Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T02:23:23.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agreement alternations with quantified nominals in Modern Hebrew1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2012

GABI DANON
GABI DANON*
Affiliation:
Bar Ilan University
*
Author's address: Department of English, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cross-linguistically, quantified noun phrases (QNPs) trigger one of four agreement patterns: with the quantifier, with the noun, default agreement, or semantic agreement. This paper focuses on agreement alternations in Hebrew, and argues that they follow not from variations in hierarchical structure but from the availability of multiple means of assigning values to the QNP's features. Building upon the index-concord analysis of Wechsler & Zlatić (2003) and adapting it to the Minimalist framework, it is argued that certain agreement patterns are the result of the quantifier bearing a set of abstract features that do not match its morphologically-triggered ones. Variations in QNP agreement patterns are then argued to be subject to constraints at the interfaces of syntax with both semantics and morphology. Overall, it is claimed that even apparent cases of non-local agreement with non-nominative NPs do not really pose a counterexample to established models of agreement, and that this supports the view that the system of ϕ-features cannot be simply an unstructured bundle of morphological features.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 55 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No. 853/11). I am also very grateful to three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for their valuable comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are of course my own.The following abbreviations are used in example glosses in this article: 1 = first person; 3 = third person; aux = auxiliary; def = definite; f = feminine; fut = future; gen = genitive; hab = habitual; impf = imperfective; indef = indefinite; m = masculine; n = neuter; neg = negation; nom = nominative; om = object marker; p = plural; pprt = past participle; s = singular.

References

REFERENCES

Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana. 2008. Conditions on phi-agree. In Harbour, et al. (eds.), 130–154.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1999. The syntax of quantifiers and quantifier float. Linguistic Inquiry 30.4, 621–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where's phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Harbour, et al. (eds.), 295–328.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1999. Deconstructing the construct. In Johnson, Kyle & Roberts, Ian (eds.), Beyond principles and parameters, 43–89. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2006. Case and agreement with genitive of quantification in Russian. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Agreement systems, 99–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danon, Gabi. 1998. Two syntactic positions for determiners in Hebrew. In Wyner, Adam Zachary (ed.), IATL 13, 55–73. [The Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics]Google Scholar
Danon, Gabi. 2011. Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax 14.4, 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danon, Gabi. In press. Two structures for numeral-noun constructions. Lingua, doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.07.003. Published online by Elsevier, 24 August 2012.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, Urtzi & Etxepare, Ricardo. 2008. Number agreement with weak quantifiers in Basque. In Abner, Natasha & Bishop, Jason (eds.), The 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 27), 159–167. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, Urtzi & Etxepare, Ricardo. 2012. Number agreement in Basque. In Etxeberria, Urtzi, Etxepare, Ricardo & Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam (eds.), Noun phrases and nominalization in Basque. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frampton, John & Gutmann, Sam. 2006. How sentences grow in the mind: Agreement and selection in an efficient minimalist syntax. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Agreement systems, 121–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12.4, 597–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel, David, Adger & Susana, Béjar (eds.). 2008. Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78.3, 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1999. Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. In Levine, Robert D. & Green, Georgia M. (eds.), Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar, 223–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway & Dalrymple, Mary. 2004. Determiner agreement and noun conjunction. Journal of Linguistics 40, 69–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, Fred. 2004. Indefinites and the type of sets. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeTourneau, Mark S. 1995. Internal and external agreement in quantified construct states. In Mushira, Eid (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics VII, 29–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittendorf, Ingo & Sadler, Louisa. 2005. Numerals, nouns and number in Welsh NPs. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG'05, 294–312. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006. Small nominals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24.2, 433–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007. The universality of DP: A view from Russian. Studia Linguistica 61.1, 59–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida & Wilkins, Wendy K. (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Syntax and Semantics 25, 37–62.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2009. Individuating and measure readings of classifier constructions: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Brill Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1, 106–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas & Akmajian, Adrian (eds.), Formal syntax, 285–316. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1991. Quantifiers as functional heads: A study of quantifier float in Hebrew. Lingua 84, 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua 114.12, 1465–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siloni, Tal. 1997. Noun phrases and nominalizations: The syntax of DPs. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siloni, Tal. 2001. Construct states at the PF interface. In Pica, Pierre & Rooryck, Johan (eds.), Linguistic variation yearbook, vol. 1, 229–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2009. Agreement features. Language and Linguistics Compass 3.1, 384–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2011. Mixed agreement, the person feature, and the index/concord distinction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29.4, 999–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen & Zlatić, Larisa. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language 76.4, 799–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen & Zlatić, Larisa. 2003. The many faces of agreement. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar