CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE*
TAL SILONI
Tel-Aviv University
The paper claims that the Semitic Construct state defines a prosodic domain of
Case checking. It has been common lore in generative grammar that the domain
of Case checking is a syntactic one. In concert with recent proposals, I argue that
Case can also be checked at PF; the domain of Case checking is then defined in
prosodic terms. The properties of constructs follow straightforwardly. The
treatment extends naturally to nonnominal constructs, which, in turn, provide
additional evidence in favor of the prosodic analysis. A morphological parameter
derives the difference between languages allowing construct states and those
which do not. Finally, contra standard assumption I show that there is no
indefiniteness spread in construct states but only definiteness spread.
1. The Phonological Puzzle
1.1 Background
Nominal construct states have been the focus of much research on Semitic
languages.1 They are head-initial structures comprising a head noun and a noun
phrase. Standard Arabic marks the noun phrase with genitive Case (Hebrew, by
and large, does not show morphological Case). Indeed, the scope of relationships
between the members of the Semitic construct covers the spectrum of semantic
roles typically attributed by a noun to its genitive complement: Agent, Patient, or
Possessor. I will often refer to the nonhead member of the construct as the
genitive member.
Construct states can also be headed by categories other than nouns. In Siloni
(1998,2000) light is thrown on the crosscategorial nature of the phenomenon,
*
For helpful comments and suggestions, I would like to thank Outi Bat-El, Gabi Danon, MarcAriel Friedemann, Alex Grosu, Jacqueline Guéron, Julia Horvath, Idan Landau, Chuck
Kisseberth, an anonymous reviewer and the audiences at the fifth Conference on Afroasiatic
Languages (Paris 7, 2000), The Noun Phrase Workshop (Tilburg, 2000), and the Research
Colloquium at Tel-Aviv University (2000).
1
See Benmamoun (1998,2000), Borer (1984, 1996, 1999), Cinque (2000), Danon (1996),
Dobrovie-Sorin (2001), Fassi Fehri (1989,1993), Hazout (1991), Kihm (1999), Mohammad
(1988, 1998), Ritter (1988, 1991), Sadock (2000), Shlonsky (1990, 2000), Sichel (2000), Siloni
(1991, 1997).
2
TAL SILONI
which, it is argued, is typical of heads that do not bear a tense specification. The
analysis proposed here applies straightforwardly to nominal as well as
nononminal constructs. For the sake of presentation, the paper first centers on
nominal constructs. In section 5 their nonnominal equivalents are briefly
discussed, with particular attention to the evidence they provide in favor of the
analysis proposed here.
A characterizing property of constructs is their phonological cohesion, which
has already provoked interest in traditional grammars. Gesenius' (1910) grammar
of Biblical Hebrew, for example, describes the construct state as a "phonetic and
rhytmical" phenomenon, and the relation between its members as "...a close
connection (or interdependence) of the nomen regens and the nomen rectum"
(§89). Gray (1934) observes that a noun in the construct loses “its own accent,
becoming proclitic” that has “only a secondary accent” (§77). Let me first
concentrate on the phonological facet; the other properties of the construct
(concisely summarized in (13), section 3) will unfold in the course of the paper,
and be accounted for straightforwardly once the phonological puzzle is
understood.
The head of the construct does not bear main stress. Main stress (is shifted
forward and) falls on the nonhead member. The head is a stressless weak form
phonologically dependent on the nonnhead member. Indeed, Hebrew grammars
label the head supportee and the nonhead supporter. Loss of stress may cause
further phonological changes parallel to reduction phenomena applying within
words due to stress shifting caused by suffixation. To some extent loss of stress
affects the consonant composition of the head but more often its vocalization. For
example, the original /t/ of the feminine ending is retained in the construct
(nonstressed) form, giving rise to the form yaldat ('girl'), while the nonconstruct
form referred to as the free or absolute form is yalda ('girl'). An initial vowel /a/ is
reduced to schwa when nonadjacent to stress, as in pakid resulting in pkid
('clerk').2 As mentioned, similar reduction phenomena arise when a (plural or
pronominal) suffix is attached to the noun, as suffixes in Hebrew also trigger
stress shifting (either one or two syllables forward). Thus, we find pakid ('clerk')
versus pkidim ('clerks') or pkidenu ('our clerk').3
2
This reduction tends to disappear in Colloquial Hebrew singulars, but is retained in the plural
pkidey (‘clerks’); notice the construct state masculine plural ending versus the free state ending
pkidim.
3
Stress shifting in constructs is a productive phenomenon operative even in words of foreign
origin. For example, stress is obligatorily shifted in loanwords such as koncertey (‘concerts’) or
salatey (‘salads’) (even in Colloquial Hebrew, where plural suffixation on the free form variant
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
3
Mohammad (1998), Benmamoun (1998) and Kihm (1999) report that Arabic
shows phonological alternations of a similar kind. Thus, in Palestinian Arabic, as
in Hebrew, the feminine ending /t/ surfaces only on construct heads (9amme
versus 9ammet, 'aunt'), and in Standard Arabic the dual and sound plural endings
are deleted exclusively on heads of construct states (kitaabayni versus kitaabay,
'two books' and mu9allimiina versus mu9allimii, 'teachers').4
Under common assumptions regarding prosodic (phonological) domains, the
head of the construct does not constitute a prosodic word in itself as it lacks main
stress. Rather, it is part of the subsequent word; that is, it forms a prosodic word
with the head of the genitive member.
1.2 Where does it happen?
At PF we have a prosodic word containing the head of the construct and the
head of its genitive member (the supporter). A priori, this can indicate that a word
has been formed in the lexicon or in syntax (through syntactic incorporation), or it
is a post spell-out phenomenon, a word only in phonological terms. The three
options are summarized below:
(1) The construct state word is formed
a. in the lexicon.
b. through a syntactic operation (of incorporation).
c. at PF.
In the rest of this section I present evidence against the first two options.
Alongside construct states, Hebrew also has compound constructs which
share the same morpho-phonological form with regular constructs but constitute a
does not require stress shifting). The only exception I can think of is loanwords such as
univérsitat (‘university’) or temperatúrat (‘temperature’) which can keep the original stress in
colloquial Hebrew. Idan Landau (personal communication) observes that this behavior seems to be
typical of feminine loanwords. Thus, hipotézat (‘hypothesis’), simfónyat (‘symphony’), or láfat (‘a
type of pita bread’) all retain their original stress.
4
Mentioning the phonological alternations the head of the construct undergoes, Kihm (1999) also
cites Arabic examples where a parenthetical phrase intervenes between the head and the genitive
member of the construct. Kihm notes that traditional grammarians had a debate regarding the
status and grammaticality of such examples, which seem to appear exclusively in Arabic within
the Semitic family. In Hebrew, indeed, such an intervention is completely inconceivable. This
exceptional and debated occurrence of parentheticals between the head and nonhead member does
not block the phonological alternations.
4
TAL SILONI
fixed group of combinations whose meaning is idiosyncratic. The formation of
regular constructs, in contrast, is productive, and they are semantically
compositional combinations showing diverse semantic relations and no semantic
drift typical of lexical combinations. Comparing nominal constructs and
compound constructs, Borer (1989) shows that, in addition to their semantic
opacity, compound constructs are also syntactically inaccessible, while constructs
are semantically and syntactically transparent. For example, compound constructs
disallow coordination or modification of the supporter and pronominal reference
to the head in itself (as shown in (2)). Their opacity follows form the fact that they
are lexical products. In contrast, construct states allow coordination, modification,
and pronominal reference to the head alone (3). They are not semantically neither
syntactically opaque, and cannot be the output of a lexical operation.
(2) a.
beyt mlaxa
house work
“workshop”
b.
beyt sefer
house book
“school”
c. *beyt mlaxa ve-sefer
house work and book
d. *beyt mlaxa adina
house work fine
e. *hu bana beyt mlaxa exad ve-od exad li-mgurim.
he built house work one and-another one for-residence
(3) a.
bdikat mizvadot ve-tikim
examination suitcases and-bags
b.
bdikat mizvadot xašudot
examination suitcases suspicious
c.
carix la-avor bdikat mizvadot axat ve-od axat šel tikey-yad.
necessary to-pass examination suitcases one and-another one of
handbags
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
5
Discarding the lexical option, Borer (1989) entertains the syntactic alternative
(1b). In later work (1996,1999), she develops her proposal, arguing that construct
states are the result of syntactic incorporation of the head of the supporter into the
head of the construct (an idea first entertained by Shlonsky 1990). In rough lines,
incorporation is forced by the insertion of a head noun (the head of the construct)
lacking a definiteness specification. The specification can only be provided by the
genitive member of the construct through incorporation of its head with the
underspecified head of the construct (as is well known and will be extensively
discussed in section 4, heads of constructs cannot realize their article). The reader
is referred to Borer's work for details, which I do not discuss here, as I believe
there are good reasons not to adopt a syntactic account, independently of Borer’s
specific implementation.
The argument Borer provides in favor of syntactic incorporation relies on the
impossibility of the examples in (4):
(4) a. * roš šloša anašim nir'a miba'ad la-xalon.
head three people was+seen through the-window
b. *lo ra'iti tmunat af exad.
not saw(I) picture no one
The problem with the examples in (4), Borer argues, stems form the syntactic
word status of construct states. Her reasoning is as follows. Both examples
require covert raising of the genitive member out of the construct to obtain scope
over the head of the construct in (4a) or to adjoin negation in (4b). But following
the syntactic operation of incorporation that forms constructs, that is, syntactic
words, raising is impossible. Consequently, the quantified noun phrase in (4a)
does not obtain wide scope, and one head is interpreted as associated with three
people, which is anomalous. In (4b) the negative polarity item cannot raise to
adjoin negation and the structure is ruled out.
The picture, however, turns out to be less neat than the facts in (4) seem to
suggest. First, in Modern Hebrew phonologically invariable heads of constructs
sometimes result in odd to ungrammatical constructs.5 roš (‘head’) (4a) or
mexonit (‘car’) are invariable heads. In (5) they give rise to unacceptable
constructs independently of the question of scope. Neither (5a) nor (5b) require a
5
In particular, this is so when the genitive member is indefinite. The nature of this apparently
phonological constraint is unclear to me.
6
TAL SILONI
distributive reading (wide scope of the genitive member) to obtain a felicitous
interpretation. (5a) at any rate discusses a single person, and in (5b) a narrow
scope reading is not problematic as three people can own one single car:
(5) a. * roš iš nir’a ba-xalon.
head man was+seen in+the-window
b. *mexonit šloša anašim nicxa ba-meroc.
car three people won in+the-race
More importantly, the availability of wide (non overt) scope changes
considerably with the choice of quantifier and with the context. In all the
sentences of (6) the quantified noun phrase has no problem taking scope over the
head of the construct:
(6) a.
ricpat kol bayit ba-šxuna asuya mi-šayiš.
floor every house in+the-neighborhood is+made of-marble
b.
ricpat šloša batim ba-šxuna asuya mi-šayiš.
floor three houses in+the-neighborhood is+made of-marble
c.
be-sof kol mofa mexulakim še’elonim la-kahal.
in-end every show are+distributed questionnaires to+the-audience
d.
ešet kol xayal še-yesayem et ha-limudim tuzman la-tekes.
wife every soldier that will+complete acc the-studies
will+be+invited to+the ceremony
As non overt scope is possible in the above examples, the problem with the
constructs in (4) cannot follow from the fact that they are syntactic units that do
not allow excorporation. There must be different restrictions or contextual
strategies that dictate scopal possibilities, which this paper does not intend to
investigate. Rather, it follows that such scopal phenomena cannot be used to
advance the syntactic option of incorporation.6
6
The data are extremely intricate. Some speakers rule out the šel ('of') phrase counterpart of (4a),
too, which suggests again that the problem at hand does not stem from the need to excorporate (i).
In general, judgments vary considerably: while some speakers accept both (ii) and (iii), some rule
them out, and yet others accept only the free state version:
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
7
As for negative polarity items, they do occur in constructs in a high register,
as shown in the examples of (7), which use the more archaic item iš ('anyone'):7
(7) a.
divrey iš lo ricu oto.
words anyone neg pleased him
b.
lo ra’iti ve-lu tmunat iš exad (li-rfu’a).
neg saw(I) and-even picture man one (to-remedy)
“I did not see anyone’s picture”
c.
lo nadun be-divrey iš.
neg discuss(we) in-words anyone
“We will not discuss anyone’s words”
Moreover, under an analysis of constructs in terms of syntactic incorporation,
it is not expected that the genitive member could be a coordinate structure. But
such constructs are possible (8a). They cast doubt on a syntactic analysis because
it cannot be argued that the whole coordinate structure (the maximal projection)
incorporates with the head of the construct, nor can it be suggested that only one
conjunct (more precisely, its head) is extracted, given the Coordinate Structure
Constraint. On that basis, I have argued in earlier work against an incorporation
analysis of constructs (Siloni 1997), concluding without elaboration that their
cohesive nature can therefore only follow from a PF requirement. Benmamoun
(1998) notes that in Arabic, too, constructs can involve a coordinate structure
(8b). He further observes that a gap analysis of such constructs (8c), which could
reconcile syntactic incorporation with coordinate structures (without violating the
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
roš šel šloša anašim nir'a miba'ad la-xalon.
head of three people was+seen through the-window
zanav šel šlosa tavasim nir'a min ha-xalon.
tail of three peacocks was+seen from the-window
znav šloša tavasim nir'a min ha-xalon.
tail three peacocks was+seen from the-window
And finally, surprising as it is, speakers even find (iv) very odd, as the distributive reading is the
salient one, attributing more than one head to each of the children:
(iv) ??rašey šloša yeladim nir'u miba'ad la-xalon.
heads three boys was+seen through the-window
7
Example (7b) is thanks to Idan Landau.
8
TAL SILONI
ban to extract from one conjunct) clearly misrepresents the interpretation of
collective predicates such as 'meeting' in (8b):
(8) a.
beyt ha-rabi mi-kiryat arba ve-re'ayat-o ha-nixbada
house the-rabbi from-Kiryat Arba and-wife-his the honorable
b.
÷ižtimaa‫؟‬u l-mudiir-i wa l-kaatib-i
meeting the-director-gen and the-secretary-gen
c.
[N DP & GAP DP]
(Standard Arabic)
Providing more evidence from Moroccan Arabic against the syntactic view,
Benmamoun (2000) proposes that the phonological unit status of the construct
state is the result of a post-syntactic merger of its members in the morphological
component of PF, as defined under the Distributed Morphology approach (Halle
and Marantz 1993). But Benmamoun‘s account does not provide any reason as to
why constructs should give rise to morphological words. As is clear, I share with
Benmamoun the conclusion that constructs do not form syntactic words.
However, I develop a prosodic account of constructs that derives their word status
from the need to satisfy Case requirements. The particular properties of constructs
are derived from their prosodic structure.
2.
Prosodic Case Checking Domain
Let me state the query we are facing in a more suggestive fashion. Why is it
so that in Semitic languages heads undergo phonological changes when they
check Case within the construct state? Does it mean that genitive Case checking
in Semitic languages is sensitive to phonological or prosodic structure?
In the generative literature the domain of Case assignment or checking (the
Case domain) has standardly been defined in syntactic terms. Local hierarchical
configurations specified by notions such as government or Spec-head relations
have usually been invoked to determine the Case domain. Consequently, linear
intervention, for example, which seems to obliterate the Case domain in certain
contexts but not in others, has been taken care of by an ad hoc condition requiring
linear adjacency between the assigner and the assignee. It has become a common
practice to view adjacency as an additional requirement sometimes relevant for
the definition of the Case domain (Chomsky 1980, Stowell 1981, Rizzi 1991, and
in terms of movement Chomsky 1995). However, neither the nature of the
requirement nor its selective manifestation within and across linguistic systems
was understood.
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
9
In recent years, the increasing attention paid to the interfaces provoked new
interest in PF perspectives of Case. Neeleman and Reinhart (1997) have proposed
that Case domains can be defined either in syntax or by the prosodic structure of
the PF component (see also Friedemann 1995 for a PF Case constraint). Linear
intervention between the Case checker and checkee is, of course, liable to break
up a prosodic (phonological) unit. In this view, then, adjacency is dictated by a
Case domain at PF, not in syntax.
I assume that Case domains can be defined in phonological (prosodic) terms.
Further, I suggest that the construct state is a pivotal instance of a phonologically
defined Case domain. As will become clear below, the Case domain of constructs
is a very tight domain. This is the reason why its members not only do not tolerate
linear interference but actually form a word at PF. The gist of the proposal can be
stated as follows:
(9) a.
b.
Case domains can be defined in phonological terms.
The construct state defines the phonological domain of
(genitive) Case checking in Semitic languages.
Relying on work by Selkirk (1986,1995) and references cited there, I
embrace the following assumptions with regard to prosodic structure. The
assumptions are briefly explained in what follows:
(10) a.
b.
c.
The phonological representation includes a prosodic structure
consisting of categories of different prosodic types.
The mapping between syntactic structure and prosodic structure aligns
prosodic categories with edges of syntactic constituents.
The constraints governing the interface between syntactic and
prosodic structure make no reference to function words.
The phonological representation includes a prosodic structure consisting of
prosodic categories of different types (syllable, foot, prosodic word,
phonological phrase, intonational phrase, utterance), which are organized
according to the prosodic hierarchy (from syllable to utterance). The mapping
between syntactic structure and prosodic structure above the foot and below the
intonational phrase refers to edges of syntactic constituents. Prosodic words are
aligned with syntactic words and phonological phrases with maximal
projections. That is, the prosodic domain has as its terminal string the stretch of
the syntactic structure that is demarcated by the right or left edge of the
selected constituent. The choice of the relevant syntactic edge (right or left)
10
TAL SILONI
may be parametric. Finally, the constraints governing the interface between
syntactic and prosodic structure do not refer to function words. Typically,
function words are words that belong to functional categories, and display
phonological properties significantly different form those of lexical words. In
the unmarked case, they are stressless reduced forms. They do not dominate a
stressed syllable (a foot), and hence cannot form their own prosodic word but
are part of the prosodic word determined by an adjacent lexical word.
Turning back to constructs, their nominal head is a lexical word, which
nonetheless shows phonological properties typical of function words: it is a
stressless (reduced) form. I propose that lexical words can also be inserted as
weak forms into the computational system. In prosodic structure, then, they are
stressless and qualify as function words. Heads of constructs, then, constitute
function words at prosodic structure.8
Now, in Hebrew (or Arabic), prosodic words are aligned with right edges
(right brackets) of lexical words. If prosodic words were mapped on the basis
of left edges of lexical words, the genitive member of the construct would open
a new prosodic word (aligned with its left edge) which would have to exclude
the head of the construct:
(11)
Align the right edge of a prosodic word (PWd) ]PWd with the right
edge of a lexical word ]LexWd.
The construct in (12) has the depicted prosodic structure. The nominal head
beyt (‘house’) is inserted as a weak form; it qualifies as a function word at
prosodic structure, and is therefore part of the prosodic word which is formed by
the lexical word ha-mora (‘the teacher’). This forms the prosodic Case domain of
the construct state. Note that it is the head of the genitive member which checks
the Case required by its maximal projection. This is reminiscent of the syntactic
configuration of noun incorporation where the incorporated head satisfies the
Case requirement of its maximal projection (Baker 1988):
(12)
beyt ha-mora ]PWd ha-pikxit
house the-teacher the-smart
Under this view, the prosodic guise is not an arbitrary characteristic of
constructs nor an additional morphological requirement, but an elementary trait
8
Thanks to Chuck Kisseberth for pointing out to me the relevance of function words for my
prosodic account.
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
11
necessary for Case checking to take place. To be a head in the construct form
(that is, a weak form) means to be a head endowed with a genitive feature. To be
a head that has to check genitive Case may simply mean to be a head marked for
transitivity, a transitive head. Checking of Case may be carried out either in the
syntactic component or at PF in a prosodic configuration. Construct states are
instantiations of the latter sort. The choice between the syntactic or prosodic
domain may be parametric depending on the morphological inventory.9
More generally, the question arises as to what role prosodic Case checking
plays in grammar. In the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), the rationale for
structural Case checking in syntax is the need to eliminate uninterpretable
features, as their illegibility to the LF interface makes the derivation crash. The
idea is to relate the existence of uninterpretable features to movement. Thus, noun
phrases have to move to check structural Case or else the derivation will crash at
LF. However, there is accumulating evidence that structural Case can be checked
in situ without movement (Chomsky 1998 and others). If so, then the link
between displacement and uninterpretable features is less obvious, and the
system, in fact, inserts uninterpretable features and eliminates them with no effect
on the derivation. The question is then again what the role is of structural Case. Is
it nonetheless legible at the LF interface? (Recall that Case tends to be
morphologically marked in languages with freer word order.) I will not pursue the
issue any further here. Let me nonetheless anchor the proposal of this paper
slightly better in the global picture of Case.
Under the ’checking for elimination’ approach, Case checking after spell-out
at prosodic structure would mean either (i) that certain Case features are
uinterpretable at the PF interface, or (ii) that certain PF outputs have automatic
consequences on LF representations. The first option seems counterintuitive: why
would Case features be illegible to PF? The possibility that PF and LF
representations are not entirely opaque to each other (option (ii)) is interesting and
worth exploring independently of the present discussion.10 Furthermore, if
9
According to Neeleman and Reinhart (1997), the choice between prosodic and syntactic
domains is driven by economy. Preference is given to prosodic domains. When Case checking
fails at prosodic structure, the derivation will proceed to try in syntax.
10
Research on other topics has implicitly assumed that the PF and LF interfaces are not
entirely unrelated. I have in mind work on ellipsis and quantifier scope (Fox 1995), or work on
focus (Reinhart 1995). Note that I assume here that the Case checked in the construct is
structural (as argued in Siloni 1997 on the basis of the fact that it is available in ECM
configurations). If it turned out that the Case feature under discussion is inherent, it will not
pose an LF-legibility problem anyway.
12
TAL SILONI
structural Case features are legible to the LF interface, the question would be
again whether there is a certain link between the two interfaces, or the same
feature has effect in parallel at PF and LF. This question, in fact, is raised by any
stress phenomenon that affects interpretation (such as focus for example). I leave
this issue for future research and turn to derive the properties of construct states.
3. The Syntactic Behavior of Constructs
3.1 Deriving the properties of constructs
The properties of (Hebrew) nominal construct states have often been
described in the literature. They are summarized in (13) and discussed and
illustrated in what follows:
(13) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Prosodic word: The construct state forms a prosodic word. The prosodic
word can contain a construct string of two or more members (each
construct containing one head and one genitive member).
Adjacency: Adjectives modifying the head cannot immediately follow
it as they usually do, but ought to follow the supporter.
Nested Configuration: If both the head and the nonhead are modified
by an adjective, the configuration is nested.
Overt transitivity: The nonhead member must be lexically realized.
The article constraint: The head of the construct cannot bear the
article.
(In)definiteness agreement or spread: the definiteness value of the
members of the construct must match (revisited in (43)).
Thematic hierarchy: Among genitive arguments, the genitive member
of a nominal construct is chosen according to the following hierarchy:
Theme > Agent > Possessor (other genitive arguments will be šel
(‘of’) phrases).
The prosodic word status of the construct state is the result of the prosodic
domain it defines for Case checking, as already discussed in detail. The
genitive member of a construct can itself be the head of a subsequent construct,
as in gag beyt ha-mora (‘roof house the-teacher’). The string constitutes one
prosodic word due to the function word status of the first two members, which
allows each of them to check genitive Case with the nominal following it (as
expected, all but the first member of a construct are overtly marked for genitive
in Standard Arabic).
Consider next adjacency. Adjectives modifying the head of the construct
cannot immediately follow it but ought to follow the genitive member (14),
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
13
although usually they do occur immediately after the head they modify.
Clearly, an adjective immediately following the head would break off the
prosodic string necessary for Case checking, as it bears main stress and defines
its own prosodic word that is closed at its right edge, as schematized in (14b).
Under a syntactic definition of the Case domain (agreement, government), it is
not obvious why such linear intervention should matter.
(14) a.
yaldey ha-mora ]PWd ha-yafim
children the-teacher the-beautiful(Pl)
“The teacher’s beautiful children”
b. * yaldey ha-yafim]PWd ha-mora
children the-beautiful(Pl) the- teacher
As expected, if forms ambiguous between a noun and an adjective are inserted,
simply the first one is interpreted as the genitive member, because the prosodic
word is aligned with its right edge:
(15) a.
b.
yaldey ha-gibor]PWd ha-ca’ir
children the-hero the-young
‘The young hero’s children’
yaldey ha-ca’ir]PWd ha-gibor
children the-young the-heroic
‘The heroic young man’s children’
In sum, as the construct defines a prosodic Case domain, the occurrence of
adjectives immediately following the head is impossible. Still it should be
explained how a modifying adjective that is normally adjacent to the noun it
modifies can surface in construct states in a different position. There are two
possible paths: either the syntactic structure is one and the same and
rearrangements are allowed at PF, or the syntactic component enables the two
alternative orders. If the grammar can do without considerable PF
rearrangements, it is more elegant. The latter option should therefore be pursued
first. There are several proposals in the literature, which I will not investigate in
detail here. The major family of accounts has word order explained by movement
of the genitive DP for Case reasons higher than modifying adjectives (Ritter
1991, Siloni 1991,1997, Sichel 2000). Note that while this is natural under
syntactic Case checking, a parallel syntactic movement for checking at PF is
14
TAL SILONI
more problematic as it requires global computation.
But more crucially, to the best of my understanding, none of the accounts can
handle the fact that an adjective modifying the head of the construct cannot, in
fact, follow the entire genitive member (16a) nor intervene between the head of
the genitive DP and its complement (16b). The occurrence of an adjective, thus, is
not compatible with an ‘articulated’ genitive member, but only with a minimal
one as in (16c), or with an additional construct as in (16d). This is unexpected and
cannot directly follow from the constituent structure under any of the existing
analyses.11
(16) a. *madaf ha-sfarim al ha-milxama ha-arox
shelf the-books on the-war the-long
“The long shelf of books on the war”
b. *madaf ha-sfarim ha-arox al ha-milxama
shelf the-books the-long on the-war
“The long shelf of books on the war”
11
This is true for the family of accounts mentioned above as well as for the account proposed by
Shlonsky (2000), who suggests deriving word order by NP-raising within DP. More specifically,
according to his proposal, the entire NP is raised to a specifier position preceding an adjective
modifying the head noun, as schematized in (i). This, again, erroneously predicts (16a) to be
grammatical, as shown in (ii). Moreover, Shlonsky’s account in terms of NP-raising also
erroneously predicts that in nonconstructs, too, any NP-internal material, a PP complement for
instance, ought to precede an adjective modifying the nominal head (iii-iv):
(i)
[DP [NP madaf ha-sfarim ]i ha-arox ti ]
shelf the-books the-long
(ii) *[DP [NP madaf ha-sfarim al ha-milxama ]i ha-arox ti]
shelf the-books on the-war the-long
(iii) *[DP [NP sefer al ciporim nodedot ]i yafe ti]
book on birds of passage beautiful
(iv) [DP sefer yafe al ciporim nodedot ]
book beautiful on birds of passage
“a beautiful book on birds of passage”
Note that Borer (1996) mentions an example of the type in (16a) as marginal (not impossible).
The speakers I have consulted (including me) rule it out.
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
c.
madaf ha-sfarim ha-arox
shelf the-books the-long
“The long shelf of books”
d.
madaf sifrey ha-milxama ha-arox
shelf books the-war the-long
“The long shelf of war books”
15
It is not surprising that an adjective modifying the head of the construct cannot
split the genitive constituent (16b). But what is the difference between (16a) and
(16c-d)? In the latter examples the modifying adjective is one PWd boundary
adjacent to the noun it modifies, as it follows the construct prosodic word, which
includes one construct in (16c) and a string of two constructs in (16d). In (16a), in
contrast, more PWd boundaries separate between the adjective and the head noun,
as al ha-milxama (‘on the war’) defines at least an additional prosodic word.
Could it be that some prosodic locality is required between nouns and their
modifying adjectives? Note that a modifying adjective can follow another
modifying adjective as in madaf ha-sfarim ha-lavan ha-arox (‘shelf the-books
the-white the long’). I will not pursue the issue any further here. (17) summarizes
the empirical generalization that guides the distribution of modifying adjectives in
Hebrew:12
(17) An adjective modifying N1 has to immediately follow
a. the prosodic word of N1, or
b. the prosodic word of N1 followed by another modifying adjective.
While deriving (17) is not a simple task, the relative ordering of adjectives
illustrated in (18) is expected under the constituent structure. An adjective
12
Heavy adjectives can follow an articulated genitive DP (i). They constitute semi-relatives (in
the sense of Siloni 1995), as shown by the fact that they must be introduced by haindependently of the definiteness value of the head they modify (unlike modifying adjectives,
which must show definiteness agreement with the noun they modify). Like other (semi-)
relatives they can follow a construct with an articulated genitive member as well as PP
complements etc’:
(i)
(ii)
talmid tixon le-omnuyot ha-ge’e be-hesegav
pupil high-school for-arts the-proud in- achievements-his
talmid šel dina ha-ge’e be-hesegav
pupil of Dina the-proud in-achievements-his
16
TAL SILONI
modifying the genitive member is predicted to precede an adjective modifying the
head (as stated in (13c)), as the latter occurs outside the genitive member. Note
that the construction is heavy to marginal (18a) but incomparably better than the
one exhibiting the reverse order (18b):
(18) a. ?beyt ha-mora ha-ce’ira ha-yafe
house(M) the-teacher(F) the-young(F) the-beautiful(M)
b. * beyt ha-mora ha-yafe ha-ce’ira
house(M) the-young(F) the-beautiful(M) the-teacher(F)
Likewise, the obligatoriness of the genitive member (19), property (13d), is
trivial. The nonhead member must be realized to prosodically support the
function word and discharge it of genitive Case:13
(19) a. * yaldey
children(CONSTRUCT FORM)
b.
yeladim
children(FREE FORM)
Before focusing on the article constraint (13e) and the definiteness value of
the members of the construct (13f), let me briefly discuss the thematic hierarchy
13
Albeit the phonologically dependent nature of the head of the construct , in Colloquial
Hebrew (but not in Standard Hebrew), it can appear in a coordinate structure. This, however, is
morpho-phonologically constrained. Only heads (suportees) with the same morphological
ending can be coordinated:
(i)
(ii)
morey ve-talmidey ha-tixon
teachers(M) and-pupils(M) the-high-school
*morot ve-talmidey ha-tixon
teachers(F) and-pupils(M) the-high-school
When the nonhead member is a coordinate structure as in (8), the question arises as to how the
second (or third) conjunct is associated with Case as only the head of the first genitive member
forms a prosodic word with the head of the construct. Noting that, Alex Grosu (personal
communication) proposes that a solution can be found if we assume à la Williams (1980) that
conjuncts are generated ‘on top of each other’ in a third representational dimension and
linearized following prosodic Case checking .
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
17
(13g). In Siloni (1994,1997) I observed that when the noun realizes more than
one genitive argument as in (20a-b) (this can happen only in concrete nominals),
the genitive member of the construct must be the Theme (20a) (in its absence the Agent, and lastly the Possessor). If the Theme is not a genitive argument, the
construct can be formed with the Agent whether the head is an event noun (20c)
or a concrete noun (20d):14
(20) a.
tmunat ha-praxim šel ha-yeled
picture the flowers of the boy
b. * tmunat ha-yeled šel ha-praxim
picture the boy of the flowers
c.
harisat ha-cava et ha-ir
destruction the army acc the-city
d.
mixtavey ha-xayal le-imo
letters the soldier to-mother-his
As in Siloni (1997), I assume that multiple genitive constructions are rightbranching constructions ordered according to the following hierarchy: Theme
(lowest), Agent, Possessor (higest). The most embedded argument is linearly the
closest to the nominal head, and hence the one participating in the construct state
(20a). Further I assume for simplicity that šel (‘of’) phrases in Hebrew are only
licensed in specifier or adjunct positions (but see Cinque 1994a, Siloni 1997 for
other possibilities). Given N-raising to D (which is by now a current
assumption15), when the Agent is merged in SpecNP, it becomes the argument
14
Borer (1999) and Shlonsky (2000) claim that the order Noun-Subject-Object is limited to
event nominals and is contingent upon the verbal projection that, according to them, is
syntactically embedded within such nominals. (19d) shows that the order Noun-Subject-Object
also occurs in concrete nouns, and therefore cannot be exclusively attributed to the putative
verbal projection.
Note that when an event nominal realizes the Theme as the genitive member of the
construct, the Agent can surface in an al-yedey (‘by’) phrase, but not in a šel (‘of’) phrase, as
event nominals license one genitive noun phrase only.
15
It has become standard practice to assume N-raising to D in Semitic languages (as well as in
other languages). Recently objection has been raised against this assumption. The objection
relies on the claim that N-raising cannot derive the respective unmarked ordering of modifying
adjectives in Hebrew, which is the mirror image of the English ordering (nor the respective
18
TAL SILONI
immediately following the nominal head. Hence, the construct is formed with the
Agent. An internal argument, then, cannot avail itself of genitive Case: it is
therefore possible only when introduced either by the accusative (object) marker
et (20c) or by a preposition (20d). For more discussion see the above references.
Maybe the most puzzling of the properties the construct state shows is the
article constraint (13e) illustrated in (21). The head of the construct cannot bear
the definite article (Hebrew has only a definite article):
(21)
(*ha-)yaldey ha-šxenim
(the-)children the neigbors
“The neighbors’ children”
Albeit the constraint, the head clearly has a definiteness value. Over the years it
has become standard practice to assume that its value is identical to the
definiteness value of the genitive member. The phenomenon is labeled
(in)definiteness agreement or spread (13f). Two formal tests have been utilized to
motivate the claim. First, as modifying adjectives agree in definiteness with the
head they modify, the fact that an adjective modifying the head of the construct
shows definiteness agreement when the genitive member is definite indicates that
the head is definite, too (22a). Second, as the accusative (or direct object) marker
et must precede definite objects, its occurrence preceding a head of a construct
ordering of cardinal and ordinal numbers). For a detailed discussion, see Shlonsky (2000).
Assuming, following Cinque (1994b), that the ordering of adjectives shows that they are not
adjuncts but specifiers, Shlonsky argues that if the ordering reflects a universal structural
hierarchy, it is impossible to derive the differences between English and Hebrew via N-raising
(in Hebrew), as it would result in the reverse order:
(i)
(ii)
brown Swiss cow
para švecarit xuma
cow Swiss brown
(Shlonsky 2000)
I believe the evidence is not conclusive. While the above order is the unmarked order, it is hard
to say that the reverse order is impossible. It is a marked order with a different flavor, but not
unacceptable (to me, (iii) sounds much better than (18a) for example):
(iii) ?para xuma švecarit
cow brown Swiss
I do not see how a universal hierarchy could still allow the reverse order in certain contexts.
Given that, the possibility that the ordering follows from semantic or more general cognitive
preferences should be examined before N-raising is abandoned.
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
19
whose genitive member is definite points to the same conclusion (22b):
(22) a.
b.
tmunat ha-more *(ha-)yafa
picture(F) the-teacher(M) (the-)beautiful(F)
“the teacher’s beautiful picture”
ra’iti *(‘et) tmunat ha-mora.
saw(I) acc picture the-teacher
In the subsequent section, the article constraint is derived from the prosodic
structure of the construct, and (in)definiteness spread is shown to be a more
intricate phenomenon which does not always apply. I conclude the section with a
short comparative discussion.
3.2 Some comparative notes
The particular behavior of the construct was shown to follow from its
prosodic structure, which is the result of the function word status of its head at
PF. Thus, all other things being equal, if a language allows lexical words (nouns)
to have a phonologically weak alternate, it is predicted to show construct states; in
other words, it is expected to allow genitive Case checking in the prosodic
structure of PF. Semitic languages allow it, but English or French do not as their
lexical inventory does not include the required items. If my proposal is on the
right track, a lexical (morphological) parameter derives the relevant distinction
between the former and the latter languages.
An anonymous reviewer proposes that phonological reduction of nouns may
be contingent upon noun raising to D. The idea would be that when a noun
substitutes for the functional head D, it is in some sense functional and can
therefore have a phonologically weak form. According to his proposal, N-raising
to D is required for phonological reduction, but not all cases of N-to-D involve
phonological reduction.16 If this is correct, the proposal that lexical words can
have a weak form and behave on a par with function words at PF is constrained
and less arbitrary. Indeed, in previous work I argued that N-raising is inherent to
the formation of constructs.
The reviewer further observes that additional evidence in favor of the
proposal comes from Romance languages. Longobardi (1994) argues that isolated
16
There is abundant evidence for N-to-D raising that does not result in a construct state. For
example, there are good reasons to believe that the free form of Hebrew nominals also raise to D
(see Siloni 1997).
20
TAL SILONI
instances of construct states are found in Romance languages; in particular, with
the noun ‘home’, which is the most typical raising common noun in Romance.
Roughly speaking, common nouns that are highly ranked on a scale of uniqueness
of designation can overtly raise to D in Romance, and raising is a prerequisite for
the formation of a construct. Longobardi reports that in standard Catalan, the
noun casa (‘home’) has a phonologically reduced form ca, which shows the
typical properties of a construct form. It is obligatory transitive, must be followed
by a nonprepositional genitive (23a-b) cannot realize the article (23c), and must
be adjacent to the genitive following it (23d) (data from Longobardi 1994):
(23)a.
ca’ *( l metge)
home the doctor
b. * ca’ del metge
home of +the doctor
c. * la ca’ l metge
the home the doctor
d. * ca’ nova l metge
home new the doctor
A note on transitivity is in order here. According to Longobardi, overt
transitivity is not obligatory in Romance (albeit the Catalan paradigm).
Longobardi mentions instances of casa (‘home’) in Italian lacking an overt
possessor, where the understood possessor receives an arbitrary interpretation or
refers to a syntactically or contextually salient individual. He analyzes these cases
as constructs whose head in not phonologically reduced and whose possessor is
an empty category (pro). But overt transitivity is a crucial trait of constructs in
Semitic languages. Under the PF analysis, it is obligatory because the defining
property of the construct is the phonological reduction of its head, which enables
and requires the latter to be part of the prosodic word of its Case checkee, as
constructs are prosodic domains of Case checking. I do not think that the
possessorless occurrences of casa just mentioned are construct states. As
observed by Longobardi himself, raised kinship nouns such as mamma (‘mom’)
display the same behavior, although they cannot head a genuine construct state.
Moreover, Hebrew kinship nouns also allow an implicit possessor but only in the
free (nonconstruct) form. These cases are simply occurrences of nouns that
intrinsically require a possessor and allow it to be implicit under certain
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
21
circumstances.
Other constructions often compared to Semitic construct states are genitive
constructions in Irish and Romanian. Irish displays a head-initial construction
comprising a nominal head and a nonprepositional genitive (24a). Unlike
construct states, the construction does not require adjacency between the head and
its genitive: adjectives modifying the head appear between the members of the
construction (24b). This means that Irish does not perform genitive Case checking
within prosodic words. Parametrically, then, it is predicted that the head of the
construction should not undergo phonological reduction. The prediction turns out
to be correct (data taken from Duffield 1995):17
(24)a.
b.
teach an fhir
house the man-gen
“The house of the man”
guth láidir an tsagairt
voice strong the priest-gen
“The priest’s powerful voice”
Romanian also manifests nonprepositional genitive constructions (DobrovieSorin 1987, Grosu 1988, 2001 among others). Again, the head of the construction
is not phonologically reduced, which means that the Case domain is not a
prosodic word built of the noun and its genitive argument. Indeed, according to
Grosu (2001), Romanian genitive constructions do not require adjacency between
the nominal head and its genitive argument. Nonetheless, Grosu argues, the
constructions do show adjacency restrictions, which hold between the genitive
argument and an enclitic morpheme (homophonous to the definite article), which
is the licenser of genitive Case, regardless of the stem to which it attaches (N, A
or P). Interestingly, although the construction is very different from the construct
state, it requires adjacency, which Grosu analyzes as a licensing mechanism
applying at PF. For more discussion see Grosu (2001).
17
Like the head of the construct, the nominal head in Irish cannot realize its article. In the next
section, I argue that the article constraint characterizing constructs follows from the prosodic
structure of the construction. A ban of the sort, however, is also manifested in Saxon genitive
constructions, where clearly it does not follow from the prosodic structure of the construction.
That is to say, the ban against the article does not automatically classify a genitive construction
as a construct.
22
TAL SILONI
4. Definiteness
4.1 The article constraint
The fact that the head of the construct cannot bear the article is derived below
from its status as a function word at prosodic structure. Recall the constraint (10c)
adopted from Selkirk (1995) and repeated in (25):
(25) The constraints governing the interface between syntactic and prosodic
structure make no reference to function words.
(25) suggests that the boundaries of function words are invisible to processes
governing the interface between syntactic and prosodic structure. Now, affixes
are located in the scope of some element that constitutes their domain. It may be
either a morphological constituent or a prosodic one (see Anderson 1992:210).
Suppose the article in Hebrew is a prefix whose domain is the prosodic word. At
the interface with prosodic structure, then, the head of the construct does not
license an article as it does not constitute a prosodic word; nor can it count for
prefixation of the article of the genitive member although it is part of its prosodic
word, because as a function word its boundaries are invisible at this level.
Arguments in favor of this proposal come from two sources: what one can label
juxtaposed constructions and nonprefixal determiners.
Some evidence in favor of the prosodic account of the article constraint is
suggested by juxtaposed constructions, appositions in Glinert’s (1989) terms
(26a). Superficially, they are reminiscent of construct states. Closer inspection,
however, reveals that their prosodic representation is different: while the head of
the construct is a stressless weak form (26b), its counterpart in juxtaposed
constructions is the free (phonologically invariable) form, which dominates a foot
and forms its own prosodic word. Indeed, juxtaposed constructions can and must
realize the article construction-initially, unlike construct states (27): 18
18
Likewise, as expected given their prosodic structure, the members of juxtaposed
constructions bear some intervention:
(i)
xatixa axat/gdola basar
piece one/big meat
For a recent cross-linguistic study of such constructions also known as pseudo-partitives, see
Corver (1998) and references cited there.
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
23
(26) a.
mana falafel;
porion falafel;
ke’ara salat
bowl salad
xatixa basar;
piece meet
glida vanil
ice-cream vanilla
b.
mnat falafel;
portion falafel
ke’arat salat
bowl salad
xatixat basar;
piece meet
glidat vanil
ice cream vanilla
(27) a.
hine [ha-mana falafel] šel-xa.
here the-portion falafel of-you
b. * hine [mana ha-falafel] šel-xa.
here portion the-falafel of-you
c.
tavi kcat salat im [ha-xatixa basar].
bring some salad with the-piece meat
d. * tavi kcat salat im [xatixa ha-basar].
bring some salad with piece the-meat
e.
hine [ha-glida vanil] šel-xa.
here the-ice cream vanilla of-you
f. *hine [glida ha-vanil] šel-xa.
here ice cream the-vanilla of-you
More crucial evidence in favor of the prosodic account comes from
nonprefixal determiners. If the article constraint is correctly derived from its
prefixal nature (which is incompatible with the prosodic function word status of
heads of constructs), it is predicted that nonprefixal determiners (if available in
the grammar) should be able to directly modify the head of the construct. This
prediction is borne out (contra common claims that the head of the construct
cannot be directly modified by a determiner, e.g. Borer 1996:31). As shown in
(28), prenominal determiners (including quantifiers and cardinals) can directly
modify the head of the construct. This is illustrated below with oto (‘that’, ‘the
same’), od (‘another’) me’eyn (‘kind of’), af (‘no’) or harbe (‘many’), which are
all nonprefixal, unlike the definite article: 19
19
Nouns bearing pronominal suffixes cannot realize the article either (i). At first, this may
seem as a counterargument to my proposal, as the nouns do not seem to involve a function
word. However, such nouns do not allow any determiners whatsoever, prefixal (i) or
nonprefixal (ii). This shows that the ban in this case is of a different (nonprosodic) origin:
24
TAL SILONI
(28) a.
ota tmunat praxim
that/same(F) picture(F) flowers
b.
od tmunat praxim
another picture flowers
c.
me’eyn tmunat praxim
sort+of picture flowers
d.
af tmunat praxim
no picture flowers
e.
harbe/kama tmunot praxim
many/a few pictures flowers
Moreover, a second glance at (28a) seems to reveal that a (nonprefixal)
determiner can endow the head of the construct with a definiteness value different
from that of the genitive member, contra the standard assumption that the
members of the construct obligatorily share their definiteness value (13f). In the
following subsection this is discussed in detail. Prior to that, however, a word on
Colloquial Hebrew is in order.
In Colloquial Hebrew there is an ongoing process relocating the article
before the head of the construct. The process obeys yet unexplored constraints; it
seems to be sensitive to the position of the construct in the sentence, to the type of
(i)
(ii)
*(ha-)digl-o
(the-)flag-his
*oto digl-o
that flag-his
The ban cannot be semantic either, as the šel paraphrases of (i-ii) are possible. The
ungrammaticality of (i-ii) probably stems from a structural incompatibility between pronominal
suffixes and determiners (suppose each of them is an instantiation of D):
(iii)
(iv)
ha-degel šel-o
the-flag of-his
oto ha-degel šel-o
that/same the-flag of-his
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
25
noun at hand (event, concrete), to the phonological variability of the head of the
construct etc’. Thus, while (29a) is possible in Colloquial Hebrew, (29b) is ruled
out:
(29)a.
kvar avarti [ta-bdikat rofe].
already passed acc+the-examination physician
b. * nora paxadnu me-[ha-pricat/hatxalat milxama].
very afraid(we) from the-outbreak/beginning war
I believe this change is part of a more general reanalysis of the article from a
prefix whose domain is the prosodic word to a freer clitic that does not select a
specific host and can precede any NP (or AP) initial material, somewhat similar
to the complementizer še- (‘that’), which attaches to any clause initial material.
Indeed, alongside the repositioning illustrated in (29a), the article also appears
preceding degree phrases (30b) and other functional elements:
(30)a.
ha-yeladot [ha-yafot yoter]
the-girls the-beautiful more
(normative language)
b
ha-yeladot [ha-yoter yafot]
the-girls the-more beautiful
(colloquial language)
4.2 New light on (in)definiteness spread
As mentioned, on the basis of two formal tests (see (22)) it has standardly
been assumed that the members of the nominal construct bear an identical
definiteness value.20 Further evidence in favor of (in)definiteness spread comes
20
I am aware of two qualifications. Engelhardt (2000) argues that certain nominals (in her
terminology activity nominals) which, she suggests, do not project a DP-level can be
unspecified with regard to definiteness even if the genitive member of their construct is
definite. Danon (2001) argues that the members of the construct do not have to agree in
definiteness, on the basis of examples such as (i), where the intuition is that the head can be
interpreted as indefinite although the genitive member is definite. Glinert (1989), discussing
such examples, notes that this is possible only in constructs denoting membership. However, as
will become clear in the course of the section, constructs whose genitive member is definite fail
to appear in contexts reserved to indefinites and pass diagnostics of definites:
26
TAL SILONI
from examination of environments requiring or excluding definite noun phrases.
It is known that indefinite (more precisely, determinerless) noun phrases cannot
serve as subjects of predicational sentences (31a) nor do indefinites lend
themselves to be topicalized elements (31b), unlike definites (31c-d). As expected
if spread is operative, constructs whose genitive member is definite can appear as
subjects of predicational sentences and as topicalized elements (32a-b), in
contrast with the constructs in (33a-b), whose genitive member is indefinite:21
(31) a. * tmuna hi xadaša.
picture is new
b. *tmuna, ra’iti ota.
picture, saw(I) it.
c.
ha-tmuna hi xadaša.
the-picture is new
d.
ha-tmuna, ra’iti ota.
the-picture, saw(I) it.
(32) a.
tmunat ha-praxim hi xadaša.
picture the-flowers is new
b.
tmunat ha-praxim, ra’iti ota.
picture the-flowers, saw(I) it.
(33) a. * tmunat praxim hi xadaša.
picture flowers is new
(i)
21
boger ha-universita nasa ne’um.
graduate the-university held speech
a. A graduate of the university held a speech.
b. The graduate of the University held a speech.
To be more precise, predicational sentences actually reject bare indefinites (unless they
denote kinds), and allow indefinite subjects that are introduced by weak determiners.
Interestingly, then, indefinite construct states of the type in (33a) behave on a par with bare
nominals. Thanks to Gabi Danon for pointing it out to me.
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
27
b. *tmunat praxim, ra’iti ota.
picture flowers, saw(I) it.
Definite noun phrases, in turn, are ruled out in existential contexts introduced by
the existential particle yeš (‘there is’) (34). And again the behavior of constructs
in this environment is dependent on the definiteness value of the genitive
member; only a construct whose genitive member is indefinite can appear in
existential contexts (35):22
(34) a.
yeš student ba-xeder.
there is student in+the-room
b. * yeš (et) ha-student ba-xeder.
there is (acc) the-student in+the-room
(35) a.
yeš talmid tixon ba-xeder.
there is pupil high-school in+the-room
b. * yeš (et) talmid ha-tixon ba-xeder.
there is (acc) pupil the-high-school in+the-room
But once it becomes clear that nonprefixal determiners can modify the head
of the construct directly (28), the question arises as to whether the addition of
such a determiner can endow the head with a definiteness value independent of
the value of the genitive member, or whether (in)definiteness spread is obligatory.
I first discuss constructs whose genitive member is indefinite and whose head
is modified by a nonprefixal definite determiner; I will then turn to constructs
whose genitive member is definite. The inflected definite determiner oto (let us
concentrate on its anaphoric ‘that’ meaning), used in (28a) above, can optionally
cooccur with the definite article without any semantic effect (36a), just like the
adjectival demonstrative (36b-c). Both can modify the head of the construct
(37):23
22
As is obvious, the insertion of the accusative/definite object marker et in (34b) and (35b)
does not make the sentences grammatical, but would enable the list reading that definites can
receive in existential constructions.
23
Adjectival demonstratives bear the article in agreement with the noun they modify, hence:
28
TAL SILONI
(36) a.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
oto (ha-)yeled
that (the-)boy
“that boy”
b.
yeled ze
boy this
“this boy”
c.
ha-yeled ha-ze
the-boy the-this
“this boy”
bayit (*ha-)ze
house (the-)this
ha-bayit *(ha-)ze
the-house (the-)this
tmunat ha-praxim ha-zot
picture(F) the-flowers the-this(F)
The demonstrative can also appear in a prenominal position, although this use is archaic (iv). A
prenominal demonstrative requires that the noun it modifies bear the definite article. Hence, it
is not surprising that it cannot modify the head of the construct (v); the same holds in Standard
Arabic (see Mohammad (1998)). In Hebrew, in fact, a noun modified by a prenominal
demonstrative cannot be modified by any other element (vi) (the sequences below give rise to
grammatical (verbless) sentences, which is irrelevant here):
(iv)
ze *(ha-)bayit
this the-house
(v) *ze beyt ha-mora
this house the-teacher
(vi) ze ha-bayit (*ha-xadaš) (*šel ha-mora)
this the house (the-new) (of the-teacher)
Additionally, note that the determiner oto is incompatible with a possessor reading of the
genitive member independently of its definiteness value. I will not discuss this incompatibility
here:
(vii)
* ota tmunat (ha-)muzeon
that picture (the-)museum
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
(37) a.
ota tmunat praxim
that(F) picture(F) flowers
“that picture of flowers”
b.
tmunat praxim zot
picture(F) flowers this(F)
“this picture of flowers”
29
In both examples of (37) the head of the construct is modified by a definite
determiner (demonstrative) while its genitive member is indefinite. Now, albeit
the indefinite genitive member, these constructs behave on a par with definite
noun phrases: they can appear as subjects of predicational sentences (38a-b) and
as topicalized elements (38c-d):
(38) a.
ota tmunat praxim še-hizkarta hi xadaša.
that picture flowers that-mentioned(you) is new
b.
tmunat praxim zot hi xadaša.
picture flowers this is new
c.
ota tmunat praxim še-hizkarta, ra’iti ota.
that picture flowers that-mentioned(you), saw(I) it.
d.
tmunat praxim zot, ra’iti ota.
picture flowers this, saw(I) it.
Likewise, as expected, they are excluded from existential contexts introduced by
yeš (39) just like other definites (if še-hizkarta ‘that-you mentioned’ is dropped in
(39b), oto is interpreted as referring to the kind (‘the same kind of picture’), not to
a specific (definite) token in the world and the sentence is grammatical):
(39) a. * yeš tmunat praxim zot be-xeder.
there is picture flowers this in+the-room
b. * yeš ota tmunat praxim še-hizkarta ba-xeder.
there is that picture flowers that-mentioned(you) in+the-room
In brief, a definite determiner (demonstrative) can render the head of the
construct definite independently of the definite value of the genitive member.
30
TAL SILONI
Still, unlike the definite article, the determiner oto and the demonstrative ze never
trigger definiteness agreement on modifying adjectives as illustrated in (40a-b).
And while oto can cooccur with et (the accusative, direct object marker preceding
definite nouns), ze disallows it (40c-d).
(40) a.
ota tmunat praxim (*ha-)nifla’a
that flowers (the-)wonderful
b.
tmunat praxim (*ha-)nifla’a zot
picture flowers (the-)wonderful this
c.
ra’iti (et) ota tmunat praxim.
saw(I) (acc) that picture flowers
d.
ra’iti (*et) tmunat praxim zot.
saw(I) (acc) picture flowers this
Thus, although these constructs can appear in syntactic environments reserved to
definites (38), adjectival agreement in definiteness and et licensing do not show
the behavior triggered by the presence of the definite article (compare (40) to
(22)). This suggests a distinction between the definite article ha- and other
definite determiners (demonstratives). Along lines proposed by Danon (2001) on
different grounds, I suggest that a definite noun phrase can be formally marked
with a definiteness feature [+def]. The definite article is the formal marking, but
nouns can also be definite without that formal marking, via another definite
determiner or demonstrative, for example. This is somewhat reminiscent of
gender marking: a noun can refer to a feminine entity and be formally marked as
feminine (yaldot ‘girls’ bearing the feminine plural suffix -ot), but a noun can also
refer to a feminine entity and lack a feminine formal marking (našim ‘women’,
which actually bears a masculine suffix).
Definiteness agreement on modifying adjectives is sensitive to the formal
feature: it takes place when the modified noun is formally marked [+def] or heads
a construct whose genitive member bears [+def]. The marker et can, in addition,
be licensed by the definite determiner oto, but not by the adjectival
demonstrative.24
24
To be more complete, adjectival agreement in definiteness also takes place when the
modifying noun is a proper name or bears a pronominal suffix:
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
31
As far as (in)definiteness spread is concerned, then, a clear conclusion is that
an indefinite genitive member does not trigger indefiniteness spread. This is
congruent with Dobrovie-Sorin’s (2001) claim that there is no indefiniteness
spread in Semitic constructs (I will not discuss her arguments here). Moreover, it
is important to note that adjectives without the definite article should not be
considered as adjectives showing indefiniteness agreement, as they can also
modify definite nouns as in (40a-b). Danon (1996,2001) argues in favor of an
asymmetric approach to definiteness. According to Danon, syntactically (in
Hebrew) there is no indefiniteness feature [-def] but only a definiteness feature
[+def]. Semantically, definiteness is defined as a semantic operator, while
indefiniteness is a term grouping together the interpretations of noun phrases
obtained without application of the semantic operator. If there is no [-def] feature
or value, lack of indefiniteness spread or indefiniteness adjectival agreement
comes as no surprise. 25
Let us now turn to constructs whose genitive member is marked [+def]. Not
only does their head trigger definiteness agreement on modifying adjectives and
the occurrence of et (22), but in addition it cannot be directly modified by weak
determiners, which are incompatible with definite nouns (41a-b).26 Moreover, as
mentioned above, such a construct cannot appear in existential contexts
introduced by the existential particle yeš (35b) on a par with definite nouns (34b).
(i)
(ii)
dina ha-yafa
Dina the-beautiful
beyt-o ha-xadaš
house-his the-new
The behavior of et is more cumbersome: it occurs with proper names and nouns bearing a
pronominal suffix, but also with wh-elements. A more complete account of these data is
beyond the scope of the paper.
25
In this context, it would be interesting to examine the behavior of Standard Arabic, which is
generally argued to have an indefinite marker –n.
26
Gabi Danon (p.c.) mentions (i) as an exception. However, the expression xayal cahal
behaves on a par with indefinites in other contexts as well. Danon also reports that speakers
seem to accept weak determiners with constructs denoting membership (ii), which I do not
accept. If this is correct, it is an interesting exception, which will not explore here.
(i)
(ii)
af xayal cahal
no soldier IDF
(*)harbe bogrey ha-xug
many graduates the-department
32
TAL SILONI
This suggests that definiteness spread is obligatory when the genitive member is
marked [+def]:
(41) a. *af [tmunat ha-praxim]
no picture the-flowers
b. * harbe/kama [tmunot ha-praxim]
many/a few pictures the-flowers
And in fact the same holds when the genitive member is rendered definite by
other means. The head cannot be modified by a weak determiner (42a-b), nor can
the construct appear in existential contexts (42c-d):
(42) a. *af [tmunat otam yeladim]
no picture these children
b. * af [tmunat yeladim ele]
no picture children these
c.
yeš tmunat (*otam) yeladim ba-xeder.
there is picture (those) children in+the-room
d.
yeš tmunat yeladim (*ele) ba-xeder.
there is picture children (these) in+the-room
This means that definiteness spread is not limited to the formal feature, but
applies whenever the genitive member is definite. (43) summarizes the behavior
of constructs with regard to (in)definiteness:
(43)
a.
b.
c.
(In)definiteness in Constructs:
There is no indefiniteness spread.
A definite genitive member requires definiteness spread.
When the genitive member is not definite, either the head is indefinite by
default or it is endowed with a definiteness value by its own
(nonprefixal) determiner/demonstrative.
While there is no indefiniteness spread, definiteness spread is obligatory when the
genitive member is definite. Sharing a definiteness value is therefore not a
defining property of constructs but rather imposed by the presence of a definite
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
33
genitive member. If the scope of the Hebrew definite article is indeed the
prosodic word as discussed in section 4.1, (43b) could be explained as follows:
both members of the construct are in the scope of the definite article and
interpreted as definite because they are part of the same prosodic word. But this
does not seem to be an adequate explanation as definiteness spread holds also
when the genitive member is made definite by a nonprefixal determiner or
demonstrative (42). The question therefore arises as to whether their scope, too, is
the prosodic word, whence we get definiteness spread. Or, alternatively, if
definiteness spread is a semantic phenomenon, we expect it to be sensitive to the
semantic value of the nominal with regard to definiteness, rather than to whether
it is marked with respect to the formal (syntactic) feature [+def]. A novel proposal
along these lines has recently been put forward by Dobrovie-Sotrin (2001), who
derives definiteness spread from the semantic compositionality of the
construction. I will not develop this point any further here. Note nonetheless that
while under previous analyses of constructs (see note 1 for references) the spread
follows from the inability of the head of the construct to have its own definiteness
value and is derived from the structural configuration, here the spread is imposed
by the presence of a definite genitive member.
Recall that Borer (1996,1999) argues that what enables and requires the
formation of a construct is the insertion of a nominal head inherently unspecified
for a definiteness value, which must therefore be inherited from another DP (the
genitive member) through the construct state. As shown above, this proposal
could not be on the right track. The members of the construct simply do not
always bear an identical definiteness value, and the head of the construct can be
endowed with its own definiteness value by its own determiner. In addition, if
there is no [-def] feature in Hebrew, as discussed earlier, indefinite nouns are not
marked indefinite but rather receive any nondefinite interpretation. Hence, lack of
a definiteness specification is not an illegitimate situation, which ought to be
mended.
In Siloni (1994,1997), I have suggested that heads with no tense
specifications can bear a genitive feature and thus head a construct state. Under
this approach it is predicted that construct states occur across syntactic categories.
Indeed, constructs can be headed not only by nouns but also by gerunds,
adjectives and prepositions. The following section briefly discusses nonnominal
constructs dwelling in particular on the evidence provided by adjectival and
gerundive constructs in favor of the prosodic analysis of constructs.
5. A Cross-categorial Phenomenon
Construct states are not limited to nominal heads. A variety of lexical heads
can occur in the construct: gerunds (Siloni 1994,1997), quantifiers (Danon 1996),
34
TAL SILONI
adjectives (Hazout to appear, Siloni 1998, 2000), beynoni forms (Hebrew
participles) and most probably even prepositions (Siloni 1998,2000). On a par
with nominal heads, these heads occur in a genitival relation with a nominal
constituent following them (in parallel constructions in Standard Arabic genitive
Case is morphologically marked).
(44)a.
bi-[r’ot dan] et ha-yeled…
in-seeing Dan (acc) the-boy…
“When Dan saw the boy…”
(gerund)
b.
[šlošet ha-yeladim]
three the-boys
“the three boys”
(quantifier)
c.
yalda [yefat mar'e]
girl(FM SG) beautiful(FM SG) look(MS SG)
'a beautiful looking girl'
(adjective)
d.
yeladim [nos'ey matanot]
children(MS PL) carry(MS PL) gifts(FM PL)
'children carrying gifts'
(beynoni)
e.
[al ha-šulxan]
on the-table.
(preposition)
The constructions show characteristics typical of construct states, which I shortly
overview here. They form prosodic words: main stress falls on the genitive
member. Quantifiers, Adjectives and beynoni forms show the same phonological
alternations nominal heads of construct undergo.27 The members of the
constructions have to be adjacent (but see below), and the genitive member is
obligatory. Quantifiers heading constructs cannot bear the article, just like
nominal heads of constructs. Likewise, modifying constructs headed by an
adjective or a beynoni form, which show definiteness agreement with the noun
they modify, cannot bear the article, which has to surface on their supporter. All
this is natural under the prosodic approach to constructs, as discussed above. For
more on definiteness in these constructs, see Siloni (1998,2000). In addition,
27
Gerunds and prepositions are invariable. Note that certain prepositions may bear contrastive
stress, which may cast doubts on their status as constructs.
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
35
there are constraints on the type of supporter allowed in these various
constructs, which are discussed in the above references, and which I will not
review here as they are not relevant for our purposes.
Adjectival and gerundive constructs provide additional evidence in favor
of the prosodic analysis. Or looking at it the other way round, under the
prosodic analysis, two apparently unrelated puzzles that these constructs have
raised receive a simple and unified account. As noted in Siloni (1998), only
simplex adjectives, that is, adjectives that are not formed by an adjectival
formative (suffix), can occur in adjectival constructs. For example, 'acbani
('nervous') involves an adjectival suffix and cannot head a construct. (45) presents
a minimal pair: the simplex form ge’e (‘proud’) allows a construct, but not the
suffixed form ga’avtan (‘proud’). What could be the reason for this difference?
(45) a.
ge’e levav
proud heart
b. *ga’avt-an levav
proud-suffix heart
The second puzzle is raised by gerundive constructs.28 The subject of the gerund
can be either a lexical noun phrase or a pronominal suffix:
(46) a.
b.
bi-[r’ot dan] et yald-o, alac lib-o.
in-seeing Dan acc child-his, exulted heart-his
“When Dan saw his child, his hurt exulted”
bi-[r’ot-o] et yald-o, alac lib-o.
in-seeing-his acc child-his, exulted heart-his
“When he saw his child, his hurt exulted”
Surprisingly, the object cannot be realized as a pronominal suffix, although
nonfinite forms are the most friendly verbal environment for pronominal suffixes
in Modern Hebrew:
28
Gerundive constructs occur in written language and formal registers. Nonetheless the
relevant data are crystal clear for all speakers.
36
TAL SILONI
(47) a. * bi-[r’ot-o] dan, alac lib-o.
in-seeing-himsuffix Dan, exulted heart-his
“When Dan saw him…”
b.
hu raca [li-r’ot-o]
he wanted to-see-himsuffix
I believe the impossibility of (47a) and (45b) straightforwardly follows from the
prosodic structure of the construct. Suffixes in Hebrew attract main stress. The
occurrence of an object pronominal suffix (48a) or an adjectival formative (48b),
therefore, breaks off the prosodic string of the construct, the prosodic word which
is necessary for the supporter to check Case (dan in (48a), levav in (48b)):
(48)a. * bi-r’ot-o]PWd dan, alac lib-o.
in-seeing-himsuffix Dan, exulted heart-his
“When Dan saw him…”
b. * ga’avt-an]PWd levav
proud-suffix heart
Now, Hebrew also has weak object pronouns. If the prosodic account is
correct, they ought to be able to intervene between the gerund and its lexical
subject as they are stressless elements, which therefore should not affect the
prosodic structure. This prediction is born out. (48a) and (49) constitute a minimal
pair. While (48a) is impossible as the pronominal suffix attracts main stress and
splits the prosodic word, the weak pronoun is stressless and does not interrupt the
prosodic sequence (49). There is no other obvious difference between (48a) and
(49) except stress assignment. Under a syntactic analysis it would be very
mysterious why a suffix has a blocking effect but not a weak pronoun (if at all,
the opposite would be more expected):
(49)
bi-r’ot oto dan] PWd alac lib-o.
in-seeing himweak pron Dan, exulted heart-his
“When Dan saw him…”
Starting with Borer (1984), it has often been argued that Hebrew noun
phrases exhibit clitic doubling configurations (50a). The obligatory presence of
the dummy preposition (marker) šel (‘of’) (50b) was explained by the need to
insert a Case marker for the doubled noun phrase to receive Case because the
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
37
Case of the noun was argued to be absorbed by the pronominal clitic (this
characteristic of clitic doubling configurations was labeled Kayne’s
generalization):
(50) a.
digl-oi šel dani
flag-his of Dan
b. *digl-oi dani
flag-his Dan
Under the prosodic account, the impossibility of (50b), (47a) and (45b) follows
form one single reason. The presence of a suffix interrupts the prosodic sequence
necessary for Case checking to take place as schematized in (48a-b) and (51a).
Hence, a dummy preposition must be present (51b) to take care of the Case
requirement of the possessor noun phrase:
(51) a. * [beyt-o] PWd dan
house-his Dan
b.
[beyt-o] PWd šel dan
house-his of Dan
From the obligatory presence of šel, then, one cannot draw the conclusion that the
pronominal suffix requires and checks Case with N and is consequently a
pronominal clitic and not an agreement marker (as I have argued in Siloni
(1997)). The Case problem in (51a) is independent of the status of the suffix as
either an agreement marker or a pronominal clitic (see Engelhardt (1998) and
Shlonsky (1997) for the former claim).
6.
•
•
•
Conclusions
The main claims advanced in the paper are summarized below:
Case can be checked at PF in a prosodic domain.
The choice between syntactic or prosodic Case checking is parametric and
depends on the morphological inventory of the language.
Construct states define the prosodic domain in which genitive Case is
checked in Semitic languages. The domain is the prosodic word. It is formed
due to the function word status of the head of the construct in prosodic
structure.
38
•
•
•
TAL SILONI
Only stressless elements can intervene between the head of the construct and
its genitive member as they do not interrupt the prosodic string necessary for
Case checking. Thus, an adjective modifying the head of the construct cannot
immediately follow it, nor can a pronominal suffix or an adjectival formative
be attached to the head of the construct as they attract main stress.
The definite article cannot be realized on the head of the construct because
the latter constitutes a function word at prosodic structure, and function
words are invisible to morpho-syntactic rules such as prefixation that operate
at the interface between syntax and prosodic structure. Indeed, nonprefixal
determiners can modify the head of the construct.
The members of the construct do not always share the same definiteness
value. Definiteness spread is imposed by a definite genitive member. There is
no indefiniteness spread in constructs.
References
Anderson, S. 1992. A- Morphus Morphology, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Benmamoun, E. 1998. “Apparent Agreement Mismatches: A Question of SpellOut”. paper presented at the conference on the Syntax of Semitic Languages,
USC.
Benmamoun, E. 2000. “Agreement Asymmetries and the PF Interface”. in J.
Lecarme, J. Loewenstam & U. Shlonsky, eds. Studies in Afroasiatic
Grammar 2, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Borer, H. 1984. Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Borer, H. 1989. "On the Morphological Parallelism between Compounds and
Constructs". in G. Booij et al, eds. Morphology Yearbook 1. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Borer, H. 1996. “The Construct in Review”. in J. Lecarme, J. Loewenstam & U.
Shlonsky eds. Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar, Holland Academic Graphics.
30-61.
Borer, H. 1999. “Reconstruction the Construct”. in K. Johnson & I. Roberts, eds.
Dordrech: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1998. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. MIT Occasional
Papers in Linguistics 15.
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
39
Cinque, G. 1994a. “Posizione del soggetto nel DP italiano”. in L. Renzi, ed.
Omaggio a Florica Dimitrescu e Alexandru Niculescu, Padova: Unipress.
Cinque, G. 1994b. “On the Evidence for partial N-Movement in the Romance
DP”. In G. Cinque, J. Koster, J. Pollock, & R. Zanuttini, eds. Paths
Towards Universal Grammar: Essays in Honor of Richard S. Kayne. 85110. Georgetown University Press.
Cinque. G. 2000. “On Greenberg’s Universal 20 and the Semitic DP”. handout of
a paper presented at the Antisymmetry Conference, Cortona.
Corver, N. 1998. “Predicate Movement in Pseudopartitive Constructions”, in A.
Alexiadou and Ch. Wilder Studies in the Determiner Phrase.
Danon, G. 1996. “The Syntax of Determiners in Hebrew”. M.A. Thesis. Tel-Aviv
University.
Danon, G. 2001. “Syntactic Definiteness in the Grammar of Modern Hebrew”.
Linguistics 39.6.
Dobrovie Sorin, C. 1987. “A propos de la structure du groupe nominal en
roumain”. Rivista di grammatica generativa, 12, 23-152.
Dobrovie Sorin, C. 2001. “From DPs to NPs: A Bare Phrase Structure Account of
Genitives”. to appear in the Proceedings of the Antwerps Conference “From
DP to NPs”.
Duffield, N. 1995. Particles and Projections in Irish Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Engelhardt, M. 1998. “The Syntax of Nominalized Properties”. PhD Dissertation.
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Engelhardt, M. 2000. “The Projection of Argument-taking Nominals”. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory.
Fassi Fehri, A. 1989. “Generalized IP Structure, Case and VS Word Order”. in I.
Laka & A. Mahajan, eds. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 75-113.
Fassi Fehri, A. 1993. Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fassi Fehri, A. 1999. “Arabic modifying adjectives and DP structures”. Studia
Linguistica, 53.105-154.
Fox D. 1995. “Economy and Scope”. Natural Language Semantics, 3.283-341.
Friedemann, M.A. 1995. “Sujets syntaxiques: positions, inversions et pro”.
Doctoral dissertation, Université de Genève.
Gesenius 1910. Gesensius' Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautsch, revised by
A.E. Cowley, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Glinert, L. 1989. The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gray , L. H. 1934. Introduction to Semitic comparative Linguistics. New York:
40
TAL SILONI
Columbia University Press.
Grosu, A. 1988. “On the Distribution of Genitive Phrases in Romanian”.
Lingustics 26, 931-949.
Grosu, A. 2001. “The Distribution of Genitive Phrases in Romanian”. ms. TelAviv University.
Halle, M. & A. Marantz 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of
Inflection”. in K. Hale & S.J. Keyser, eds. The View from Building 20.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.11-176.
Hazout, I. 1991. “Action Nominalizations and the Lexicalist Hypothesis”.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hazout, I. to appear. “Adjectival genitive constructions in Modern Hebrew: A
case study in coanalysis”. The Linguistic Review.
Kihm A. 1999. “Towards a Predicational Theory of Semitic Construct State
Nominals”. ms. CNRS, Paris.
Longobardi, G. 1994. “A Case of Construct State in Romance”. in R. Ajello & S.
Sani, eds. Scritti linguistici e filologici in onore di Tristano Bolelli. Pisa:
Pacini.
Marantz, A. 1988. “Clitics, Morphological Merger, and the Mapping to
Phonological Structure”. in M. Hammond and M. Noonan, eds. Theoretical
Morphology, San Diego: Academic Press, 253-270.
Mohammad, M. 1988. “On the Parallelism between IP and DP”. in H. Borer, ed.
Proceedings of WCCFL 7, 241-254.
Mohammad, M. 1998. “Checking and Licensing inside DP in Palestinian
Arabic”. University of Florida.
Neeleman, E. and T. Reinhart 1996. “Scrambling and the PF Interface”. in W.
Gueder and M. Butt, eds. Projecting from the Lexicon, CSLI, Stanford.
Reinhart, T. 1995. “Interface strategies” OTS Working Papers. Utrecht
University.
Ritter, E. 1988. “A Head-Movement Approach to Construct-State NPs”.
Linguistics 26.6. 909-929.
Ritter, E. 1991. “Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from
Modern Hebrew”. Syntax and Semantics 25. 37-62.
Rizzi, L. 1991. “Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion”. Technical Reports
on Formal and Computational Linguistics 2, Université de Genève.
Sadock, G. 2000. “Decomposing the Construct”. ms. University of Chicago.
Selkirk, E.O. 1986. “On Derived Domains in Sentence Phonology”. Phonology
Yearbook 3. 371-405.
Selkirk, E.O. 1995. “The Prosodic Structure of Function Words”. In J. Beckman,
L. W. Dickey, and S. Urbanczyk eds. Papers in Optimality Theory.
CONSTRUCT STATES AT THE PF INTERFACE
41
Shlonsky. U. 1990. “Construct State Nominals and Universal Grammar”. ms.
University of Haifa.
Shlonsky. U. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shlonsky. U. 2000. “The Form of Noun Phrases”. ms. University of Geneva.
Sichel. I. 2000. “Remnant and Phrasal Movement in Hebrew Adjectives and
Possessives”. ms. CUNY Graduate Center
Siloni, T. 1991. “Noun Raising and the Structure of Noun Phrases”. in J. Bobaljik
& T. Bures eds. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 255-270.
Siloni, T. 1994. “Noun Phrases and Nominalizations”. Doctoral dissertation,
Université de Genève.
Siloni, T. 1995. “On Participial Relatives and Complementizer D0: a Case Study
in Hebrew and French”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13.3. 445487.
Siloni, T. 1997. Noun Phrases and Nominalizations: The syntax of DPs.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Siloni, T. 1998. “Adjectival complexes & inalienable constructions”. to appear in
J. Ouhalla & U. Shlonsky eds. Themes and issues in the syntax of Arabic and
Hebrew. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Siloni, T. 2000. “Nonnominal Constructs”. in J. Lecarme, J. Loewenstam & U.
Shlonsky, eds. Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar 2. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Williams, E. 1980. “Across-the-board rule application” Linguistic Inquiry 9 3143