Hebrew nominals do not require functional structure above the NP

What it is about

The common view, from Ritter (1991) on, is that Hebrew nominals need functional projections such as DP and NumP above the lexical NP. The argument rests on word order in construct-state nouns with a PP argument and a possessor-like subject, the order N–S–O (noun, subject, object) that no base structure with the NP alone can produce. Bruening accepts that the attested order cannot be base-generated, but proposes an endocentric derivation: the NP starts with the PP inside it, and the PP moves rightward to a position still inside the NP, so the maximal projection is a projection of N. He applies this to underived and deverbal nouns, and revisits binding and scope facts that were used to argue for functional structure, showing they do not force it. The study is a reanalysis of published data and does not cover all Hebrew nominal facts.

Ideas

• I1. Treat a construct-state noun with a PP argument as a single endocentric NP in the analysis: the PP is a right-side dependent of the head noun in UD (nmod/obl on N), not a sign of a higher functional head. Write this as the default for he nouns in the tree conventions.
• I2. A parser test: in construct chains like nicaxon ha-miflaga al yerivehā ("the victory of the party over its rivals"), the PP must attach to the head noun, not to the possessor. Put the Preminger/Bruening examples in a small gold set for gparse on he.
• I3. Check the deverbal cases (Bruening's section 2 with derived nouns) against the treebanks/he trees: how often does a PP follow a construct possessor, and does the head noun carry it?

For Mova

I1 goes into Nouns, adjectives, pronouns and numerals (construct state) and The Noun, the Adjective and the Numeral if the same chains occur in Biblical Hebrew. I2 is a test for gparse on he once Modern Hebrew parsing starts (12. Mova and Modern Hebrew: where it stands, what it would need). I3 is a measurement on treebanks/he, feeding 7. Syntax.

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.16995/glossa.5763

@article{bruening2022hebrew,
  title = {{Hebrew nominals do not require functional structure above the NP}},
  author = {Bruening, Benjamin},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2022},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.5763},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5763}
}

References

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

1. Abels, Klaus & Neeleman, Ad. 2012. Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax 15. 25–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00163.x ↗
2. Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. Agreement asymmetries and the PF interface. In Lecarme, Jacqueline & Lowenstamm, Jean & Shlonsky, Ur (eds.), Research in afroasiatic grammar, 23–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.202.02ben ↗
3. Berwick, Robert C. & Chomsky, Noam. 2011. Biolinguistics: The current state of its evolution and development. In Di Sciullo, Anna Maria & Boecx, Cedric (eds.), Biolinguistic investigations, 19–41. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. find
4. Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Wurmbrand, Susi. 2012. Word order and scope: Transparent interfaces and the 3/4 signature. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 371–421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ LING_a_00094 ↗
5. Borer, Hagit (ed.). 1984. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110808506 ↗
6. Borer, Hagit. 1999. Deconstructing the construct. In Johnson, Kyle & Roberts, Ian (eds.), Beyond principles and parameters, 43–89. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4822-1_3 ↗
7. Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring sense: Volume III: Taking form. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263936.001.0001 ↗
8. Bruening, Benjamin. 2009. Selectional asymmetries between CP and DP suggest that the DP Hypothesis is wrong. In MacKenzie, Laurel (ed.), U. Penn working papers in linguistics 15.1: Proceedings of the 32nd annual Penn linguistics colloquium. 26–35. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics. Available at http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/ vol15/iss1/. ↗
9. Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 287–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.287 ↗
10. Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16. 1–41. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00171.x ↗
11. Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Precede-and-command revisited. Language 90. 342–388. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0037 ↗
12. Bruening, Benjamin. 2018a. CPs move rightward, not leftward. Syntax 21. 362–401. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1111/synt.12164 ↗
13. Bruening, Benjamin. 2018b. Word formation is syntactic: Raising in nominalizations. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3. 102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.470 ↗
14. Bruening, Benjamin. 2020. The head of the nominal is N, not D: N-to-D movement, hybrid agreement, and conventionalized expressions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1). 15. 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1031 ↗
15. Bruening, Benjamin & Al Khalaf, Eman. 2020. Category mismatches in coordination revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 51. 1–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00336 ↗
16. Bruening, Benjamin & Dinh, Xuyen & Kim, Lan. 2018. Selection, idioms, and the structure of nominal phrases with and without classifiers. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3. 1–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.288 ↗
17. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
18. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger & Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
19. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 315–332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396917 ↗
20. Danon, Gabi. 2013. Agreement alternations with quantified nominals in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics 49. 55–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000333 ↗
21. Dryer, Matthew S. 2018. On the order of demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun. Language 94. 798–833. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0054 ↗
22. Fox, Danny & Nissenbaum, Jon. 1999. Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. In Bird, Sonya & Carnie, Andrew & Haugen, Jason D. & Norquest, Peter (eds.), Wccfl 18: Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 132–144. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. find
23. Fox, Danny & Pesetsky, David. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31. 1–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.1 ↗
24. Hazout, Ilan. 1991. Verbal nouns: Theta theoretic studies in Hebrew and Arabic: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation. find
25. Hazout, Ilan. 1995. Action nominalizations and the lexicalist hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 355–404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992736 ↗
26. Idsardi, William & Raimy, Eric. 2013. Three types of linearization and the temporal aspects of speech. In Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian (eds.), Challenges to linearization (Studies in Generative Grammar [SGG]), 31–56. De Gruyter. https://books.google.com/books?id=KzIB7ATjkSUC. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512431.31 ↗
27. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
28. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, John & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 ↗
29. Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope: Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and grammar, 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_8 ↗
30. Larson, Richard K. 2020. The DP Hypothesis and (a)symmetries between DP and CP. Linguistic Analysis 42. find
31. Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7. 79–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008376601708 ↗
32. 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
33. Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20. 335–397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005349801431 ↗
34. Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3846.001.0001 ↗
35. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Rothstein, Susan D. (ed.), Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing, vol. 25 (Syntax and Semantics), 37–62. New York: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373198_004 ↗
36. Salzmann, Martin. 2020. The NP vs. DP debate. why previous arguments are inconclusive and what a good argument could look like. evidence from agreement with hybrid nouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1). 83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1123 ↗
37. Shlonsky, Ur. 1988. Government and binding in Hebrew nominals. Linguistics 26. 951–976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1988.26.6.951 ↗
38. Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua 114. 1465–1526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.019 ↗
39. Sichel, Ivy. 2001. Studies in the syntax of pronouns and features: City University of New York dissertation. find
40. Sichel, Ivy. 2003. Phrasal movement in Hebrew DPs. In Lecarme, Jacqueline (ed.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar II: Selected papers from the fifth conference on Afroasiatic languages, paris, 2000, 447–479. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ cilt.241.21sic Siloni, Tal. 1996. Hebrew noun phrases: Generalized noun raising. In Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), Parameters and functional heads, 239–267. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ↗
41. Siloni, Tal. 1997. Noun phrases and nominalizations. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8863-8 ↗
42. Siloni, Tal. 2001. Construct states at the PF interface. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1. 229–266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.1.10sil ↗
43. Siloni, Tal. 2002. Adjectival constructs and inalienable constructions. In Ouhalla, Jamal & Shlonsky, Ur (eds.), Themes in Arabic and Hebrew syntax, 161–187. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0351-3_6 ↗
44. Siloni, Tal & Preminger, Omer. 2009. Nominal voices. In Giannakidou, Anastasia & Rathert, Monika (eds.), Quantification, definiteness, and nominalization, 365–385. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2022-bruening-hebrew-nominals-do-not-require/