agreement. Definiteness concord or agreement has been documented and extensively studied in Semitic languages (on Hebrew: Wintner, 2000;Shlonsky, 2004;Pereltsvaig, 2006, on Arabic: Fassi Fehri, 1999, and Germanic (see Roehrs, 2015, and references there). In Germanic, the relationship between the so-called weak inflection and definiteness is not clear in several languages (Roehrs, 2015;Harbert, 2007).…”

Section: The Features Involved In Concordmentioning

confidence: 99%

Description and analyses of nominal concord (Pt I)

Norris

2017

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the current understanding of what has been called nominal concord, whereby modifiers of a noun match certain features of the noun (e.g., gender, number, or case features). Part I discusses the existing understanding of concord, remaining as descriptive as possible. Concord has been argued to involve gender, number, case, and definiteness, and nearly every word class that can be present inside nominal phrases is capable of showing concord. I consider some questions concerning the typology of concord, which is largely uncharted territory. Part II focuses on existing formal analyses of concord. Analyses of ϕ‐feature concord are rather varied, but analyses of case concord more or less converge on the same mechanism. Finally, I consider the insight offered by analyses of cases of mixed concord, where modifiers do not all match each other or the head noun in features or feature values.

show abstract

“…As is well‐known (cf. Sadler & Arnold 1994, Pereltsvaig 2006c), in languages with overt articles, such as English or Hebrew, light and heavy adjectival modifiers behave differently: for example, in English only light ones can appear prenominally, whereas in Hebrew only light ones occur postnominally and mirroring the order of prenominal adjectival modifiers in English. Under the Universal‐DP Hypothesis, we expect a similar split between light and heavy adjectival modifiers to occur in languages without overt articles.…”

Section: Questions Asked and Answers Foreshadowedmentioning

confidence: 99%

The universality of DP: A view from Russian*

Pereltsvaig¹

2007

Studia Linguistica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues in favor of the Universal-DP Hypothesis, namely the view that the structure of noun phrases is universal, regardless of the presence/ absence of overt articles in a language. In particular, it is claimed that the Universal-DP Hypothesis makes better predictions for Russian (an articleless language) than its alternative, the Parameterized-DP Hypothesis. First, it is shown that adjectives in Russian are as rigidly ordered as they are in English, suggesting their placement in ordered functional projections rather than by free adjunction. Second, it is shown that ÔlightÕ and ÔheavyÕ adjectives behave differently in Russian, as well as in languages with overt articles, suggesting head-vs. phrasal status, rather than uniform phrasal adjunction. Third, the so-called Ôpre-modifiersÕ (i.e., numerals, demonstratives and possessives) are argued to be hosted by functional projections, different from those hosting adjectives. Overall, it is argued that the absence of overt articles in Russian does not affect the syntax of other prenominal elements in any major way.

show abstract

Head movement in Hebrew nominals: A reply to Shlonsky

Cited by 29 publications

References 36 publications

The Amharic Definite Marker and the Syntax-Morphology Interface

The Amharic Definite Marker and the Syntax-Morphology Interface

Description and analyses of nominal concord (Pt I)

The universality of DP: A view from Russian*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About