Functional structure in the noun phrase: revisiting Hebrew nominals

What it is about

Bruening and colleagues argue that the outermost layer of a nominal is projected by the noun itself, with no functional structure above it. Preminger returns to Ritter's (1991) Hebrew data, in which a noun such as nicaxon ("victory") in the construct state takes an external argument and an internal argument PP, in NSO order ("the victory of the party over its rivals"). He shows that the noun is not deverbal (the template CiCaCon is not a deverbal one, and the internal PP uses a preposition chosen by the noun), so the object marker et cannot appear, which is evidence against verbal structure. Three analyses are tested: head movement of N, base-generation in n, and phrasal (remnant) fronting. The first two need a head above NP. The third overgenerates NOS orders, which are impossible in the construct state (example 11b), and it needs an NP adjoined to an NP. The conclusion is that a functional head above the noun exists.

Ideas

I1. Use the object marker et as a diagnostic in the lexicon: an internal argument with et means verbal structure; a noun whose argument is a PP with a noun-selected preposition is nominal. Add this as a feature on nouns in the Hebrew lexicon, not as a rule about word order.
I2. Negative test sentences for any NSO/NOS rule in the parser: the construct-state NOS order must be rejected (the paper's example "*nic(a)xon al yerive-ha ha-miflaga"), and the non-construct-state NOS order must be accepted with a mark of doubtful grammaticality.
I3. Keep cs and ncs (construct vs non-construct state) as separate morphological features on Hebrew nouns, since the word-order options differ between them.

For Mova

I1 goes into Nouns, adjectives, pronouns and numerals (the et diagnostic and noun-selected prepositions) and Prepositions, prefixes, conjunctions and particles. I2 is a test for the word-order rules in 7. Syntax and the parser output for tools/hbo when it reaches construct-state nouns. I3 is a feature in Nouns, adjectives, pronouns and numerals and the UD analysis in 11. Modern Hebrew in Universal Dependencies. The paper is short; these are the only parts that can be used now.

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.5334/gjgl.1244

@article{preminger2020functional,
  title = {{Functional structure in the noun phrase: revisiting Hebrew nominals}},
  author = {Preminger, Omer},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2020},
  doi = {10.5334/gjgl.1244},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1244}
}

References

14 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut Doctoral dissertation. find
Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English noun-phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Doctoral dissertation. find
Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax (Studies in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 63). Dordrecht: Springer. find
Bruening, Benjamin. 2009. Selectional asymmetries between CP and DP suggest that the DP Hypothesis is wrong. In Laurel MacKenzie (ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd Penn Linguistics Colloquium(PLC 32), vol. 15 (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 1), 26–35. Philadelphia, PA: Penn Linguistics Club. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol15/iss1/5/. ↗
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4). 519–562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00012 ↗
Bruening, Benjamin. 2020. The head of the nominal is N, not D: N-to-D movement, hybrid agreement, and conventionalized expressions. Glossa 5(1). 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1031 Bruening, Benjamin, Xuyen Dinh & Lan Kim. 2018. Selection, idioms, and the structure of nominal phrases with and without classifiers. Glossa 3(1). 42. DOI: https://doi. org/10.5334/gjgl.288 Danon, Gabi. 2011. Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax 14(4). 297– 317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00154.x ↗
Engelhardt, Miriam. 2000. The projection of argument-taking n ominals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18(1). 41–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006462323394 ↗
Georgi, Doreen & Gereon Muller. 2010. Noun-phrase structure by reprojection. Syntax 13(1). 1–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00132.x ↗
Landau, Idan. 2006. Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Syntax 9(1). 32–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00084.x ↗
Merchant, Jason. 2019. Roots don’t select, categorial heads do: Lexical-selection of PPsmay vary by category. The LinguisticReview 36(3). 325–341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ tlr-2019-2020 Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Susan D. Rothstein (ed.), Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing, 37–62. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373198_004 ↗
Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua 114(12). 1465–1526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.019 ↗
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3. 89–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1983.3.1.89 ↗
How to cite this article: Preminger, Omer. 2020. Functional structure in the noun phrase: revisiting Hebrew nominals. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1): 68. 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1244 ↗ our card
Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. ↗

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2020-preminger-functional-structure-noun-phrase-revisiting/