VERBLESS PREDICATES I N HEBREW

EDIT DORON, B.S., M.S.

DISSERTATION

Presented t o t h e Facul ty o f t h e Graduate School of

The Univers i ty o f Texas a t Austin

in P a r t i a l Fu l f i l lmen t

o f t h e Requirements

f o r t h e Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

December, 1983

Copyright

by

Ed it Doron

1983

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many p e o p l e have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s work.

For d i s c u s s i n g my i d e a s w i t h me, I would l i k e t o t h a n k Hag i t B o r e r ,

I r e n e H e i m , Hans Kamp, C h a r l e s K i r k p a t r i c k , J e r r y Lame and S t a n l e y

P e t e r s . I am p a r t i c u l a r l y g r a t e f u l t o Richard Kayne f o r i n s p i r i n g

c o n v e r s a t i o n s and f o r h i s c o n s t r u c t i v e comments on my work. For

h e l p i n g r e v i s e t h e l a s t d r a f t s , I am i n d e b t e d t o L a u r i K a r t t u n e n , Lee

Bake r , John McCarthy and Abraham Z i l k h a .

I would l i k e t o t h a n k t h e L i n g u i s t i c s Depar tment and t h e

C e n t e r f o r C o g n i t i v e S c i e n c e o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas a t A u s t i n f o r

t h e i r f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t d u r i n g my s t u d i e s .

Many t h a n k s t o my i n f o r m a n t Yoav Moriah, w i t h whom it was

a lways a p l e a s u r e t o work.

The t a s k o f f o r m a t t i n g t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n was g r e a t l y e a s e d b y

u s e o f t h e S c r i b e automated document f o r m a t t e r . I t h a n k John

McCarthy f o r h e l p i n g w i t h t h e f o r m a t t i n g , and Wendy S a n d l e r , J e r r y

Lame and I r e n e H e i m f o r t h e i r h e l p w i t h t h e p r o o f r e a d i n g .

To my p a r e n t s and my f r i e n d s -- t h a n k you f o r your l o v e and

s u p p o r t .

Ed it Doron

The U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas a t A u s t i n December, 1983

Verbless Predicates i n Hebrew

Publication No.

E d i t Doron, Ph.D. The University of Texas a t A u s t i n , 1983

Supervising Professor: Lauri J. Karttunen

I n the study of grammar, much a t tent ion has focused on verbs

because of t he i r r o l e as the pivotal consti tuent i n the predicate of

a sentence. Not a l l sentences have a verb i n t h e i r predicate,

however. The present work deals w i t h sentences whose predicate has a

noun or an adjective as the main const i tuent ; the only ro l e of a

verb, i f it appears a t a l l i n such predicates, is t ha t of copula.

T h i s d i s se r ta t ion is i n part a study of the syntax of

contemporary Hebrew, a language where sentence predicates need not

contain a verb. It focuses on two constructions of Hebrew t h a t

exhibit verbless predicates: the so-called nominal and the

ex i s t en t i a l , exemplified i n (1) and (2) respectively:

(1 a . d a n i ( h u ) more Dani "heu t e a c h e r 'Dan i is a t e a c h e r . '

b. d a n i hu mar cohen Dani h e Mr. Cohen 'Dani is Mr. Cohen.'

(yex (+nam) b a - s i f r i a s f a r i m rab im. w e x i s t " " t h e y w i n - t h e l i b r a r y books many ' T h e r e a r e many b o o k s i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

The s y n t a c t i c a s p e c t s o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r e c a r r i e d o u t

w i t h i n t h e f ramework of Chomskyls t h e o r y o f U n i v e r s a l Grammar

o u t l i n e d i n h i s L e c t u r e s on Government and B ind ing . I show how t o

s e t c e r t a i n p a r a m e t e r s of U n i v e r s a l Grammar t o y i e l d t h e p r o p e r t i e s

o f Hebrew n o m i n a l and e x i s t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e s . The n a t u r e and

d i s t r i b u t i o n of c l i t i c s l i k e - hu and nam i n ( 1 and ( 2 ) a r e e x p l a i n e d

i n t h i s way.

I n a d d i t i o n , t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n d i s c u s s e s l a n g u a g e - i n d e p e n d e n t

a s p e c t s of t h e s e m a n t i c s of n o m i n a l (or c o p u l a t i v e ) s e n t e n c e s . The

a n a l y s i s d i s t i n g u i s h e s be tween p r e d i c a t i o n a l nomina l s e n t e n c e s , s u c h

a s ( l a ) , and i d e n t i t y nomina l s e n t e n c e s s u c h a s ( I b ) . T h i s

d i s t i n c t i o n h a s s y n t a c t i c i m p l i c a t i o n s , o n e of them b e i n g t h e

o b l i g a t o r i n e s s of t h e c l i t i c i n ( I b ) . The noun more c a n b e t h e

p r e d i c a t e of ( l a ) . The noun p h r a s e mar cohen is a r e f e r r i n g

e x p r e s s i o n , and t h e r e f o r e c a n n o t b y i t s e l f c o n s t i t u t e t h e p r e d i c a t e

of ( I b ) .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements iii

A b s t r a c t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T a b l e of C o n t e n t s v i i

Chap te r 1 . I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e t h e o r y o f Government and Binding 1

1.1. I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. X-bar Theory 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 3 . T h e L e x i c o n 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4. The T h e o r y o f Government 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5. D-Structure 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6. S - S t r u c t u r e 1 3 1.6.1.Move-U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1 . 6 . 2 . C h a i n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 1.6.3. C o n t r o l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8

1 .7 .0 -Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.8. Binding Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.9. Some consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1.10.ECP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 1.11. Case Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chap te r 2 . B a s i c s o f Hebrew s y n t a x 34

. . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Evidence f o r VP . . . . . . 2.2. S p e c i f y i n g t h e INFL node . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. B a s i c word-order . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1. Some d a t a . . . . . 2.3.2. Subj e c t - v e r b i n v e r s i o n 2.3.2.1. Rightward s u b j e c t movement i n . . . 2.3.2.2. Verb f r o n t i n g i n Hebrew

2.3.3. Word-order a t D- and S - S t r u c t u r e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Pro-drop . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 . P e r s o n a l pronouns

. . . . . . . . . 34 . . . . . . . . . 38 . . . . . . . . . 41 . . . . . . . . . 41 . . . . . . . . . 44 I t a l i a n . . . . . 44 . . . . . . . . . 48 . . . . . . . . . 5 1 . . . . . . . . . 5 2 . . . . . . . . . 53

v i i

2.4.2. E x p l e t i v e pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5. Sen tence n e g a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6. The a u x i l i a r y h.y.y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 3 . The Pronominal l1Copulal1 a s Agreement C l i t i c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Some d a t a

3.3. The a n a l y s i s o f nominal s e n t e n c e s . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. The s t r u c t u r e o f nominal s e n t e n c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. The n a t u r e o f Pron

3.3.2.1. Unattached AGR f e a t u r e s . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2.2. C l i t i c c h a i n s i n Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2.3. Pron a s c l i t i c 3.3.2.4. Pron a s a v a r i a b l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2.5. Agreement 3.3.2.6. AGR i n v e r b a l s e n t e n c e s . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3.3. P r e d i c a t e - f i r s t s e n t e n c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. F u r t h e r p r e d i c t i o n s 3.4.1. The i n t e r a c t i o n o f Pron w i t h pronominal s u b j e c t s . 3.4.2. The i n t e r a c t i o n of Pron w i t h wh-movement . . . . .

3.5. Agains t t h e a n a l y s i s o f Pron a s V: . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. Agains t t h e l e f t - d i s l o c a t i o n a n a l y s i s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7. Conclusion

Chapter 4 . R e f e r r i n g P r e d i c a t e Nominals . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. R e f e r r i n g p r e d i c a t e s

4.2.1. The o b l i g a t o r i n e s s o f Pron . . . . 4.2.2. Pronominal s u b j e c t s and p r e d i c a t e s

4.3. "Pointer t1 z e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1. An apparen t counterexample 4.3.2. P o i n t e r s a r e non-arguments . . . .

4.3.2.1. The i n t u i t i o n s o f p h i l o s o p h e r s . . . . . . . 4.3.2.2. Higg ins l ev idence . . . . . . . 4.3.2.3. Kuroda l s argument 4.3.2.4. A d d i t i o n a l ev idence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. Conclus ion

Chapter 5 . The Semant ics o f P r e d i c a t e Nominals . . . . . . . . . 130

5.1. I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

5.2. Distinguishing i den t i t y from predicational sentences . 132 5.2.1. Semantic Diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

5.2.1.1. Diagnostic 1: anaphora . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 5.2.1.2. Diagnostic 2: l'pointern t ha t . . . . . . . . . 142 5.2.1.3. Diagnostic 3: predicational what . . . . . . . 143 5.2.1.4. Diagnostic 4: mass terms . . . . . . . . . . . 145 5.2.1.5. Diagnostic 5: Weak Crossover . . . . . . . . . 146

5.2.2. Syntactic diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5.2.2.1. Diagnostic 6: non-restr ict ive r e l a t i ve clauses 148 5.2.2.2. Diagnostic 7: predicates of small clauses . . . 149

5.3. Crossing the re fe ren t ia l -a t t r ibu t ive d i s t inc t ion . . . 149 5.4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

5.4.1. Predicational predicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 5.4.1.1. Role predicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 5.4.1.2. Proper names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 5.4.1.3. N ' predicates t ha t are not ro les . . . . . . . 156

5.4.2. Referring predicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 5.5. quan t i f i e r s and predicate nominals . . . . . . . . . . 158 5.6. Plural NPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

5.6.1. A dis t inc t ion within plural NPs . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.6.2. Pa r t i t i ve s as predicate nominals . . . . . . . . . 168

5.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Chapter 6 . Exis tent ia l Sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 6.1.1. Exis tent ia l . possessive and locat ive sentences . . 173 . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2. Negation of ex i s t en t i a l sentences 176 . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3. Tensed ex i s t en t i a l sentences 179

6.2. The analysis of yex-less constructions . . . . . . . . 182 6.3. The analysis of 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 -

. 6.3.1. Exis tent ia l and locat ive sentences . . . . . . . . I86 6.3.2. Possessive sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

6.3.2.1. NP complements of . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2.2. Sentential complements of - ye8 193 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4. Conclusion 197

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Chapter 1

I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e t h e o r y o f Government and Binding

1.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n

The t h e o r y o f Universa l Grammar (UG) is proposed i n t h e work

of Noam Chomsky a s an accoun t f o r t h e f a c t t h a t many p r o p e r t i e s o f

t h e grammar developed by a c h i l d l e a r n i n g a s p e c i f i c l anguage a r e

underdetermined by t h e ev idence a v a i l a b l e t o him. UG c o n s i s t s o f

p r i n c i p l e s t h a t r e s t r i c t t h e c l a s s o f p o s s i b l e grammars a v a i l a b l e t o

t h e l anguage l e a r n e r . A p a r t i c u l a r view o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f UG a s

depending on pa ramete r s t h a t have t o be f i x e d by e x p e r i e n c e i s

developed i n t h e t h e o r y o f Government and Binding (Chomsky (1981,

1982) . Due t o t h e r i c h s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t h e o r y , d i f f e r e n t

combina t ions o f t h e v a l u e s o f i t s paramete r s may g i v e r i s e t o

grammars o f l anguages t h a t a r e v e r y d i f f e r e n t from each o t h e r .

UG c o n s i s t s o f a subsystem o f r u l e s i n t e r a c t i n g wi th

subsystems o f p r i n c i p l e s . The r u l e s o f UG can be d iv ided i n t o a

number o f subcomponents. Among them a r e t h e l e x i c o n and t h e s y n t a x .

The syntax is f u r t h e r subd iv ided i n t o a b a s e component and a

t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l component. The b a s e component c o n s i s t s o f con tex t -

f r e e r e w r i t i n g r u l e s t h a t g e n e r a t e D-S t ruc tu res ; t h e form o f t h e s e

r u l e s conforms t o t h e X-bar t h e o r y . The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l component

a s s o c i a t e s each D-S t ruc tu re w i t h an S - S t r u c t u r e , b y means o f t h e r u l e

move-U. The c h o i c e o f U and o f t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g l a n d i n g s i t e , i n

t h e s e n s e o f B a l t i n (1978, 19821, is p a r a m e t r i z e d . The subsys tem o f

r u l e s i n c l u d e s a l s o t h e PF-component , which maps S - S t r u c t u r e s t o

s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e s , which a r e p h o n e t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . '

Among t h e subsys tems o f p r i n c i p l e s a r e t h e t h e o r i e s o f X-bar,

government, 0, bound ing , b i n d i n g , c o n t r o l and Case. I n t h e r ema in ing

s e c t i o n s o f t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e v a r i o u s subsys tems o f r u l e s and

p r i n c i p l e s a r e i n t r o d u c e d .

1.2 X-bar Theory

One o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e X-bar t h e o r y a s developed i n

Chomsky (1 970) and Jackendof f (1977) is t h a t UG c o n t a i n s a f i x e d s e t

o f s y n t a c t i c d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s . Each l a n g u a g e selects d i f f e r e n t

c o m b i n a t i o n s o f t h e s e f e a t u r e s . These c o m b i n a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e t h e

z e r o - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s o f t h a t l anguage . According t o Chomsky ( 1 9 7 0 ) ,

t h e major z e r o - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s a r e c l a s s i f i e d by t h e two f e a t u r e s

[+NI - and [+VI - a s f o l l o w s :

'1t is u s u s a l l y assumed i n t h e t h e o r y o f Government and Binding t h a t t h e subsys tem o f r u l e s c o n t a i n s y e t a n o t h e r component: LF, which maps S - S t r u c t u r e s t o a l e v e l o f s e m a n t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . I w i l l p r e s e n t below a v e r s i o n o f t h e t h e o r y t h a t d o e s n o t assume t h e e x i s t e n c e o f such a component.

C+Nl

C+V 1 A( d ject ive)

[-V 1 N(oun)

C-N I

V(erb)

P(reposit ion)

A l l categories are projections of zero-level categories, i .e .

of the form x(") for some zero-level category X and some natural

number - n , which is the number of bars associated with x(") . The

notation X I is sometimes used fo r x") , X I 1 for x(*) e t c . x(') serve

as an a l t e rna t ive notation for X.

The r u l e s of the base according t o the X-bar theory are of

the following form, where n>O:

The term head of the category x(") is used ambiguously to re fe r

e i the r t o x("-') or t o X. It should be c lear i n every par t icular

context how the term is used.

some projections are maximal. Where x ( ~ ) i s a maximal

projection of X , the following ru l e s are a lso among the ru l e s of the

base :

x ( m ) --> ... ,( m) . . . We c a l l the maximal projection of X XP. But XP i n a spec i f i c

configuration may denote a non-maximal projection x ( ~ ) which i s not

dominated by X (i+l ). Again, it should be c lear i n every par t icular

context how the term is used.

The ca tegory in formal ly c a l l e d S(entence1 i s a p ro j ec t i on of

t h e nonmajor zero-level ca tegory INFL(ection), bu t it is not a

maximal p ro j ec t i on . Following Stowell (1 981 ) I w i l l assume t h a t t h e

ca tegory in formal ly c a l l e d S t i s a p ro j ec t i on of t h e nonmajor zero-

l e v e l ca tegory COMP(1ementizer). S t i s a maximal pro jec t ion .

The informal vers ion of t h e r u l e s expanding S and S1 i n

Hebrew a r e ( l a , b ) r e spec t ive ly . 2

(1 a. S --> INFL NP VP

b. S t - > COMP S

(1 a ) w i l l be discussed f u r t h e r i n fol lowing chap te r s , e s p e c i a l l y t h e

assumption t h a t INFL is sen tence i n i t i a l i n Hebrew. Throughout most

o f t h i s chap te r , i n order t o keep t h i n g s s imple, I w i l l ignore t h e

node INFL.

2 ~ h e formal ve r s ions of ( l a , b ) which ab ide by t h e X-bar theory a r e ( i ) and ( i i ) r e spec t ive ly :

i. INFLt --> INFL N" V t ii. COMPt --> COMP INFLt

1.3 The Lexicon

The lexicon of each par t icular grammar l i s t s the

idiosyncratic propert ies of l ex i ca l items, according t o dimensions

specified by UG. Those cons t i tu te representations of the

phonological, morphological, syntact ic and semantic propert ies of the

l ex ica l items. The representation mainly relevant for t h i s study is

the syntact ic representation. It consis ts of specif icat ions , for

each lex ica l item, of categorial features , the complements the item

subcategorizes fo r , and the thematic ro les (@-roles) it assigns t o

i t s complements. Lexical items may also par t i c ipa te i n assigning

thematic ro l e s t o t he i r subjects; t h i s information too is available

i n the lexicon.

For example the lexicon of Hebrew contains an entry for the

l ex i ca l item noten, which means give. The morphological information

w i l l include the f a c t t h a t t h i s l ex ica l item is composed of the root

n.t .n. and the vowels typical t o the f i r s t binyan ( conjugation) .3 The

syntact ic entry for noten is something l i k e the following:'l

5 ~ o r a theory of nonconcatenative morphology, such as the one of Hebrew, and Semitic in general, see McCarthy (1979, 1981 )

' l ~ h e grammatical functions are defined s t ruc tura l ly , for example subject i s defined Itas the re la t ion holding between the NP of a sentence.. . and the whole sentencevv (Chomsky ( 1965) ,691 ; d i r ec t object is defined lvas the re la t ion between the NP of a VP . . . and the whole VPvv ( ib id .) e t c .

[V, [- Lppg NPI NPI , d i r e c t o b j e c t i s theme, i n d i r e c t o b j e c t is g o a l , s u b j e c t is agen t ] .

The above e n t r y s p e c i f i e s t h a t n o t e n is o f t h e c a t e g o r y - V and t h a t it

s u b c a t e g o r i z e s f o r b o t h a PP headed by t h e p r e p o s i t i o n - l e ' t o ' and an

NP. It a s s i g n s t h e @-ro le theme t o t h e NP it s u b c a t e g o r i z e s f o r and

t h e @-role goa l t o t h e PP it s u b c a t e g o r i z e s f o r . It i n d i r e c t l y

a s s i g n s t h e @-role agen t t o i t s s u b j e c t . 5

Another example i s t h e a j e c t i v e asuy 'may'. It does n o t

a s s i g n a @-role t o i t s s u b j e c t , and s u b c a t e g o r i z e s f o r an i n f i n i t i v a l

s e n t e n t i a l complement.6 Its e n t r y l o o k s l i k e t h e f o l l o w i n g , where 0

h e r e s t a n d s f o r whatever @-role i s ass igned t o t h e s e n t e n t i a l

complement :

[ A , [ - S t i n f i n i t i v a l ] , complement is 81

5 ~ n d i r e c t @-ro le ass ignement w i l l be d i s c u s s e d below.

6asuy is a " r a i s i n g v a d j e c t i v e , a s we can s e e from t h e f a c t t h a t i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e s it may t a k e e x p l e t i v e a s w e l l a s non-exp le t ive s u b j e c t s . The s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e s u b j e c t s d a n i and - ze a r e l t r a i s e d l v from s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n o f t h e complement c l a u s e o f asuy.

a. d a n i asuy l a t e t l e - r i n a s e f e r Dani may to -g ive t o Rina book 'Dani may g i v e Rina a book.'

b . ze asuy l e h a r g i z e t - r i n a 8 e d a n i meaxer it may to-annoy ACC Rina t h a t Dani i s - l a t e 'It may annoy Rina t h a t Dani is l a t e . '

1.4 The Theory o f Government

Government is t h e fundamen ta l p r i n c i p l e u n i f y i n g v a r i o u s

subsys t ems o f p r i n c i p l e s . S u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , Case a s s i g n m e n t , most

o f @-marking, t a k e p l a c e under government. The f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e

t h e o r y o f b i n d i n g a l s o depends on t h e n o t i o n o f government. The

b a s i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f government is t h e fo l lowing :7

where ( a ) and (b) ho ld :

( a ) a is x(') o r a is coindexed w i t h @ (b ) a c-commands 8 .

Government ( d e f i n i t i o n )

I n t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n (21 , QT g o v e r n s B i f f f o r e v e r y maximal

p r o j e c t i o n 4, i f 6 d o m i n a t e s t h e n 4 d o m i n a t e s U.

The d e f i n i t i o n o f c-command is a s i n Chomsky (1981, 1661,

which is a s f o l l o w s :

c-command ( d e f i n i t i o n )

L e t QT and # b e two nodes i n a p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e t r e e such t h a t

n e i t h e r d o m i n a t e s t h e o t h e r . Assume (I i s o f t h e form 7 ( i ) and l e t n

7 ~ o i n d e x i n g w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d below.

b e t h e maximal s u c h t h a t r ( n ) d o m i n a t e s U i n t h a t t r e e . Then U c-

commands # i f f e i t h e r n > i and .I(n) d o m i n a t e s #, o r n = i and t h e node

t h a t domina te s Qt d o m i n a t e s #.

For many c a s e s Chomskyls d e f i n i t i o n i s e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e

d e f i n i t i o n o f R e i n h a r t (1976): U c-commands # i f f n e i t h e r u n o r #

d o m i n a t e s t h e o t h e r , and t h e f i r s t b r a n c h i n g node t h a t d o m i n a t e s U

domina te s #. For example i n ( 3 a ) X c-commands Y u n d e r b o t h

d e f i n i t i o n s . But Chomskyls d e f i n i t i o n h a s a s a consequence t h a t i n

t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n ( 3 b ) X c-commands Y , even though X I , t h e f i r s t

b r a n c h i n g node t h a t d o m i n a t e s X , d o e s n o t domina te Y.

The re are s e v e r a l s p e c i a l c a s e s o f government t h a t p l a y a

c e n t r a l r o l e i n t h e t h e o r y . F i r s t t h e r e i s t h e c a s e where, i n t h e

c o n f i g u r a t i o n (21, Qt i s t h e head o f y ( i . e . y i s U 1 ) and # i s o n e

o f i t s complements . Then t h e c a t e g o r y B must s a t i s f y t h e

s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n f rame o f Qt a s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e l e x i c o n . I n t h i s

c a s e we s a y t h a t Qt s u b c a t e g o r i z e s t h e p o s i t i o n occupied b y B.

According t o t h e t h e o r y , s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n e n t a i l s @-marking,

t h e r e f o r e Qt @-marks # i n t h e same c o n f i g u r a t i o n .

To g i v e a c o n c r e t e example, i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n f i g u r a t i o n

no ten g o v e r n s l e - r i n a and s e f e r . It t h e r e f o r e s u b c a t e g o r i z e s t h e

p o s i t i o n s occup ied by l e - r i n a and s e f e r , and @-marks l e - r i n a and

s e f e r :

(4 1 n o t e n l Cpple- [Npr ina l I LNpseferl [VP v g i v e t o Rina book

On t h e o t h e r hand n o t e n i n ( 4 ) d o e s n o t gove rn t h e NP r i n a , s i n c e t h e

maximal p r o j e c t i o n PP l l i n t e r v e n e s n . r i n a is governed by t h e

p r e p o s i t i o n 2.

V d o e s n o t govern t h e s u b j e c t , s i n c e it d o e s n o t c-command

t h e s u b j e c t - S n o t b e i n g a p r o j e c t i o n o f V.

( 5 )

[ c d a n i ] c~~ CVnotenI Lpp le - r ina l [Npseferll S NP

I n d e e d , v e r b s do n o t s u b c a t e g o r i z e f o r s u b j e c t s , and @ - r o l e is n o t

a s s i g n e d t o t h e s u b j e c t under government. Ra the r v e r b s @-mark

s u b j e c t s i n d i r e c t l y . C o n f i g u r a t i o n (2), i f t h e r equ i remen t t h a t Gt c-

command # i s r e p l a c e d by t h e r equ i remen t t h a t @ i s t h e s u b j e c t o f a,

is t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n under which Gt i n d i r e c t l y @-marks # . I n example

( 5 1 , n o t e n i n d i r e c t l y @-marks - d a n i .

To end t h i s sec t ion I w i l l present a more exo t i c example of

government, where t h e f u l l machinery of c-command is put t o work.

Hebrew has cons t ruc t - s t a t e N P s , i n which t h e complement denotes a

possessor. These NPs, exemplified i n (61 , have t h e s t r u c t u r e shown

i n ( 7 ) :

(6 b e i t ha-mora

house t h e teacher

l t h e teacher1 s house1

(7 C N p NP NPI

In these NPs it is poss ib le f o r a c l i t i c t h a t agrees with t h e

possessor t o show up on t h e head.8 Borer (1981) argues t h a t t h i s

c l i t i c governs t h e complement NP. 9

I bei t+a i

I Ye1 ha-morai

house her of t h e teacher

l t h e teacher1 s house1

8 ~ h e f a c t t h a t t h e head is t o t h e l e f t is spec i f ied by f ix ing t h e value of t h e re levant parameter.

9 the Case-marker - 8 e l i n ( 8 ) is introduced by a spec ia l r u l e .

b e i t + a i ha-yafe Be1 ha-morai

house h e r t h e n i c e o f t h e t e a c h e r ' t h e t e a c h e r ' s n i c e house '

I n ( 8 a ) , t h e f i r s t b r a n c h i n g node t h a t domina tes t h e c l i t i c

d o m i n a t e s t h e NP complement. T h e r e f o r e R e i n h a r t ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f c-

command e n s u r e s government. But i n ( 8 b ) , Chomsky's d e f i n i t i o n o f c-

command h a s t o be u t i l i z e d , s i n c e t h e f i r s t b r a n c h i n g node t h a t

domina tes t h e c l i t i c d o e s n o t dominate t h e NP complement.

D-S t ruc tu re is a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e t h e m a t i c r o l e

a s s i g n m e n t s o f t h e l e x i c o n i n t h a t a l l and o n l y g rammat ica l f u n c t i o n s

t h a t a r e a s s i g n e d a t h e t a - r o l e a r e f i l l e d by arguments. Arguments

a r e e x p r e s s i o n s t h a t assume $ - ro le s , u n l i k e idiom chunks and

e x p l e t i v e e l e m e n t s l i k e t h e E n g l i s h t h e r e ( a s i n t h e r e i s a man i n

t h e ga rden) and - it ( a s i n it seems t h a t John is happy) , which do n o t

assume # - ro le s .

( g a ) is a p o s s i b l e D-Structure b u t ( 9 b ) is n o t , s i n c e t h e r e

is no argument i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n , even though n o t e n ( i n d i r e c t l y )

0-marks t h e s u b j e c t . 10,11,12

a. [Npdan i ] CVp[Vnotenl Cpple-rina1 LNpsefer1 1 Dan i g i v e s t o r i n a book

'Dani g i v e s Rina a book.'

b. * CNpe1 [Vp[Vnotenl [ p p l e - r i n a l LNpsefer l 1 g i v e s t o Rina book

On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e D-Structure ( 1 0 a ) , where t h e r e is an

argument i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n , i s u n a c c e p t a b l e , s i n c e asuy d o e s n o t

a s s i g n a 0 - r o l e t o i ts s u b j e c t . ( l o b ) is an a c c e p t a b l e D-Structure ,

s i n c e i t s s u b j e c t i s n u l l . One o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e Extended

P r o j e c t i o n P r i n c i p l e , which we d i s c u s s l a t e r , is t h a t c l a u s e s have

s u b j e c t s . T h e r e f o r e t h e D-Structure ( 1 0 ~ ) i s r u l e d o u t by t h e

t h e o r y .

(10) a. * [s[NpmoYe] [AP asuy CNpdanil I V p l a t e t l e - r i n a s e f e r l l l l

Moshe may Dani to -g ive t o Rina book

I 0 e i s t h e n u l l s t r i n g .

''1 f o r now a b s t r a c t away from q u e s t i o n s o f t e n s e and agreement.

1 2 ~ h e f a c t t h a t Hebrew is a pro-drop language is i r r e l e v a n t t o ( g b ) . A s we w i l l s e e l a t e r , t h e s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n o f a s e n t e n c e wi th pro-drop is n o t n u l l . I n any c a s e no ten l e - r i n a s e f e r ' g i v e s Rina is bookt i s n o t a grammatical s e n t e n c e o f Hebrew s i n c e pro-drop o n l y a p p l i e s i n p a s t and f u t u r e t e n s e s .

b. [S[Npe] [AP asuy C S INpdani1 CVplatet l e - r i na s e f e r l I l l

may Dani to-give t o Rina book

c . * [S[AP asuy [S [Npdani l CVplatet l e - r i na s e f e r l l l l

To r e c a p i t u l a t e , arguments i n D-Structure appear i n a l l and

only p o s i t i o n s t h a t a r e assigned @-roles . It is assumed t h a t no

argument i s assigned more than one @-role. The conjunct ion o f t he se

cond i t i ons is known as t h e Theta C r i t e r i o n ( @ - c r i t e r i o n ) .

P o s i t i o n s i n which arguments may appear i n D-Structure a r e

c a l l e d argument p o s i t i o n s (A-positions f o r s h o r t ) . D i r e c t o b j e c t and

i n d i r e c t o b j e c t a r e A-positions. Subjec t is an A-position t oo , s i n c e

t h e r e a r e some verbs t h a t ass ign a @-role t o t h e sub jec t . COMP, on

t h e o t h e r hand, is not a pos i t i on t h a t is assigned a @-role by a

l e x i c a l item, t h e r e f o r e it may not conta in an argument a t D- -

St ruc tu re . Such a pos i t i on i s c a l l e d a non-A-position, A-position

f o r s h o r t .

D-Structures a r e mapped t o S-Structures by t h e r u l e move-a.

The a p p l i c a t i o n of move-U i s s u b j e c t t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s of t h e theory

o f bounding, no tab ly subjacency ( c f . Chomsky (1977a, 1977b), Reinhart

(19791, Rizzi (19801, Engdahl (1980)) . The choice of bounding nodes

i s parametrized.

S-Structure t o o is a p ro j ec t i on o f t h e themat ic r o l e

assignments of l e x i c a l items, i n a sense t o be made p rec i se below.

I n o t h e r words, both s y n t a c t i c subcomponents a r e r e l a t e d t o t h e

lex icon i n t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a t each s y n t a c t i c l e v e l observe t h e

subca t ego r i za t i on p r o p e r t i e s o f l e x i c a l i t ems and t h e i r assignment of

0 - ro l e s t o t h e i r complements. This is i n essence t h e P ro j ec t i on

P r i n c i p l e , which is a b a s i c p r i n c i p l e o f t h e theory. The Extended

P ro j ec t i on P r i n c i p l e adds t o t h e P ro j ec t i on P r i n c i p l e t h e requirement

t h a t c l a u s e s have s u b j e c t s .

move-q can apply t o t h e D-Structure (1 1 ), yie ld ing t h e S-

S t r u c t u r e (12) . Since subca t ego r i za t i on frames have t o be met a t

every s t r u c t u r e , noten has a d i r e c t o b j e c t a t S-Structure t oo , t o

which it as s igns t h e r e l e v a n t 0-role . The NP i n d i r e c t o b j e c t

pos i t i on a t S-Structure i s [Npel .13 Such a ca tegory , which r e s u l t s

from t h e app l i ca t i on o f m o v e 4 is c a l l e d t r a c e .

(11) [SINpdani l LVpnoten l e - r i na [Npmal l l

Dani g i v e s t o r i n a what

1 3 ~ h e r u l e s in t roduc ing l e x i c a l m a t e r i a l a t S-Structure a r e l i m i t e d , and would not be a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case.

(12) [S [ [ ma]$ [ [ d a n i l [Vpnoten l e - r i n a [Npe l i l l l COMP NP S NP

IWhat does Dani g i v e t o Rina? '

[Npel i n (12) and LNpel i n ( l o b ) b o t h have n u l l p h o n e t i c

m a t r i c e s , b u t t h e y d i f f e r i n i m p o r t a n t r e s p e c t s . CNpel i n ( l o b ) is a

n u l l c a t e g o r y i n t h a t it c o n t a i n s no f e a t u r e s a t a l l . The t r a c e

CNpel i n ( 1 2 ) is n o t n u l l , s i n c e it is assumed t h a t when a c a t e g o r y

i s moved, i t s t r a c e i s marked w i t h i t s grammat ica l f e a t u r e s . 1 4 A non-

empty s u b s e t o f t h e c l u s t e r o f grammat ica l f e a t u r e s [ p e r s o n ] ,

[number] , [ g e n d e r ] , [Case] ( and maybe [wh-I) is c a l l e d an empty

c a t e g o r y . An empty c a t e g o r y h a s grammat ica l f e a t u r e s b u t no p h o n e t i c

f e a t u r e s , and shou ld be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from t h e n u l l c a t e g o r y , which

h a s no f e a t u r e s a t a l l . The t r a c e CNpe1 i n ( 1 2 ) f o r example is an

empty c a t e g o r y , n o t a n u l l c a t e g o r y .

There i s t h e r e f o r e a d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e n u l l c a t e g o r y ,

empty c a t e g o r i e s , and non-null non-empty c a t e g o r i e s , which a r e c a l l e d

l e x i c a l c a t e g o r i e s . A s we see below, empty c a t e g o r i e s can be

c l a s s i f i e d accord ing t o p r o p e r t i e s we w i l l d i s c u s s . The empty

c a t e g o r y i n (121, a t r a c e which r e s u l t s from movement o f a wh-phrase

t o COMP, i s c a l l e d v a r i a b l e .

4 ~ r a m m a t i c a l f e a t u r e s a r e e i t h e r p a r t o f t h e morphologica l e n t r y o f a l e x i c a l item, o r a s s i g n e d d u r i n g t h e d e r i v a t i o n .

The ru le move-q involves coindexing of the moved U and i t s

t r ace , as shown i n (12) above. The moved QI i s called antecedent.

The concept of binding is based on coindexing and on c-command:

Binding (def in i t ion)

Let Ui and Bi be two coindexed categories. Then qi binds Bi i f f qi

c-command s B

I n (12) , - mai c-commands ei and therefore binds it. 15

1.6.2 Chains

Another example of the application of move-# is the one t ha t

maps the D-Structure ( lob) , repeated below a s (131, t o the S-

Structure (14) . The NP - dani i s moved from subject posit ion of the

embedded clause t o subject position of the matrix clause. By t he

Extended Projection Principle l a t e t must have a subject; a t S-

Structure t h i s subject is a t race . A s we w i l l see below, t h i s t r a ce

i s a d i s t i nc t empty category from the var iable of (12) , and is called /

NP-trace. danii c-commands the NP-trace ei, and therefore binds it.

(13) [S[Npe] C A P asuy L S [Npdanil CVplatet le-rina se fe r l I I I

may Dani to-give t o Rina book

I5we use m a i and li as short fo r [Npmali and [NPe]i respectively.

IsCNpdanili IAP a s u y C S CNpeli I V p l a t e t l e - r i n a se fe r l l l l d a n i may t o - g i v e t o Rina book

'Dani may g i v e Rina a book.'

The a n t e c e d e n t d a n i i i n (14) i s i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n , whereas

i n ( 1 2 ) , t h e a n t e c e d e n t mai i s i n COMP. There i s a p r i n c i p l e d - d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e s e a n t e c e d e n t s . S u b j e c t

- p o s i t i o n i s an A-pos i t ion , whereas COMP i s an A p o s i t i o n . I f t h e

a n t e c e d e n t is i n A-pos i t ion , we r e f e r t o t h e b i n d i n g a s A-binding, -

whereas i f t h e a n t e c e d e n t i s i n A-pos i t ion , we r e f e r t o t h e b i n d i n g -

a s A-binding. The f o l l o w i n g i s a d e f i n i t i o n o f l o c a l b ind ing :

Loca l A-binding ( d e f i n i t i o n ) -

a l o c a l l y A-binds @ i f f a A-binds # and f o r e v e r y Y and Y E i A , A ) ,

if y Y-binds # t h e n e i t h e r Y Y-binds a o r Y = a.

- The n o t i o n o f l o c a l A-binding is d e f i n e d a c c o r d i n g l y .

- ( 1 2 ) i s an example o f l o c a l A-binding: ma. i n COMP l o c a l l y

-1 - A-binds i t s t r a c e , t h e v a r i a b l e - ei - t h e l o c a l i t y b e i n g due t o t h e

- f a c t t h a t no o t h e r A-binder o r A-binder ' l i n t e r v e n e s t l . ( 1 4 ) is an

example o f l o c a l A-binding: d a n i i l o c a l l y A-binds i t s t r a c e , t h e NP-

t r a c e - ei.

The o r d e r e d p a i r ( d a n i i , e i ) o f ( 1 4 ) forms what i s c a l l e d a

c h a i n .

Chain ( d e f i n i t i o n )

C=(U(1) , ..., U ( n ) ) i s a chain i f f ( a ) each U( i ) is an NP i n A-position and l o c a l l y A-binds U ( i + l ) (b ) C i s maximal, i . e . C i s not a proper subsequence of a cha in

meeting ( a )

(mai, ei) i n (12) is not a cha in , s i nce p a r t o f t h e

d e f i n i t i o n o f a cha in is t h a t a l l i t s members be i n A-position,

whereas mai i s i n COMP, which is not an A-position.

1.6.3 Control

In t h e l a s t s ec t i on we discussed coindexing a s p a r t of t h e

app l i ca t i on o f move+. Another mechanism f o r coindexing two

c a t e g o r i e s i s c o n t r o l . For a d i s cus s ion o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e

t heo ry of c o n t r o l c f . Chomsky (1981, 74 f f . ) , Manzini (1983) .

Ca tegor ies t h a t a r e not indexed a t S-Structure by e i t h e r move-a o r

c o n t r o l , a r e indexed f r e e l y . 16

The verb h i v t i a x 'promise1, l i k e i t s English coun te rpa r t , i s

subcategorized f o r a s e n t e n t i a l complement, e i t h e r t ensed o r

i n f i n i t i v a l , and a s s i g n s a #-role t o i t s sub jec t . In t h e case of a

tensed complement, t h e D-Structure may be l i k e (15a) and poss ib l e S-

S t r u c t u r e s a r e (15b ,c ) . These a r e c a s e s of f r e e indexing.

161t may be pos s ib l e t o assume t h a t a l l indexing is f r e e , and t h a t t h e t h e o r i e s o f b ind ing and c o n t r o l " f i l t e r outvv i l l e g a l indexing. I w i l l no t assume t h a t , s i nce I wish t o keep t h e expos i t ion simple.

a . d a n i h i v t i a x [ S I S e C S CNphul I V p y i t e n l e - r i n a s e f e r l l l

Dani promised t h a t he w i l l - g i v e t o Rina book

'Dani promised t h a t h e w i l l g i v e Rina a book.'

b. dan i i h i v t i a x [ S I S e [S CNphuIi CVpyiten l e - r i n a s e f e r l l l

C. d a n i i h i v t i a x I S I S e L S INphu1 j [ V p y i t e n l e - r i n a s e f e r l 1 I

I f t h e complement is i n f i n i t i v a l , D-Structure may be as i n

(16a) . S i m i l a r l y t o E n g l i s h , t h e o n l y grammatical S -S t ruc tu re i s

( 1 6 b ) , w i t h CNpel coindexed under c o n t r o l w i t h t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e

matrix c l a u s e . I f CNpel is ass igned an independent index by f r e e

i n d e x i n g , as i n ( 1 6 c ) , t h e r e s u l t is ungrammatical - u n l i k e t h e c a s e

o f ( 1 5 ~ ) . T h i s h a s t o do wi th t h e f a c t t o which we r e t u r n l a t e r ,

t h a t CNpe] i n ( 1 6 ) i s an whereas hu i n ( 1 5 ) is n o t . -

(16) a . d a n i h i v t i a x [ I S CNpe] C V p l a t e t l e - r i n a s e f e r l l l

d a n i promised to -g ive t o Rina book

'Dani promised t o g i v e Rina a book.'

b. d a n i i h i v t i a x [ C S LNpeli L V p l a t e t l e - r i n a s e f e r l l l

c. * dan i i h i v t i a x [ [S INpe] [ V p l a t e t l e - r i n a s e f e r l l l

INpe] i n ( 1 6 ) is an empty c a t e g o r y and n o t a n u l l c a t e g o r y . 17

Such an empty c a t e g o r y , which is n o t a t r a c e s i n c e it does n o t r e s u l t

from t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f move-a, is c a l l e d - PRO. The PRO CNpe] is an

argument s i n c e it a p p e a r s i n D-Structure i n a p o s i t i o n which is

ass igned a @-role .

A t S - S t r u c t u r e , t h e @ - c r i t e r i o n h o l d s o f c h a i n s . A c h a i n is

0-marked i f f one o f i t s e lements is ass igned a - r o e The

@ - c r i t e r i o n re fo rmula ted f o r c h a i n is t h e fo l lowing :

# - c r i t e r i o n

Every argument i n A-posit ion i s p a r t o f a c h a i n which is #-marked,

and e v e r y c h a i n which is #-marked c o n t a i n s e x a c t l y o n e argument.

A t D-Structure we may r e g a r d e v e r y A-posi t ion a s a c h a i n o f

l e n g t h one. The 0 - c r i t e r i o n a s formulated h e r e h o l d s t h e r e f o r e b o t h

a t D-Structure and a t S -S t ruc tu re .

I71t is e a s y t o s e e t h a t it h a s agreement f e a t u r e s from t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n t r a s t :

a . d a n i h i v t i a x CCNpel l a t e t e t acmo l e - r i n a ] Dani promised to -g ive ACC h i m s e l f t o Rina

b . * d a n i h i v t i a x CCNpe] l a t e t e t acma l e - r i n a l

Dani promised to -g ive ACC h e r s e l f t o Rina

From t h e $ - c r i t e r i o n it i s p o s s i b l e t o d e r i v e a n o t h e r

p r i n c i p l e d d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e v a r i a b l e i n (12) and t h e NP-trace

i n ( 1 4 ) . The NP-trace i n ( 1 4 ) is p a r t o f t h e c h a i n ( d a n i i , ei) . The

p o s i t i o n o f ei i s a s s i g n e d a $- ro le by t h e v e r b l a t e t . T h e r e f o r e t h e

c h a i n is $-marked, and by t h e $ - c r i t e r i o n c a n n o t c o n t a i n more t h a n

one argument. S i n c e d a n i is an argument , it f o l l o w s t h a t t h e NP-

t r a c e is n o t an argument. I n ( 1 2 ) on t h e o t h e r hand t h e empty

c a t e g o r y b e l o n g s t o a c h a i n o f l e n g t h one: ( e i ) . The p o s i t i o n o f - ei

i s a s s i g n e d a $ - ro le by t h e v e r b n o t e n . T h e r e f o r e t h e c h a i n i s

$-marked, and by t h e $ - c r i t e r i o n c o n t a i n s an argument. It f o l l o w s

t h a t t h e v a r i a b l e i s an argument.

A s a consequence of t h e $ - c r i t e r i o n , ( d a n i i , ei) o f (16b) is

n o t a c h a i n , s i n c e b o t h - d a n i and - e a r e a s s i g n e d $ - ro le s

i n d e p e n d e n t l y : d a n i a s t h e s u b j e c t o f h i v t i a x , and - e a s t h e s u b j e c t

o f l a t e t .

1.8 Bind ing Theory

Nominal e x p r e s s i o n s a r e subd iv ided i n t o t h r e e b a s i c

c a t e g o r i e s : a n a p h o r s , pronominals and r e f e r e n t i a l e x p r e s s i o n s (R-

e x p r e s s i o n s ) .

I n t u i t i v e l y , anaphors a r e NPs t h a t have no c a p a c i t y f o r

" i n h e r e n t r e f e r e n c e " . L e x i c a l anaphor s a r e f o r example r e c i p r o c a l s

and r e f l e x i v e s , l i k e t h e E n g l i s h e a c h o t h e r and h e r s e l f r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Among t h e empty c a t e g o r i e s , NP-traces a r e a n a p h o r s - s i n c e t h e y a r e

a lways coindexed w i t h an a n t e c e d e n t i n t h e s e n t e n c e . PRO a l s o i s

c o n s i d e r e d an anaphor - it is n e v e r a s s i g n e d a s p e c i f i c index

i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f an a n t e c e d e n t , a s we saw i n ( 1 6 ) . The re a r e c a s e s

where PRO h a s no a n t e c e d e n t , a s i n ( 1 7 ) . But i n such c a s e s PRO i s

presumably n o t a s s i g n e d a s p e c i f i c i n d e x , s i n c e it behaves r a t h e r

l i k e an unbound v a r i a b l e ( i n t h e l o g i c s e n s e o f v a r i a b l e ) . I n any

c a s e , PRO d o e s n o t p i c k up s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e i n d e p e n d e n t l y .

(17) PRO l a t e t l e - r i n a sefer

t o g i v e t o Rina book (Somebody) g i v e Rina a book!

P ronomina l s d i f f e r from a n a p h o r s i n t h a t t h e y c a n refer

i n d e p e n d e n t l y , and t h a t t h e y can neve r have an a n t e c e d e n t w i t h i n

t h e i r c l a u s e . T h i s well known c o n t r a s t between a n a p h o r s and

p ronomina l s is e x e m p l i f i e d i n ( 1 8 ) and ( 1 9 ) . The anaphor acrno i n

(18) h a s t o b e c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h - d a n i , whereas t h e pronoun o t o i n - (1 9 ) c a n n o t be.

(1 8) a. d a n i i r a T a et acrnoi

Dani saw ACC h i m s e l f 'Dani saw h i m s e l f .

b. * d a n i i r a t a e t acrno j

Dani saw ACC h i m s e l f

a. dani i r a ' a o t o j

Dani saw him 'Dani saw him. '

b. * dani i r a ' a o to i

Dani saw him

PRO i s l i k e a pronoun and un l i ke NP-trace i n t h a t it never

h a s an antecedent w i t h i n i t s own c l a u s e .

R-expressions d i f f e r from both pronominals and anaphors i n

t h a t can have no an t eceden t s a t a l l . I n ( 2 0 ) f o r example, hu and -

dan i cannot be coindexed.

(20 ) * hui xozev Ye r i n a r a ' a t a e t d a n i i

he t h i n k s t h a t Rina saw ACC Dani 'He t h i n k s t h a t Rina saw Dani.'

Among t h e empty c a t e g o r i e s , v a r i a b l e s a r e l i k e R-expressions

i n t h a t t h e y cannot be A-bound - t h i s is i n essence t h e cross-over

phenomenon. The pronoun - hu i n (21) cannot b e indexed - i. Unlike -

l e x i c a l R-expressions, v a r i a b l e s can be A bound. For example t h e

v a r i a b l e i n ( 2 1 ) is bound by t h e phrase i n COMP:

(21 )

* CCOMPet m i i ] CShui xogev r e r i n a r a ' a t a e i l ACC who he t h i n k s t h a t Rina saw

'Who does he t h i n k t h a t Rina saw?'

The b i n d i n g t h e o r y proposed i n Chomsky (1 981,188) r e g u l a t e s

t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a n a p h o r s , p ronomina l s and R-expres s ions a t S-

S t r u c t u r e :

Bind ing t h e o r y

(A) An anaphor is A-bound i n i t s g o v e r n i n g c a t e g o r y

( B ) A pronominal is A-free i n i t s g o v e r n i n g c a t e g o r y

(C) An R-express ion is A-free

Governing c a t e g o r y i s d e f i n e d ( i n f o r m a l l y ) a s i n Chomsky ( i b i d . ) :

Governing c a t e g o r y ( d e f i n i t i o n )

a is t h e gove rn ing c a t e g o r y f o r # i f and o n l y i f a is t h e minimal

c a t e g o r y c o n t a i n i n g # and a gove rnor o f B, where U = NP o r S.

The b i n d i n g t h e o r y r e g u l a t e s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f b o t h l ex ica l

and empty NPs. For e a s e o f r e f e r e n c e , we summarize i n t h e f o l l o w i n g

t a b l e t h e i r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a l o n g t h e d i m e n s i o n s [+pronominal ] - and

[+anaphor l - :

1 ex i c a 1 --- +anaphor

empty PRO

l e x i c a l pronoun s -anaphor

empty ---

r e f l e x i v e s , r e c i p r o c a l s

NP-tr ace s

R-expres s ions

v a r i a b l e s

We have s o f a r n o t g i v e n f o r m a l d e f i n i t i o n s f o r pronouns and

t h e v a r i o u s empty c a t e g o r i e s . These a r e g i v e n below, f o l l o w i n g t h o s e

i n Chomsky (1981 , 330):

(23 If U is an empty c a t e g o r y o r a pronoun, U i s a v a r i a b l e - i f f it is l o c a l l y A-bound and i n an A-pos i t ion . 1 8

(24) If U is an empty c a t e g o r y , U i s an anaphor i f f it is n o t a v a r i a b l e .

(25 U i s a p r o n o m i n a l iff Qt = LNpF, ( P ) I , where P i s a p h o n o l o g i c a l m a t r i x and F i s a non-null s u b s e t o f t h e f e a t u r e s [ p e r s o n ] , [number] , [ g e n d e r ] , [Case ] , and e i t h e r ( i ) o r ( i i ) :

( i ) Qt is f r e e

( i i ) Qt is l o c a l l y A-bound by # w i t h an independen t @ - r o l e

I n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f pronominal , t h e p h o n e t i c m a t r i x P i s

o p t i o n a l . If P i s m i s s i n g , i .e. fi is [ N p ~ ] , t h e n Qt is an empty

c a t e g o r y . I f P i s p r e s e n t , i .e. Qt is LNpF,PI, t h e n U is a Pronoun.

S i n c e PRO is a pronominal anaphor , it is s u b j e c t t o b o t h t h e

b i n d i n g c o n d i t i o n s ( A ) and (B) o f t h e b i n d i n g t h e o r y . T h i s y i e l d s a

1 8 ~ n example o f v a r i a b l e s t h a t a r e pronouns a r e r e s u m p t i v e p ronouns , a s i n :

h a - i 8 a xe i d a n i n a t a n l a i sefer t h e woman t h a t d a n i gave to-her book 'The woman t o whom Dani g a v e a book.'

c o n t r a d i c t i o n i f PRO has a governing ca tegory . The following

p r i n c i p l e is t h e r e f o r e der ived from t h e binding theory:

PRO is ungoverned

1.9 Some consequences

One consequence of t h e binding theo ry and t h e @-theory is t h e

ungrammatical i ty o f (26 ) .

(26) * dani noten l e - r i na LNpel

Dani g i v e s t o Rina

These t h e o r i e s e n t a i l t h a t LNpel i n (26) v i o l a t e s t h e

cond i t i ons under which any empty ca tegory may appear. This LNpel i s -

not a v a r i a b l e , s i nce it i s not A-bound ( c f . t h e d e f i n i t i o n of

v a r i a b l e i n (23)). Therefore it i s an anaphor ( c f . t h e d e f i n i t i o n i n

(24 ) ) . I f it is a member of a cha in , f o r example, ( dan i i , e i ) , t h e r e

ensues a v i o l a t i o n of t h e 0 - c r i t e r i o n , s ince bo th p o s i t i o n s of t h e

cha in a r e assigned @-ro les independent ly of each o the r . I f it is

f r e e , it i s a pronominal ( c f . t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f pronominal i n ( 2 5 ) ) ,

and is t h e r e f o r e t h e pronominal anaphor PRO. But it is governed by

t h e verb - i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t PRO must be ungoverned.

Another consequence is t h e c o n t r a s t o f t h e acceptab le (171,

repea ted below a s (27a) , t o t h e unacceptable (gb) , repea ted a s (27b).

(27) a. CNpel l a t e t l e - r i na s e f e r

t o g i v e t o Rina book (Somebody) g ive Rina a book!

b. * [Npel noten le - r ina s e f e r

g i v e s t o Rina book

Using t h e d e f i n i t i o n s of empty c a t e g o r i e s it is p o s s i b l e t o determine

which empty ca tegory appears i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n of t h e S-Structure

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of (27a ,b ) . This empty ca tegory could no t be a -

v a r i a b l e , s i n c e it is not A-bound; t h e r e f o r e it i s an anaphor. But

it is a l s o pronominal, s i nce it is f r e e . It is t h e r e f o r e t h e

pronominal anaphor PRO.

The unaccep tab i l i t y of (27b) f a l l s ou t from t h e assumption

t h a t t ensed sen tences conta in an element t h a t governs t h e s u b j e c t

pos i t i on . I n f i n i t i v a l sen tences do not conta in t h a t element. This

element is p a r t o f t h e i n f l e c t i o n node (INFL), t h e head o f S, t h a t we

have ignored so f a r . INFL i s a node t h a t c o n s i s t s o f f e a t u r e s

spec i fy ing t e n s e and a f e a t u r e bundle AGR t h a t con ta in s [ person] ,

[number], [gender] f e a t u r e s t h a t a r e r e l e v a n t i n determining subject-

verb agreement.

The S-Structures f o r (27a,b) a r e t h e r e f o r e (28a,b)

r e s p e c t i v e l y .

(28 a . C S INFL PROi C V p l a t e t l e - r i n a seferl

t o - g i v e t o Rina book

b. * C S CINFLAGRl PROi C V P n o t e n l e - r i n a seferl g i v e s t o Rina book

The AGR b u n d l e g o v e r n s t h e PRO s u b j e c t i n (28b) . S i n c e PRO must b e

ungoverned , (28b) is ungrammat ica l . I n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s do n o t

e x h i b i t s u b j e c t - v e r b agreement ; i n o t h e r words, t h e AGR b u n d l e i s

m i s s i n g from t h e INFL node o f i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s . The PRO i n

s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n o f (28a) is t h e r e f o r e ungoverned, and t h e s e n t e n c e

i s g rammat ica l .

1.10 ECP

The d i f f e r e n c e o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y between ( 2 9 a , b ) d o e s n o t

f o l l o w from a n y t h i n g t h a t h a s been s a i d s o f a r .

(29 ) a . et-mii eyn+xa zoxe r i m L L I N F L A G R I a t a LVpmakir e i l l

ACC who NEG+you remember whether YOU know

b. * m i i eyn+xa zoxe r i m [ [ I N F L A ~ R I ei CVpmakir o t x a1 1 who NEG+you remember whether knows ACC+you

The p r i n c i p l e t h a t a c c o u n t s f o r c o n t r a s t s such a s t h e above, i s t h e

Empty Ca tegory P r i n c i p l e .

Empty (ECP)

T r a c e s must be p r o p e r l y governed.

t r a c e i n COMP i s t h a t it does n o t c-command t h e v a r i a b l e , a s can b e

seen i n ( 3 0 ) .

The example i n ( 3 0 ) d i f f e r s min imal ly from t h e one i n ( 3 1 a ) ,

which is grammatical . To accoun t f o r i t s ungrammat ica l i ty , one may

f o l l o w Pese tzky (1982) i n say ing t h a t t r a c e s i n COMP may b e d e l e t e d ,

and t h a t some complement izers assume t h e index o f t h e d e l e t e d t r a c e .

The s t r u c t u r e o f (31a) may be ( 3 1 b ) .

(31 a . m i i eynxa xogev He [[ INFLAGRI ei LVpmakir o t x a l l

who NEG+you t h i n k t h a t knows ACC+you Who d o n ' t you t h i n k knows you?'

1.11 Case Theory

INFL "\VP NP

ei makir o t x a

The ECP d o e s n o t account f o r t h e ungrammat ica l i ty of ( 3 2 ) ,

s i n c e t h e v a r i a b l e i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n i s p r o p e r l y governed by t h e

wh-NP i n COMP. 20 -

* m i i Lei l a t e t l e - r i n a s e f e r l who to-give t o Rina book

The ungrammat ica l i ty o f ( 3 2 ) seems t o be r e l a t e d t o t h a t o f

(331, and is a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s u b j e c t o f an

i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e , u n l i k e t h e s u b j e c t o f a t e n s e s e n t e n c e , i s n o t

a s s igned Case.

(33) # d a n i l a t e t l e - r i n a s e f e r

Dani to -g ive t o Rina book

Case is ass igned t o NPs under government. Verbs and

p r e p o s i t i o n s a s s i g n Case t o t h e NPs t h e y govern. I n Hebrew it seems

t h a t nouns a s s i g n Case a s w e l l , c f . t h e c o n s t r u c t s t a t e ( 6 ) . AGR

governs t h e s u b j e c t NP, and a s s i g n s it Nominative Case. S i n c e AGR i s

miss ing from i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s , no Case is ass igned t o t h e

s u b j e c t i n ( 3 2 ) and ( 3 3 ) .

The Case f i l t e r is des igned t o r u l e o u t s e n t e n c e s w i t h

l e x i c a l NPs t h a t have n o t been ass igned Case. The Case f i l t e r

a p p l i e s a t S -S t ruc tu re , and is t h e r e f o r e fo rmula ted f o r c h a i n s .

2 0 ~ h e r e is no p r o h i b i t i o n i n Hebrew a g a i n s t i n f i n i t i v a l m a t r i x s e n t e n c e s , a s ( 1 7 ) shows.

Case assignment t o chains (def in i t ion)

The chain C = ( Q t ( l ) , . . . ,Qt (n) ) has the Case K i f f for exactly one - i

and one B, a( i) occupies a position assigned K by #

Case F i l t e r

Every lex ica l NP i s an element of a chain with Case

The Case F i l t e r accounts for the non-existence of lexical

pronominal anaphors ( c f . (22). It follows from the theory of binding

that pronominal anaphors must be ungoverned. Since Case is assigned

under government, pronominal anaphors are not assigned Case.

Therefore lexical pronominal anaphors v io la te the Case f i l t e r .

The above formulation of the Case F i l t e r accounts for the

ungrammaticality of (33) , but not for (32) , since the variable i n

(32) is not a l ex ica l NP but an empty category. This problem

motivates an attempt to in tegrate the Case theory with $-theory. The

idea is that chains w i l l not count as $-marked unless they contain a

position t ha t is assigned Case. The chain (e i ) i n (32) w i l l then

v io la te the $-cri terion, since i ts only position, ei, is not assigned

Case.

This attempt t o reduce the Case F i l t e r to the $-criterion is

not t o t a l l y successful, however. I t predicts t ha t i n (28a), the

chain ( P R O i ) should v io la te the $-criterion, since PROi i s not

assigned Case. B u t (28a) is grammatical.

Taking i n t o a c c o u n t t h e s e v a r i o u s problems, t h e f o l l o w i n g

p r i n c i p l e is proposed i n Chomsky (1981, 334) . Its e f f e c t i s t h e

r e d u c t i o n o f t h e Case F i l t e r t o t h e $ - c r i t e r i o n . 2 1

@-ro le a s s ignment ( P r i n c i p l e )

The c h a i n C = ( 4 t ( 1 ) , .. . , 4 t ( n ) ) is a s s i g n e d t h e $ - ro le R i f f :

(a ) For some i , 4 t ( i ) is i n a p o s i t i o n marked w i t h t h e $- ro le R.

( b ) C h a s Case o r is headed by PRO.

2 1 ~ o r c r i t i c i s m s e e Aoun (1981 ), S a f i r ( 1 9 8 2 ) .

Chap te r 2

B a s i c s of Hebrew s y n t a x

2.1 Ev idence for VP

T h i s c h a p t e r aims a t d i s c o v e r i n g t h e v a l u e s o f some b a s i c

p a r a m e t e r s o f con tempora ry Hebrew. Tha t e v e r y s e n t e n c e h a s a s u b j e c t

i s t a k e n t o be p a r t o f UG. I n t h i s s e c t i o n , I m o t i v a t e an

a s sumpt ion t h a t may b e less g e n e r a l , namely, t h a t s e n t e n c e s h a v e a VP

c o n s t i t u e n t a s w e l l .

The main argument f o r a VP i n t h e GB t h e o r y is t h a t t h e

s u b j e c t is n o t governed by t h e v e r b . Indeed i n Hebrew o n e f i n d s t h e

s u b j e c t / o b j e c t a symmet r i e s f a m i l i a r from E n g l i s h . The o b j e c t

p o s i t i o n is a lways gove rned , t h e r e f o r e PRO n e v e r a p p e a r s t h e r e . But

PRO may a p p e a r i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n

i s n o t governed by t h e ve rb :

(1 a. * d a n i n a t a n l e - r i n a PRO

Dani g a v e t o Rina

b . PRO l a t e t l e - r i n a sefer to-g ive t o Rina book

(Someone) g i v e Rina a book!

For t h a t reason , Equi only a p p l i e s t o s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n , never t o

o b j e c t pos i t i on :

(2 a. dan i amar le-mo8e PRO l a t e t l e - r i n a s e f e r

Dani s a i d t o Moshe to-give t o Rina book 'Dani t o l d Moshe t o g ive Rina a book.'

b. * dani amar le-moxe PRO l a t e t l e - r i n a PRO Dani s a i d t o Moshe to-give t o Rina

Since t h e verb governs i t s o b j e c t s , t h e governing ca tegory o f

t h e o b j e c t is t h e c l ause which it is i n . A consequence is t h a t

Raising cannot apply t o o b j e c t pos i t i on . I n (3b) , t h e anaphor i n

embedded o b j e c t pos i t i on is not bound i n i t s governing ca tegory ,

v i o l a t i n g t h e b ind ing theo ry .' (3a) on t h e o t h e r hand is grammatical,

which i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e binding theo ry i s s a t i s f i e d . In o the r

words, it must be t h e ca se t h a t t h e anaphor i n s u b j e c t pos i t i on is

bound i n its governing category.2 S ince t h e antecedent is i n t h e

matr ix sen tence , it means t h a t t h e anaphor's governing ca tegory is

t h e ma t r ix sentence. In p a r t i c u l a r , it fol lows t h a t t h e embedded

verb does no t govern t h e anaphor.

'(3b) is a l s o ru led ou t by t h e Case f i l t e r . The embedded s u b j e c t is not assigned Case, s i n c e t h e r e i s no AGR i n an i n f i n i t i v a l sen tence , and t h e a d j e c t i v e - asuy does no t ass ign it Case e i t h e r .

' ~ e c a l l t h e d e f i n i t i o n of governing category: g( i s t h e governing ca tegory f o r # i f and only i f Q i s t h e minimal ca tegory conta in ing # and a governor of 8 , where a = NP o r S.

(3) a . Danii asuy Lei l a t e t l e - r i n a s f a r i m l

b. * s fa r imi asuyim [ d a n i l a t e t l e - r i n a e i l

So f a r we have e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e s u b j e c t is n o t governed

by t h e ve rb . T h i s i n i t s e l f does n o t prove t h a t t h e r e i s a VP

c o n s t i t u e n t t h a t e x c l u d e s t h e s u b j e c t . The s u b j e c t could f o r example

be l1protectedl1 by some o t h e r governor from government by t h e ve rb . A

c a n d i d a t e f o r t h e l l p r o t e c t i n g l l governor is AGR, a s i n t h e s t r u c t u r e

( 4 ) .

INFL ' V PP N P

But t h e s t r u c t u r e i n ( 4 ) l e a v e s unexpla ined t h e f o l l o w i n g asymmetry:

(5 a . d a n i n a t a n e t acmo l e - r i n a

Dani gave ACC h i m s e l f t o Rina

b . * acmo n a t a n l e - r i n a e t d a n i

h i m s e l f gave t o Rina ACC Dani

( 5 ) seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s u b j e c t c-commands t h e o b j e c t whereas

t h e o b j e c t does n o t c-command t h e s u b j e c t . T h i s i s t h e o p p o s i t e o f

what h o l d s i n ( 4 ) .

Another argument h a s t o do w i t h c o n s t i t u e n t c o n j u n c t i o n . The

f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e h a s a normal i n t o n a t i o n , which s u g g e s t s it

i n v o l v e s c o n s t i t u e n t c o n j u n c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n d e l e t i o n under i d e n t i t y .

The c o n j o i n e d c o n s t i t u e n t s a r e V P S , ~ which shows t h a t (4 ) i s n o t t h e

r i g h t s t r u c t u r e .

(6 d a n i m e t a l f e n e l r i n a v e medaber 8 a o t

Dani c a l l t o Rina and t a l k s h o u r s 'Dani c a l l s Rina on t h e phone and t a l k s f o r hours . '

The s t r u c t u r e I s u g g e s t i s t h e r e f ~ r e : ~

(7 INFL'

V d o e s n ' t gove rn t h e s u b j e c t , s i n c e it d o e s n ' t c-command it. The

s u b j e c t c-commands t h e o b j e c t , b u t t h e o b j e c t does n o t c-command t h e

s u b j e c t , which a c c o u n t s f o r ( 5 ) .

j ( 6 ) is n o t S c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h pro-drop, s i n c e Hebrew d o e s n o t a l l o w pro-drop w i t h p r e s e n t p a r t i c i p l e s . I w i l l e l a b o r a t e on pro- d r o p i n s e c t i o n 4.

4~ w i l l come back t o t h e f a c t t h a t INFL i s s e n t e n c e i n i t i a l .

2.2 S p e c i f y i n g t h e INFL node

The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n is m o t i v a t e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f s e n t e n c e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d imens ion

t ensed -un tensed , used f o r example f o r E n g l i s h , is n o t f i n e enough t o

c l a s s i f y t h e s e n t e n c e s o f Hebrew o r o f S e m i t i c l a n g u a g e s i n g e n e r a l .

It is an i n s i g h t o f t r a d i t i o n a l grammars o f t h e s e l a n g u a g e s t h a t

s e n t e n c e s have t o be c l a s s i f i e d i n t o t e n s e d - p r e s e n t - i n f i n i t i v a l .5 I n

o r d e r t o t r a n s l a t e t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t o modern t e r m i n o l o g y w h i l e

b r i n g i n g o u t t h e r e l e v a n t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s , it is n o t enough t o

p ropose one d imens ion w i t h t h r e e va lues .6 To a c c o u n t f o r t h e v a r i o u s

s u b g r o u p i n g s o f t h e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s , it is n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r

more t h a n one d imens ion .

Tensed and p r e s e n t s e n t e n c e s c l a s s i f y t o g e t h e r a s f i n i t e , i n

o p p o s i t o n t o i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s . Some v e r b s , l i k e h e v i n

' u n d e r s t a n d ' , s u b c a t e g o r i z e f o r f i n i t e complements and some, l i k e

yaxo l ' c a n 1 , f o r i n f i n i t i v a l complements , b u t no v e r b d i s t i n g u i s h e s

i n t h i s way between t e n s e d and p r e s e n t s e n t e n c e s . Another example:

5~ w i l l l o o s e l y t a l k o f s e n t e n c e s b e i n g i n t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e , b u t such s e n t e n c e s a r e n o t t e n s e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e above c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Tensed i n t h i s c o n t e x t i n c l u d e s o n l y p a s t and f u t u r e .

6 ~ e r m a n (1978 C h a p t e r 5 ) i s an example o f a p r o p o s a l o f a [ t e n s e ] f e a t u r e w i t h t h e v a l u e s + ( f o r t e n s e d ) , - f o r i n f i n i t i v a l and 0 f o r p r e s e n t .

t h e complement izer a S e r a p p e a r s w i t h f i n i t e c l a u s e s - b o t h t e n s e d and

p r e s e n t , b u t n o t w i t h i n f i n i t i v a l c l a u s e s . The s u b j e c t o f an

i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e i s ungoverned, whereas t h e s u b j e c t o f f i n i t e

s e n t e n c e , t e n s e d o r p r e s e n t , is governed and a s s i g n e d Nominative

Case.

The b e h a v i o r o f t h e a u x i l i a r y h.y.y., o n t h e o t h e r hand,

c l a s s i f i e s t e n s e d and i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s t o g e t h e r v s . p r e s e n t

s e n t e n c e s . The a u x i l i a r y a p p e a r s i n t e n s e d and i n f i n i t i v a l

s e n t e n c e s , b u t n e v e r i n p r e s e n t s e n t e n c e s .

The re is a l s o a d imension a l o n g which p r e s e n t and i n f i n i t i v a l

s e n t e n c e s s h o u l d b e c l a s s i f i e d t o g e t h e r , i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t e n s e d

s e n t e n c e s . I n t e n s e d s e n t e n c e s , t h e v e r b a g r e e s w i t h t h e s u b j e c t i n

t h e [ p e r s o n ] f e a t u r e , which i s n o t t h e c a s e i n p r e s e n t and

i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s . I n i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s , a n i n f i n i t i v a l form

o f t h e v e r b a p p e a r s , and i n p r e s e n t s e n t e n c e s , a p a r t i c i p l e

-- n e i t h e r a g r e e i n g w i t h t h e s u b j e c t i n t h e f e a t u r e [ p e r s o n l . Tensed

s e n t e n c e s a l l o w pro-drop; p r e s e n t and i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s d o n ' t .

P r e s e n t and i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s can be nega ted w i t h t h e n e g a t i o n

p a r t i c l e 9, t e n s e d s e n t e n c e s c a n n o t . Tensed s e n t e n c e s a r e f u r t h e r

c l a s s i f i e d a l o n g an a d d i t i o n a l d imens ion which is i r r e l e v a n t t o

i n f i n i t i v a l and p r e s e n t s e n t e n c e s : p a s t v s . f u t u r e . 7

To code t h e f i n i t e - i n f i n i t i v a l d i m e n s i o n , I w i l l assume t h a t

INFL o f f i n i t e ( t e n s e d and p r e s e n t ) s e n t e n c e s is s p e c i f i e d f o r a

f e a t u r e b u n d l e - AGR, f o r which INFL o f i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s i s n o t

s p e c i f i e d . AGR i s a g o v e r n o r , which a c c o u n t s f o r why t h e empty

c a t e g o r y PRO is a p o s s i b l e s u b j e c t o n l y f o r i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s .

To code t h e p re sen t -non-p resen t d i m e n s i o n , I p r o p o s e t h a t

INFL o f t e n s e d and i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s c o n t a i n s a s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f

a f e a t u r e C t e n s e ] , and t h a t INFL o f p r e s e n t s e n t e n c e s d o e s n ' t . The

a u x i l i a r y h.y.y. a p p e a r s o n l y i n s e n t e n c e s s p e c i f i e d f o r C t e n s e l .

The t ensed -un tensed d imens ion d i s t i n g u i s h e s between t e n s e d

( p a s t and f u t u r e ) s e n t e n c e s on t h e o n e hand and p r e s e n t and

i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s on t h e o t h e r . I w i l l assume t h a t INFL o f

t e n s e d s e n t e n c e s c o n t a i n s a s p e c i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e f e a t u r e [ p a s t ] , t h e

p o s i t i v e v a l u e o f which c o r r e s p o n d s t o p a s t t e n s e , and t h e n e g a t i v e

v a l u e t o f u t u r e t e n s e . P r e s e n t and i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s , on t h e

7 ~ h e p a s t - f u t u r e d i s t i n c t i o n among t e n s e d v e r b s i n con tempora ry Hebrew m i r r o r s t h e P e r f e c t i v e - I m p e r f e c t i v e a s p e c t d i s t i n c t i o n i n B i b l i c a l Hebrew.

o t h e r hand , a r e u n s p e c i f i e d f o r t h e f e a t u r e [ p a s t ] . 8

To sum up , INFL may b e s p e c i f i e d f o r agreement f e a t u r e s ,

[ t e n s e ] and [ p a s t ] . Tensed s e n t e n c e s a r e s p e c i f i e d f o r a l l ,

i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s f o r [ t e n s e ] o n l y , and p r e s e n t s e n t e n c e s f o r AGR

on1 y .

2.3 B a s i c word-order

2.3.1 Some d a t a

The n e x t t h i n g t o d e t e r m i n e is t h e r e l a t i v e o r d e r o f NP, INFL

and VP i n t h e s e n t e n c e . A s we w i l l see p r e s e n t l y , t h i s q u e s t i o n i s

c l o s e l y connec ted t o the f a c t t h a t Hebrew is a pro-drop l a n g u a g e , as

i s a rgued e x t e n s i v e l y i n Bore r (1981) . Bore r shows t h a t Hebrew

e x h i b i t s t h e c l u s t e r o f p r o p e r t i e s t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e s pro-drop

l a n g u a g e s : m i s s i n g s u b j e c t s i n t e n s e d s e n t e n c e s , f r e e i n v e r s i o n o f

t h e s u b j e c t and p h o n o l o g i c a l l y n u l l e x p l e t i v e s u b j e c t s .

One p e c u l i a r i t y o f Hebrew is t h a t m i s s i n g s u b j e c t s a r e

a l lowed i n t e n s e d ( p a s t and f u t u r e ) s e n t e n c e s ( c f . example ( 8 1 1 , b u t

g e n e r a l l y n o t i n p r e s e n t s e n t e n c e s ( c f . example ( 9 ) ) :

8 ~ h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of i n f i n i v a l s e n t e n c e s a s s p e c i f i e d f o r a [ t e n s e ] f e a t u r e b u t n o t f o r a [ p a s t l f e a t u r e i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same a s t h e o n e proposed f o r E n g l i s h i n S t o w e l l (1981 ).

(8 ) a . a n i t i l f a n - t i

I c a l l ( p a s t , 1 s t , s i n g ) '1 c a l l e d . '

b . t i l f a n - t i '1 c a l l e d .I

( 9 ) a . a n i metal fen-et

I c a l l ( p r e s e n t ,fem , s i n g )

b . m e t a l f e n - e t

T h i s c o r r e l a t e s w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t t h e v e r b a l morphology i n p a s t and

f u t u r e i n c l u d e s t h e mark ing o f agreement i n number, gende r and p e r s o n

w i t h t h e s u b j e c t , whereas what shows up i n p r e s e n t s e n t e n c e s is a

p a r t i c i p l e t h a t a g r e e s w i t h t h e s u b j e c t i n number and g e n d e r o n l y ,

n o t i n p e r s o n . I n example ( 1 0 a ) I l i s t t h e n i n e d i f f e r e n t fo rms o f

t h e p a s t t e n s e c o n j u g a t i o n o f t h e (borrowed) r o o t t l f n ' c a l l ( o n t h e

phone ) ' . I n ( l o b ) , I l is t t h e p r e s e n t p a r t i c i p l e fo rms , o f which

t h e r e a r e o n l y f o u r .

(10) a . t l f n ' c a l l t p a s t

masc fem 1 st t i l f a n - t i

s i n g 2nd t i l f a n - t a t i i f a n - t 3 r d t i l f e n t il f en-a

1 st ti1 fan-nu ~1 2nd t i l f a n - t e m t i l f a n - t e n

3 rd ti1 fen-u

s i n g

PI

t l f n ' c a l l ' p r e s e n t masc f em

m e t a l f e n m e t a l f en -e t

meta l fen- im met a 1 f en-o t

S u b j e c t i n v e r s i o n is p o s s i b l e i n a l l t e n s e s , a s ( 1 1 ) and ( 1 2 )

show. The unmarked word o r d e r i n s i m p l e s e n t e n c e s i s a s i n ( 1 l a ) and

(1 2a ) . ( 1 1 b) and ( 12b) a r e marked w i t h - ? s i n c e t h e y a r e a p p r o p r i a t e

o n l y i n c e r t a i n k i n d s of n a r r a t i v e s t y l e . V-Su o r d e r i s f u l l y

a c c e p t a b l e i f some o t h e r c o n s t i t u e n t h a s been f r o n t e d , a s ( I l c ) and

( 1 2 ~ ) show.

(11) a . d a n i t i l f e n e l r i n a

'Dani c a l l e d Rina.' o r 'Dani h a s c a l l e d ~ i n a . ' ~

b. ? t i l f e n d a n i e l r i n a

'Dani c a l l e d Rina.' o r 'Dani h a s c a l l e d Rina. '

c . e l m i t i l f e n d a n i

t o who c a l l e d Dani 'Who did Dani c a l l ? ' or 'Who h a s Dani c a l l e d ? '

9 ~ h e r e is no d i s t i n c t i o n between p a s t s i m p l e and p a s t p e r f e c t i n Hebrew.

(12 ) a . d a n i m e t a l f e n e l r i n a

'Dani c a l l s R ina . lo r 'Dani is c a l l i n g Rina.' l o

b. ? m e t a l f e n d a n i e l r i n a 'Dani c a l l s Rina . 'o r 'Dani i s c a l l i n g Rina. '

c . e l m i m e t a l f e n d a n i t o who c a l l s Dani

'Who is Dani c a l l i n g ? ' o r 'Who d o e s Dani c a l l ? '

2.3.2 S u b j e c t - v e r b i n v e r s i o n

2.3.2.1. Rightward s u b j e c t movement i n I t a l i a n

A p o s s i b l e D-Sructure word o r d e r f o r Hebrew is [NP INFL VPI,

as i n a n o t h e r pro-drop l a n g u a g e , I t a l i a n . B e l l e t t i and R i z z i (1981) ,

B u r z i o (19811, Kayne (1981) and R i z z i ( 1 9 8 2 ) seem t o a g r e e t h a t

i n v e r t e d s u b j e c t s i n I t a l i a n a r e a d j o i n e d t o t h e VP node. For

example , t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e D-S t ruc tu re ( 1 3 a ) is moved t o t h e r i g h t

and a d j o i n e d t o VP, a s i n t h e S - S t r u c t u r e (13b) . The s u r f a c e

s t r u c t u r e is ( 1 3 ~ ) . (13) a . G i a n n i INFL L V p h a t e l e f o n a t o l

b. ei INFL L V P E V P h a t e l e f o n a t o l G i a n n i i l

' O ~ h e r e is no d i s t i n c t i o n between p r e s e n t s i m p l e and p r e s e n t p r o g r e s s i v e i n Hebrew.

c. ha t e l e f o n a t o Gianni 'Gianni has c a l l e d . '

We show below t h a t t h i s account f o r subject-verb i nve r s ion is

inapprop r i a t e for Hebrew. Rather, we propose i n t h e next s e c t i o n

t h a t i n Hebrew, verb-subject word order r e s u l t s from t h e f ron t ing o f

t h e verb.

There a r e many proposa ls i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e a s t o why t h e

empty ca tegory i n (13b) does no t v i o l a t e t h e ECP ( c f . J a e g g l i (19801,

Chomsky (1981, 19821, Rizzi (19821, and o t h e r s ) . This need not

concern u s here . What m a t t e r s i s t h a t a l l t h e explana t ions agree

t h a t i f t h e empty ca t ego ry o f (13b) is a v a r i a b l e , a s f o r example i n

(14a) , then it v i o l a t e s t h e ECP i n I t a l i a n j u s t a s it does i n t h e

Engl i sh ungrammatical ( 14b) . (14) a . Chii c r e d i che ei ha t e l e f o n a t o

a . * Whoi do you t h i n k t h a t ei has c a l l e d

The reason t h e su r f ace s t r u c t u r e of (14a) is a good sentence of

I t a l i a n is t h a t it has t h e s t r u c t u r e i n (151, p a r a l l e l t o t h e

d e c l a r a t i v e ( 1 3 ) , where t h e s u b j e c t is moved t o t h e r i g h t and

adjoined t o VP. I n (151, t h e s u b j e c t i s subsequent ly - wh-moved from

i t s post ve rba l p o s i t i o n , which is a pos i t i on governed by t h e verb.

(15) Chii c r e d i che ei INFL [VP[Vpha t e l e fona to ] e i l

It may seem a t f i r s t t h a t an a c c o u n t a l o n g s imi lar l i n e s is

r e l e v a n t t o Hebrew. The Hebrew e q u i v a l e n t o f ( 1 4 ) is g r a m m a t i c a l :

( 1 6 ) m i a t a xoxev ge t i l f e n

who you t h i n k t h a t c a l l e d

But t h e s t r u c t u r e o f (16 ) c o u l d n o t b e t h e same a s ( 1 5 ) , s i n c e a V-Su

o r d e r is n o t f e l i c i t o u s i n embedded s e n t e n c e s : ' '

( 17 ) ? a t a xoxev ge t i l f e n d a n i

you t h i n k t h a t c a l l e d Dani

'You t h i n k t h a t Dani c a l l e d . '

A l s o , it t u r n s o u t t h a t t h e complemen t i ze r - Se i s un ique i n

a l l o w i n g e x t r a c t i o n o f t h e embedded s u b j e c t . O t h e r complemen t i ze r s ,

such a s i m ' i f 1 , do n o t a l l o w it, a s (18 ) shows. 12 -

( 1 8 ) * e y z e i x a t a l o yodea i m t i l f e n

what man you n o t know i f c a l l e d

We c o n c l u d e t h a t an S - S t r u c t u r e such a s ( 1 5 ) , where t h e v a r i a b l e i s

p r o p e r l y governed by t h e v e r b , i s n o t a v a i l a b l e i n Hebrew.

Another set o f f a c t s t h a t shows t h a t i n Hebrew t h e pos t -

" u n l e s s some o t h e r c o n s t i t u e n t is f r o n t e d .

I 2 s i n c e Hebrew d o e s n o t a l l o w r e s u m p t i v e pronouns i n q u e s t i o n s , we d o n ' t e x p e c t (18) t o have undergone pro-drop i n t h e embedded c l a u s e .

verbal sub jec t i s not governed by t h e verb i s t h e following.

Consider ( l g ) , which y i e l d s a grammatical sentence of 1 ta l ian :13

lluomo [chei m i domando [ c h i ei INFL abbia v i s t o e . I ] J

t h e man t h a t I wonder who has seen

A s i n English, e i is not properly governed, t h u s v i o l a t i n g t h e ECP.

The a c c e p t a b i l i t y of (19) i s due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e sub jec t of t h e

embedded sentence may be moved t o a post-verbal pos i t ion before being

wh-moved : l 4

(20 lluomo [chei m i domando [ c h i ei INFL abbia v i s t o e j e i l 1

The Hebrew equivalent of (19) is ungrammatical, a s (21a)

shows, and so is t h e p a r a l l e l ques t ion , a s (21b) shows. This

c o n s t i t u t e s f u r t h e r evidence t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t sub jec t s i n Hebrew

13(19) is from Chomsky (1981 ) p. 240 example ( 2 i i i )

148s i n (13b) and i n (151, something has t o be sa id about t h e quest ion o f proper government of t h e l e f tmos t occurrence of ei i n (20) . c f . r e fe rences c i t e d a propos (13) .

a r e n o t moved t o a p o s i t i o n governed by V. 1 5

(21 a . * h a - i s 8ei a t a l o yodea e t m i ei r o e e

j j t h e man t h a t you no know ACC who sees

b. * m i i a t a l o yodea e t m i ei r o e e j j

who you no know ACC who sees

2.3.2.2. Verb f r o n t i n g i n Hebrew

Another i n d i c a t i o n t h a t s u b j e c t a d j u n c t i o n t o VP i s t h e wrong

s o l u t i o n f o r Hebrew is t h a t t h e i n v e r t e d s u b j e c t must immed ia t e ly

f o l l o w t h e v e r b . ( 2 2 ) shows t h a t u n l e s s t h e s u b j e c t p r e c e d e s t h e

v e r b , a s i n ( 2 2 a ) , it must immed ia t e ly f o l l o w t h e v e r b , a s i n (22b) .

The s u b j e c t c a n n o t f o l l o w t h e i n d i r e c t o b j e c t l e -dan i ' t o Dani' , a s

(22c) shows, n o r c a n it f o l l o w t h e d i r e c t o b j e c t h a - s e f e r ' t h e book ' ,

1 5 ~ h e u n a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f ( 2 1 ) c a n n o t be a t t r i b u t e d t o i s l a n d c o n s t r a i n t s , s i n c e v i o l a t i o n s o f wh-island c o n s t r a i n t s a r e p o s s i b l e i n Hebrew w i t h i n t e r r o g a t i v e p ronouns a s well a s w i t h r e l a t i v e p ronouns , c f . R e i n h a r t ( 1 979):

i. h a - i s Bej a t a l o yodea m i i ei r o e e j

t h e man t h a t you no know who sees

ii. e t m i a t a l o yodea m i i ei r o e e j j

ACC who you no know who sees

N e i t h e r c a n t h e u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y o f (21) b e a t t r i b u t e d t o a g e n e r a l c o n s t r a i n t i n Hebrew a g a i n s t c r o s s i n g d e p e n d e n c i e s , a s I h a v e argued i n Doron ( 1 982) .

a s (22d) shows .16* l 7

(22 a . r i n a hexz i ra le-dani e t ha-sefer

Rina r e tu rned t o Dani ACC t h e book

b. ? hexzi ra r i n a le-dani e t ha-sefer

c. * hexzi ra le-dani r i n a e t ha-sefer

d. * hexzi ra le-dani e t ha-sefer r i n a

The so lu t ion I propose i s t o d e r i v e t h e subject-verb o rde r by

a le f tward movement o f t h e verb r a t h e r than by a rightward movement

o f t h e sub jec t . I n t h i s r e spec t Hebrew p a t t e r n s l i k e Engl ish, which

can move t h e a u x i l i a r y t o t h e l e f t , r a t h e r than l i k e French, i n which

t h e s u b j e c t can move t o t h e r i g h t . Examples (23) and (24) a r e from

Kayne (1980) . I n t h e Engl ish ( 2 3 ) , t h e sub jec t must immediately

fol low t h e a u x i l i a r y . I n . t h e French (24) , t h e s u b j e c t fol lows VP.

1 6 ~ c c o r d i n g t o Manzini (pe r sona l communication) t h e V-Su order i n I t a l i a n is not a t t e s t e d f o r t r a n s i t i v e verbs . Burzio (1981) does have examples where t h e s u b j e c t i s adjoined t o a VP even i n case V i s followed by an ob j ec t .

1 7 ~ h e r e is a s t y l i s t i c r u l e i n Hebrew t h a t allows t h e s h i f t i n g of "heavyw s u b j e c t s - long o r s t r e s s e d - t o sen tence- f ina l pos i t i on . Thus compare t h e ungrammatical (22d) t o t h e acceptab le sentence below:

hexz i r a le-dani e t ha-sefer R I N A , l o d ina

re turned t o Dani ACC t h e book Rina no Dina

' I t was Rina, n o t Dina, who re turned t h e book t o Dani.'

(23) a. Where has John gone?

b. * Where has gone John?

(24 a. * 0; e s t Jean all;?

b. 0; e s t a l l 6 Jean?

A s t h e Hebrew d a t a i n (25) show, t h e s u b j e c t must immediately

fo l low t h e a u x i l i a r y -9 haya a s i n English but not French.

(25) a. heyxan haya dani mistovev ba-ley10 t

where was Dani running around a t n igh t

b. * heyxan haya mistovev dani ba- leylot where was running around Dani a t n igh t

In Hebrew (26 ) i s p o s s i b l e as wel l ; I w i l l come back t o it i n s ec t i on

6. In any case , it would be hard t o mot iva te a r u l e t h a t i n v e r t s

Aux-verb i n case t h e sub jec t is moved t o t h e r i g h t - so a s t o account

f o r t h e grammatical i ty o f (26) and t h e ungrammaticali ty o f (25b).

(26 heyxan mistovev haya dani ba- leylot where running around was Dani a t n igh t

2.3.3 Word-order a t D- and S - S t r u c t u r e s

We have s e e n s o f a r t h a t t h e b a s i c s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e word

o r d e r is Su-V-Obj, b u t V-Su-Obj is p o s s i b l e a s well, a s a r e s u l t o f V

f r o n t i n g . It is a l s o t r u e t h a t Obj can appea r i n t h e f r o n t o f t h e

s e n t e n c e , i .e. Obj-Su-V o r Obj-V-Su:

(27 a. e t ha - se fe r r i n a h e x z i r a l e -dan i

ACC t h e book Rina r e t u r n e d t o d a n i

'Rina r e t u r n e d t h e book t o Dani.'

b. e t ha - se fe r h e x z i r a r i n a l e -dan i ACC t h e book r e t u r n e d t o Dani

'Rina r e t u r n e d t h e book t o Dani.'

I f we assume an INFL i n i t i a l D-S t ruc tu re , s u c h a s (281, we

can d e r i v e a l l t h e above word o r d e r s .

INFL c a n be a d j o i n e d t o V i n S - S t r u c t u r e , t h e r e b y d e r i v i n g ( 2 2 a ) . I f

i n a d d i t i o n an o b j e c t is t o p i c a l i z e d , (27a) is g e n e r a t e d . A s an

a l t e r n a t i v e d e r i v a t i o n , V c o u l d be a d j o i n e d t o INFL, t h u s g e n e r a t i n g

(22b) . I f an o b j e c t i s t o p i c a l i z e d i n t h a t c a s e , (27b) is d e r i v e d .

For t h e sake o f c l a r i t y , I show t h e S - S t r u c t u r e s o f ( 2 7 a , b )

i n (29a ,b) r e s p e c t i v e l y . I assume t h a t t h e t r a c e s o f V and INFL i n

(29 ) do n o t a b i d e by t h e b i n d i n g t h e o r y .

INFL' ' -

COMP INFL'

- INFL NP VP

/\ V INFL

I I e t ha-&efer i e r i n a h e x z i r a l e - d a n i ei

ACC t h e book r e t u r n e d t o Dani

'R ina r e t u r n e d t h e book t o Dani. '

b. INFL ' '

COMP INFL'

A V INFL

I I V P P NP

I I I e t ha - se fe r i h e x z i r a r i n a e l e -dan i ei

ACC t h e book r e t u r n e d Rina t o Dani

'R ina r e t u r n e d t h e book t o Dani.'

2.4.1 Personal pronouns

Consider t h e d i f f e r e n c e between ( 3 0 ) , where pro-drop has

occurred, and (31 ) , where it hasn ' t . 18

(30) e t ha-sfarim gaxaxta ba-bayit ACC t h e books forgot12nd .masc .s ing] in-the house

'The books you forgot a t home.'

.(31) a. e t ha-sfarim a t a gaxaxta ba-bayit

ACC t h e books you forgot12nd .masc .sing] in- the house

'The books you fo rgo t a t home .'

b. * e t ha-sfarim gaxaxta a t a ba-bayi t ACC t h e books forgotL2nd .masc .sing] you in-the house

(31b) , where t h e pronominal s u b j e c t is post-verbal , i s

ungrammatical. 9 9 2 0 Its ungrammaticali ty c o n t r a s t s with t h e p e r f e c t

grarnrnaticali ty o f a post-verbal non-pronominal sub j ec t :

8~ have chosen examples t h a t involve t o p i c a l i z a t i o n s ince i n such examples a post-verbal s u b j e c t i s f u l l y acceptab le , c f . (32) . Recall t h a t t h e fol lowing is acceptab le only i n c e r t a i n kind of d i scourse :

? xaxax dani e t ha-sfarim ba-bayit

fo rgot Dani ACC t h e books a t home

19cf. Givon (1 976) . 20(31 b) should be read wi th normal i n tona t ion . With c o n t r a s t i v e

s t r e s s on t h e pronoun t h e sen tence i s acceptab le . I go back t o t h i s po in t below.

(32) e t ha-sfarim 8axax dan i ba-b a y i t ACC t h e books forgot [ 3rd .sing .masc . I Dani in- the house 'The books dan i forgot a t home.'

The D-s t ruc tu re f o r (30 ) and ( 3 1 ) , ommiting i r r e l e v a n t

d e t a i l s , is:

(33)

[ I NFL [ t n s l [ + ~ a ~ t l [ A G R [ 2 n d l [mscl [ s ing ] 11 [Np[2ndl [mscl [ s ing ] I IVpv.. I

Recal l t h a t t h e r e a r e two ways o f "br inging toge the rw t h e

INFL f e a t u r e s and V. One involves moving t h e f e a t u r e s of INFL and

ad jo in ing them t o V i n t h e VP. In t h a t case t h e S-Structure is:

Nom Case has been assigned t o t h e s u b j e c t , which shows up as t h e

pronoun a t a . In t h a t case t h e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e i s (31a). -

But t h e r e is another d e r i v a t i o n , which involves ad jo in ing V

t o INFL. I n t h a t ca se , t h e AGR f e a t u r e s remain i n INFL. The

r e s u l t i n g con f igu ra t i on is a c l i t i c con f igu ra t i on , i .e :

In our ca se , t h e head is INFL and t h e corresponding empty ca tegory is

t h e sub jec t . In a ca se l i k e t h a t , Case i s absorbed by t h e c l i t i c , a s

was suggested by J e a g g l i (1980). The S-Structure i s t h e r e f o r e (36) ,

where Nom Case is assigned t o t h e AGR f e a t u r e s ( t h e c l i t i c ) i n INFL.

The NP i n sub jec t pos i t i on cannot show up a s a pronoun, s i nce it is

no t assigned The corresponding su r f ace s t r u c t u r e is (30 ) .

In ca se t h e s u b j e c t pos i t i on r ece ives c o n t r a s t i v e s t r e s s , i t s

f e a t u r e s do not match e x a c t l y those of AGR. This is then not a

c l i t i c con f igu ra t i on ; t h e r e f o r e t h e pronoun i n sub jec t pos i t i on is

assigned Case and shows up:

(37 a . . . . V+INFL INp[2nd1 [ mascl[ sing1 [ c o n t r a s t ] I [Nom] LVpLVe] . . . ] b. e t ha-sfarim xaxaxta ATA ba-bayit

ACC t h e books forgot [ 2nd .masc .sing1 you in- the house

I f t h e pronoun is p a r t o f a l a r g e r NP, a c l i t i c con f igu ra t i on

is not manifested e i t h e r , and Nom Case is assigned t o t h e sub jec t :

2 1 ~ r e t u r n t o t h e s t a t u s of t h i s empty ca tegory i n Chapter 3.

b. e t ha-sfarim gaxaxtem a t a ve r i n a

ACC t h e books forgot[ 2nd .masc .p l l you[ mascl and Rina

ba - b a y i t

in-the house

'The books you and Rina f o r g o t a t home.'

Pro-drop is impossible i n t h e presen t t e n s e vers ion o f (30) .

(39) a . e t ha-sfarim a t a xoxeax ba-bayit

ACC t h e books you forgetCmasc .s ing] in- the house

'The books you f o r g e t a t home. '

b. e t ha-sfarim xoxeax a t a b a-b a y i t ACC t h e books fo rge t [ masc .sing1 you in-the house

'The books you f o r g e t a t home.'

c . * e t ha-sfarim xoxeax ba-bayit ACC t h e books forgetCmasc.sing1 in- the house

The presen t t e n s e D-Structure p a r a l l e l t o (33) i s not (40) :

The reason is t h a t p resen t t e n s e verbal morphology involves only t h e

f e a t u r e s Cgenderl and [number]. The f e a t u r e [2ndl o f (40) would be

l ls t randedl l , which I assume r e s u l t s i n t h e f i l t e r i n g out of t h e

corresponding su r f ace s t r u c t u r e .

The r e l e v a n t p resen t t e n s e D-Structure i s t h e r e f o r e (41 ) .

I f INFL is ad j o i n e d t o V, we d e r i v e ( 3 9 a ) i n t h e u s u a l way. I n c a s e

V is f r o n t e d , t h e S - S t r u c t u r e i s t h e f o l l o w i n g :

T h i s is n o t a c l i t i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n a s i n ( 3 5 ) , s i n c e t h e f e a t u r e s o f

t h e c l i t i c do n o t match e x a c t l y t h o s e o f t h e empty c a t e g o r y . Nom

Case is t h e r e f o r e a s s i g n e d t o t h e s u b j e c t . The s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e

c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o (42) i s (39b) and n o t ( 3 9 ~ ) . I n o t h e r words , pro-

d r o p is i m p o s s i b l e i n t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e v e r s i o n o f (30):22

2 2 ~ n some c a s e s , t h e r e is p h o n o l o g i c a l c l i t i c i z a t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t pronoun on a f r o n t e d v e r b i n t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e . For example i n ( i ) , t h e g l o t t a l s t o p t h a t is i n s e r t e d word i n i t i a l l y i n - a n i is m i s s i n g . I n ( i i ) , t h e a i n s e r t e d i n t h e env i ronmen t V xi) ( i f V is n o t i t s e l f a ) is missing, and t h e vowel i n t h e f i r s t s y n a b l e is reduced as t h e - r e s u l t o f s t r e s s s h i f t :

i. xoSeSani i n v a r i a n c e w i t h xoSeS ' a n i

' I ' m a f r a i d '

ii. b a t u x a n i i n v a r i a n c e w i t h ba tuax ' a n i

' I ' m s u r e '

2.4.2 E x p l e t i v e pronouns

It t u r n s o u t t h a t when t h e s u b j e c t is e x p l e t i v e , pro-drop is

p o s s i b l e i n t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e .

(43) a . z e m a r g i z 8e d a n i meaxer

it annoys t h a t Dani i s - l a t e

b. m a r g i z 8e d a n i meaxer annoys t h a t Dani i s - l a t e

b o t h : ' I t is annoying t h a t Dani is l a t e . '

T h i s f a l l s o u t from o u r t r e a t m e n t o f pro-drop i f we assume t h a t

e x p l e t i v e pronouns l i k e - z e a r e s p e c i f i e d f o r t h e f e a t u r e [number] and

[ g e n d e r ] and n o t [ per son I . I n d e e d , whereas p e r s o n a l pronouns v a r y

a c c o r d i n g t o a l l t h r e e f e a t u r e s , e x p l e t i v e pronouns v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o

two:

p e r s o n a l pronouns

1 s t s i n g u l a r 2nd

3 rd

s i n g u l a r p l u r a 1

m a s c u l i n e f e m i n i n e a n i

a t a a t hu h i

anaxnu a t em a t e n hem hen

e x p l e t i v e pronouns

m a s c u l i n e ze

f e m i n i n e ZO

The D-S t ruc tu re f o r (43) i s t h e r e f o r e (45 )

CAGR[masc1 [ s i n g 1 I I [Np[mascI [ s i n g ] 1 VP

If INFL i s a d j o i n e d t o V , Nom Case is a s s i g n e d t o t h e s u b j e c t , a s i n

( 4 6 ) ; t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e i s (43a ) .

If V i s f r o n t e d , AGR r e m a i n s i n INFL, and t h e f o l l o w i n g c l i t i c

c o n f i g u r a t i o n is m a n i f e s t e d :

( 4 7 )

[head [number] [ gender1 I LNp[number1 [ gender1 I

Case is t h e r e f o r e a s s i g n e d t o AGR i n t h e S - S t r u c t u r e ( 4 8 ) ; t h e

c o r r e s p o n d i n g s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e i s (43b) .

S u p p o r t i n g e v i d e n c e f o r t h e above a n a l y s i s is found i n

c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e s e n t e n c e n e g a t i o n p a r t i c l e - e y n , which we d i s c u s s

i n d e t a i l i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n . It t u r n s o u t t h a t when eyn a p p e a r s -

s e n t e n c e i n i t i a l l y , v e r b s c a n n o t be f ron ted :23

a . eyn d a n i ohev banano t

NEG Dani l i k e s b a n a n a s

'Dani doesn' t l i k e bananas .I

b. * eyn ohev d a n i banano t

NEG l i k e s Dani b a n a n a s

c. * ohev eyn d a n i b a n a n o t

l i k e s NEG Dani b a n a n a s

But eyn i t s e l f is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a c l i t i c [ [ p e r s o n ] [number] [gender ] I -

which a b s o r b s Case i n a c l i t i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n , when t h e s u b j e c t i s t h e

empty c a t e g o r y . The S - S t r u c t u r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h ( 5 0 a ) is ( 5 0 b ) ,

which is a s e n t e n c e w i t h pro-drop.

(50) a . eyn+xa ohev b a n a n o t

NEG clC2ndl [mascl [ s i n g l l i k e b a n a n a s

'You don' t l i k e bananas .'

b. eyn+[C2ndl [mascl s i n g l I [ ~ o m l LNP[2ndl [mascl [ s i n g ] I ohev banano t

A s s e e n i n ( 5 0 ) , t h e c l i t i c a s s o c i a t e d w i t h - eyn is indeed

2 3 ~ h i s is t r u e f o r c o n s i t u e n t n e g a t i o n l o as well. When - l o n e g a t e s t h e a u x i l i a r y h.y.y., t h e v e r b c a n n o t b e fFonted:

i. l e a n l o haya d a n i muxan l a l e x e t 'Where wasn ' t Dani w i l l i n g t o go? '

ii. * l e a n muxan l o haya d a n i l a l e x e t

specified for t h e [person] feature. We predict t h a t pro-drop of an

expletive pronoun would be impossible, since an expletive pronoun is

not specified for the fea ture [person]. The f a c t s corroborate t h i s

prediction:

(51 a. eyn ze margiz 8e dani meaxer

NEG it annoys t ha t Dani i s - l a te 'It i s n ' t annoying t ha t Dani is l a t e . '

b. * eyn margiz 8e dani meaxer NEG annoys t ha t Dani i s - l a te

2.5 Sentence negation

To express sentence negation i n sentences i n the i n f i n i t i v e

or present tense , Hebrew uses the pa r t i c l e - eyn i n sentence i n i t i a l

position :

(52) a. eyn dani ohev bananot

NEG Dani l i k e s bananas 'Dani doesn' t l i ke bananas .I

b. eyn le-ex01 bananot NEG t o ea t bananas 'One should not ea t bananas.'

eyn can a lso be used for VP negation, i n which case it

immediately precedes VP, and is accompanied by a c l i t i c t ha t agrees

with the subject .

(53) d a n i eyno ohev b a n a n o t

Dani NEG+CL[3rd .masc . s i n g ] l i k e s b a n a n a s 'Dani d o e s n t t l i k e bananas .'

The c l i t i c shows up i f and o n l y i f eyn i s used a s i n (53 ) : -

(54 a . * d a n i eyn ohev banano t

b. * eyn+o d a n i ohev banano t

The e x p e c t e d s c o p e d i f f e r e n c e s a p p e a r d e p e n d i n g on whether we have

s e n t e n c e n e g a t i o n o r VP n e g a t i o n :

(55 a . eyn r o v ha- ta lmid i m maskimim it i

NEG m a j o r i t y t h e s t u d e n t s a g r e e with-me

'It is n o t t h e c a s e t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e s t u d e n t s

a g r e e w i t h me.'

b. r o v ha- ta lmid i m eyn+am maskimim iti m a j o r i t y t h e s t u d e n t s NEG+CL[3rd .masc . p l l a g r e e with-me

'The m a j o r i t y o f t h e s t u d e n t s d o n ' t a g r e e w i t h me.'

S i n c e eyn n e v e r o c c u r s b o t h a s VP n e g a t i o n and a s s e n t e n c e - n e g a t i o n i n t h e same s e n t e n c e , I w i l l assume it is g e n e r a t e d i n o n e

p l a c e o n l y . The re a r e b a s i c a l l y two p o s s i b i l i t i e s , t o g e n e r a t e it

e i t h e r a s p a r t o f VP o r s e n t e n c e i n i t i a l l y .

I f g e n e r a t e d a s p a r t o f VP, it would move t o t h e f r o n t o f t h e

s e n t e n c e t o g i v e s e n t e n c e n e g a t i o n . But t h e n it is u n c l e a r why it

s h o u l d l o s e i t s c l i t i c when f r o n t e d . A l so it would b e u n c l e a r why

t h e c l i t i c is o b l i g a t o r y i n q u e s t i o n s :

a . m i d a n i xoxev xe-eyna ohevet bananot who Dani t h i n k s t h a t NEG+CL[ fern .sing] l i k e s [ fern .sing] bananas 'Who (female) does Dani t h i n k does no t l i k e bananas?'

b. * m i dan i xoxev 8e-eyn ohevet bananot who Dani t h i n k s t h a t NEG l i k e s bananas

So assume - eyn is generated i n t h e f r o n t o f t h e sentence. It

is then t h e case t h a t t h e c l i t i c shows up i f f t h e s u b j e c t is

t o p i c a l i z e d o r quest ioned. A s i s suggested i n J aegg l i (19801, a

c l i t i c always absorbs a Case f e a t u r e of t h e head. This can expla in

why t h e s u b j e c t must be empty when t h e c l i t i c shows up. This

explana t ion is advocated i n Borer ( 1 981, t o appear) .

I f we assume t h a t is genera ted sen tence i n i t i a l l y , we

s t i l l have t o determine e x a c t l y where. It has been suggested by

Borer ( t o appear) t h a t - eyn a s sen tence negat ion i s generated i n COMP.

(57)

[ COMP eynl [dani oxe l bananot]

NEG Dani e a t s bananas Dani doesn ' t e a t bananas. '

On t h e o t h e r hand, Borer assumes t h a t eyn i n e x i s t e n t i a l sen tences , -

where it means ' t h e r e i s n l t t , i s generated a s a main "ergat ivet t ( i n

t h e sense of Burzio (1981 1) verb, a s i n (58) .

(58)

[ N P ~ ] C V P eyn h a r b e s f a r i m ba - s i f r i a l

NEG many books in - the l i b r a r y 'There a r e n ' t many books i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

T h i s e n t a i l s t h e wrong p r e d i c t i o n t h a t - eyn may a p p e a r t w i c e i n

e x i s t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e s :

(59 1 * [ c o M p e ~ ] CCNpe l [VP eyn h a r b e s f a r i m ba - s i f r i a l I

B o r e r ' s a n a l y s i s f o r t h e c l i t i c on a l s o i n v o l v e s t h e

movement o f INFL t o COMP i n a c a s e l i k e ( 60) , i n o r d e r t o " d e l i v e r n

t h e Case f e a t u r e n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e c l i t i c t o show up. Movement o f

INFL t o COMP is n o t mot iva ted on independent grounds .

(60) d a n i CINFL CCoMPeyn+oi1[ ei o x e l bananot l

Dani NEG e a t s bananas 'Dani d o e s n ' t e a t bananas . '

9 is a governor under B o r e r ' s a n a l y s i s . T h e r e f o r e i n

i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e s nega ted by eyn, such a s (611, t h e s u b j e c t PRO

i s o b l i g a t o r i l y t o p i c a l i z e d . A problem i s t h a t s i n c e i n i n f i n i t i v a l

s e n t e n c e s t h e r e is no Case f e a t u r e f o r t h e s u b j e c t , t h e t r a c e o f PRO,

which is a v a r i a b l e , w i l l n o t be marked f o r Case. Also , it w i l l n o t

be p r o p e r l y governed, s i n c e Borer assumes t h a t - eyn i s n o t a p roper

governor .

(61 1 a . eyn [PRO l a c e t l

a . PROi [eyn Lei l a c e t l l

b . eyn l a c e t NEG t o - l e a v e 'One s h o u l d n l t l e a v e . '

Another f e a t u r e o f B o r e r ' s p r o p o s a l is t h a t t h e

o b l i g a t o r i n e s s o f t h e c l i t i c when t h e s u b j e c t i s f r o n t e d is d u e t o

t h e ECP: - e y n , w h i l e be ing a g o v e r n o r , i s n o t a p r o p e r g o v e r n o r . The

c l i t i c is t h e e l emen t t h a t p r o p e r l y g o v e r n s t h e t r a c e o f t h e s u b j e c t .

I w i l l show below t h a t t h e ECP c a n n o t be t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e

o b l i g a t o r i n e s s o f t h e c l i t i c .

I p ropose an a l t e r n a t i v e a n a l y s i s f o r - eyn. eyn is i n a

p o s i t i o n a d j o i n e d t o INFL, and d o e s n o t govern t h e s u b j e c t . The S-

S t r u c t u r e o f an i n f i n i t i v a l s e n t e n c e l i k e (61b) i s (62) r a t h e r t h a n

(61b) . The PRO s u b j e c t d o e s n o t have t o be t o p i c a l i z e d , s i n c e - eyn

d o e s n o t gove rn it.

(62) eyn+INFL PRO l a c e t

eyn is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a c l i t i c , which i s a f e a t u r e b u n d l e o f - t h e form I [ person1 I: number1 [ gender1 1. Whenever I: Noml Case i s n o t

a s s i g n e d t o t h e s u b j e c t , it i s abso rbed by t h e c l i t i c , which can t h e n

be p h o n o l o g i c a l l y r e a l i z e d . T h i s i s t h e c a s e i n ( 5 3 ) .

The o b l i g a t o r i n e s s o f t h e c l i t i c i n (53) may be r e l a t e d t o

t h e ECP, o r t o t h e same c o n s t r a i n t t h a t blocks (63b) .

(63) a . dan i i roce (8e-) PROi l o l a l e x e t

Dani wants t h a t no t to-go 'Dani wants not t o go.'

b. * dani i roce ( Be-) eyn PROi l a l e x e t

Dani wants NEG to-go

The ECP doesn ' t account f o r t h e unaccep tab i l i t y o f (63b), s i n c e t h e

empty ca tegory is no t a t r a c e . Rather, t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n seems t o

be semantic: a sub j ec t i n t h e scope of - eyn can on ly be bound t o t h e

c l i t i c on eyn. -

Pro-drop with - eyn is accounted f o r i n t h e same way as with a

f ron ted verb, a s we saw i n t h e l a s t s ec t i on . 24

(64 a. eyn+eni e makira e t dani

NEG+CL [ 1 st .s ing1 know[sing.feml ACC Dani ' I d o n ' t know Dani.'

b. * eyn+eni an i makira e t dani

NEG+CLC 1 s t .sing1 I knows[ s ing .fern] ACC Dani

2 4 ~ h e f a c t t h a t t h e empty ca tegory i n s u b j e c t pos i t i on o f (64a) can a l s o show up a s a t o p i c a l i z e d s u b j e c t , a s i n t h e fol lowing, i s unaccounted f o r .

a n i eyn+eni mekira e t dan i '1 d o n ' t know Dani.'

2.6 The a u x i l i a r y h.y.y.

A s was ment ioned i n s e c t i o n 2 , t h e a u x i l i a r y h.y.y. a p p e a r s

o n l y i n s e n t e n c e s s p e c i f i e d f o r [ t e n s e ] . It a p p e a r s i n c o n j u n c t i o n

w i t h p r e d i c a t e s t h a t c a n n o t t h e m s e l v e s be s p e c i f i e d f o r [ t e n s e ] , such

a s NPs, APs, P P S , ~ ~ and p r e s e n t p a r t i c i p l e s .

(65) a . d a n i haya Xoleax l e - r i n a m a t a n o t

Dani was s e n d i n g t o Rina p r e s e n t s 'Dani u s e d t o send Rina p r e s e n t s . '

b . " d a n i haya x a l a x l e - r i n a ma tano t Dani was s e n t t o Rina p r e s e n t s

The re a r e o t h e r p o s s i b l e word o r d e r s f o r ( 6 5 a ) :

( 6 6 ) a . haya d a n i x o l e a x l e - r i n a m a t a n o t

was Dani s e n d i n g t o Rina p r e s e n t s 'Dani u s e d t o send Rina p r e s e n t s . '

b. x o l e a x haya d a n i ma tano t l e - r i n a s e n d i n g was Dani p r e s e n t s t o Rina 'Dani used t o send Rina p r e s e n t s . '

b. d a n i x o l e a x haya ma tano t l e - r i n a Dani s e n d i n g was p r e s e n t s t o Rina 'Dani used t o send Rina p r e s e n t s . '

(67a ,b) a r e ungrammat ica l :

2 5 ~ o r examples , see Chap te r 3 s e c t i o n 1.

(67 a . * Xoleax d a n i haya ma tano t l e - r i n a

s e n d i n g Dani was p r e s e n t s t o Rina

b . * haya x o l e a x d a n i ma tano t l e - r i n a was s e n d i n g Dani p r e s e n t s t o Rina

I n v iew o f t h e s e word-orders , t h e r e a r e two p o s s i b l e a n a l y s e s

f o r t h e a u x i l i a r y h.y.y. Under o n e a n a l y s i s it is p a r t o f INFL, a s i n

( 6 8 a ) , and unde r t h e o t h e r it is a t t a c h e d t o VP, a s i n ( 6 8 b ) .

(68 )

[ INFL (AUX) ... I N P VPI

b . INFL NP L V p ( AUx) VPII

L e t u s s e e what f o l l o w s i f we assume Aux is g e n e r a t e d i n

INFL. Via c o m b i n a t i o n s o f t o p i c a l i z i n g t h e s u b j e c t and a d j o i n i n g t h e

head o f p a r t i c i p l e t o INFL, it is p o s s i b l e t o d e r i v e a l l and o n l y t h e

g rammat i ca l word o r d e r s o f ( 6 5 ) - ( 6 7 ) . The d e r i v a t i o n o f (65a ) f o r

example , where t h e s u b j e c t p r e c e d e s Aux, i n v o l v e s t h e t o p i c a l i z a t i o n

o f t h e s u b j e c t .

I n g e n e r a l , b o t h a t o p i c a l i z e d c o n s t i t u e n t and a q u e s t i o n

word a r e p o s s i b l e s e n t e n c e i n i t i a l l y , b u t t h e o r d e r t h e n must be :

topic-wh. -

(69) a . ? e t ha-matanot le-mi d a n i g a l a x

ACC t h e p r e s e n t s t o who Dani s e n t

b. * le-mi e t ha-matanot d a n i 8 a l a x

t o who ACC t h e p r e s e n t s Dani s e n t

The ' g r a m m a t i c a l i t y o f ( 7 0 a ) v e r s u s (70b) i s s u r p r i s i n g . (70b)

i n v o l v e s t o p i c a l i z a t i o n , and is t h e r e f o r e ungrammat i ca l . The

a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f (7Oa) s u g g e s t s t h a t it d o e s n o t i n v o l v e

t o p i c a l i z a t i o n .

(70 ) a . ma d a n i h a y a Xoleax l e r i n a

'What d i d Dani u s e t o send t o Rina?'

b . * ma l e - r i n a haya d a n i Boleax

what t o Rina was Dani s e n d s

I f t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f (65a) d o e s n o t i n v o l v e t o p i c a l i z a t i o n ,

it must be t h a t Aux is p a r t o f VP. I w i l l a d o p t t h i s v i ew h e r e . Fo r

more a rgumen t s f o r v i ewing Aux a s p a r t o f VP, see Chap te r 3 s e c t i o n

5. But g e n e r a t i n g Aux a s p a r t o f VP, a s i n ( 6 8 b ) , d o e s n o t by i t s e l f

a c c o u n t f o r a l l t h e p o s s i b l e word o r d e r s i n (65 ) - ( 6 7 ) . I t i s

n e c e s s a r y t o s t i p u l a t e t h a t i f b o t h h.y.y. and V a r e f r o n t e d t o INFL,

t h e i r r e l a t i v e o r d e r MUST b e r e v e r s e d ( c f . (66b) v s . ( 6 7 b ) ) .

Chap te r 3

The Pronominal nCopulan a s Agreement C l i t i c

3.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n

It h a s l o n g been known t h a t p r e s e n t t e n s e nominal s e n t e n c e s '

i n Hebrew and r e l a t e d l a n g u a g e s such a s Arab ic ( c f . Eid ( 1 9 8 3 ) ) t h a t

t h e y l a c k a c o p u l a b u t c o n t a i n an o p t i o n a l n o m i n a t i v e pronoun i n

a d d i t i o n t o t h e s u b j e c t . S e n t e n c e ( 1 ) i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s phenomenon:

(1 d a n i hu h a - more Dani h e t h e t e a c h e r 'Dani is t h e t e a c h e r . '

I n s e c t i o n 5, I d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e pronoun i n ( 1 ) i s n o t

t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e ( s u p p l e t i v e ) form o f a v e r b a l c o p u l a . I n s e c t i o n 6

I show t h a t (1 ) is n o t a c a s e o f l e f t d i s l o c a t i o n . After p r e s e n t i n g

some d a t a i n s e c t i o n 2 , I d e v e l o p an a n a l y s i s f o r nominal s e n t e n c e s

i n s e c t i o n 3 . I a r g u e t h a t t h e pronoun i n ( I ) , which I w i l l c a l l

P r o n , is a c l i t i c t h a t is t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l r e a l i z a t i o n o f

he term nominal s e n t e n c e is used i n t r a d i t i o n a l grammars o f Hebrew t o refer t o s e n t e n c e s w i t h p r e d i c a t e s t h a t do n o t i n c l u d e an o v e r t v e r b form.

"unattached" agreement f e a t u r e s t h a t have absorbed Case. I show t h a t

t h e p r o p e r t i e s of t h i s c l i t i c f a l l ou t from t h e p r i n c i p l e s of t h e

theory of Government and Binding. In p a r t i c u l a r , I fol low Chomsky

(1982), who adapts sugges t ions of Aoun (1981 ), i n t r e a t i n g a s cha ins

c l i t i c s and t h e NP p o s i t i o n s assoc ia ted (coindexed) with them, -

d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t c l i t i c s occupy A pos i t i ons . I n s e c t i o n 4 I

show t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of Pron with pronominal s u b j e c t s and with

wh-mov ement . -

3.2 Some d a t a

The p r e d i c a t e of nominal sen tences i n Hebrew c o n s i s t s of some

p ro j ec t i on of N , A o r P. I n (2a ,b ,c ) t h e p red i ca t e is N ' , A' and P'

r e spec t ive ly . In ( 3 ) it is N".

(2) a . dan i more ba - u n i v e r s i t a

Dani t e a c h e r in- the u n i v e r s i t y 'Dani is a teacher a t t h e un ive r s i t y . '

b. dan i nexmad ad meod Dani n i c e very 'Dani is ve ry nice. '

c . dan i a1 h a - gag Dani on t h e roof 'Dani is on t h e roof .'

(3) dan i ha - more l e - matematika Dani t h e t eache r t o math 'Dani is t h e math t eache r .'

I n p a s t o r f u t u r e s e n t e n c e s c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) , t h e v e r b a l

r o o t h.y.y . ' be1 shows up o b l i g a t o r i l y . 2

( 4 ) a. d a n i y i h y e more b a - u n i v e r s i t a

Dani w i l l -be t e a c h e r i n - t h e u n i v e r s i t y

'Dani w i l l b e a t e a c h e r a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y . '

b . d a n i haya nexmad ad meod

Dani was n i c e v e r y 'Dani was v e r y n i c e . '

c. d a n i y i h y e a 1 h a - gag

Dani w i l l -be on t h e r o o f

'Dani w i l l b e on t h e r o o f . '

(5) d a n i haya h a - more l e - matemat ika

Dani was t h e t e a c h e r t o math 'Dani was t h e math t e a c h e r . '

A s was ment ioned above , an l l ex t r a l ' p ronoun, which I c a l l

P r o n , may show up i n p r e s e n t t e n s e nominal s e n t e n c e s .

(6) a . d a n i hu more ba - u n i v e r s i t a

Dani h e t e a c h e r i n - t h e u n i v e r s i t y 'Dani is a t e a c h e r a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y . '

b. d a n i hu nexmad ad meod

Dani h e n i c e v e r y

'Dani is v e r y n i c e . '

' 2 ~ h e p r e s e n t t e n s e c o n j u g a t i o n o f h.y.y. d o e s n o t e x i s t i n Hebrew.

c. d a n i hu a 1 h a - gag

Dani h e on t h e r o o f

'Dani is on t h e r o o f .'

(7) d a n i hu ha - more l e - matemat ika

Dani h e t h e t e a c h e r t o math 'Dani is t h e math t e a c h e r . '

The i n v e n t o r y o f such P r o n s c o n s i s t s o f a l l n o m i n a t i v e t h i r d p e r s o n

( n o n - i n t e r r o g a t i v e ) p e r s o n a l pronouns: - hu ' he' , - h i l s h e ' , - hem ' t h e y

(masc.I1 - hen ' t h e y

( 8 ) a . y a l d a b a t 3 ( h i ) h a - s a x k a n i t h a - r a g i t b a - seret

g i r l aged 3 ( s h e ) t h e a c t r e s s t h e main i n - t h e movie

' A g i r l o f 3 i s t h e main a c t r e s s i n t h e movie.'

b. k l av im (hem) tamid neemanim

dogs[mascl ( t h e y [ m a s c l ) a lways f a i t h f u l

'Dogs a r e a lways f a i t h f u l . '

c. h a - k o s o t (hen ) ba - a r o n

t h e g l a s s e s [ f em1 ( t h e y [ f em] i n - t h e c a b i n e t

'The g l a s s e s a r e i n t h e c a b i n e t .'

P r o n s commonly a g r e e i n number and g e n d e r w i t h t h e s u b j e c t , a s s e e n

i n ( 8 ) . But t h e r e a r e c a s e s where t h e y a g r e e w i t h t h e N ' o r N w

3 ~ h e r e a r e examples i n c o l l o q u i a l Hebrew t h a t e x h i b i t imper sona l p ronouns :

d a n i ze xave r t o v Xeli Dani it f r i e n d good mine

'Dani is a good f r i e n d o f mine. '

p r e d i c a t e r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e s u b j e c t . R u b i n s t e i n (1968) l i s ts such

examples .

(9 ) a . r e x i t a gel h i t p a t x u t zo hu xazon yexaayahu

beg inn ing [ feml o f development t h i s h e v i s i o n [ masc] I s a i a h

'The b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s development is I s a i a h ' s v i s i o n . '

( R u b i n s t e i n (1968 , 137)

b. mekoro xel sod ha-xayim h i h a - ?!erne?! source[mascl o f secret t h e l i f e s h e t h e sun[feml

'The s o u r c e o f t h e secret o f l i f e is t h e sun. ' ( i b i d .)

A n a t u r a l h y p o t h e s i s t o c o n s i d e r is t h a t P ron , when it

a p p e a r s i n t h e s e n t e n c e s (61 , (71 , h a s t h e same s y n t a c t i c r o l e a s

h.y.y. i n t h e s e n t e n c e s ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) . O r , i n a s l i g h t l y s t r o n g e r form

- Pron i s n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e s u p p l e t i v e form o f h.y.y. i n p r e s e n t

t e n s e s e n t e n c e s . But it t u r n s o u t t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t Pron is

t h e s u p p l e t i v e form o f h.y.y. i s e a s y t o r e f u t e . J u s t on

d i s t r i b u t i o n a l g rounds , n o t i c e t h a t h .y .y . may a p p e a r i n c o n s t r u c t i o n

w i t h v e r b a l p r e s e n t p a r t i c i p l e s , whereas Pron ~ a n n o t : ~

4 ( l ~ b ) is g rammat i ca l a s l e f t d i s l o c a t i o n , i .e. w i t h an i n t o n a t i o n b r e a k be tween d a n i and hu. But i n t h a t c a s e it is p a r a l l e l n o t t o (10a ) b u t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g , which is a l s o a l e f t d i s l o c a t e d s e n t e n c e :

d a n i , hu haya yoxev b a - k a f e t e r i a le i t im k r o v o t

Dani h e was s i t t i n g i n - t h e c a f e t e r i a o f t e n

'Dani , h e o f t e n used t o s i t i n t h e c a f e t e r i a . '

(10) a . d a n i haya yo8ev b a - k a f e t e r i a l e i t i m k r o v o t

Dani was s i t t i n g i n - t h e c a f e t e r i a o f t e n 'Dani o f t e n used t o s i t i n t h e c a f e t e r i a . '

b. * d a n i hu yo8ev ba - k a f e t e r i a l e i t i m k r o v o t Dani h e s i t t i n g i n - t h e c a f e t e r i a o f t e n

3.3 The a n a l y s i s o f nominal s e n t e n c e s

3.3.1 The s t r u c t u r e o f nominal s e n t e n c e s

I w i l l a s s i g n t h e s i m p l e s t p o s s i b l e s t r u c t u r e t o nominal

s e n t e n c e s such a s (2 ) and (3 ) r a t h e r t h a n p o s t u l a t e an empty copu la .

I n o t h e r words, I w i l l t a k e t h e s t r u c t u r e o f ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) t o be

ana logous t o t h a t o f such s e n t e n c e s a s ( 1 1) , where t h e p r e d i c a t e i s a

VP . ( 1 1)

d a n i yo!!ev b a - k a f e t e r i a l e i t i m krovo t Dani sits i n - t h e c a f e t e r i a o f t e n 'Dani o f t e n sits i n t h e c a f e t e r i a . '

For s e n t e n c e s l i k e ( 1 1 ) I have mot ivated i n Chapter 2 t h e s t r u c t u r e

[INFL NP VPI. S i m i l a r l y , I w i l l assume t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e f o r ( 2 a )

and ( 3 ) is [INFL NP NPI, f o r ( 2 b ) [INFL NP API and f o r ( 2 c )

[INFL NP PPI. Those f o u r s t r u c t u r e s g e n e r a l i z e a s [INFL NP XPI,

where X i s V , N , A o r P. Remember t h a t XP d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y d e n o t e

a maximal p r o j e c t i o n o f X ( c f . Chapter 1 s e c t i o n 2 ) b u t a p r o j e c t i o n

o f X t h a t , i n t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n i n q u e s t i o n , is n o t dominated by a

higher projection of X. For example the NP predicate of (2a) is N 1 ,

which is not a maximal projection. The NP predicate of ( 3 ) is N w ,

which is a maximal projection.5 We saw in Chapter 2 t h a t verbs may

adjoin t o INFL, as i n the following example:6

(12) ? yoxev dani ba - kafe te r ia le i t im krovot

sits Dani in-the ca fe te r ia of ten 'Dani often sits i n the cafeter ia . '

N s and A s can a lso occur i n f ront of the subject . I therefore assume

tha t in general X , the head of XP, can be adjoined t o INFL:

(13) a. more hu dani ba - univers i ta

teacher he Dani in-the universi ty 'Dani is a teacher a t the university. '

5 ~ o t i c e tha t the above creates a problem with the s t ruc tura l de f in i t i ons of the grammatical functions. For example, ( Chomsky (1965) ,691 defines subject Itas the re la t ion holding between the NP of a sentence.. . and the whole sentencet1. This i s not an adequate def ini t ion i n case there are two NPs of a sentence, as in the case X = N above. We w i l l use an ad-hoc def in i t ion t o ensure t ha t the leftmost NP i s the subject , and the category t o i ts r igh t is the predicate.

6(12) can be improved by fronting some other consti tuent as well, for example the adverb:

l e i t im krovot yo8ev dani ba - kafe te r ia often sits Dani in-the ca f e t e r i a

'Dani often sits i n the cafeter ia . '

b . nexmad hu d a n i ad meod

n i c e h e d a n i v e r y 'Dani is v e r y n i c e . '

N c an be e x t r a c t e d from N 1 , a s i n ( l 3 a ) , b u t c a n n o t b e

e x t r a c t e d from N 1 ' , a s ( 1 4 ) shows. N e i t h e r can P b e e x t r a c t e d from

P 1 , a s is shown i n ( 1 5 ) .

(14) * more (hu ) d a n i C N p h a e l e - matemat ika l

t e a c h e r h e Dani t h e t o math

(15) * a 1 (hu ) d a n i C p p e h a - gag1

on h e Dani t h e r o o f

The same c o n s t r a i n t s h o l d o f g a p p i n g , and I assume t h a t t h e y a r e

i n d e p e n d e n t l y m o t i v a t e d .

(16 ) a . d a n i yo8ev ba-ki t a v e r i n a e ba - k a f e t e r i a

d a n i s i t t i n g i n - t h e c l a s s and Rina i n - t h e c a f e t e r i a

'Dani is s i t t i n g i n c l a s s and Rina i n t h e c a f e t e r i a . '

b. d a n i more l e - s i f r u t v e r i n a e le -matemat ika

Dani t e a c h e r t o l i t e r a t u r e and Rina t o math

'Dani is a l i t e r a t u r e t e a c h e r and Rina a math t e a c h e r . '

c . d a n i gavoha mi-mo8e v e r i n a e mi-dani Dani t a l l from Moshe and Rina from Dani

'Dani is t a l l e r t h a n Moshe and Rina t h a n Dani.'

d . * d a n i ha-more l e - s i f r u t v e r i n a h a e le -matemat ika

Dani t h e t e a c h e r t o l i t e r a t u r e and Rina t h e t o math

e. * d a n i l eyad ha-mita v e r i n a e ha -k i se

Dani n e a r t h e bed and Rina t h e c h a i r

Pron i n ( 1 3 a ) i s o b l i g a t o r y ( c f . ( 1 7 a ) ) , which is something

we w i l l a c c o u n t for . On t h e o t h e r hand, it is o p t i o n a l i n ( 1 3 b ) , a s

(17b) shows.

(17) a. * more d a n i b a - u n i v e r s i t a

t e a c h e r Dani i n - t h e u n i v e r s i t y

b. nexmad d a n i ad meod n i c e Dani v e r y

'Dani is v e r y n i c e . '

F u r t h e r s u p p o r t for c o n s i d e r i n g N and A on a p a r w i t h V a s

h e a d s o f t h e p r e d i c a t e is t h a t none o f them can be f r o n t e d i n case

t h e n e g a t i o n p a r t i c l e - e y n a p p e a r s i n INFL:

(1 8 ) a . * yo8ev e y n d a n i b a - k a f e t e r i a

s i t t i n g NEG Dani i n - t h e cafeter ia

b. * eyn yo8ev d a n i ba - k a f e t e r i a NEG s i t t i n g Dani i n - t h e c a f e t e r i a

(1 9 ) a . * more eyn ( h u ) d a n i b a - u n i v e r s i t a

t e a c h e r NEG h e Dani i n - t h e u n i v e r s i t y

b. * eyn more ( h u ) d a n i b a - u n i v e r s i t a

NEG t e a c h e r h e Dani i n - t h e u n i v e r s i t y

( 2 0 ) a . * nexmad eyn ( h u ) d a n i ad meod

n i c e NEG he Dani v e r y

b. * eyn nexmad (hu) d a n i ad meod NEG n i c e he Dani v e r y

On t h e o t h e r hand, c o n s t i t u e n t s t h a t a r e n o t heads o f t h e p r e d i c a t e

c a n b e f r o n t e d even i n s e n t e n c e s c o n t a i n i n g eyn: -

(21 a . b a - k a f e t e r i a eyn d a n i yoxev

i n - t h e c a f e t e r i a NEG Dani s i t t i n g 'Dani d o e s n ' t s i t a t t h e c a f e t e r i a . '

T h i s seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t N s and As a r e s y n t a c t i c a l l y heads o f t h e

p r e d i c a t e r a t h e r t h a n complements o f some empty a u x i l i a r y .

3.3.2 The n a t u r e o f Pron

3.3.2.1. Una t t ached AGR f e a t u r e s

We a r e r e a d y t o e x p l o r e t h e p o s s i b l e d e r i v a t i o n s f o r nominal

s e n t e n c e s . Cons ide r f o r example t h e D-S t ruc tu re ( 2 2 ) .

L I N F L CAGR[3rdl [ s i n g 1 Cmasc] 1 1 d a n i more

Assume m o v e 4 a p p l i e s v a c u o u s l y , so t h a t t h e S - S t r u c t u r e ( 2 3 ) is t h e

same a s t h e D-S t ruc tu re , modulo t h e a s s ignment o f Case and t h e -

a p p l i c a t i o n o f free i n d e x i n g . The p o s i t i o n o f more is an A-pos i t ion ,

t h e r e f o r e it is n o t indexed o r Case marked. A s w i l l become c l e a r -

below, A-pos i t ions a r e indexed i n some c a s e s , i f f t h e y c o n t a i n an

argument. I t ake it t h a t more is not an argument b u t is a p red i ca t e

t h a t i t s e l f a s s igns $-roles t o arguments, f o r example t h e sub jec t .

(23)

* [,,,[3rdl [ s ing ] [mascll I danii[Noml more

An S-Structure such as (23 ) is f i l t e r e d ou t by a su r f ace f i l t e r ,

s i n c e i t s INFL node con ta in s f e a t u r e s t h a t a t no s t a g e o f t h e

d e r i v a t i o n a r e r ea l i zed as p a r t a t any morpheme o r a f f i x .

But t h e su r f ace s t r u c t u r e (24) which corresponds t o (23) i s a

good sentence of Hebrew:

(24 dani more Dani t eache r 'Dani is a t eache r . I

(24) must t h e r e f o r e have a grammatical S-Structure where INFL is not

spec i f i ed f o r AGR f e a t u r e s . Since INFL o f presen t t e n s e sen tences

con ta in s no s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r [ t e n s e ] o r [ p a s t ] e i t h e r ( c f . Chapter

2 ) , we conclude t h a t t h e S-Structure o f (24) has an empty INFL. 7

(25) IINFLel danii[Noml more

Going back t o t h e ungrammatical S-Structure (231, we ask

7 ~ l t e r n a t i v e l y , such a sentence has no INFL node a t a l l . I f a s t r u c t u r e with no INFL is c o r r e c t , we have t o assume t h a t government o f t h e sub jec t and Nom Case assignment a r e independent of INFL.

whether it may be pos s ib l e t o e l i m i n a t e t h e reason f o r i t s

ungrammatical i ty , which is t h a t t h e AGR f e a t u r e s a r e unrea l ized .

Imagine t h a t AGR could be assigned t h e Nom Case f e a t u r e t h a t i s

normally assigned t o t h e sub jec t :

(26) * C I N F L [,,,[3rdl C s ing1 Cmascl I [Noml I dani i more

AGR a s i n (261, namely t h e f e a t u r e bundle

~Cpersonl~numberl~genderl~Casel~, does have a phonological

r e a l i z a t i o n - which we have been c a l l i n g Pron. Pron is a c l i t i c i n

t h a t it is not an independent NP node, b u t p a r t o f INFL.

The su r f ace s t r u c t u r e corresponding t o (26 ) is ( 2 7 ) , where

t h e phonological r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e c l i t i c i n INFL is t h e Pron - hu:

(27 * hu dani more

he Dani t eache r

(27) is not a sentence of Hebrew, and indeed t h e S-Structure ( 2 6 ) is

f i l t e r e d ou t by t h e Case F i l t e r : t h e s u b j e c t dan i ha s no t been

assigned Case.

It may seem t h a t (26 ) could be salvaged i f move-'(l removes t h e -

s u b j e c t t o an A-position, where t h e Case F i l t e r doesn ' t apply t o it:8

his would be a pos i t i on adjoined t o COMP, o r maybe a TOPIC p o s i t i o n .

(28 1 * dan i i [ I I N F L [AGR[3rdl[~ingl[ma~~]1[N~m] I ei more I

But ( 2 8 ) is st i l l f i l t e r e d o u t by t h e Case F i l t e r , s i n c e t h e v a r i a b l e

ei, t h e t r a c e o f t o p i c a l i z a t i o n , is n o t a s s igned Case. A s we saw i n

Chapter 1 , v a r i a b l e s must i n g e n e r a l be ass igned Case.

I n s p i t e o f t h e f a c t t h a t (28) is r u l e d o u t by t h e Case

F i l t e r , t h e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e cor respond ing t o it is a good s e n t e n c e :

(29 d a n i hu more

Dani h e t e a c h e r

'Dani is a t e a c h e r . '

We a r e t h e r e f o r e encouraged t o look f o r a way i n which (28) cou ld

s a t i s f y t h e Case F i l t e r .

Imagine t h a t f r e e index ing a p p l i e d t o AGR t o o . I f AGR were

a s s i g n e d t h e i n d e x - i, t h e S - S t r u c t u r e (28) would look a s fol lows:

(30) dan i i [ LINFL IAGR[3rd1 s ing1 [mascl li[Noml I ei more]

(AGRi, e i ) is n o t a c h a i n i n t h e s e n s e o f Chapter 1 , s i n c e AGR i s i n - A-posit ion. But it does f a l l under t h e g e n e r a l i z e d n o t i o n o f c h a i n

advocated i n Aoun (1981) and Chomsky (19821, t h a t i n c l u d e s c l i t i c

chains of the form ( c l i t i c i , ei) .9 Moreover, ( A G R i , ei) i s Case

marked, since ei occupies a position assigned Nom Case. (30)

therefore s a t i s f i e s the Case F i l t e r , and is a well-formed S-Structure

of (29).

3.3.2.2. C l i t i c chains i n Hebrew

C l i t i c chains i n Hebrew are a t tes ted independently of (30).

Objects, both d i r ec t and ind i r ec t , c l i t i c i z e on the verb when they

are pronominal. Consider (31 ), where the r e l a t i ve order of the

objects is unmarked:

(31 dani natan le-rina e t ha-sefer

Dani gave t o Rina ACC the book

'Dani gave Rina the book.'

I n case the d i r ec t object i s a pronoun, it c l i t i c i z e s on the verb.

10 The S-Structure is as i n ( 3 2 ~ ) .

9 ~ n example of a c l i t i c chain i s the French ( l e i , e i ) , as i n ( i i ) . According to Chomsky and Aoun, t h i s chain has the Case and the 0-role assigned by the verb connaitre t o i t s d i r ec t object. This chain contains one argument - the c l i t i c lei, whereas ei i s a non-argument.

i Jean l e connait

ii. Jean INFL [Vp[Vlei+connaitl INpel i1

1°(32b) is possible with heavy s t r e s s on - oto. I n t ha t case the d i r ec t object is not a c l i t i c .

(32 1 a . d a n i n a t a n o t + o l e - r i n a

Dani g a v e ACC him t o Rina 'Dani g a v e it t o Rina. '

b . * d a n i n a t a n l e - r i n a o t + o Dani gave t o Rina ACC him

c. d a n i CVnatan o t+o i l l e - r i n a e i

When V is f r o n t e d , so is - o t o , c o n f i r m i n g t h e v iew t h a t it is a

c l i t i c :

( 3 3 ) a . ma tay n a t a n o t + o d a n i l e - r i n a

when g a v e ACC him Dani t o Rina

'When d i d Dani g i v e it t o Rina? '

b . * matay n a t a n d a n i l e - r i n a o t + o

c. * matay n a t a n d a n i o t + o l e - r i n a

I n d i r e c t o b j e c t s can b e c l i t i c s a s w e l l . The S - S t r u c t u r e o f

(34a ) is ( 3 4 ~ ) . (34) a . ma tay n a t a n 1+a d a n i e t h a - s e f e r

when g a v e to-her Dani ACC t h e book

'When d i d Dani g i v e h e r t h e book?'

b . * matay n a t a n d a n i 1 + a e t h a - s e f e r

when g a v e Dani t o - h e r ACC t h e book

c. ma tay CVnatan l+ai]+INFL d a n i ei e t h a - s e f e r

when gave t o - h e r Dani ACC t h e book

Cl i t i c chains are a lso a t tes ted i n Hebrew i n connection with

the construct-state. The construct-state is roughly an NP of the

form CNpNP NP], where the second NP is a complement tha t denotes the

possessor of the f i r s t NP. A s shown by Borer (1981 ) , when the

complement NP is a pronoun, it shows up as a c l i t i c on the head N of

the constr uct-state :

(35 1 beit+ai [ Npel

house her ' her houset

3.3.2.3. Pron a s c l i t i c

We are claiming tha t Pron is a c l i t i c , i .e . the phonological

real izat ion of a feature bundle ([:per sonl~number:I[~ender:l [Case] 1

which is not an independent NP node. Pron has some of the properties

tha t Zwicky (1977) lists as characterizing c l i t i c s .

Pron does not carry contrastive s t r e s s , unlike h.y.y.:

(36) a. dani HAYA more

'Dani WAS a teacher .'

b. * dani HU more 'Dani IS a teacher.'

Pron cannot occur i n i so la t ion , not even a s an answer t o a

question :

Q. dan i hu more o hayamore

Dani he t eache r o r was t eache r

'Is Dani a t e ache r o r was he a teacher? '

A. haya

Pron shows up a s a phonological c l i t i c on t h e f ron ted

s u b j e c t , a l b e i t f o r a very l im i t ed number o f sub j ec t NPs. The

su r f ace s t r u c t u r e of (38a) is (38b) , where - (h ) u is uns t ressed .

(38) a . zei [CINFLhuil ei a x i l

t h i s he my b ro the r 'This i s my bro ther .I

b. ze(h)u axi

This phonological c l i t i c i z a t i o n never t a k e s place i n a case l i k e

(39a) , where - hu is no t a c l i t i c b u t t h e pred ica te . The su r f ace

s t r u c t u r e of (39a) is (39b) , where ( h ) u is never uns t ressed .

(39) a . ze hu

t h i s he

'This is him.'

3.3.2.4. Pron a s a v a r i a b l e

Aoun ( 1 981 and Chomsky ( 1 982) adduce arguments t o t h e effect

t h a t i n a c h a i n ( c l i t i c i , e i) , t h e argument i s t h e c l i t i c . Fo l lowing

them we s u g g e s t t h a t i n t h e c h a i n (AGRi, ei) o f ( 3 0 ) , t h e argument i s

Looking back a t ( 2 6 1 , which v i o l a t e s t h e Case F i l t e r , we a s k

whether it c o u l d b e s a l v a g e d by c o i n d e x i n g AGR and t h e s u b j e c t , a s i n

The c h a i n (AGRi, d a n i i ) s a t i s f i e s t h e Case F i l t e r b u t ( 4 0 ) is s t i l l

ungrammat ica l . If AGRi is t a k e n t o be an argument , we can accoun t

f o r t h e u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y o f ( 4 0 ) . (AGRi, d a n i i ) v i o l a t e s t h e

@ - c r i t e r i o n , s i n c e b o t h AGRi and d a n i . a r e arguments . 11 -1

S i n c e i n t h e c h a i n (AGRi, e i ) , AGRi i s t h e argument and - ei i s

an anaphor , it f o l l o w s t h a t t h e v a r i a b l e bound by d a n i i i n ( 3 0 ) is

AGRi and n o t ei. T h i s is n o t s u r p r i s i n g i n a l a n g u a g e l i k e Hebrew,

or a d i f f e r e n t a n a l y s i s o f a s i m i l a r phenomenon, complex i n v e r s i o n i n F rench , see Kayne (1983) . Kayne t s a n a l y s i s t r a n s p o s e d t o ( 3 0 ) would t r e a t ( d a n i i , AGRi , e i) a s a c h a i n . The argument i n t h i s c h a i n is d a n i i , and t h e r e f o r e AGRi must b e a non-argument. Kayne t s a n a l y s i s i s less n a t u r a l f o r Hebrew, where d a n i and AGR d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s h a r e grammat ica l f e a t u r e s , c f . ( 9 ) above. I n o u r a n a l y s i s , d a n i i is n o t p a r t o f t h e c h a i n (AGRi, ei) .

which h a s r e s u m p t i v e p ronouns , l i k e ai i n ( 4 1 ) . 1 2

h a - i % a !!ei d a n i n a t a n l + a i s e f e r t h e woman t h a t d a n i gave to-her book ' t h e woman t o whom Dani g a v e a bookt

A p o t e n t i a l problem f o r v iewing AGR a s a v a r i a b l e is t h a t

v a r i a b l e s a r e r e q u i r e d b y d e f i n i t i o n t o be i n A-pos i t i on , whereas t h e

p o s i t i o n o f AGR i s INFL, which is n o t an A-pos i t ion . R e c a l l t h e

d e f i n i t i o n o f v a r i a b l e : ( c f . (23) i n Chapter 1 ) )

If Qt is an empty c a t e g o r y o r a pronoun, Qt i s a v a r i a b l e i f f -

it is l o c a l l y A-bound and i n an A-pos i t i on .

The r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t v a r i a b l e s be i n A-pos i t ion is i n t e n d e d

t o p r e v e n t t r a c e s i n COMP from b e i n g c l a s s i f i e d a s v a r i a b l e s . T r a c e s

i n COMP a r e l i k e a n a p h o r s and u n l i k e v a r i a b l e s i n t h a t t h e y a r e n o t

Case marked. We want t o modify t h e above d e f i n i t i o n i n s u c h a way a s

n o t t o i n c l u d e t r a c e s i n COMP w h i l e i n c l u d i n g c l i t i c s . T h i s c a n be

done by r e p l a c i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t v a r i a b l e s b e i n A-pos i t i on by

t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t v a r i a b l e s be p a r t o f c h a i n . C l i t i c s may

p a r t i c i p a t e i n a c h a i n ( under t h e g e n e r a l i z e d n o t i o n ) whereas COMP

may n o t .

1 2 ~ o r d i s c u s s i o n s o f Hebrew r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s s e e Bore r ( 1 979) and Doron ( 1982) among o t h e r s .

3.3.2.5. Agreement

We have d i s c u s s e d S - S t r u c t u r e s o f t h e form (42 ) :

d a n i i [ L I N F L LAGR[3rdI [ s i n g l [ m a s c l li[Nom1 1 ei NP]

S i n c e ei i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n is t h e r e s u l t o f move-gt, it is

marked w i t h t h e f e a t u r e s [ p e r s o n ] , [number] and [ g e n d e r ] o f t h e moved

NP d a n i . The AGR f e a t u r e s i n INFL, which a g r e e w i t h t h o s e o f t h e

s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n , t h e r e f o r e a g r e e u l t i m a t e l y w i t h t h o s e o f d a n i .

T h i s a c c o u n t s f o r examples where Pron a g r e e s w i t h t h e s u b j e c t , a s i n

( 8 ) .

I n o t h e r examples , c f . ( 9 ) , Pron a g r e e s w i t h t h e p r e d i c a t e .

I n t h e s e c a s e s , t h e p r e d i c a t e is a r e f e r r i n g N P . ' ~ No t i ce t h e

d i f f e r e n c e between ( 4 3 a ) and (43b) :

( 4 3 ) a . ma Be d e k a r t k a t a v (hu ) hoxaxa l e - k i yumo

what t h a t D e s c a r t e s w r o t e h e p roo f [ feml t o h i s - e x i s t e n c e

b. ma 8e d e k a r t k a t a v h i hoxaxa 1 e-ki yumo what t h a t D e s c a r t e s wrote s h e p roo f [ feml t o h i s - e x i s t e n c e

Both can b e t r a n s l a t e d a s t h e E n g l i s h (44):14

13c f . C h a p t e r s 4 and 5.

1 4 ~ h i s s e n t e n c e is an example due t o Emmon Bach.

(44 ) What D e s c a r t e s w r o t e is a p roo f o f h i s e x i s t e n c e .

But u n l i k e (441, t h e s e n t e n c e s i n (43) a r e n o t ambiguous.

(43a) is synonymous t o t h e " ~ ~ e c i f i c a t i o n a l ~ ' ' ~ r e a d i n g o f (44) . 1 6

(43b) o n l y h a s t h e i d e n t i t y reading .17 T h i s seems t o i n d i c a t e s t h a t

Pron a g r e e s w i t h t h e p r e d i c a t e o n l y i f t h e p r e d i c a t e is a r e f e r r i n g

NP.

I n c a s e s where t h e p r e d i c a t e is r e f e r r i n g and t h e s u b j e c t is

e x p l e t i v e , AGR a g r e e s w i t h t h e p r e d i c a t e o n l y :

(45 ) a . z e h a y i t i an i

it w a s [ l s t . s i ng1 I 'It was me.'

b. * z e haya an i it wasC3rd.singl I

It may b e t h a t i n s t r u c t u r e s l i k e ( 4 2 1 , t h e empty c a t e g o r y i n s u b j e c t

p o s i t i o n may b e r e i n t e r p r e t e d as an e x p l e t i v e e l e m e n t , i n c a s e t h e

p r e d i c a t e is a r e f e r r i n g NP. The f e a t u r e s o f AGR would t h e n match

t h o s e o f t h e p r e d i c a t e .

'51n t h e s e n s e o f H i g g i n s ( 1976) .

16which is e q u i v a l e n t t o what D e s c a r t e s w r o t e p r o v e s - h i s e x i s t e n c e .

7c f . Chap te r 5.

To c o n c l u d e , AGR i n nominal s e n t e n c e s a g r e e s w i t h t h e s u b j e c t

or t h e p r e d i c a t e , depend ing on which is "more r e f e r r i n g n . I w i l l n o t

t r y h e r e t o make t h i s n o t i o n more p r e c i s e .

3.3.2.6. AGR i n v e r b a l s e n t e n c e s

We have t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n why Pron shows up o n l y i n

nominal s e n t e n c e s , n o t i n s e n t e n c e s t h a t have a v e r b , c f . ( l o b ) . I

assume t h a t t h e morphology o f v e r b s r e q u i r e s t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h e

f e a t u r e s [number] and ' ~ ~ e n d e r l a t t h e s y n t a c t i c l e v e l . 1 8 I f t h o s e

r ema in i n INFL t o form t h e c l i t i c , a s i n ( l o b ) , t h e v e r b i s ill

formed.

The above a c c o u n t o f t h e u n a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f ( l o b ) seems t o

p r e s e n t u s w i t h a problem, s i n c e a d j e c t i v e s , l i k e v e r b s , h a v e t o

a g r e e w i t h t h e s u b j e c t i n number and gende r .

(46) a . d a n i nexmad

Dani n ice[masc . s i n g ]

'Dani is n i c e .I

b . * d a n i nexmadot

Dani n i c e [ fem . p l l

But u n l i k e v e r b s , a d j e c t i v e s a l l o w Pron , c f . ( 6 b ) . The s o l u t i o n i s

t h a t agreement o f a d j e c t i v e s can b e i n d e p e n d e n t o f INFL. I n NPs,

18[person] a s well i n p a s t and f u t u r e s e n t e n c e s .

where t h e r e i s presumably no INFL node , a d j e c t i v e s a l s o have t o a g r e e

w i t h t h e head noun:

( 4 7 ) a . ye l ed nexmad

boy n i ce [masc . s i n g ]

' a n i c e boy'

b . * y e l a d o t nexmad

g i r l s n i ce [masc . s ing ]

It is t h e r e f o r e p o s s i b l e f o r a d j e c t i v e s , b e s i d e s e x h i b i t i n g

v e r b - l i k e agreement by a b s o r b i n g AGR a s i n ( 2 b ) and ( 1 7 b ) , t o a g r e e

w i t h t h e s u b j e c t i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f A G R , i n which c a s e t h e f e a t u r e s o f

AGR c a n show up a s a c l i t i c , a s i n ( 6 b ) and ( 1 3 b ) .

3 .3 .3 P r e d i c a t e - f i r s t s e n t e n c e s

L e t u s e x p l o r e o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e S - S t r u c t u r e s f o r t h e D-

S t r u c t u r e (221 , r e p e a t e d below a s ( 4 8 a ) . Imagine t h a t t h e head o f

t h e p r e d i c a t e is f r o n t e d , and a d j o i n e d t o INFL.

Cons ide r f i r s t t h e c a s e o f an N. S i n c e i t s morphology d o e s

n o t a l l o w f o r t h e a t t a c h m e n t o f agreement f e a t u r e s , AGR w i l l be l e f t

u n r e a l i z e d , and t h e s e n t e n c e w i l l b e r u l e d o u t by t h e s u r f a c e

f i l t e r :

191 assume t h a t t h e t r a c e o f t h e head o f t h e p r e d i c a t e is n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e b i n d i n g t h e o r y .

(48)

a = [INFL [AGR [3 rd ] [ s i n g ] [ m a s c l l 1 d a n i more

c . * more d a n i

N o t i c e t h a t ( 4 8 c ) c a n n o t be d e r i v e d by f r o n t i n g N i n a

s e n t e n c e l i k e ( 2 5 ) . It is t r i e i n g e n e r a l t h a t p r e d i c a t e s a r e n o t

a t t a c h e d t o INFL t h a t c o n t a i n s no AGR f e a t u r e s , c f . Emonds ( 1 978) .

Imagine AGR o f (48) a b s o r b s Nom Case; t h e S - S t r u c t u r e would

b e ( 4 9 a ) , and t h e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e ( 4 9 b ) .

b. more hu d a n i

I f i d j (49a ) is r u l e d o u t by t h e Case f i l t e r , a s d a n i is n o t a s s i g n e d

Case. I f i= j, (49a ) is r u l e d o u t by t h e & c r i t e r i o n , s i n c e it

c o n t a i n s a c h a i n w i t h two a rgumen t s , AGR and d a n i .

S i n c e t h e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e is a good s e n t e n c e o f Hebrew, l e t

u s see unde r which c o n d i t i o n s (49a) can b e s a l v a g e d . I f i= j , t h e -

s t r u c t u r e can b e s a l v a g e d b y moving - d a n i t o an A-pos i t i on , e i t h e r

t o p i c p o s i t i o n a s i n ( 5 0 1 , o r t h e p o s i t i o n o f an a p p o s i t i v e , a s i n

(51 1.

b. dani more hu

Dani teacher he

'Dani i s a teacher. '

b. more h u d a n i teacher he Dani

'Dani is a teacher.'

Adjectives on the other hand can be inflected for number and

gender by absorbing AGR ( c f . the discussion a t the end of section

3.3.1, so t ha t Pron does not necessari ly show up when A i s fronted.

The s t ruc ture para l l e l t o (48b) when the predicate i s adject ival i s

(52a), and the surface s t ruc ture is (17b), repeated below as (52b).

(52) a. [ nexmad [ INFL CAGR[3rdl [ sing] Cmascl I l l danii[Noml LApe ad meodl

b. nexmad dani ad meod

nice Dani very 'Dani is very nice.'

The s t ruc tures pa ra l l e l t o (50) and (51) are a lso possible

with adjectives:

(53 a. danii [ [nexmad L I N F L CAGR[3rdl [ sing1 [mascl lil[Noml I

ei L A P e ad meodl I

b. d a n i nexmad hu ad meod D a n i n i c e h e v e r y 'Dani is v e r y n i c e . '

(54 a . Inexmad L I N F L [AGR[3rdl[~ingl[ma~~llil[N~mll

ei d a n i i IAP e ad meodl

b. nexmad hu d a n i ad meod n i c e h e Dani v e r y 'Dani is v e r y n i c e . '

3.4 F u r t h e r p r e d i c t i o n s

The a n a l y s i s i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n makes a d d i t i o n a l

p r e d i c t i o n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , it p r e d i c t s t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f Pron w i t h

pronouns i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n . T h i s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n s e c t i o n 4.1.

I n s e c t i o n 4.2. we see t h a t Pron is i n s t r u m e n t a l f o r t h e p r o p e r

government o f s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n .

3.4.1 The i n t e r a c t i o n of Pron w i t h pronominal s u b j e c t s

I a r g u e i n Chap te r 2 t h a t s u b j e c t p e r s o n a l p ronouns a r e

c l i t i c s i n INFL. I n t h i s way I a c c o u n t f o r pro-drop i n Hebrew. For

example, t h e f e a t u r e b u n d l e E[2nd] [masc l [ s i n g 1 I , which c o r r e s p o n d s t o

t h e pronoun - a t a ' you (masc . s ing . ) ' i s r e a l i z e d i n INFL. An example o f

an S - S t r u c t u r e and a c o r r e s p o n d i n g s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e a r e ( 5 5 a , b ) .

b. a t a m o r e you t eache r 'You a r e a t eache r .I

Since t h e pronoun is a c l i t i c i n INFL it doesn ' t t o p i c a l i z e , and no

t h i r d per son pronoun can show up ; indeed, (56) , where a t h i r d per son

Pron shows up i n conjunct ion with a pronominal s u b j e c t , i s

ungrammatical. 2 0

(56 * a t a hu more

you he t e a c h e r

I f t h e p r e d i c a t e is f ron t ed , t h e S-Structure corresponding t o

(55a ) , i s (57a) . The s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e i s (57b) .

(57) a . [more C I N F L CAGR[2ndlC~ingl[ma~~]li[N~m]] ei e

b. more a t a t eache r you 'You a r e a t eache r . '

Exac t ly a s i n t h e case where t h e p red i ca t e remained i n p lace ( c f .

(5611, no a d d i t i o n a l t h i r d person pronoun ever appears:

2 0 ~ o t i c e t h a t t h e ungrammaticali ty o f (56 ) cannot be a t t r i b u t e d t o some ~ ~ c l a s h q ~ i n agreement between t h e s u b j e c t and Pron, s i n c e t h e corresponding sentence where t h e s u b j e c t is a t h i r d person pronoun is j u s t a s ungrammatical :

* hu hu more he he t eache r

(58) * more hu a t a

t e a c h e r h e you

To c o n c l u d e , n o " e x t r a w pronoun a p p e a r s i n nominal s e n t e n c e s

when t h e s u b j e c t i s i t s e l f a pronoun. T h i s is d u e t o t h e p r o p e r t i e s

o f Pron and o f pronominal s u b j e c t s , b o t h o f which a r e c l i t i c s i n

INFL.

3.4.2 The i n t e r a c t i o n of Pron w i t h - wh-movement

T h e r e are s e v e r a l c a s e s i n which Pron i s o b l i g a t o r y . One o f

them i s "longt1 wh-movement :21 -

2 1 ~ u t w i t h l l s h o r t l l wh-movement i n v o l v i n g a wh-pronoun, it is t h e o t h e r way round. ~ron-is p r o h i b i t e d , j u s t a s i F w a s when t h e s u b j e c t was a n o n - i n t e r r o g a t i v e pronoun. It may be t h a t i n t e r r o g a t i v e pronouns a r e c l i t i c s on INFL j u s t l i k e o t h e r pronouns .

i. m i i ei more who t e a c h e r 'Who i s a t e a c h e r ? '

ii. * m i i hui e . more 1

'Who is a t e a c h e r ? '

(The s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e o f ( i i ) h a s a g rammat i ca l S - S t r u c t u r e t h a t d o e s n o t c o n c e r n u s h e r e , where more is t h e s u b j e c t , and - m i i s t h e p r e d i c a t e . )

I n " s h o r t " wh-movement i n v o l v i n g - wh-phrases t h a t a r e n o t pronouns , Pron is o p t i o n a l :

[ eyzo yed i d a B e l x a l i ( h i i ) ei mora what[ feml f r i e n d [ feml of-you s h e t e a c h e r [ feml

'Which f r i e n d o f y o u r s i s a t e a c h e r ? '

( 5 9 ) a . m i i a t a maamin Bei hui ei more

who you b e l i e v e t h a t h e t e a c h e r

'Who do you b e l i e v e is a t e a c h e r ? '

b . * m i i a t a maamin Be ei more

who you b e l i e v e t h a t t e a c h e r

Pron is a l s o o b l i g a t o r y i n r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s :

(60 a . h a - i x Yei hui ei more

t h e man t h a t h e t e a c h e r ' t h e man who is a t e a c h e r t

b . * h a - i x %e ei more

t h e man t h a t t e a c h e r

(61 1 a . h a - i x %ei a t a maamin %ei hui ei more

t h e man t h a t you b e l i e v e t h a t h e t e a c h e r ' t h e man t h a t you b e l i e v e is a t e a c h e r '

b . * h a - i Y %ei a t a maamin Ye ei more

t h e man t h a t you b e l i e v e t h a t t e a c h e r

I n t h e ( b ) s e n t e n c e s o f t h e above examples , t h e f a c t t h a t

Pron d o e s n ' t show up is an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e embedded nominal

s e n t e n c e s l a c k AGR f e a t u r e s i n INFL. It i s p o s s i b l e t h a t because o f

t h i s f a c t t h e empty s u b j e c t s o f t h e s e s e n t e n c e s a r e n o t p r o p e r l y

governed. Normal ly , - %e assumes t h e index o f t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e t r a c e

i n COMP, and p r o p e r l y g o v e r n s t h e empty s u b j e c t ( c f . Chapter 1

s e c t i o n 1.0). It may b e t h a t AGR i s i n s t r u m e n t a l f o r - Se t o assume

t h i s i ndex . I f t h i s is c o r r e c t , t h e n t h e ( b ) s e n t e n c e s above a r e

r u l e d o u t by t h e ECP.

3.5 A g a i n s t t h e a n a l y s i s of Pron as V

T h i s s e c t i o n shows t h a t whereas h.y.y. 'be1 can be c o n s t r u e d

as p a r t o f t h e s e n t e n c e p r e d i c a t e , Pron c a n n o t .

A s we saw i n Chap te r 2 , p r e s e n t t e n s e s e n t e n c e s can be

nega ted b y p l a c i n g t h e p a r t i c l e - eyn i n f r o n t o f them:

(62 ) eyn d a n i ohev banano t

NEG Dani l i k e s b a n a n a s

1Dani doesnl t l i k e bananas . '

I f Pron were p a r t o f t h e p r e d i c a t e , p r e d i c a t e s c o n t a i n i n g Pron would

b e t h e o n l y o n e s n o t c o o c c u r r i n g w i t h - eyn:

(63 ) * eyn d a n i hu more

NEG Dani h e t e a c h e r

It is n o t t h e nominal p r e d i c a t e t h a t b l o c k s t h e u s e o f - eyn:

( 6 4 ) eyn d a n i more

NEG Dani t e a c h e r

lDani is n o t a t e a c h e r .l

According t o my a n a l y s i s , t h e s t r u c t u r e o f (64) is:

(65 ) CINFLeynl d a n i more

We do n o t e x p e c t Pron t o show up i n ( 6 3 1 , s i n c e t h e s u b j e c t h a s n o t

been f r o n t e d . If t h e s u b j e c t i s f r o n t e d , [Noml is absorbed b y t h e

c l i t i c a s s o c i a t e d wi th - eyn , a s i n ( 6 6 ) . Pron d o e s n ' t show up a t a l l ,

a s shown i n ( 6 7 ) . 2 2

(66

a. d a n i i L C I N F L eyn+cli[ Nom] ] e i more

b. d a n i eyn+o more Dani NEG h e t e a c h e r

'Dani i s n ' t a t e a c h e r . '

(67 a . * d a n i eyn+o hu more

b. * d a n i hu eyn+o more

Another way o f n e g a t i n g p r e s e n t t e n s e s e n t e n c e s is t o use t h e

means f o r n e g a t i n g s e n t e n c e s i n o t h e r t e n s e s , namely t o u s e t h e

p a r t i c l e l o immediate ly p reced ing t h e p r e d i c a t e :

(68) d a n i l o r o c e banana

Dani n o t wants banana

'Dani doesnl t want a banana .'

It i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r - l o t o fo l low t h e verb:

(69 * d a n i r o c e l o banana

Dani wants n o t banana

22(67b) h a s a grammatical l e f t - d i s l o c a t e d s t r u c t u r e , b u t t h i s is n o t t h e one under c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e t e x t .

But i n p r e d i c a t e nominal s e n t e n c e s , n e g a t i o n f o l l o w s ~ r o n . * ~ T h i s is

e v i d e n c e t h a t Pron is n o t p a r t o f t h e s e n t e n c e p r e d i c a t e .

(70) a . d a n i (hu ) l o more

Dani ( h e ) n o t t e a c h e r

'Dani is n o t a t e a c h e r . '

b. * d a n i l o hu more Dani n o t h e t e a c h e r

h.y.y. on t h e o t h e r hand is nega ted l i k e a v e r b , which p o i n t s t o t h e

c o n c l u s i o n t h a t it is p a r t o f t h e p r e d i c a t e .

(71 a . d a n i l o haya more

Dani n o t was t e a c h e r

'Dani was n o t a t e a c h e r . '

b. * d a n i haya l o more Dani was n o t t e a c h e r

The same d i s t i n c t i o n between Pron and h.y.y. shows up i n

c o n n e c t i o n w i t h empha t i c ken ' y e s ' , which h a s t h e effect o f s e n t e n c e - a f f i r m a t i o n , and, a s obse rved by Berman ( 1 9 7 8 ) , h a s t h e same

d i s t r i b u t i o n a s s e n t e n c e n e g a t i o n :

(72 a. d a n i ( h u ) ken baxur nexmad

Dani ( h e ) y e s f e l l o w n i c e

'Dani is indeed a n i c e f e l l o w . '

2 3 ~ h i s f a c t was b r o u g h t t o my a t t e n t i o n by H a g i t Bore r .

b. * dani ken hu baxur nexmad

Dani yes he fe l low n i ce

(73) a. dan i ken haya baxur nexmad

Dani yes was fe l low n i ce

'Dani was indeed a n ice fellow. '

b. * dani haya ken baxur nexmad Dani was yes fe l low n i ce

(Berman's (26) on p.202)

Sentence adverbs tend t o precede t h e p red i ca t e , b u t always

fo l low Pron: ( A s i m i l a r po in t is made i n Berman and Grosu (1976) .)

(74) a . dan i (hu) be-emet ha-baxur ge r a i t i

Dani (he) r e a l l y t h e f e l l ow t h a t I+saw

'Dani is r e a l l y t h e fe l low I saw.'

b . n d a n i be-emet hu ha-baxur ge r a i t i Dani r e a l l y he t h e f e l l ow t h a t I+saw

(75) a . ? d a n i haya be-emet ha-baxur ge r a i t i

Dani was r e a l l y t h e f e l l ow t h a t I+saw

b. dan i be-emet haya ha-baxur ge r a i t i

Dani r e a l l y was t h e f e l l ow t h a t I+saw

'Dani was r e a l l y t h e f e l l ow t h a t I saw. '

Under my a n a l y s i s , Pron is p a r t of INFL and h.y.y. is p a r t of t h e

p red i ca t e . Since - l o , and sen tence adverbs fol low INFL bu t

precede t h e p red i ca t e , t h e above d i s t r i b u t i o n is pred ic ted by my

a n a l y s i s .

A s we saw i n Chapter 2, t h e v e r b i n Hebrew may p recede t h e

s u b j e c t :

(76 ) a . hayom d a n i r o c e banana

t o d a y Dani wants banana

b. hayom r o c e d a n i banana

t o d a y wants Dani banana

bo th : 'Today Dani wan t s a banana.'

A s noted by Berman and Grosu, t h i s is n o t t r u e of Pron:

(77 1, a . haxana d a n i hu more

t h i s yea r Dani he t e a c h e r

'Th i s yea r Dani is a t e a c h e r . '

b. * ha8ana hu d a n i more t h i s yea r h e Dani t e a c h e r

We have accounted for t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n i n s e c t i o n 3, where we saw

t h a t Pron c a n n o t p recede b o t h t h e s u b j e c t and t h e p r e d i c a t e . On t h e

o t h e r hand, h.y.y. may be ad jo ined t o INFL j u s t l i k e a ve rb ;

t h e r e f o r e it may p recede t h e s u b j e c t and more. -

(78) a . haxana d a n i haya more

t h i s y e a r Dani was t e a c h e r

b. hagana haya d a n i more t h i s year was Dani t e a c h e r

bo th : ' T h i s yea r Dani was a t e a c h e r .'

Berman and Grosu (1976) adduce two f u r t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n s

between Pron and ve rba l elements such a s h.y.y.. One i s t h a t i n

sen tences where t h e nominal p r e d i c a t e is i n f r o n t , t h e s u b j e c t may

precede o r fol low h .y .y., b u t it o b l i g a t o r i l y fol lows Pron:

(79 a . ma a t a xoxev xe dan i haya

what you t h i n k t h a t Dani was (Berman and Grosu' s (47) b)

b. ma a t a xozev ze haya dan i what you t h i n k t h a t was Dani

both:'What do you t h i n k t h a t Dani was?'

(80 a . * ma a t a xoxev 8e dani hu

what you t h i n k t h a t Dani he (Berman and Grosu' s (46) b)

b. ma a t a xoxev xe hu dan i what you t h i n k t h a t he Dani 'What do you t h i n k t h a t Dani is. '

According t o my a n a l y s i s , (80a) involves t o p i c a l i z a t i o n of

t h e sub jec t . It i s an ungrammatical sen tence , a s it i s normally

impossible t o ques t ion out o f sen tences where t o p i c a l i z a t i o n has

occurred :

(81 * ma a t a xoxev 8e l e - r i n a dan i natan

what you t h i n k t h a t t o Rina Dani gave

The o t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n pointed o u t by Berman and Grosu i s t h a t

h.y.y., bu t never t h e pronoun, may c a r r y c o n t r a s t i v e s t r e s s :

(82) a . mo8e HAYA x axam

'Moshe WAS c l e v e r . '

b. * moxe HU xaxam 'Moshe IS c l e v e r . '

A s we saw above, Pron is a c l i t i c , t h e r e f o r e never c a r r i e s

c o n t r a s t i v e s t r e s s .

To sum up, we have e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Pron, u n l i k e h.y.y., is

n o t p a r t o f t h e p r e d i c a t e i n p r e d i c a t e nominal s e n t e n c e s . I n

p a r t i c u l a r , Pron is n o t a s u p p l e t i v e form o f h.y.y.

3.6 Aga ins t t h e l e f t - d i s l o c a t i o n a n a l y s i s

Berman and Grosu (1976) a rgue c o n v i n c i n g l y a g a i n s t t h e l e f t -

d i s l o c a t i o n a n a l y s i s . T h e i r f i r s t argument is t h a t a s e n t e n c e l i k e

(83a) l a c k s t h e pause fo l lowing t h e d i s l o c a t e d e lement , a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h t h e cor respond ing l e f t d i s l o c a t e d s t r u c t u r e (83b) :

(83) a . d a n i hu more

Dani h e t e a c h e r 'Dani is a t e a c h e r . I

b. d a n i , hu more 'Dani, he ' s a t e a c h e r . I

Another argument is t h a t a s u b j e c t fo l lowed by a p r e d i c a t e

nominal may b e a n o n s p e c i f i c i n d e f i n i t e NP, whereas a l e f t d i s l o c a t e d

NP may n o t :

a. paxot anasim hem nexmadim fewer people they nice 'Fewer people are nice l a te ly . '

b. * paxot anasim, hem metaylim ba-rexov fewer people they walk in-the s t r e e t

Their th i rd argument has t o do w i t h the f ac t t ha t it is not

possible t o question out of sentences from which const i tuents have

been dislocated (see Doron (1982) for an explanation of t h i s

phenomenon) . For example:

(85 * ma mose, hu ohev

what Moshe he l i k e s

I f predicate nominal sentences w i t h Pron were derived v ia l e f t

d is locat ion, we would expect not t o be able t o question out of them

e i ther . But it is possible t o question out of predicate nominal

sentences w i t h Pron:

(86 a. ma (hu) mose

what he Moshe 'What is Moshe?' (Berman and Grosu's (44)) (poss ible answer: mose hu more 'Moshe is a teacher . I )

I would l i k e t o adduce two additonal arguments against the

lef t -dis locat ion hypothesis. The f i r s t argument has t o do w i t h

agreement. The pronoun l e f t behind i n dislocated sentences must

agree i n number and gender with t h e d i s loca t ed NP. A s we saw above,

c f . ( g ) , Pron does no t always agree with t h e NP t o i t s l e f t .

My o t h e r argument aga ins t t h e d i s l o c a t i o n a n a l y s i s ha s t o do

with r e l a t i v i z a t i o n . Hebrew sometimes uses resumptive pronouns i n

r e l a t i v e c l auses . For example:

(87) ha- i8 ge d a n i xogev 8e hu ohev bananot

t h e man t h a t Dani t h inks t h a t he l i k e s bananas

l t h e man t h a t Dani t h i n k s l i k e s bananas1

But resumptive pronouns a r e no t allowed i n t h e h ighes t s u b j e c t

p o s i t i o n of a r e l a t i v e c lause :

(88 a . ha- i g ge ohev bananot

t h e man t h a t loves bananas

b . * h a - i g ge hu ohev bananot

t h e man t h a t he l oves bananas

I f Pron were indeed a s u b j e c t pronoun, it should no t be allowed t o

occur i n t h a t pos i t i on e i t h e r . But no t on ly does it occur t h e r e , it

is even o b l i g a t o r y ( a s we saw i n t h e l a s t s e c t i o n ) .

(89 a . ha- i8 ge hu more

t h e man t h a t he t eache r

' t h e man who is a t eache r1

b. * ha- i g 8e more t h e man t h a t t e a c h e r

We have e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n t h a t p r e d i c a t e nominal

s e n t e n c e s w i t h Pron c a n n o t b e a n a l y s e d a s t h e o u t p u t o f l e f t

d i s l o c a t i o n .

3.7 Conclus ion

I h a v e proposed i n t h i s Chap te r an a n a l y s i s o f Hebrew nominal

s e n t e n c e s . I n such s e n t e n c e s , t h e p r e d i c a t e i s some p r o j e c t i o n o f N,

A o r P, p a r a l l e l t o v e r b a l p r e d i c a t e s , which a r e a p r o j e c t i o n o f

V. The d i f f e r e n c e between s e n t e n c e s w i t h v e r b a l p r e d i c a t e s and

nominal s e n t e n c e s is t h a t AGR o b l i g a t o r i l y becomes p a r t o f t h e

morphology o f V , b u t d o e s n o t i n t h e c a s e o f N , A and P . ~ ~ The

f e a t u r e s o f AGR i n nominal s e n t e n c e s do n o t become agreement a f f i x e s

a s t h e y do i n s e n t e n c e s w i t h v e r b s . R a t h e r , t h o s e f e a t u r e s remain

"una t t ached l l i n INFL and a b s o r b any unass igned Nominative Case

f e a t u r e , t h e r e b y becoming a pronominal c l i t i c . I h a v e c a l l e d such

pronominal c l i t i c s Pron.

The a b s o r p t i o n o f a Nom Case f e a t u r e by AGR c o i n c i d e s w i t h a

v i o l a t i o n o f e i t h e r t h e Case F i l t e r o r t h e @ - c r i t e r i o n , u n l e s s t h e -

s u b j e c t is moved t o an A p o s i t i o n . T h i s e x p l a i n s why Pron i s neve r

s e n t e n c e i n i t i a l ( c f . ( 2 7 ) ) i n s p i t e o f t h e f a c t t h a t INFL i s

s e n t e n c e i n i t i a l and t h a t Pron is l o c a t e d i n INFL.

2 4 ~ d j e c t i v e s sometimes behaves l i k e v e r b s i n a b s o r b i n g AGR.

The a n a l y s i s o f Pron a s a c l i t i c i n INFL g a i n s f u r t h e r

support from t h e f a c t t h a t Pron never cooccurs with pronominal

sub j ec t s . Pro-drop is o b l i g a t o r y i n nominal s en t ences , j u s t a s it is

o b l i g a t o r y i n general i n sen tences where AGR remains i n INFL ( c f .

Chapter 2).

Chapter 4

Refer r ing P red i ca t e Nominals

4.1 In t roduc t ion

In Chapter 3 I developed an a n a l y s i s o f nominal sen tences ,

which, a s we saw, e x h i b i t o p t i o n a l occurrences o f Pron. This Chapter

d i s cus se s nominal sen tences where Pron is ob l iga to ry . The

o b l i g a t o r i n e s s of Pron i n a sen tence c o r r e l a t e s with t h e p red i ca t e i n

t h a t sentence being a r e f e r r i n g NP. The d i s t i n c t i o n r e f e r r i n g vs.

p r e d i c a t i o n a l f o r p r e d i c a t e nominals i s e s t a b l i s h e d i n Chapter 5.

P red i ca t e s a r e not A-positions, i . e . , no B-role is assigned

t o them. VPs, PPs, APs and NPs t h a t appear i n p r e d i c a t e pos i t i on i n

D-Structure a r e no t arguments, o r a v i o l a t i o n of t h e @-c r i t e r ion

would ensue.' Rather t hey a r e p red i ca t e s , i n t h a t t hey ass ign a

0- ro le t o t h e sub jec t .

Referr ing NPs, on t h e o t h e r hand, a r e arguments, and must be

assigned a 0-role . Therefore t h e y cannot occupy a p r e d i c a t e

he B-cr i te r ion s t a t e s t h a t arguments appear i n D-Structure on ly i n p o s i t i o n s t h a t a r e assigned a @-role .

pos i t i on . A sen tence o f t h e form NP NP where both NPs a r e r e f e r r i n g

i s ill formed, f i r s t because t h e NP i n p red i ca t e pos i t i on is not

assigned a @-role , bu t a l s o because, s i nce t h e p r e d i c a t e is ill

formed, nothing a s s igns a @-role t o t h e sub jec t . Such sen tences

c o n s t i t u t e a double v i o l a t i o n of t h e @-c r i t e r ion .

Languages d i f f e r i n t h e dev ices t hey use f o r a l lowing a

r e f e r r i n g NP t o occupy a p r e d i c a t e pos i t i on . Engl ish and many o t h e r

languages use a copula. The copula a s s igns a @-role t o t h e r e f e r r i n g

NP, and a VP o f t h e form Copula NP can a s s ign a @-role t o i t s

s u b j e c t .

This i s s u e is obscured by t h e f a c t t h a t Engl ish r e q u i r e s a

copula t o appear i n conjunc t ion with v e r b l e s s p red i ca t e s , even i f

those a r e not r e f e r r i n g :

(1 ) a. John is my b e s t f r i e n d .

b. * John my b e s t f r i e n d .

However, t h i s requirement i s loosened i n c e r t a i n complement c l auses ;

(2b) is poss ib l e a longs ide ( 2 a ) . The complement i n (2b) is a t tsmall

c lause t t ( c f . Chomsky ( 1981,113ff .) :

(2 a. I cons ider [John t o be my b e s t f r i e n d l

b. I cons ider [John my b e s t f r i e n d l

Consider t h e c o n t r a s t between ( 3 a ) and (3b) :2

a . I c o n s i d e r [my b e s t f r i e n d t o b e John]

b. " I c o n s i d e r [my b e s t f r i e n d John1

The r e f e r r i n g NP John is ass igned a @ - r o l e and Case by t h e c o p u l a be -

i n ( 3 a ) . It is n o t a s s i g n e d a @-ro le and Case i n ( 3 b ) , s i n c e t h e

c o p u l a is m i s s i n g . (2b) on t h e o t h e r hand i s grammat ica l . The

p r e d i c a t e o f t h e s m a l l c l a u s e is p r e d i c a t i o n a l , i n p a r t i c u l a r n o t an

argument. No v i o l a t i o n of t h e @ - c r i t e r i o n e n s u e s from t h e absence o f

a @-ro le a s s i g n e r .

The f u n c t i o n o f t h e c o p u l a a s a # - ro le a s s i g n e r and a Case

a s s i g n e r is assumed i n Hebrew by t h e Aux h.y.y. i n t e n s e d s e n t e n c e s ,

and by Pron i n nontensed ( p r e s e n t ) s e n t e n c e s . Indeed , we see i n

s e c t i o n 2 t h a t Pron is o b l i g a t o r y when t h e p r e d i c a t e is r e f e r r i n g .

The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n is t h a t i n a s e n t e n c e o f t h e form NP NP, t h e

p r e d i c a t e is o b l i g a t o r i l y p r e d i c a t i o n a l . Only i f t h e s e n t e n c e a l s o

c o n t a i n s a r e a l i z e d Pron, i .e . h a s t h e s t r u c t u r e Pron NP NP, c a n b o t h

NPs b e r e f e r r i n g . I n s e c t i o n 3 we c l e a r up an a p p a r e n t

counterexample .

2~ am g r a t e f u l Richard Kayne.

4.2 Referring predicates

4.2.1 The obligatoriness of Pron

I n Chapter 3, we examined nominal sentences such as (4) :

(4 a. dani more

Dani teacher 'Dani is a teacher.'

b. dani ha-more Dani the teacher 'Dani is the teacher. '

The predicates of the sentences i n (4 ) can only be construed

a s predicational. An indication is t h a t they cannot be associated

with non-restr ict ive r e l a t i ve clauses. A s argued i n Chapter 5, only

referr ing predicates can be associated with non-restr ict ive r e l a t i ve

clauses. 3

(5) a. * dani more, xe ani makira o to 8anim

Dani teacher t ha t I know him years 'Dani is a teacher, who I have known for years.'

b. * dani ha-more, 8e ani makira o to 8anim Dani the teacher t ha t I know him years 'Dani is t he teacher, who I have known for years.'

3 ~ h e sentences i n ( 5 ) should be read with an intonation break before the re la t iv 'e clause. Otherwise the r e l a t i ve clause i s interpreted as r e s t r i c t i v e , and the sentences are grammatical.

Consider t h e fol lowing sentences:

a . r i n a l a f a l a i m dan i psan t ran l e l a x a x t i e t xmo Rina asked i f Dani p i a n i s t t h a t I - forgot ACC his-name

'Rina asked whether Dani was a p i a n i s t whose name I had forgot ten . '

b. r i n a x a ' a l a i m d a n i hu psant ran l e l a x a x t i e t xmo Rina asked i f Dani he p i a n i s t t h a t I - forgot ACC his-name

'Rina asked whether Dani was a p i a n i s t whose name I had forgot ten. ' o r 'Rina asked whether Dani was a p i a n i s t whose name I f o r g e t .'

A s t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f (6b) shows, it is ambiguous between two

readings. Under one read ing t h e p red i ca t e i n t h e embedded c l a u s e

denotes a proper ty ( o f being a p i a n i s t whose name t h e speaker had

f o r g o t t e n ) ; t h e speaker r e p o r t s t h a t Rina had asked whether Dani had

t h i s property. Under t h e second read ing , t h e speaker r e f e r s t o a

c e r t a i n p i a n i s t whose name he cannot remember, and a s s e r t s t h a t Rina

had asked whether Dani was t h a t p i a n i s t . For t h i s ambiguity t o show

up, Pron is ob l iga to ry . Hence, ( 6 a ) , where t h e r e is no Pron, on ly

has a reading where t h e embedded p r e d i c a t e has a proper ty reading.

The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n is t h a t Pron is o b l i g a t o r y i n o rde r f o r

t h e p r e d i c a t e t o be i n t e r p r e t e d a s r e f e r r i n g . We t h e r e f o r e expect

Pron t o be o b l i g a t o r y i n c a s e s where t h e p red i ca t e i s unmistakably a

r e f e r r i n g NP, l i k e a name, a demonstrat ive NP, o r a personal pronoun.

(7 a. d a n i hu mo8e

Dani he Moshe

'Dani is Moshe.'

b. * dani moxe

(8) a. ha-more hu dani

t h e t eache r he Dani

'The t eache r is Dani .'

b. * ha - more dani t h e t eache r Dani

( 9 a . ha - more 8 e l a hu ha - i 8 ha-ze

t h e t eache r h e r s he t h e man t h i s

'Her t eache r i s t h i s man.'

b . * ha - more Xela ha - i8 ha-ze

t h e t eache r h e r s t h e man t h i s

(10) a . ha- mora h i a t

t h e teacher [ feml she you[ feml

'The teacher is you.'

b. * ha - mora a t t h e t eache r you

There is a r e s t r i c t e d c l a s s o f c i rcumstances where proper

names don ' t r e f e r . Under t hose circumstances, Pron i s indeed not

ob l iga to ry . The sentence ( 1 1 ) is accep tab l e i f u t t e r ed by a d i r e c t o r

be fo re a r e h e a r s a l f o r a play on t h e l i f e o f Ben-Gurion, where Dani

and Roni a r e a c t o r s . (1 1 ) does no t s t a t e an i d e n t i t y between t h e

r e f e r e n t o f t h e name Dani and t h a t o f t h e name Ben-Gurion, b u t s t a t e s

t h a t Dani is t o p l a y a c e r t a i n r o l e .

(11) ha- yom d a n i ( h u ) ben g u r i o n v e r o n i ( h u ) moge x a r e t t h e d a y Dani h e Ben-Gurion and Roni h e Moshe S h a r e t 'Today Dani is Ben-Gurion and Roni is Moshe S h a r e t . '

4.2.2 Pronominal s u b j e c t s and p r e d i c a t e s

A c a s e where a s e n t e n c e o f t h e form NP NP is g rammat i ca l w i t h

b o t h NPs r e f e r e n t i a l i s when t h e s u b j e c t NP is a pronoun:

(12 ) a t r i n a you Rina 'You a r e Rina. '

I n t h e l a s t s e c t i o n we s t a t e d t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t h a t Pron

h a s t o show up f o r t h e p r e d i c a t e t o be r e f e r e n t i a l . Is (12) a

coun te rexample? I f s o , it is o n l y pronouns i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n t h a t

a r e p r o b l e m a t i c , s i n c e ( l o b ) , where t h e r e is a pronoun i n p r e d i c a t e

p o s i t i o n , i s ungrammat ica l a s e x p e c t e d .

To see t h a t (12 ) a c t u a l l y d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a

coun te rexample , remember t h a t I a rgued i n Chap te r 3 t h a t s u b j e c t

pronouns a r e t h e m s e l v e s c l i t i c s on INFL, i .e., a r e t h e m s e l v e s Prons .

The argument was based on t h e f a c t t h a t no ' l ex t raW pronoun shows up

when t h e s u b j e c t is a pronoun:

(13) a . a t mor a

you[ s i n g .fern1 teacher [ feml 'You a r e a teacher . '

b. * a t h i mora you[ s i n g .f em1 she teacher [ feml

The s t r u c t u r e of (12) is t h e r e f o r e :

(14) LINFLati1 ei r i n a

Contrary t o what appears a t f i r s t , Pron is presen t i n (12) . The

r e f e r r i n g p red i ca t e r i n a is assigned Case and a @-role by Pron, a s i n

t h e ( a ) sen tences of ( 7 ) - (10) .

We a r e neve r the l e s s faced with an apparent counterexample t o

t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t h a t no ''extra" pronoun appears when t h e s u b j e c t

is a pronoun: (15b) i s grammatical. A s i n t h e ungrammatical (13b) ,

Pron shows up i n conjunct ion with t h e pronoun - a t . The minimal

d i f f e r e n c e between (15b) and (13b) is t h a t t h e p red i ca t e i n (15b) i s

a d e f i n i t e NP.

(15) a . a t ha-mor a

you[ s i n g .fern1 t h e t eache r 'You a r e t h e teacher . '

b. a t h i ha-mora you[ s i n g .fern1 she t h e teacher [ fern] ' I t ' s you who is t h e teacher . '

I w i l l show t h a t (15b) i s grammatical with a d i f f e r e n t s t r u c t u r e ,

where t h e NP ha-mora o r i g i n a t e s i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n , and t h e pronoun

i n p r e d i c a t e pos i t i on . I .e . , t h e D-Structure o f (15b) i s not (16a)

(which shows up a s ( 1 5 a ) ) , b u t ( l 6 b k 4

(16) a . EINFLAGR] E2nd.fem.singl ha-mora

t h e teacher[ feml

b* [INFL AGR] ha-mora E2nd .fem .sing1

Consider ( 1 6b) . For AGR t o be r e a l i z e d , it has t o absorb Nom

Case. One poss ib l e S-Structure i s (17a) , with t h e s u b j e c t i n t o p i c

p o s i t i o n , where t h e Case F i l t e r does no t apply t o it. The su r f ace

s t r u c t u r e i n t h i s ca se i s (10a ) , repea ted a s (17b).

b. ha-mora h i a t 'The t eache r i s you.'

Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s f o r Pron t o show up by absorbing t h e

Case f e a t u r e it a s s i g n s t o t h e p red i ca t e . The p r e d i c a t e must be -

removed t o an A-position, i n t h i s case t o a pos i t i on ad joined t o INFL

4 ~ h e sentence i n (13b) does no t have a comparable s t r u c t u r e presumably f o r semantic reasons. The same is t r u e i n English:

* A t eache r is me.

( c f . Chapter 3 ) . The S-Structure i s (18a) and t h e su r f ace s t r u c t u r e

i s (15b) , repea ted a s (18b) .

b. a t h i ha-mora 'It' s you who is t h e teacher . '

There i s independent evidence f o r t h e view t h a t t h e pronoun

a t i n (15b) does no t o r i g i n a t e i n s u b j e c t pos i t i on but i n p red i ca t e -

pos i t i on . I n s en t ences where - l o ( c o n s t i t u e n t negat ion) nega tes t h e

p r e d i c a t e , it must be f ron ted toge the r wi th t h e p red i ca t e , i n case

t h e p r e d i c a t e is f ron t ed . For example:

(19) a . dani l o more

Dani no t t e ache r

b. l o more hu dani

both: Dani i s n t t a t eache r .

A s i s seen i n (201, - l o i s f ron ted toge the r with t h e pronoun - a t .

I .e . , t h e behavior of - a t i s c o n s i s t e n t with t h e hypothes i s t h a t it i s

a p red i ca t e .

(20) l o a t h i ha-mora

no t you she t h e t eache r

'It i s n ' t you who is t h e teacher . '

On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e behavior of - a t i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with

i t s being t h e s u b j e c t i n (15b) . Note t h a t (21) is ungrammatical :

* a t h i l o ha-mora youCfem1 s h e n o t t h e t e a c h e r

But t h e r e is no p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t f r o n t i n g t h e s u b j e c t when t h e

p r e d i c a t e i s n e g a t e d , a s s e e n i n ( 2 2 ) :

(22 a . r i n a l o ha-mora

Rina n o t t h e t e a c h e r

b. r i n a h i l o ha-mora Rina s h e n o t t h e t h e a c h e r

bo th : 'R ina i s n ' t t h e t e a c h e r . '

(21) i s t h e r e f o r e unaccounted f o r i f - a t o r i g i n a t e s i n s u b j e c t

p o s i t i o n . On t h e o t h e r hand, it is g e n e r a l l y t r u e t h a t n e g a t i o n

c a n n o t i n t e r v e n e between a f r o n t e d p r e d i c a t e and t h e s u b j e c t :

(23 a . l o d a n i more

n o t Dani t e a c h e r ' I t ' s n o t Dani who is a t e a c h e r . '

b . * more ( hu) l o d a n i

( 2 1 ) and (15b) a r e t h e r e f o r e b e s t a n a l y s e d w i t h ha-mora i n s u b j e c t

p o s i t i o n , and - a t i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n .

4 -3.1 An apparent counterexample

This s ec t i on explores another apparent counterexample t o t h e

g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t h a t a sentence NP NP where both NPs a r e r e f e r r i n g

v i o l a t e s t h e @-c r i t e r ion un l e s s Pron is manifested:

(24) ze dani t h i s Dani !This is Dani.'

We cannot c la im t h a t ze is a pronoun, and t h e r e f o r e counts a s a - manifested Pron. ze t h i s ' , unl ike ze ' it! , is not a pronoun. - -

ze i t is t h e e x p l e t i v e s u b j e c t o f sen tences involving St - e x t r a p o s i t i o n , a s i n (25) :

(25 ze naxon xe dan i meaxer it t r u e t h a t Dani is l a t e 'It is t r u e t h a t Dani is l a t e . !

ze i n (25) is a pronoun, i n t h a t it can undergo pro-drop and is not -

as soc i a t ed with P r ~ n : ~

5 ~ x p l e t i v e pronouns undergo pro-drop even i n presen t t e n s e sen tences , c f . Chapter 2. Pronouns i n sub jec t p o s i t i o n a r e no t assoc ia ted with Pron, c f . Chapter 3.

(26 a . naxon %e d a n i meaxer

t r u e t h a t Dani is l a t e ' It i s t r u e t h a t Dani is l a t e . '

b . * ze+hu naxon xe d a n i meaxer it h e t r u e t h a t Dani i s l a t e

z e ' t h i s ' i n (24) I w i l l c a l l a p o i n t e r . It a g r e e s w i t h t h e - p r e d i c a t e i n [number] and [ g e n d e r ] . 6

(27) a . z e d a n i

t h i s [ m a s c . s i n g ] Dani

' T h i s is Dani.'

b. z o ( t ) r i na t h i s [ fem.s ing1 Rina

' T h i s is Rina. '

c . e le d a n i v e r i n a t h i s [ p l l Dani and Rina

' T h i s is Dani and Rina.'

P o i n t e r - z e i s n o t a pronoun i n t h a t it d o e s n o t pro-drop and can b e

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Pron:

(28 a . ze haya d a n i

t h i s was Dani

b . * haya d a n i

6 ~ n C o l l o q u i a l Hebrew, t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s of numberl and g e n d e r l d i s a p p e a r , and - z e is t h e o n l y form used .

(29 a . ze+hu d a n i

t h i s h e Dani ' T h i s is d a n i . '

b . zo+h i r i n a t h i s s h e Rina ' T h i s is Rina. '

C. ele+hem d a n i v e r i n a t h i s t h e y Dani and Rina ' T h i s is Dani and Rina. '

S i n c e p o i n t e r - ze is n o t a pronoun, t h e s t r u c t u r e o f (24) d o e s

n o t i n c l u d e a r e a l i z e d P ron , b u t two l e x i c a l NPs. Its s t r u c t u r e is

t h e r e f o r e NP NP, where t h e p r e d i c a t e i s a r e f e r r i n g NP. To show t h a t

t h i s s t r u c t u r e d o e s n o t v i o l a t e t h e @ - c r i t e r i o n I w i l l a r g u e t h a t

o n l y one o f t h e NPs i n (24) is r e f e r r i n g . The s u b j e c t i s a non-

argument.

F i r s t , p o i n t e r - ze shou ld be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from - ze ' t h i s ' used

t o refer t o i n a n i m a t e o b j e c t s : 7

( 3 0 ) ze kaved , a v a l ha-hu l o t h i s heavy b u t t h e t h a t n o ' T h i s (one ) is heavy, b u t t h a t ( o n e ) i s n ' t . '

here is a l s o an a d j e c t i v e E, a s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g :

[ NP h a - s e f e r ha-zel t h e book t h e t h i s

' t h i s book'

I n (301 , - z e can o n l y r e f e r t o i n a n i m a t e s ; n o t i c e t h e c o n t r a s t be tween

(31a) and ( 3 1 b ) : ~

(81) ze t a ' i m t h i s t a s t y ' T h i s is t a s t y . '

b . + ze agi r t h i s r i c h ( s a i d f o r example o f a p e r s o n ) g

Having d i s t i n g u i s h e d be tween p o i n t e r - ze and - ze which r e f e r s t o

i n a n i m a t e s , I w i l l show t h a t p o i n t e r - ze is n o t an argument .

4.3.2 P o i n t e r s a r e non-arguments

4.3.2.1. The i n t u i t i o n s o f p h i l o s o p h e r s

It is acknowledged i n Q u i n e (1960 , 115) t h a t t h i s c a n be used

i n a way t h a t d o e s n o t i n v o l v e r e f e r r i n g .

I d e n t i t y is i n t i m a t e l y bound up w i t h t h e d i v i d i n g o f r e f e r e n c e . For t h e d i v i d i n g o f r e f e r e n c e c o n s i s t s i n s e t t l i n g c o n d i t i o n s o f i d e n t i t y : how f a r you have t h e same a p p l e and when you a r e g e t t i n g o n t o a n o t h e r . It was o n l y when t h e c h i l d had m a s t e r e d t h i s t a l k o f same and o t h e r t o some d e g r e e t h a t h e cou ld be s a i d t o know a b o u t g e n e r a l t e rms . Conver se ly , a l s o , i d e n t i t y i s p o i n t l e s s o t h e r w i s e . We can p e r h a p s imag ine s a y i n g ' T h i s is mama' o r ' T h i s is w a t e r ' b e f o r e g e n e r a l terms a r e i n , and t h e ' i s ' h e r e i s '= ' , b u t o n l y i n r e t r o s p e c t . Excep t w i t h a v iew t o t h e e v e n t u a l d i v i d e d r e f e r e n c e o f g e n e r a l terms, ' T h i s i s mama' and ' T h i s is water' a r e b e t t e r t h o u g h t o f as 'Mama h e r e v , 'Water h e r e ' .

8 ~ i g g i n s ( 1 9 7 6 ) makes t h e same p o i n t f o r E n g l i s h .

he f a c t s a r e d i f f e r e n t i n c o l l o q u i a l Hebrew, where d e m o n s t r a t i v e p ronouns c a n r e f e r t o a n i m a t e b e i n g s .

Geach (1968, 27) makes t h i s po in t i n genera l :

An a s s e r t o r i c sentence whose grammatical s u b j e c t i s a demonstrat ive pronoun o f t e n has t h e l o g i c a l r o l e no t o f an a s s e r t e d p ropos i t i on but o f a s imple a c t o f naming. The grammatical s u b j e c t does no t h e r e name something concerning which an a s s e r t i o n i s made; it simply p o i n t s a t an o b j e c t , d i r e c t s a t t e n t i o n t o it; it works l i k e a p o i n t e r , no t l i k e a l a b e l . . . We may perhaps g e t a c l e a r view o f t h e mat te r i f we compare t h e r e s p e c t i v e r o l e s of t h e pronoun and t h e noun i n "That is goldt t o r " t h a t is Samtt t o t hose of t h e hands and t h e f i g u r e s of a watch; t h e hands d i r e c t a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f i g u r e s from which w e a r e t o read t h e t ime.

4.3.2.2. Higginsl evidence

A s not iced by Higgins (1976, 1491, t h e o rde r subjec t -

p r e d i c a t e cannot be i nve r t ed i n sen tences involv ing a demons t ra t ive

pronoun a s a sub j ec t . This would be unexplained i f t h a t were a p l a i n

r e f e r r i n g NP.

(32) a. That is Joe Smith.

b. * Joe Smith is t h a t .

Another i n t e r e s t i n g observa t ion is due t o Higgins. Consider

t h e fol lowing example:

(33) That is t h e Mayor of Cambridge. (from Higgins (1968, 149))

Higgins no t e s t h a t i n ( 3 4 ) , t h e t a g ques t ion corresponding t o (331,

on ly - it can appear. (34) and (35) a r e from Higgins (1976,179):

(34) a . * That is t h e Mayor o f Cambridge, i s n l t she?

b. That is t h e Mayor o f Cambridge, i s n ' t i t ?

(35 a. That woman i s t h e Mayor o f Cambridge, i s n l t she?

b. * That woman is t h e Mayor o f Cambridge, i s n ' t i t ?

I f t h a t were r e f e r r i n g , t h e non-occurrence o f a p e r s o n a l pronoun l i k e

s h e i n t h e t a g q u e s t i o n would be unexpla ined. It would a l s o be -

unexpla ined why, a s noted by Higg ins , (36) i s unaccep tab le i f s a i d o f

an animate being:

(36 * That is b a l d .

4.3.2.3. Kurodal s argument

The f o l l o w i n g is an i n d i r e c t argument. It shows t h a t t h a t

and - it a r e i n complementary d i s t r i b u t i o n when used a n a p h o r i c a l l y . It

h a s been n o t i c e d by Kuroda (1968) t h a t t h e r e a r e non-demonstrat ive

u s e s o f d e m o n s t r a t i v e pronouns, i n which t h e y behave l i k e a v e r s i o n

o f -9 it i n c o n t e x t s where t h e r e i s c o n t r a s t i v e s t r e s s .

(37) a . Hebrew, I speak it a t home.

b. * Hebrew, I s p e a k t h a t a t home.

(38 a . * Hebrew, I s p e a k I T a t home.

b. Hebrew, I speak THAT a t home.

(39) a . Everybody h e r e u n d e r s t a n d s Hebrew. Youmay speak it o r

Arabic t o anyone.

b. * Everybody h e r e u n d e r s t a n d s Hebrew. You may speak t h a t o r Arab ic t o anyone.

(40) a. I t h i n k t h e y spoke Hebrew. It was e i t h e r THAT o r Arabic .

b. * I t h i n k t h e y spoke Hebrew. It was e i t h e r IT o r Arabic .

4.3.2.4. A d d i t i o n a l ev idence

I n ( 4 1 a ) , his p i c k s up t h e r e f e r e n t o f John. But i n ( 4 1 b ) ,

h i s does n o t r e f e r t o what t h i s p o i n t s a t . T h i s would be unexpla ined -

i f t h i s were r e f e r r i n g . 10

(41 a . John is t h e mas te r o f h i s f a t e .

b. T h i s is t h e mas te r o f h i s f a t e .

A s we s e e i n Chapter 5 , q u a n t i f i e r s a r e n o t a c c e p t a b l e a s

p r e d i c a t e s o f e i t h e r i d e n t i t y o r p r e d i c a t i o n a l s e n t e n c e s . It seems

1°1t is t r u e t h a t ( i i ) is p o s s i b l e a l o n g s i d e o f ( i ) . But t h e l ' r e f l ex ive l l pronoun i n such c a s e s does n o t have t o b e bound by a n a n t e c e d e n t o u t s i d e t h e NP, a s ( i i i ) shows.

i. John i s t h e mas te r o f h i s own f a t e .

ii. T h i s is t h e m a s t e r o f h i s own f a t e .

iii. Where can I f i n d a m a s t e r o f h i s own f a t e ?

t h a t q u a n t i f i e r s are a c c e p t a b l e when t h e s u b j e c t is a p o i n t e r , which

i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e s e s e n t e n c e s a r e n e i t h e r i d e n t i t y s e n t e n c e s n o r

pred i c a t i o n a l s e n t e n c e s . (42)

a. T h i s is e v e r y o n e we i n v i t e d .

b. * They a r e eve ryone we i n v i t e d .

4.4 C o n c l u s i o n

I n t h i s Chap te r we d e a l t w i t h p r e d i c a t e s t h a t a r e r e f e r r i n g

NPs. Such NPs have t o be a s s i g n e d a @-role, t o p r e v e n t a v i o l a t i o n

of t h e @ - c r i t e r i o n . A @-role may be a s s i g n e d t o a r e f e r r i n g

p r e d i c a t e by Pron, i n examples such a s t h e f o l l o w i n g :

(43 a . [ g v e r e t c o h e n l i [CINFLhii] ei r i n a l

Ms. Cohen s h e Rina 'Ms. Cohen is Rina.'

b. CINFLhiil ei r i n a

s h e Rina 'She is Rina. '

I n some c a s e s , r e f e r r i n g p r e d i c a t e s a r e n o t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

Pron :

(44 INFL z e d a n i

t h i s Dani

' T h i s is Dani.'

T h i s is a case where t h e s u b j e c t i s n o t an argument . The Case

f e a t u r e t h a t is n o r m a l l y a s s i g n e d t o t h e s u b j e c t can t h e r e f o r e b e

a s s i g n e d t o t h e r e f e r r i n g NP d a n i . It may b e t h a t i n some s e n s e - z e ,

t h e NP i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n , is p r e d i c a t e - l i k e . It shows agreement i n

number and g e n d e r w i t h t h e r e f e r r i n g NP ( c f . ( 2 7 ) ) and d o e s n ' t pro-

d rop . I f t h i s i s c o r r e c t , it may b e p o s s i b l e f o r - z e t o a s s i g n a

# - ro l e t o t h e r e f e r r i n g NP.

I h a v e a rgued i n g e n e r a l t h a t p o i n t e r s a r e n o t r e f e r r i n g NPs.

T h i s e x p l a i n s why, i n cases i n which t h e p r e d i c a t e is n o t r e f e r r i n g

b u t p r e d i c a t i o n a l , a p o i n t e r s u b j e c t is u n a c c e p t a b l e :

( 4 5 ) * T h a t is Mayor o f Cambridge.

( f r o m H i g g i n s (1976))

Mayor o f Cambridge i s a p r e d i c a t i o n a l p r e d i c a t e ( c f . Chap te r 51, and

a s s i g n s a # - r o l e t o i t s s u b j e c t . ( 4 5 ) is a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e

# - c r i t e r i o n , s i n c e t h e c h a i n ( t h a t ) is a s s i g n e d a @ - r o l e b u t d o e s n o t

c o n t a i n an argument .

C h a p t e r 5

The S e m a n t i c s o f P r e d i c a t e Nominals

5.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n

T h i s c h a p t e r is concerned w i t h t h e s e m a n t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f

p r e d i c a t e nominals . I am u s i n g t h e term p r e d i c a t e nominal (PN f o r

s h o r t ) a s it is used t r a d i t i o n a l l y , t o d e n o t e a s e n t e n c e p r e d i c a t e

headed b y a noun. I n many l a n g u a g e s , l i k e E n g l i s h b u t u n l i k e Hebrew,

s u c h p r e d i c a t e s a lways a p p e a r i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a c o p u l a .

P r e d i c a t e s t h a t I w i l l n o t d i s c u s s h e r e i n c l u d e v e r b a l and a d j e c t i v a l

p r e d i c a t e s .

I n t h e p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r s I h a v e been p re suppos ing a

d i s t i n c t i o n be tween r e f e r r i n g p r e d i c a t e nomina l s , which a r e t h e

p r e d i c a t e s o f i d e n t i t y s e n t e n c e s such a s ( l a ) , and p r e d i c a t i o n a l

p r e d i c a t e nomina l s , which a r e t h e p r e d i c a t e s o f p r e d i c a t i o n a l

s e n t e n c e s s u c h a s ( 1 b) . The aim o f t h i s c h a p t e r is t o e x p l i c a t e

t h e s e n o t i o n s .

(1 a . The Morning S t a r is t h e Evening S t a r .

b . The Morning S t a r is a b r i g h t s t a r .

The d i s t i n c t i o n between be o f i d e n t i t y ( a s i n ( l a ) ) and be o f

p r e d i c a t i o n ( a s i n ( I b ) ) is a t r a d i t i o n a l one i n philosophy. But

t h e r e i s no evidence f o r an ambiguity i n a sen tence l i k e ( 2 ) . It

seems t o make no d i f f e r e n c e f o r i t s t r u t h va lue whether we i n t e r p r e t

(2) a s s t a t i n g an i d e n t i t y between John and some man s tanding o u t s i d e

t h e bu i ld ing , o r a s a p r ed i ca t i ng of John t h e proper ty o f being a man

s tanding o u t s i d e t h e bu i ld ing .

(2) John i s a man s tanding o u t s i d e t h e bu i ld ing .

Since t h e r e is no ambiguity i n ( 2 ) , Montague (1974) proposes t o un i fy

t h e t rea tment of a l l copula c o n s t r u c t i o n s with p r e d i c a t e nominals.

I n order t o i n t e r p r e t (2) and ( I b) on a par with ( l a ) , he t r e a t s a l l

o f them a s i d e n t i t y sentences. Montague a t t r i b u t e s t h i s approach t o

Quine. The fol lowing quota t ion i s from Quine (1960, 118).

The combination ' i s an ' , which we have been t r e a t i n g a s a s i n g l e copula , can be reanalyzed a s a composite o f ' is ' and 'an' now t h a t 'an'' is seen a s a p a r t i c l e f o r t h e formation o f i n d e f i n i t e s i n g u l a r terms. 'Agnes i s a lamb' then ceases t o be seen a s 'Fa ' , and comes t o be seen a s ' a=bl where 'b ' r e p r e s e n t s an i n d e f i n i t e s i n g u l a r term o f t h e form 'an F'.

But Quine himself no t e s l a t e r i n t h e same paragraph:

In a way t h i s t rea tment is j u s t e r t o Engl ish, b u t it s t r e s s e s an exces s ive ly l o c a l t r a i t . In German and t h e Romance languages t h e p a t t e r n is simply ' a is F t , a s often, a s n o t , even when t h e general term is a s u b s t a n t i v e ; t h u s 'I1 est medecin'. In Pol i sh and Russian, a r t i c l e s do not e x i s t a t a l l .

I w i l l show t h a t , even f o r Engl ish, it is misguided t o t r e a t a s

i d e n t i t y s e n t e n c e s a l l copu la c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p r e d i c a t e

nominals. Such t r e a t m e n t m i s s e s impor tan t semant ic d i s t i n c t i o n s .

I d e n t i t y s e n t e n c e s have semant ic p r o p e r t i e s t h a t a r e d i f f e r e n t from

t h o s e o f p r e d i c a t i o n a l s e n t e n c e s . I n some c a s e s we a l s o f i n d

d i f f e r e n t t r u t h c o n d i t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a s e n t e n c e , a c c o r d i n g t o

whether it is c o n s t r u e d a s i d e n t i t y o r p r e d i c a t i o n .

5.2 D i s t i n g u i s h i n g i d e n t i t y from p r e d i c a t i o n a l s e n t e n c e s

5.2.1 Semant ic D i a g n o s t i c s

5.2.1.1. D i a g n o s t i c 1: anaphora

The f i r s t d i s t i n c t i o n I would l i k e t o d i s c u s s h a s t o do wi th

anaphora. Noun p h r a s e s t h a t r e f e r t o i n d i v i d u a l s (what i s c a l l e d

s i n g u l a r NPs), may b e a n a p h o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o pronouns o u t s i d e t h e i r

scope. T h i s i s a w e l l known p r o p e r t y o f s i n g u l a r NPs t h a t sets them

a p a r t from q u a n t i f i e r s . For example, t h e NP a s o l d i e r i n ( 3 a ) is a

s i n g u l a r NP, t h e r e f o r e it can b e a n a p h o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e pronoun

h e , even though t h e pronoun is i n t h e n e x t s e n t e n c e . It c o n t r a s t s - with t h e NP e v e r y s o l d i e r o f (3b) . The l a t t e r i s n o t a s i n g u l a r NP

bu t a q u a n t i f i e r , and does n o t q u a l i f y a s t h e a n t e c e d e n t o f - he i n t h e

n e x t s e n t e n c e . I

' ~ h e s e examples a r e from Chomsky ( 1 976).

( 3 ) a . A s o l d i e r h a s a gun. W i l l he shoot?

b. Every s o l d i e r h a s a gun. W i l l he shoot?

I w i l l assume a t h e o r y o f d i s c o u r s e l i k e t h e one developed i n

Kamp (1981 ). According t o t h i s t h e o r y , a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f d i s c o u r s e

i n c l u d e s c o n n e c t i n g o c c u r r e n c e s o f s i n g u l a r NPs t o d i s c o u r s e

r e f e r e n t s , r e f e r e n t s f o r s h o r t , t h a t a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e

i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t t h o s e NP o c c u r r e n c e s r e f e r t o . Pronouns may be

a n a p h o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o an o c c u r r e n c e o f a s i n g u l a r NP i n t h e same

d i s c o u r s e i f t h e y p i c k up t h e same r e f e r e n t , t h a t is , connected t o

t h e r e f e r e n t t h a t t h a t NP o c c u r r e n c e is connected t o . Binding o f

pronouns by q u a n t i f i e r s i s a d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r , t h a t I w i l l n o t go

i n t o h e r e . It is n o t p o s s i b l e i n a c a s e l i k e ( 3 b ) , where t h e pronoun

i s n o t i n t h e scope o f t h e q u a n t i f i e r .

Going back t o p r e d i c a t e nominal s e n t e n c e s , l e t u s f o r t h e

t i m e being c o n c e n t r a t e one s e n t e n c e s l i k e ( 1 ) and (21, where n e i t h e r

s u b j e c t n o r p r e d i c a t e a r e q u a n t i f i e r s . If t h e s e s e n t e n c e s s t a t e an

i d e n t i t y between t h e r e f e r e n t s o f t h e s u b j e c t and t h e p r e d i c a t e , we

e x p e c t it t o be p o s s i b l e f o r b o t h t h e s u b j e c t and t h e p r e d i c a t e t o be

a n a p h o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o a pronoun i n t h e n e x t s e n t e n c e . I f on t h e

o t h e r hand t h i s t u r n s o u t t o be i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h e p r e d i c a t e , it

would coun t a s a s t r o n g i d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e p r e d i c a t e is n o t being

i n t e r p r e t e d i n t h e way s i n g u l a r NPs u s u a l l y a r e , i n p a r t i c u l a r t h a t

it is n o t r e f e r r i n g .

I n p r a c t i c e it t u r n s o u t t o b e h a r d t o e s t a b l i s h whether o r

n o t a g i v e n pronoun is a n a p h o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e p r e d i c a t e NP,

r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e s u b j e c t NP. I n most c a s e s , a s i n ( 4 ) , t h e pronoun

i n t h e second s e n t e n c e c o u l d be r e l a t e d t o t h e s u b j e c t , and t h e r e f o r e

c a n n o t s e r v e t o d i s t i n g u i s h between r e f e r r i n g and n o n - r e f e r r i n g

p r e d i c a t e s :

( 4 ) John is a man s t a n d i n g o u t s i d e t h e b u i l d i n g . He is w a i t i n g f o r someone.

But i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c a s e , f o r example , it is c l e a r t h a t t h e

pronoun is r e l a t e d t o t h e p r e d i c a t e NP r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e s u b j e c t NP,

because o f g e n d e r agreement .

(5) What John v i s i t e d i s t h e Queen Mary. She is docked i n Long Beach.

T h a t t h e pronoun - s h e c a n n o t be a n a p h o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e NP what

John v i s i t e d i s shown b y t h e o d d i t y o f t h e d i s c o u r s e ( 6 ) .

( 6 ) What John v i s i t e d i s a f l o a t i n g museum. She is docked i n Long Beach.

T h e r e f o r e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d i a g n o s t i c we a r e t r y i n g t o d e v e l o p , t h e

first s e n t e n c e i n (5 ) is an i d e n t i t y s e n t e n c e r a t h e r t h a n a

p r e d i c a t i o n a l s e n t e n c e . I t h a s a p r e d i c a t e t h a t a c t u a l l y r e f e r s t o

an i n d i v i d u a l , s i n c e t h i s r e f e r e n t can b e p i cked up b y t h e pronoun i n

t h e n e x t s e n t e n c e .

The e a s i e s t way t o f i n d an example t h a t f a i l s o u r t e s t i s t o

choose a s e n t e n c e where t h e p r e d i c a t e d e n o t e s a role. We w i l l

d i s c u s s s u c h p r e d i c a t e s i n more d e t a i l i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n , b u t a n

example f o l l o w s h e r e :

(7) John is p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b .

I n (81, t h e pronoun o f t h e second s e n t e n c e c a n n o t b e a n a p h o r i c a l l y

r e l a t e d t o t h e p r e d i c a t e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c lub :

(8 ) J o h n , B i l l and Har ry have a l l t h r e e been p r e s i d e n t o f t h e

c l u b . He is a lways a d i s t i n g u i s h e d member o f t h e community.

S i m i l a r l y , ( 9 ) s a y s t h a t John c a n n o t be r e e l e c t e d , n o t t h a t t h e r e is

a r u l e a c c o r d i n g t o which a p r e s i d e n t c a n n o t b e r e e l e c t e d :

( 9 ) John is p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b . He c a n n o t be r e e l e c t e d .

From t h e f a i l u r e of t h e pronoun t o p i c k up t h e r e f e r e n t o f t h e

p r e d i c a t e , we deduce t h a t no s u c h r e f e r e n t i s a v a i l a b l e . The

p r e d i c a t e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b i s i n t e r p r e t e d i n a way t h a t d o e s n o t

i n c l u d e any r e f e r r i n g . T h i s is s t r o n g e v i d e n c e t h a t it i s i m p o s s i b l e

t o c o n s t r u e e v e r y p r e d i c a t e nominal s e n t e n c e a s s t a t e m e n t of

i d e n t i t y . 2

Someone w i s h i n g t o m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e p r e d i c a t e o f ( 7 ) is a

r e f e r r i n g e x p r e s s i o n , may s a y t h a t it r e f e r s n o t t o an i n d i v i d u a l b u t

t o t h e f u n c t i o n t h a t a s s i g n s t o e v e r y s i t u a t i o n d e s c r i b e d by ( 7 ) t h e

i n d i v i d u a l i n t h a t s i t u a t i o n who h a s t h e ro le p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b .

The proponent o f such an approach would have t o e x p l a i n why it i s

t h a t t h e pronoun - h e i n ( 9 ) c a n n o t p i c k up t h e same f u n c t i o n t h a t

p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b i s c o n n e c t e d to.3 Such an e x p l a n a t i o n was

s u g g e s t e d t o me by Hans Kamp. Assume t h a t t h e p h r a s e p r e s i d e n t o f

t h e c l u b r e f e r s ambiguous ly e i t h e r t o a f u n c t i o n o r t o an i n d i v i d u a l .

The re a r e t h e r e f o r e two d i s c o u r s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a v a i l a b l e f o r ( 7 ) .

L e t u s r e p r e s e n t them c r u d e l y a s

2 ~ h e imper sona l pronoun it c a n be a n a p h o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e p r e d i c a t e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c G b , a s i n :

i. John i s p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b . It is a p r e s t i g e o u s p o s i t i o n .

I do n o t have an a c c o u n t f o r how anaphora w i t h it works , b u t it c e r t a i n l y d o e s n o t h a v e t o p i c k up a d i s c o u r s e r r f e r e n t . I n tG f o l l o w i n g examples - it is a n a p h o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o APs and VPs:

ii. John i s c o n s i d e r a t e . It is a r a r e t h i n g t o be .

iii. John t a l k s q u i e t l y . It is a good t h i n g t o do.

3 ~ e r s o n a l pronouns n o r m a l l y c a n r e f e r t o f u n c t i o n s , a s ( i ) shows:

i. The p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b is e l e c t e d e v e r y y e a r . He t a k e s o a t h

a week a f t e r e l e c t i o n s .

I n ( i ) , n e i t h e r t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b n o r h e r e f e r t o a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l . They b o t h r e f e r t o t h e same f u n c t i o n .

where - x is t h e d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t t h a t John is connec ted t o , - y is t h e

d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t t h a t p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b i s c o n n e c t e d t o when

r e f e r r i n g t o an i n d i v i d u a l , and - Y is t h e d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t t h a t

p r e s i d e n t . o f t h e c l u b i s c o n n e c t e d t o when r e f e r r i n g t o a f u n c t i o n .

The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( l o b ) n e v e r makes t h e s e n t e n c e t r u e , s i n c e John i s

an i n d i v i d u a l and cannno t b e e q u a l t o a f u n c t i o n . T h e r e f o r e i n any

c o h e r e n t d i s c o u r s e c o n t a i n i n g (7) , p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b w i l l be

c o n n e c t e d t o y, a s i n ( 1 0 a ) . I n t h e d i s c o u r s e ( 9 ) f o r example, t h i s

e n t a i l s t h a t t h e o n l y r e f e r e n t a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e pronoun - h e is - y ( o r

x) , b u t n o t Y. - -

One p o t e n t i a l problem w i t h t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n is t h a t t h e r e

d o e s seem t o b e a d i f f e r e n c e when t h e r o l e NP i s i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n :

(11 The p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b is John. He c a n n o t be r e e l e c t e d .

I n (11 ) t h e r e seems t o be a p o s s i b i l i t y f o r h e t o p i c k up t h e -

f u n c t i o n a s i t s r e f e r e n t . But i n t u i t i o n s on t h i s p o i n t a r e n o t

c l e a r .

A c l e a r e r problem f o r t h e above e x p l a n a t i o n is t h a t i n

g e n e r a l , a p e r s o n a l pronoun c a n b e connec ted t o a f u n c t i o n , even i n

c a s e i ts a n t e c e d e n t is connec ted t o a n i n d i v i d u a l r e f e r e n t :

(12) The p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b d i e d l a s t n i g h t . S i n c e h e is e l e c t e d

by t h e g e n e r a l assembly, we w i l l have t o c a l l up a s p e c i a l

meet ing r i g h t away.

I c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e pronoun i n ( 9 ) t o be

a n a p h o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e PN o f t h e p reced ing s e n t e n c e i s n o t

exp la ined by t h e approach t h a t views t h a t PN a s r e f e r r i n g . I w i l l

t h e r e f o r e m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e PN p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b does n o t r e f e r ,

i .e. it is n o t connected t o any r e f e r e n t whatsoever .

But a p r e d i c a t e l i k e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e c l u b i s probably

s y n t a c t i c a l l y n o t an NP, a s argued by Hankamer (1973) . We t u r n now

t o examples t h a t i n v o l v e p r e d i c a t e nominals which a r e s y n t a c t i c a l l y

NPs. The f i r s t s e n t e n c e o f (13a) i n v o l v e s such a p r e d i c a t e nominal.

And indeed t h e r e i s some o d d i t y i n t h e d i s c o u r s e (13a) i f one t r i e s

t o c o n s t r u e t h e phrase t h e man a s an e p i t h e t a n a p h o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o

t h e p r e d i c a t e nominal a man. T h i s c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e s i t u a t i o n i n t h e

d i s c o u r s e ( 1 3 b ) . There it is c l e a r t h a t a man is an NP t h a t r e f e r s

t o an i n d i v i d u a l , and t h a t t h e NP t h e man p i c k s up t h e same r e f e r e n t .

(13) a . The winner is a man. The man is l o o k i n g a t Mary.

b. The winner is t a l k i n g t o a man. The man i s l o o k i n g a t Mary.

I t a k e t h i s t o be an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t a man i n (13a) is n o t

r e f e r r i n g . 4

I h a v e argued s o f a r f o r a d i a g n o s t i c f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g

r e f e r r i n g from p r e d i c a t i o n a l p r e d i c a t e nomina l s , based on

p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r anaphora t h a t a r e a v a i l a b l e o n l y w i t h r e f e r r i n g

p r e d i c a t e s . Equipped w i t h t h i s d i a g n o s t i c , we t u r n t o a n example

n o t i c e d by J e s p e r s e n . NPs w i t h p o s s e s s i v e d e t e r m i n e r s a r e

i n t e r p r e t e d d i f f e r e n t l y i n s u b j e c t and p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n s . The

f o l l o w i n g examples a r e form J e s p e r s e n (1965,153) :

(14 a. My b r o t h e r was c a p t a i n o f t h e v e s s e l .

b. The c a p t a i n o f t h e v e s s e l was my b r o t h e r .

Says J e s p e r s e n ( i b i d .) :

I n t h e former t h e words my b r o t h e r a r e more d e f i n i t e (my o n l y b r o t h e r , o r t h e b r o t h e r whom we a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t ) t h a n i n t h e second (one o f my b r o t h e r s , o r l e a v i n g t h e q u e s t i o n open whether I h a v e more t h a n o n e ) .

NPs w i t h p o s s e s s i v e d e t e r m i n e r s coun t a s d e f i n i t e i n

p o s i t i o n s o t h e r t h a n p r e d i c a t i v e , where anaphora is concerned. A

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f d e f i n i t e NPs is e x e m p l i f i e d by t h e second

o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e c a t i n (15a ) . It h a s t o p i c k up t h e same r e f e r e n t

' I ~ o t i c e t h a t it is a lways p o s s i b l e f o r t h e man t o p i c k up a r e f e r e n t i n d e p e n d e n t l y . A l l I am c l a i m i n g is t h a t i n (13b) t h e r e can t a k e p l a c e an a n a p h o r i c p r o c e s s which is n o t a v a i l a b l e i n ( 1 3 a ) .

t h a t t h e f i r s t occurence o f t h e c a t is connected t o . Exac t ly t h e

same is t r u e o f your c a t i n ( 1 5 b ) , which i n d i c a t e s t h a t it is a

d e f i n i t e NP.

(1 5) a . I knew t h a t t h e c a t was hungry, b u t I d i d n ' t know t h a t

t h e c a t was s i c k .

b. I knew t h a t your c a t was hungry, b u t I d i d n ' t know t h a t your c a t was s i c k .

The f a c t s about anaphora a r e d i f f e r e n t when an NP w i t h a

p o s s e s s i v e d e t e r m i n e r is i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n , a s t h e c o n t r a s t

between ( 16a) and ( 1 6b) shows.

(16) a . You knew t h a t t h e c a p t a i n o f t h e v e s s e l was my b r o t h e r , b u t you

d i d n ' t know t h a t t h e Admiral o f t h e f l e e t was my b r o t h e r .

b. You knew t h a t my b r o t h e r was c a p t a i n o f t h e v e s s e l , b u t you d i d n ' t know t h a t my b r o t h e r was Admiral o f t h e f l e e t .

It seems t o me t h a t o n l y one b r o t h e r is d i s c u s s e d i n ( 1 6 b ) , b u t

p o s s i b l y two i n (16a) . Indeed, under t h e n a t u r a l r e a d i n g o f ( 1 6 a ) ,

t h e speaker h a s two b r o t h e r s . I n ( 1 6 b ) , t h e f i rs t o c c u r r e n c e o f - my

b r o t h e r is connected t o a r e f e r e n t , and e v e r y subsequent o c c u r r e n c e

o f my b r o t h e r i n t h e same d i s c o u r s e p i c k s up t h e same r e f e r e n t . I n

( 1 6 a ) , my b r o t h e r is n o t connected t o a r e f e r e n t a t a l l . The c a p t a i n

o f t h e v e s s e l and t h e Admiral o f t h e f l e e t a r e connected t o two

r e f e r e n t s , and it is n a t u r a l t o assume t h e s e r e f e r e n t s a r e d i s t i n c t .

I t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e p r e d i c a t e nominal my b r o t h e r ( a s i n

( 1 6 a ) ) h o l d s o f i n d i v i d u a l s who have t h e p r o p e r t y o f b e i n g b r o t h e r o f

t h e s p e a k e r , n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e o n l y one. The NP - my b r o t h e r ( a s i n

( 1 6 b ) ) d e s i g n a t e s t h e s p e a k e r ' s o n l y b r o t h e r ( i n t h e r e l e v a n t

c o n t e x t ) . The re i s a p o t e n t i a l f o r ambigu i ty . My b r o t h e r i n

p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n can have a meaning t h a t is d i f f e r e n t from i ts

meaning i n o t h e r p o s i t i o n s . We s t i l l have t o show t h a t my b r o t h e r

can a l s o be c o n s t r u e d i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n a s a r e f e r r i n g NP. I

t h i n k t h i s is e x a c t l y t h e c a s e i n (171, a s can b e s e e n from t h e f a c t

t h a t unde r t h e n a t u r a l r e a d i n g , t h e pronoun - him i n t h e second

s e n t e n c e is a n a p h o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o my b r o t h e r . I n t h i s c a s e - my

b r o t h e r is i n t e r p r e t e d as s i n g u l a r NPs n o r m a l l y a r e - i.e. it p i c k s

up t h e s p e a k e r ' s o n l y ( c o n t e x t u a l l y re1 e v a n t ) b r o t h e r .

(17 ) I am n o t s u r e t h a t t h i s guy is my b r o t h e r . I h a v e n ' t s e e n him f o r many y e a r s .

I h a v e demons t r a t ed above t h a t a s e n t e n c e l i k e ( 1 8 ) i s

ambiguous:

(1 8 John is my b r o t h e r .

Under t h e p r e d i c a t i o n a l r e a d i n g , t h e s e n t e n c e is t r u e i f f John is a

b r o t h e r o f t h e s p e a k e r . Under t h e i d e n t i t y r e a d i n g , it is t r u e i f f

John is t h e s p e a k e r ' s o n l y ( c o n t e x t u a l l y r e l e v a n t ) b r o t h e r .

5.2.1.2. D i a g n o s t i c 2: " p o i n t e r n t h a t

Another d i s t i n c t i o n between r e f e r r i n g and p r e d i c a t i o n a l

p r e d i c a t e s i s d u e t o H i g g i n s (1976, 147) . He p r o p o s e s t h e

d e m o n s t r a t i v e pronoun - t h i s ( o r t h a t ) i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n a s a

d i a g n o s t i c t h a t s e p a r a t e s be tween p r e d i c a t e s t h a t r e f e r , a s i n ( I g a ) ,

from t h o s e t h a t d o n ' t , such a s t h e o n e i n ( 1 9 b ) . The d i a g n o s t i c is

b a s e d on t h e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i n ( l g a ) , where t h e p r e d i c a t e i s a

r e f e r r i n g NP, t h a t c a n s e r v e t o p o i n t a t an a n i m a t e b e i n g . I n ( l g b ) ,

where t h e p r e d i c a t e i s n o t r e f e r r i n g , t h a t c a n n o t p o i n t t o a n a n i m a t e

b e i n g .

(19) a . Tha t is J o e Smith .

b . Tha t i s heavy.

It f o l l o w s f o r example t h a t my b r o t h e r i n ( 2 0 a ) is r e f e r r i n g ,

s i n c e t h i s must b e c o n s t r u e d a s d e s i g n a t i n g a n a n i m a t e o b j e c t . (20a)

t h e r e f o r e e n t a i l s t h e c o n t e x t u a l u n i q u e n e s s o f the s p e a k e r ' s b r o t h e r .

Hence t h e o d d i t y o f (20b) .5

(20 a . T h i s is my b r o t h e r .

b . T h i s is my b r o t h e r and t h a t is my b r o t h e r .

5 ~ h e o d d i t y is a p p a r e n t i n a c o n t e x t where t h i s and - t h a t p o i n t a t a c t u a l p e o p l e , n o t i n a c o n t e x t where t h e y p o i n t a t i n a n i m a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s such a s p i c t u r e s .

5.2.1.3. Diagnost ic 3: p r e d i c a t i o n a l what

Fodor (1970) proposes another d i agnos t i c f o r d i s t i ngu i sh ing

between r e f e r r i n g and p r e d i c a t i o n a l p r ed i ca t e s . The idea i s . t h a t

what, i f it corresponds t o t h e p red i ca t e p o s i t i o n , always s t ands f o r - a pred i c a t i v e p r e d i c a t e r a t h e r than a r e f e r r i n g p red i ca t e . 6

(21 a . What B i l l is is a foo l .

b. * What B i l l is is Mr. Smith.

Assume, whatever t h e r i g h t a n a l y s i s f o r pseudo-clef ts is,

t h a t what i n ( 2 1 ) corresponds t o t h e p r e d i c a t e pos i t i on o f some

l l o r ig ina l l l sen tence o f t h e form B i l l i s X. Then - X must be a

p r e d i c a t i o n a l PN, and cannot be a r e f e r r i n g PN. The d i f f e r e n c e i n

a c c e p t a b i l i t y between (21a) and (21b) depends on t h e f a c t t h a t a f o o l

can be a p r e d i c a t i o n a l PN bu t Mr. Smith cannot.

We must s t i l l expla in why t h e man who murdered Smith i n (22)

cannot be construed a s p red i ca t i ona l .

(22) * What B i l l is is t h e man who murdered Smith.

6 ~ s pointed ou t t o me by Lauri Karttunen, t h i s is not t r u e with t h e same ex ten t o f f e l i c i t y f o r - a l l p r e d i c a t i v e p red i ca t e s . The fol lowing examples a r e no t a s good a s (21a):

i. ? What B i l l i s i s my b ro the r .

ii. ? What B i l l is is p re s iden t o f t h e club.

H i g g i n s n o t i c e s t h a t an NP t h a t c o n t a i n s a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e c a n n o t b e

c o n s t r u e d a s p r e d i c a t i o n a l u n l e s s t h e g a p i t s e l f is i n p r e d i c a t e

p o s i t i o n . T h i s o f c o u r s e is n o t t h e c a s e i n t h e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e who - murdered S m i t h , where t h e g a p is i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n . (21b) s h o u l d

b e c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h e a c c e p t a b l e s e n t e n c e s i n ( 2 3 ) . The p r e d i c a t e s

what h i s f a t h e r was and t h e man h i s f a t h e r wanted t o be a r e

a c c e p t a b l e a s p r e d i c a t i o n a l , i n s p i t e o f t h e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , b e c a u s e

t h e gap is i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n .

(23) a . What B i l l is is what h i s f a t h e r was.

b. What B i l l is i s t h e man h i s f a t h e r wanted t o be .

I n g e n e r a l , o f c o u r s e , d e f i n i t e NPs can b e c o n s t r u e d a s

p r e d i c a t i o n a l :

(24 What B i l l is is o u r e x p e r t on Chinese .

H i g g i n s l and F o d o r l s d i a g n o s t i c s j o i n t l y p r e d i c t t h a t - t h a t i n

( 2 5 ) c a n n o t p o i n t t o an a n i m a t e b e i n g .

(25 What is t h a t ?

The r e a s o n is t h a t what , when it s e r v e s a s a p r e d i c a t e , c a n

o n l y b e p r e d i c a t i o n a l , whereas f o r t h a t t o p o i n t a t a human b e i n g ,

t h e p r e d i c a t e must be r e f e r r i n g .

5.2.1.4. D i a g n o s t i c 4: mass t e r m s

Another d i a g n o s t i c is t h a t mass terms i n p r e d i c a t i v e p o s i t i o n

have an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d i s t i n c t from t h e o n e t h e y have i n s u b j e c t

p o s i t i o n . A s no ted i n Qu ine ( 1 960, 9 8 ) ) , I t i n g e n e r a l , a mass term i n

p r e d i c a t i v e p o s i t i o n may b e viewed as a g e n e r a l term which i s t r u e o f

e a c h p o r t i o n o f t h e s t u f f i n q u e s t i o n e x c l u d i n g o n l y t h e p a r t s t o o

small t o count ." T h i s is t h e way i n which g o l d i s u s e d a f t e r t h e

c o p u l a i n a s e n t e n c e l i k e ( 2 6 a ) . On t h e o t h e r hand, "a mass term

u s e d i n s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n d i f f e r s none from s u c h s i n g u l a r terms a s

'mamat or l A g n e s t t l ( i b i d . ) . 1.e. i n (26b) go ld names t h e s u b s t a n c e

g o l d , which happens t o b e a s c a t t e r e d o b j e c t . T h i s i s why ( 2 6 ~ ) d o e s

n o t f o l l o w from (26a ) and ( 2 6 b ) , as n o t i c e d i n t e r Meulen (1981) : -

(26 a. T h i s r i n g is g o l d . b . Gold is h a r d t o f i n d .

c. T h i s r i n g is ha rd t o f i n d .

But t h e r e is c l e a r l y a n o t h e r u s e o f g o l d i n p r e d i c a t i v e

p o s i t i o n , where it names t h e same s c a t t e r e d o b j e c t it d o e s i n t h e

s u b j e c t o f (26b) . T h i s u s e is e x e m p l i f i e d i n (27a ) . I n t h a t c a s e , a

c o n c l u s i o n l i k e ( 2 7 ~ ) d o e s f o l l o w from (27a ,b) .7

a . The m e t a l most cove ted by jewelers is g o l d . b . Gold is h a r d t o f i n d . c. The m e t a l most cove ted by jewelers is hard t o f i n d .

I n o u r t e r m i n o l o g y , g o l d i n (26a) i s p r e d i c a t i o n a l , whereas

it is r e f e r r i n g i n ( 2 7 a ) .

5.2.1.5. D i a g n o s t i c 5: Weak Crossover

Where weak c r o s s o v e r is i n v o l v e d , p r e d i c a t e nominal s e n t e n c e s

seem t o a l l o w o n l y p r e d i c a t i o n a l r e a d i n g s :

H i s i mother is Johnil s b e s t f r i e n d .

Only if t h e r e f e r e n c e o f - h i s is picked up from t h e c o n t e x t , c a n ( 2 8 )

b e a n i d e n t i t y s t a t e m e n t , a s i n t h e c a s e (28) is t h e answer t o ( 2 9 ) .

7 ~ h e f o l l o w i n g problem h a s been p o i n t e d o u t t o me by L a u r i K a r t t u n e n . Even though - g o l d is r e f e r r i n g i n ( i ) below, ( i i i ) d o e s n o t seem t o f o l l o w from ( i ) and ( i i ) :

i. The t o p i c is g o l d . ii. Gold is ha rd t o f i n d . iii. The t o p i c is h a r d t o f i n d .

I would l i k e t o c l a i m t h a t ( i i i ) d o e s f o l l o w from ( i ) and ( i i ) , i f one t h i n k s o f a c o n t e x t where it is a p p r o p r i a t e t o r e f e r t o g o l d a s t h e t o p i c .

(29 I wonder who John ' s b e s t f r i e n d is.

A s t r i k i n g example i s ( 3 0 ) , which is an a d a p t a t i o n o f a n

example a t t r i b u t e d by Higg ins ( 1 976) t o Emmon Bach.

(30) The argument hei wro te is t h e proof o f D e s c a r t e s t i e x i s t e n c e .

Unless t h e r e f e r e n c e o f he . can be picked up from t h e c o n t e x t , f o r -1

example from a p r e v i o u s ment ion o f D e s c a r t e s i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n ,

(30) o n l y has a p r e d i c a t i o n a l r e a d i n g , synonymous t o ( 3 1 ) .

(31 The argument hei wro te p roves t h a t Desca r tes i e x i s t e d .

(30) has no i d e n t i t y r e a d i n g ; i n o t h e r words, ( 3 0 ) d o e s n ' t mean t h a t

t h e argument D e s c a r t e s wrote c o n s t i t u t e s a proof o f h i s e x i s t e n c e .

I n t h i s it d i f f e r s from ( 3 2 ) which h a s bo th r e a d i n g s :

(32) The argument Desca r tes i wro te is t h e proof of h i s i e x i s t e n c e .

I n t h i s c o n t e x t we can i n t e g r a t e t h e f a c t , noted p r e v i o u s l y

by P o s t a l (1971) and Wasow (1979) , t h a t weak c r o s s o v e r i n (33b) i s

i m p o s s i b l e , u n l i k e i n (33a) . Weak c r o s s o v e r i n (33b) is p o s s i b l e

o n l y wi th a p r e d i c a t i o n a l r ead ing . But a p r e d i c a t e l i k e John i n

(33a) does n o t l e n d i t s e l f e a s i l y t o a p r e d i c a t i o n a l r ead ing . 8

8 ~ g a i n , t h e judgement is d i f f e r e n t i f t h e r e is no q u a n f i f y i n g i n . (33b) i s a c c e p t a b l e a s an answer t o ( 2 9 ) .

a. H i s i b e s t f r i e n d l i k e s Johni.

b. H i s i b e s t f r i e n d is Johni.

5.2.2 S y n t a c t i c d i a g n o s t i c s

5.2.2.1. D i a g n o s t i c 6: n o n - r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s

N o n - r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s wi th - who can occur o n l y i n

c o n j u n c t i o n wi th r e f e r r i n g p r e d i c a t e s :

(34) a . John is Mr. Smith , who I was t e l l i n g you about.

b. ? John is a man, who I was t e l l i n g you about .

P r e d i c a t i o n a l p r e d i c a t e s can o n l y cooccur wi th non-

r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s w i t h which.

(35) John is a c o n s i d e r a t e man, which is a r a r e t h i n g t o be.

But r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s w i t h which a r e n o t even conf ined t o NPs, s i n c e

t h e y can appear w i t h a d j e c t i v e s and v e r b s too :

(36) a . John is c o n s i d e r a t e , which is a r a r e t h i n g t o be.

b. John t a l k s q u i e t l y , which is a good t h i n g t o do.

5.2.2.2. D i a g n o s t i c 7: p r e d i c a t e s of small c l a u s e s

It h a s o f t e n been no ted t h a t t h e p r e d i c a t e s of s m a l l c l a u s e

complements are p r e d i c a t i o n a l r a t h e r t h a n r e f e r r i n g :

(37 ) t h e b e s t s t u d e n t i n h i s c l a s s

a f o o l

Everyone t r e a t s I S him a s { t emperamenta l 11 * a c e r t a i n man

* t h i s man

* B i l l

Some v e r b s select o n l y s m a l l c l a u s e s w i t h t t r o l e v p r e d i c a t e s :

(38) a . They e l e c t e d Ishim p r e s i d e n t ]

b. * They e l e c t e d LShim t h e p r e s i d e n t l

5.3 C r o s s i n g t h e r e f e r e n t i a l - a t t r i b u t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n

I p r o p o s e t h a t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f p r e d i c a t i o n a l PNs such

as t h e o n e i n (39) b e a r e l a t i o n which i s of t h e same n a t u r e a s t h e

one t h a t i n t e r p r e t s VPs . (39)

B i l l is t h e e x p e r t .

I n t h e t e r m i n o l o g y o f S i t u a t i o n S e m a n t i c s ( c f . Barwise and P e r r y ( t o

a p p e a r ) ) , t h i s would be a r e l a t i o n be tween s i t u a t i o n s and

i n d i v i d u a l s . Fo r example t h e e x p e r t i n ( 3 9 ) d e n o t e s t h e p r o p e r t y o f

b e i n g t h e o n l y e x p e r t i n a s i t u a t i o n - s d e s c r i b e d by t h e s e n t e n c e :

Othe expert0 ( s , a ) i f f

Vb(Oexpertl1 ( s , b ) i f f b = a)

(39) describes a l l s i tua t ions - s i n which the property t he expert

r e l a t e s 2 t o a unique individual - a who is both bill), i .e . the

referent connected t o B i l l , and a ~i11 .9

U B i l l is the expert0 (s) i f f

3a c ( ~ i l 1 ) = a and <1Bill.O,a,l>Cs and Othe expert1 ( s , a )

The sentence (39) a lso has an in te rpre ta t ion where t he

predicate r e f e r s , the iden t i ty in terpreta t ion. Since the NP - the

expert is a singular NP, it i s a re la t ion between s i tua t ions and

individuals, the same re la t ion it denotes as a predicational

predicate. Therefore the iden t i ty in terpreta t ion of (39) i s

equivalent t o the predicational in terpreta t ion. The only difference

is a t the discourse level : the iden t i ty reading a lso involves

connecting the expert t o a referent .

The equivalence of the predicational reading t o the i den t i t y

reading holds only for t he a t t r i bu t i ve use, i n Donnellans sense, of

9 ~ o r the treatment of names as propert ies, see Barwise and Perry (1983).

t h e NP t h e expert. ' ' What w e have been c a l l i n g - t h e i d e n t i t y r e a d i n g

is r e a l l y two d i f f e r e n t r e a d i n g s , d e p e n d i n g on whether t h e r e f e r r i n g

NP i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n is used r e f e r e n t i a l l y o r a t t r i b u t i v e l y , i n

Donne l l an l s s e n s e . I would l i k e t o stress t h a t D o n n e l l a n l s

r e f e r e n t i a l - a t t r i b u t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n is d i f f e r e n t from t h e d i s t i n c t i o n

we a r e making h e r e , which is between p r e d i c a t i o n a l and r e f e r r i n g

p r e d i c a t e nomina l s . Donne l l an l s d i s t i c t i o n , it seems t o me, is

r e l e v a n t o n l y t o r e f e r r i n g NPs. Among p r e d i c a t e nomina l s ,

D o n n e l l a n l s d i s t i n c t i o n p e r t a i n s t o r e f e r r i n g PNs b u t n o t t o

p r e d i c a t i o n a l PNs .

I n t h e framework o f S i t u a t i o n S e m a n t i c s , t h e d e f i n i t e

d e s c r i p t i o n t h e e x p e r t is used a t t r i b u t i v e l y i f it maps t h e d e s c r i b e d

s i t u a t i o n - s t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l - a t h a t f i t s t h e d e s c r i p t i o n a t s. The

i d e n t i t y r e a d i n g f o r (39) where t h e r e f e r r i n g p r e d i c a t e i s u s e d

a t t r i b u t i v e l y is t h e r e f o r e t h e f o l l o w i n g :

' O ~ c c o r d i n ~ t o Donne l l an ( 19661, a d e f i n i t e d e s c r i p t i o n is - used a t t r i b u t i v e l y i n an a s s e r t i o n i f t h e s p e a k e r w i s h e s t o make t h e a s s e r t i o n t r u e o f wha teve r f i t s t h a t d e s c r i p t i o n . The a t t r i b u t i v e u s e c o n t r a s t s w i t h a n o t h e r u s e o f d e f i n i t e d e s c r i p t i o n s - t h e r e f e r e n t i a l u se . The s p e a k e r u s e s a d e f i n i t e d e s c r i p t i o n r e f e r e n t i a l l y i f h e w i s h e s t o make h i s a s s e r t i o n t r u e o f a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l . I n t h i s c a s e , h e u s e s t h e d e f i n i t e d e s c r i p t i o n as a t o o l t h a t e n a b l e s t h e a u d i e n c e t o p i c k o u t what i n d i v i d u a l it i s t h a t t h e a s s e r t i o n is abou t .

O B i l l is t h e e x p e r t 1 ( s ) i f f

3 a s.t. c ( B i l 1 ) = c ( t h e e x p e r t ) = a and <OBi l lO ,a , l> ( s

and Othe e x p e r t 1 ( s ) = a

T h i s ( a t t r i b u t i v e ) i d e n t i t y r e a d i n g and t h e p r e d i c a t i o n a l r e a d i n g

proposed above a r e e q u i v a l e n t . The o n l y d i f f e r e n c e is a t t h e l e v e l

o f d i s c o u r s e s t r u c t u r e . Under t h e i d e n t i t y r e a d i n g , t h e r e i s a

d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t connected t o t h e p r e d i c a t e NP, which anaphors

o u t s i d e o f t h e s e n t e n c e can p i c k up. Under t h e p r e d i c a t i o n a l

r e a d i n g , no r e f e r e n t is connected t o t h e p r e d i c a t e .

The d e f i n i t e d e s c r i p t i o n t h e e x p e r t used r e f e r e n t i a l l y ( i n

Donnel lanf s sense ) maps t h e s i t u a t i o n - s d e s c r i b e d by t h e s e n t e n c e t o

an i n d i v i d u a l - a . But t h i s time t h e p r o p e r t y o f b e i n g t h e e x p e r t

h o l d s o f t h a t i n d i v i d u a l a t some s i t u a t i o n c, which may be d i s t i n c t

from t h e s i t u a t i o n s: -

O B i l l i s t h e exper t I lSr ( s ) i f f

3 a s.t. c ( B i l 1 ) = c ( t h e e x p e r t ) = a and <OBi l lO ,a , l>€s and l l the e x p e r t 0 ( s f ) = a

T h i s is t h e o t h e r i d e n t i t y r e a d i n g o f (39). It is o f c o u r s e n o t

e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e p r e d i c a t i o n a l r e a d i n g , a s it is n o t e q u i v a l e n t t o

t h e a t t r i b u t i v e i d e n t i t y r e a d i n g .

5.4 Examples

5.4.1 P red ica t iona l p red ica t e s

5.4.1.1. Role p r e d i c a t e s

In making t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between r e f e r r i n g and p red ica t iona l

p r e d i c a t e s we a r e hindered by t h e f a c t t h a t many p red ica t e s can be

e i t h e r . A c l a s s o f p red ica t e s t h a t a r e only p red ica t iona l is t h e

r o l e p red ica t e s , a s i n (40) . These p red ica t e s a r e a l s o discussed i n

Fodor ( 1970) and Higgins ( 1976).

(40) John is vice-president of t h e club.

The t r u t h cond i t i ons o f (40) a r e more l i k e those o f (41a)

than o f (41b) . (41 a . John is t h e vice-president o f t h e club.

b. John is a vice-president of t h e club.

Truth-condit ional ly r o l e p red ica t e s a r e equiva len t t o d e f i n i t e NPs.

I t h e r e f o r e propose t h a t they have t h e following meaning:

OCpNN'10 ( s , a ) i f f

O N 1 0 is a r o l e or t i t l e and V b ( O N ' U ( s , a ) i f f b a)

We saw i n (8) and (9) t h a t r o l e p red ica t e s cannot be t h e

antecedent of a pronoun. Therefore, according t o d i agnos t i c 1 t hey

a r e not r e f e r r i n g .

The r o l e p red i ca t e i n (42b) belongs t o non-referr ing

p r e d i c a t e s according t o d i agnos t i c 2 a s wel l . It does no t cooccur

with a - t h a t t h a t po in t s t o an animate being. This observa t ion is due

t o Higgins (1976, 149):

(42) a. That is t h e mayor of Cambridge.

b. * That is mayor o f Cambridge.

Diagnost ic 3 i s inconclus ive f o r r o l e p red i ca t e s :

(43) ? What she is is mayor o f Cambridge.

A s d i a g n o s t i c 6 shows, r o l e p r e d i c a t e s a r e not r e f e r r i n g ,

s i nce t hey cannot occur with a non - r e s t r i c t i ve r e l a t i v e c l ause with

(44 * John is vice-president o f t h e c lub , who cannot be r ee l ec t ed .

By d i a g n o s t i c 7 a s well, r o l e p red i ca t e s a r e p red i ca t i ona l :

(45) Everyone t r e a t s him a s p re s iden t , even though he has

no t been sworn i n ye t .

5.4.1.2. P r o p e r names

It t u r n s o u t t h a t p rope r names can be p r e d i c a t i o n a l , i f t h e y

a r e i n t e r p r e t e d a s r o l e s :

(46 P e t e r OfToo le is B e c k e t t .

I n t h a t c a s e , t h e y c a n n o t b e a n a p h o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o a pronoun. The

second s e n t e n c e i n ( 4 7 ) seems t o a s s e r t s o f O f t o o l e , n o t o f B e c k e t t ,

t h a t h e l i v e d i n t h e 1 2 t h c e n t u r y .

(47 1 P e t e r O f T o o l e is B e c k e t t . He l i v e d i n t h e 1 2 t h c e n t u r y .

On t h e o t h e r hand t h e y can b e r e l a t e d t o p r e d i c a t e what:

(48 ) What OtToo le is i n t h i s p l a y is B e c k e t t .

They c a n n o t a p p e a r w i t h a n o n - r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e

w i t h who : -

(49 1 * P e t e r O f T o o l e is B e c k e t t , who d i d n f t obey t h e King.

They a r e p r e d i c a t i o n a l b y d i a g n o s t i c 7 a s well.

(50 Everyone t r e a t s P e t e r O f T o o l e a s B e c k e t t .

It is c l e a r t h a t i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a p l a y o r a movie abou t

t h e l i f e of Thomas o f B e c k e t t , a s s e r t i n g (46) is n o t n o r m a l l y t a k e n

a s an a s s e r t i o n t h a t c ( O f T o o l e ) , t h e r e f e r e n t p icked up by O f T o o l e ,

i s t h e same as ~ ( B e c k e t t ) , t h e r e f e r e n t p i c k e d up by B e c k e t t . T h i s

would b e fa l se . A l l ( 4 6 ) a s s e r t s is t h a t i n a c o n t e x t t h a t i n c l u d e s

t h e p l a y , O f T o o l e h a s t h e p r o p e r t y o f h a v i n g t h e r o l e B e c k e t t . The

p r e d i c a t i o n a l u s e o f B e c k e t t d o e s n o t i n c l u d e p i c k i n g up a r e f e r e n t .

OOfToole is BeckettO ( s ) i f f

c ( O f T o o l e ) = a and <OOfTooleO , a ,l><s

and < O ~ e c k e t t O , a , l > < s , where OBeckettl] is a r o l e

5.4.1.3. N1 p r e d i c a t e s t h a t are n o t roles

Romance l a n g u a g e s and German have PNs o f t h e form N 1 , t h a t

are n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n t e r p r e t e d as r o l e s . The f o l l o w i n g F rench

examples a r e from P o l l o c k (1982) :

(51 a. Cet homme e s t un p r o f e s s e u r

b. Cet homme est p r o f e s s e u r

P o l l o c k s a y s o f (51b) t h a t it h a s o n l y a p r e d i c a t i o n a l r e a d i n g , n o t

an i d e n t i t y r e a d i n g . D i a g n o s t i c 2 c o r r o b o r a t e s t h a t :

(52 a. C1est un bon l i n g u i s t e .

b . * C1est bon l i n g u i s t e .

According t o P o l l o c k , (51a) o n l y h a s an i d e n t i t y r e a d i n g , n o t

a p r e d i c a t i o n a l r e a d i n g . H i s argument i s based on t h e f o l l o w i n g

symmetry be tween E n g l i s h and French:

a. I consider [John a fool]

b. * I consider [John Peter]

(54) a. Je c ro i s [Jean i d io t l

b. * Je c ro i s [Jean un i d io t l

Pollock assumes tha t j u s t as the English consider allows small-clause

complements f reely , so does the French c ro i re . In general the

predicate of a small clause cannot be r e f e r en t i a l , and Pollock

a t t r i b u t e s the ungrammaticality of (54b) t o t h i s property of small

clauses. But it may simply be due t o the f a c t tha t c ro i re requires

adject ival clauses as complements. Indeed , the ungrammat i c a l i t y of

(55) seems t o indicate t ha t a small clause headed by a noun i s

unacceptable as the complement of croi re . 11

(55 * Je c r o i s [Jean midecinl

I conclude t ha t French has PNs both of the form N f and of the

form [un N f I , both with the same meaning, t ha t of N f .

"1 am grateful t o Patrick Henass for h i s judgements on the French data.

5.4.2 R e f e r r i n g p r e d i c a t e s

I h a v e a rgued t h a t PNs have an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n unde r which

t h e y do n o t refer , i.e. where t h e y a r e n o t c o n n e c t e d t o d i s c o u r s e

r e f e r e n t s . Among t h e s i n g u l a r NP, t h e r e a r e two n o t a b l e v a r i e t i e s

t h a t a r e b a r r e d from h a v i n g s u c h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : pronouns and

d e m o n s t r a t i v e NPs. The u s e o f t h e s e a lways i n v o l v e s c o n n e c t i n g t o a

d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t , e i t h e r a new o n e when u s e d d e i c t i c a l l y , o r o n e

a l r e a d y connec ted t o some o t h e r NP i n t h e c a s e o f anaphora . Some

i n d e f i n i t e NPs such a s a c e r t a i n man a l s o seem t o a lways c o n n e c t t o a

d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t , a s s u g g e s t e d by Fodor and Sag (1982) . To p rove

t h i s p o i n t we u s e t h e r e l e v a n t d i a g n o s t i c s t o show t h a t a PN is n o t

p r e d i c a t i o n a l , namely 3 and 6.

me I t h a t man 1

* What h e is is a c e r t a i n man

(57 me

I t h a t man 1 * Everyone t r e a t s him as a c e r t a i n man

5.5 q u a n t i f i e r s and p r e d i c a t e n o m i n a l s

So f a r we have d i s c u s s e d s e m a n t i c a l l y s i n g u l a r NPs i n

p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n , and s e e n t h a t t h e y may b e e i t h e r r e f e r r i n g o r

p r e d i c a t i o n a l . A n a t u r a l q u e s t i o n i s whe the r t h e same is t r u e o f

q u a n t i f i e r s . (58) i s an example o f a s e n t e n c e w i t h a q u a n t i f i e r i n

p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n . It d o e s n o t have any r e a d i n g , n e i t h e r i d e n t i t y

nor p r e d i c a t i o n a l , even i n c a s e John happens t o be t h e o n l y member o f

t h e c l u b .

(58) * John is e v e r y member o f t h e c l u b .

It may seem t h a t t h e u n a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f (58) c o u l d b e d u e t o a n

i m p l i c a t u r e o f p l u r a l i t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e v e r y , which c o n t r a d i c t s t h e

u n i q u e n e s s e n t a i l m e n t o f John. But t h e s e n t e n c e d o e s n o t improve

when o n e r e p l a c e s John w i t h an i n d e f i n i t e NP o r w i t h a n o t h e r

q u a n t i f i e r :

(59 1 a . * A man is e v e r y member o f t h e c l u b .

b. * Every s t u d e n t i n t h e depa r tmen t is e v e r y member o f t h e c l u b .

W i l l i a m s (1983) p r o p o s e s t h e s e n t e n c e s i n (60) ( h i s ( 9 ) ) a s

examples o f p r e d i c a t i o n a l s e n t e n c e s .

(60) a . John is e v e r y t h i n g we wanted him t o become.

b. John i s e v e r y t h i n g I d e s p i s e . 12

c. A t one time o r a n o t h e r , John h a s been e v e r y t h i n g .

I 2 ~ h e gap i n t h e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e is n o t i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n . According t o H i g g i n s t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n d i s c u s s e d i n s e c t i o n 2.1.3., t h i s s h o u l d p r e v e n t e v e r y t h i n g from b e i n g p r e d i c a t i o n a l .

There a r e a l s o s i m i l a r examples which look more l i k e i d e n t i t y

s e n t e n c e s :

(61 a . T h i s is e v e r y t h i n g I have.

b. T h i s is everyone we i n v i t e d .

It seems t h a t e v e r y t h i n g and everyone is t h e e x c e p t i o n r a t h e r t h a n

t h e r u l e , and t h a t t h e i r behav io r shou ld n o t be t a k e n a s i n d i c a t i v e

o f t h a t o f q u a n t i f i e r s . I n g e n e r a l , t h e s e NPs do n o t g i v e rise t o

t h e same scope a m b i g u i t i e s a s q u a n t i f i e r s . I n ( 6 2 ) , e v e r y sandwich

b u t n o t e v e r y t h i n g can have wide scope r e l a t i v e t o a man.

(62) a . A man a t e e v e r y t h i n g .

b. Aman a t e e v e r y sandwich.

I t h e r e f o r e do n o t c o n s i d e r t h e examples i n (60) and (61) t o b e

counterexamples t o my c l a i m t h a t q u a n t i f i e r s do n o t appear i n

p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n .

Another a p p a r e n t counterexample is ( 6 3 a ) . It seems t h a t i t s

o n l y r e a d i n g is one o f emphat ic n e g a t i o n . T h i s i s p e c u l i a r t o

E n g l i s h , t h e Hebrew (63b) w i t h a q u a n t i f i e r i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n h a s

no r e a d i n g a t a l l . 13

a . John i s no f r i e n d o f mine

b. eyn d a n i { I

a f yad id 8e l i NEG Dani no f r i e n d mine

I conc lude t h a t u n l i k e s i n g u l a r NPs, q u a n t i f i e r s do n o t

appea r i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n .

5.6 P l u r a l NPs

I h a v e s o f a r d i s t i n g u i s h e d among g r a m m a t i c a l l y s i n g u l a r NPs

a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r b e h a v i o r a s p r e d i c a t e nominals . Those t h a t a r e

s e m a n t i c a l l y s i n g u l a r may have two d i s t i n c t r e a d i n g s : r e f e r r i n g and

p r e d i c a t i o n a l . Those t h a t a r e q u a n t i f i e r s have no r e a d i n g a t a l l .

Fo r example, ( 6 4 a ) is ambiguous between an i d e n t i t y r e a d i n g and a

p r e d i c a t i o n a l r e a d i n g , whereas (64b) h a s no r e a d i n g a t a l l :

(64 ) a . T h i s guy is my b r o t h e r .

13(63b) c o n t r a s t s w i t h ( i ) below.

i. eyn d a n i mak i r bm I a f yad id 8e l i

NEG Dani knows no f r i e n d mine lDani doesnl t know any f r i e n d o f mine. l

b. * T h i s guy i s e v e r y member o f t h e c l u b .

NPs t h a t a r e g r a m m a t i c a l l y p l u r a l , such a s two men, mos t men,

a r e u s u a l l y n o t d i s c u s s e d when t h e s e m a n t i c d i s t i n c t i o n between

s i n g u l a r NPs and q u a n t i f i e r s i s made. The aim o f t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o

e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e same s e m a n t i c d i s t i n c t i o n , be tween s i n g u l a r and

q u a n t i f i e r , is r e l e v a n t a l s o for g r a m m a t i c a l l y p l u r a l NPs. J u s t a s

my b r o t h e r c a n r e f e r t o an i n d i v i d u a l , whereas e v e r y member of t h e

c l u b c a n n o t , s o can two men r e f e r t o a g r o u p l e v e l i n d i v i d u a l (wh ich

i s a set o f i n d i v i d u a l s ) , whereas most men c a n n o t . We r e g a r d b o t h - my

b r o t h e r and two men a s s e m a n t i c a l l y s i n g u l a r . To a v o i d c o n f u s i o n , I

w i l l refer t o t h o s e g r a m m a t i c a l l y p l u r a l NPs t h a t a r e s e m a n t i c a l l y

s i n g u l a r a s S i n g u l a r , w i t h a c a p i t a l - S. On t h e o t h e r hand, we

c o n s i d e r b o t h every and most men as q u a n t i f i e r s .

It is i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between S i n g u l a r and

q u a n t i f i e r among p l u r a l NPs c o r r e l a t e s w i t h t h e i r b e h a v i o r i n

p r e d i c a t e nominal p o s i t i o n . T h i s p a r a l l e l s t h e b e h a v i o r of s i n g u l a r

NPs. Both s i n g u l a r and S i n g u l a r NPs can be p r e d i c a t e nomina l s ,

whereas q u a n t i f i e r s c a n n o t .

The a d d i t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n we made i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s

-- r e f e r r i n g vs . p r e d i c a t i o n a l p r e d i c a t e s -- d o e s n o t seem t o be a s

c l e a r i n t h e c a s e o f p l u r a l NPs. I w i l l t h e r e f o r e n o t t r y t o e x t e n d

it t o S i n g u l a r NPs.

5.6.1 A d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h i n p l u r a l NPs

We a r e concerned i n t h i s s e c t i o n w i t h t h e c o n t r a s t between

(65a) and (65b):14

a 1 1 i most 1

a . * J o h n , B i l l and Mary a r e few p e o p l e I know i n A u s t i n .

s e v e r a 1 i a few 1

b. J o h n , B i l l and Mary a r e t h r e e p e o p l e I know i n A u s t i n .

Many s h o u l d p r o b a b l y be c l a s s i f i e d w i t h t h e d e t e r m i n e r s i n (65b)

r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h o s e o f ( 6 5 a ) . Even t h o u g h (66a ) is u n a c c e p t a b l e ,

f o r a r e a s o n I do n o t u n d e r s t a n d , (66b) i s a c c e p t a b l e .

(66 ) a . * John and h i s f r i e n d s are many p e o p l e I know i n A u s t i n .

b . The g u e s t s were many p e o p l e s h e had met on h e r t r i p s .

Both on t h e o t h e r hand c l a s s i f i e s w i t h t h e d e t e r m i n e r s i n (65a)

r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e o n e s i n (65b) : I5

1 4 1 t happens t o be t h e c a s e t h a t

John , B i l l and Mary a r e a l l p e o p l e I know i n Aus t in .

o f (65a ) i s a c c e p t a b l e w i t h a " f l o a t i n g q u a n t i f i e r n r e a d i n g f o r - a l l . But t h i s is n o t t h e r e a d i n g o f t h i s s e n t e n c e under c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e t e x t .

15(67) is good w i t h t h e " f l o a t i n g q u a n t i f i e r n r e a d i n g , b u t t h i s is n o t t h e i n t e n d e d r e a d i n g . c f . p r e c e d i n g f o o t n o t e .

(67) * John and Mary a r e both people I know i n Austin.

I c o r r e l a t e t h e c o n t r a s t between (65a) and (65b) with a

c o n t r a s t between t h e i r p r e d i c a t e s t h a t I mot iva te below. I show

below t h a t t h e NP i n p red i ca t e pos i t i on i n (65a) a r e on ly

q u a n t i f i e r s , whereas t h e ones i n (65b) a r e a l s o r e f e r r i n g NPs, i . e .

S ingu la r .

A n a t u r a l p l ace t o look f o r a d i agnos t i c t o d i s t i n g u i s h

q u a n t i f i e r s from Singular NPs i s anaphora. We would expect it t o be

pos s ib l e f o r a p l u r a l pronoun t o be anaphor ica l ly r e l a t e d t o a

S ingular NP, b u t not t o a q u a n t i f i e r ( i f t h e pronoun i s o u t s i d e t h e

scope of t h e q u a n t i f i e r ) . But, a s not iced by Evans (19801, t h e

behavior of p l u r a l pronouns does no t d i s t i n g u i s h S ingular NPs from

q u a n t i f i e r s . P l u r a l pronouns can be anaphor ica l ly r e l a t e d t o NPs

from (65a) a s wel l a s t o NPs from (65b):

(68) a . Most people I know i n Austin w i l l v i s i t me i n Jerusalem,

b u t t hey w i l l t a k e a long t ime t o a r r i v e .

b. Severa l people I know i n Austin w i l l v i s i t me i n Jerusalem, bu t t hey w i l l t a k e a long t ime t o a r r i v e .

Having f a i l e d t o d e r i v e a d i agnos t i c from anaphora, we look

f o r o t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n s t o s e p a r a t e Singular NPs from q u a n t i f i e r s .

Q u a n t i f i e r s cannot s e rve a s t h e complement i n t h e p a r t i t i v e

c o n s t r u c t i o n , whereas S ingular NPs can:

b o t h a l l

( most I a. * He is one o f few peop le who may know t h e answer.

many ( s e v e r a l I

a few b. He is one o f t h r e e peop le who may know t h e answer.

Ladusaw (1982) h a s argued t h a t o n l y NPs t h a t d e n o t e i n d i v i d u a l s

(pe rhaps on group l e v e l ) , c a n be t h e complement o f t h e p a r t i t i v e .

That is how h e a c c o u n t s f o r t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between (6ga) and (69b) ,

and we s e e t h e same d i s t i n c t i o n between (65a) and (65b) .

Another d i a g n o s t i c t h a t s e p a r a t e s S i n g u l a r NPs from

q u a n t i f i e r s h a s t o do wi th t h e c h o i c e o f t h e v e r b i n t h e fo l lowing

examples. Some v e r b s l i k e -- form, sum and s u r r o u n d , r e q u i r e t h a t t h e i r

s u b j e c t be a g roup d e n o t i n g NP:

(70) a . S e v e r a l peop le i n Aus t in form a co-op.

b. ? A l l peop le i n Aus t in form a co-op.

(71 1 a . A few f i g u r e s sum t o 100.

b. ? Few f i g u r e s sum t o 100.

(72) a . Many policemen surround t h e house.

b. ? Most pol icemen su r round t h e house .

Yet a n o t h e r d i a g n o s t i c is based on one proposed by Barwise

and P e r r y (1983) t o d i s t i n g u i s h s i n g u l a r NPs from q u a n t i f i e r s . They

n o t i c e t h a t s i n g u l a r NPs, b u t n o t q u a n t i f i e r s , c a n b e used a s

a p p o s i t i v e s :

(73 ) a man from I t h a c a

a . T e r r y , I t h e man from I t h a c a I , is s l e e p i n g on t h e beach.

no man from I t h a c a b. * T e r r y , I e v e r y man from l t h a c a l , i s s l e e p i n g on t h e beach.

The same d i a g n o s t i c c a n s e r v e t o d i s t i n g u i s h between S i n g u l a r NPs and

q u a n t i f i e r s :

h I a few

a . We r e a d Q u e r e l l e d e B r e s t and Le Pecheur d u Suquet , two a t t e m p t s o f h i s a t f i c t i o n .

h I I b . * We r e a d Q u e r e l l e d e B r e s t and Le Pecheur d u Suque t , most

a t t e m p t s o f h i s a t f i c t i o n .

I have e s t a b l i s h e d a d i s t i n c t i o n among g r a m m a t i c a l l y p l u r a l

NPs between S i n g u l a r NPs and q u a n t i f i e r s . An NP l i k e few s t u d e n t s is

n o t a S i n g u l a r NP b u t a q u a n t i f i e r , whereas an NP l i k e t h r e e s t u d e n t s

is a S i n g u l a r NP (which may a l s o be a q u a n t i f i e r ) . S i n g u l a r NPs can

b e p r e d i c a t e nomina l s , whereas q u a n t i f i e r s c a n n o t . T h i s i s p a r a l l e l

t o t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t h a t h o l d s f o r g r a m m a t i c a l l y s i n g u l a r NPs: o n l y

t h e s e m a n t i c a l l y s i n g u l a r c a n b e p r e d i c a t e nomina l s .

A S i n g u l a r NP i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n ( a n d as s u b j e c t o f

s e n t e n c e s such as ( 7 0 ) - ( 7 2 ) ) is i n t e r p r e t e d as a r e l a t i o n between a

s i t u a t i o n - s and a g r o u p l e v e l i n d i v i d u a l A , which i s a set o f

i n d i v i d u a l s . For example:

O t h r e e s t u d e n t s 0 ( s , A )

i f f c a r d ( A ) = 3 and VaCA ( < O s t u d e n t O , a , l > < s )

T h i s i s n o t e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h i s NP h a s as a

q u a n t i f i e r :

O t h r e e s t u d e n t s 0 ( s , A )

i f f c a r d ( A A { a ! < O s t u d e n t O , a , l > € s l ) > 3 -

which i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r t h r e e s t u d e n t s i n (75 ) :

(75 T h r e e s t u d e n t s a r e w a i t i n g i n t h e h a l l .

I n (751, t h r e e s t u d e n t s r e l a t e s s i t u a t i o n s t o sets o f

i n d i v i d u a l s c o n t a i n i n g a t l e a s t t h r e e s t u d e n t s . T h i s is t h e wrong

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r (76) . I 6 (76) d o e s n o t mean t h a t t h e y i s a set t h a t

c o n t a i n s t h r e e s t u d e n t s , b u t t h a t it is a set t h a t c o n s i s t s o f

e x a c t l y t h r e e s t u d e n t s .

161 am g r a t e f u l t o S t a n l e y P e t e r s f o r p o i n t i n g t h i s o u t t o me.

(76 > They a r e t h r e e s t u d e n t s .

The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f ( 7 6 ) isJ7

OThey a r e t h r e e s t u d e n t s 0 ( s ) i f f

c ( t h e y ) = A and c a r d ( A ) > 1 and U t h r e e s t u d e n t s 0 ( s ,A)

which is e q i v a l e n t t o :

c ( t h e y ) = A and c a r d ( A ) = 3 and VaEA ( < O s t u d e n t O , a , l > E s >

5.6.2 P a r t i t i v e s a s p r e d i c a t e n o m i n a l s

It is i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t n o t j u s t t h e d e t e r m i n e r s o f ( 6 5 b ) , b u t

a l s o t h e d e t e r m i n e r s o f (65a) , have a c c e p t a b l e c o r r e s p o n d i n g

p a r t i t i v e s i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n :

(77 a 1 1

{ most 1 a . J o h n , B i l l and Mary a r e few o f t h e p e o p l e I know

i n Aus t in .

s e v e r a 1 { a few 1

b. John , B i l l and Mary a r e t h r e e o f t h e p e o p l e I know i n Aus t in .

It is n e c e s s a r y t o check t h e p r e d i c a t e NPs i n ( 7 7 ) a g a i n s t t h e

171 a v o i d t h e q u e s t i o n o f whe the r t h r e e s t u d e n t s is a l s o connec ted t o a d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t , i .e . whe the r it is a r e f e r r i n g p r e d i c a t e o r a p r e d i c a t i o n a l p r e d i c a t e .

d i a g n o s t i c s we proposed t o see whether t h e y a r e S i n g u l a r . We e x p e c t

them t o be S i n g u l a r s i n c e t h e y appea r i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n .

To b e S i n g u l a r a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f i r s t d i a g n o s t i c , t h e NPs i n

( 7 7 ) would have t o be a c c e p t a b l e a s complements i n t h e p a r t i t i v e

c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s i s h a r d t o c h e c k , s i n c e s u c h I1double p a r t i t i v e s m

a s t h e o n e i n ( 7 8 ) a r e u n n a t u r a l :

(78 1 ? John is one o f a few o f t h e s t u d e n t s who may know t h e answer .

Even i f i n f a c t t h e NPs i n (77) do n o t a p p e a r i n t h e complement o f

t h e p a r t i t i v e , t h e y s h a r e w i t h complements o f t h e p a r t i t i v e t h e

p r o p e r t y o f r e f e r r i n g t o some ( c o n t e x t u a l l y ) d e f i n i t e set . The re i s

a c o n t r a s t between ( 7 9 a ) , which is c o n t r a d i c t o r y , and (79b1 , which is

n o t :

(79 a . These a r e a few o f t h e s u s p e c t s , and t h o s e a r e t o o .

b. These a r e a few s u s p e c t s , and t h o s e a r e t o o .

The o t h e r two d i a g n o s t i c s d e f i n i t e l y c l a s s i f y t h e p a r t i t i v e

NPs i n ( 7 7 ) a s S i n g u l a r . Verbs t h a t r e q u i r e g roup d e n o t i n g s u b j e c t s

a l l o w p a r t i t i v e s , a s i n (80a) and ( 8 1 a ) , even though t h e y d o n ' t a l l o w

t h e n o n - p a r t i t i v e v e r s i o n s w i t h t h e same d e t e r m i n e r s , a s i n (80b) and

(81b) :

(80 a . Most o f t h e pol icemen s u r r o u n d t h e house .

b. ? Most pol icemen su r round t h e house .

(81 a . A l l o f t h e p e o p l e i n A u s t i n form a co-op.

b. ? A l l p e o p l e i n A u s t i n form a co-op.

P a r t i t i v e s can b e used a s a p p o s i t i v e s , a s i n ( 8 2 a ) , even when

t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g n o n - p a r t i t i v e s c a n n o t - a s i n ( 8 2 b ) .

(82)

A i 1 a . We r e a d Q u e r e l l e d e B r e s t and Le Pecheur d u Suque t , most

of h i s a t t e m p t s a t f i c t i o n .

b. * We read Q u e r e l l e d e B r e s t and Le Pecheur du S u q u e t , most a t t e m p t s of h i s a t f i c t i o n .

I have shown i n t h i s s e c t i o n t h a t some p l u r a l NPs -- n o t a b l y

p a r t i t i v e s and o t h e r s l i k e s e v e r a l N w , two N w -- a p p e a r i n p r e d i c a t e

nominal p o s i t i o n . These a r e e x a c t l y t h e NPs t h a t d e n o t e g r o u p l e v e l

i n d i v i d u a l s ( S i n g u l a r NPs) . O t h e r p l u r a l NPs, l i k e most N w , a l l N w

d o n o t a p p e a r a s p r e d i c a t e nomina l s . They a r e q u a n t i f i e r s and do n o t

d e n o t e i n d i v i d u a l s a t a n y l e v e l .

1 8 ~ h e n f l o a t i n g q u a n t i f i e r m r e a d i n g is a g a i n t o be d i s r e g a r d e d .

5.7 Conclusion

I n , s e c t i o n s 2-4, I have discussed ' NPs t h a t a r e both

grammatically and seman t i ca l l y s i n g u l a r . I showed them t o have a

dual reading i n p r e d i c a t e pos i t i on : r e f e r r i n g and p r e d i c a t i o n a l . Q u a n t i f i e r s t h a t a r e grammatically s i n g u l a r were d iscussed i n s e c t i o n

5, and were shown not t o appear a s p red i ca t e s . Grammatically p l u r a l

NPs were d i s cus sed i n s e c t i o n 6 , where I d i s t i ngu i shed between

q u a n t i f i e r s and S ingular NPs, which denote (group l e v e l ) i nd iv idua l s .

I d i d no t seek t o e s t a b l i s h a r e f e r r i n g / p r e d i c a t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n i n

case of p l u r a l p r e d i c a t e nominals.

The d i s t i n c t i o n s t h a t have been made can be summarized i n t h e

fol lowing t a b l e s :

Grammatically s i n g u l a r NPs

s i n g u l a r NPs q u a n t i f i e r s r e f e r r i n g + -

a s PNs p r e d i c a t i o n a l + -

Grammatically p l u r a l NPs

a s PNs S ingular NPs q u a n t i f i e r s

+ -

The semantic d i s t i n c t i o n s made i n t h i s chapter were shown i n

Chapter 3 and 4 t o be r e l e v a n t f o r t h e syntax of Hebrew. Referr ing

p r e d i c a t e s a r e arguments, and a @-role has t o be assigned t o them t o

s a t i s f y t h e @-c r i t e r ion . P red i ca t iona l p r e d i c a t e s a r e no t arguments,

t h e r e f o r e cannot be assigned O-roles. They a r e l i k e verbs i n being

a s s i g n e r s o f O-roles t o t h e i r s u b j e c t s .

Chap te r 6

E x i s t e n t i a l S e n t e n c e s

6.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n

6.1.1 E x i s t e n t i a l , p o s s e s s i v e and l o c a t i v e s e n t e n c e s

T h i s c h a p t e r d i s c u s s e s t h e s y n t a x o f e x i s t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e s

and r e l a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s . I s t a r t b y p r e s e n t i n g some d a t a . ( l a ) i s

an example o f an e x i s t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e , and (1b ) o f a p o s s e s s i v e

s e n t e n c e . These s e n t e n c e s s t a t e t h e e x i s t e n c e o r p o s s e s s i o n o f a

r e f e r e n t o f an NP t h a t I w i l l c a l l theme. The theme i n b o t h

s e n t e n c e s o f ( 1 ) is s f a r i m rabim 'many books1 . 1

( 1 ) a . l e - d a n i s f a r i m rab im

t o Dani books many ' Dani h a s many books . '

'AS i n E n g l i s h , s t r o n g NPs a r e u n a c c e p t a b l e a s themes o f e x i s t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e s .

* b a - s i f r i a h a - s f a r i m * ' The re a r e t h e books i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

For a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s t r o n u w e a k d i s t i n c t i o n and t h e s e m a n t i c s o f e x i s t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e s see M i l s a r k ( 19761, Barwise and Cooper ( 1981 1.

b. ba - s i f r i a s f a r i m rabim

i n - t h e l i b r a r y books many

'There a r e many books i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

The s e n t e n c e s i n (1 ) a r e c o n s i d e r e d formal . T h e i r i n f o r m a l

v e r s i o n s u s e t h e p a r t i c l e yeE, which can b e l o o s e l y t r a n s l a t e d a s

' e x i s t ' . 2

(2) a . ye8 l e - d a n i h a r b e s f a r i m

t o Dani many books

'Dani h a s many books. '

b. yex b a - s i f r i a h a r b e s f a r i m

i n - t h e 1 i b r a r y many books

'There a r e many books i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

Whereas p o s s e s s i v e PPs a lways p r e c e d e s t h e theme, t h e

placement o f l o c a t i v e PPs is f r e e r :

( 3 1 a . * h a r b e s f a r i m l e - d a n i

many books t o Dani

b. ye8 h a r b e s f a r i m ba - s i f r i a many books in - the l i b r a r y

'There a r e many books i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

I w i l l assume t h a t b a - s i f r i a i n (3b) is an adverb a d j o i n e d t o t h e

p r e d i c a t e o f ( 4 ) :

2 ~ n ( 2 ) I h a v e a l s o r e p l a c e d t h e formal s f a r i m rabim by t h e i n f o r m a l h a r b e s f a r i m .

( 4 1 ye8 harbe s f a r im 'There a r e many books.'

An adverb can a l s o be adjoined t o t h e p red i ca t e o f (2a) :

( 5 ) yex le-dani harbe s fa r im a1 ha - madaf

t o Dani many books on t h e s h e l f 'Dani has many books on t h e s h e l f .'

Since a d a t i v e phrase l i k e le-Dani is not an adverb, (3a) i s not

allowed by t h e r u l e s t h a t a l low (3b ) .

A c l i t i c t h a t ag rees with t h e theme may appear on ye1 i n

e x i s t e n t i a l b u t no t i n possess ive sentences:

( 6 1 a. yex+nam harbe s fa r im (ba - s i f r i a )

CLC3rd .masc . p l l many books[mascl ( in - the l i b r a r y ) 'There a r e many books ( i n t h e l i b r a r y ) .'

b. * yex+nam le-dani harbe s fa r im CL t o Dani many books

ye8 is a l s o used i n l o c a t i v e sen tences , such a s (7) . - 3

(7 1 a. d a n i yex+no

Dani CL[3rd .masc .s ing. 1 'Dani i s present . '

3 ~ e e Tobin (1982) f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n use between l o c a t i v e s and e x i s t e n t i a l s .

b. dan i ye8+no ba - s i f r i a Dani CL in-the l i b r a r y 'Dani is i n t h e l i b r a ry . !

I n such sen tences t h e agreement c l i t i c i s o b l i g a t o r y , and t h e theme

u s u a l l y precedes &+cL. It is poss ib l e t o f r o n t yeX+cL i n l o c a t i v e

sen tences , bu t t h i s is usua l ly not f e l i c i t o u s un l e s s some o t h e r

c o n s t i t u e n t is f ron ted :

(8 > a . ? ye8+no d a n i

IDani is present!

b. karega ye!$+nam dani ve moxe right-now CL[3rd .masc .pl . I Dani and Moshe 'Dani and Moshe a r e he re r i g h t now.!

6.1.2 Negation of e x i s t e n t i a l sen tences

The nega t ive ve r s ions of sen tences l i k e ( 1 ), (21, ( 3 b ) , and

( 7 ) use t h e negat ion p a r t i c l e - eyn:

(9 ) a. eyn le-dani harbe s fa r im

NEG t o Dani many books IDani doesnl t have many books.!

b. eyn ba - s i f r i a harbe s fa r im NEG in- the l i b r a r y many books !There a r e n l t many books i n t h e l ib ra ry . !

(10) eyn h a r b e s f a r i m ba - s i f r i a

NEG many books i n - t h e l i b r a r y 'There a r e n ' t many books i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

(11) a. d a n i eyn+enu

Dani NEG+CL 'Dani i s n t t p r e s e n t . '

b. d a n i eyn+enu ba - s i f r i a Dani NEG CL i n - t h e l i b r a r y 'Dani i s n ' t i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

P r e v i o u s a n a l y s e s ( c f . Borer (1981 1) have t r e a t e d - eyn a s t h e

n e g a t i v e v e r s i o n o f &. There a r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n

o f t h e two p a r t i c l e s t h a t such a c c o u n t s l e a v e unexpla ined. These

have t o do wi th t h e agreement c l i t i c s . A s was exempl i f i ed i n ( 6 a )

and (71 , agreement c l i t i c s appear w i t h & i n e x i s t e n t i a l and

l o c a t i v e s e n t e n c e s . The c l i t i c i s p o s s i b l e i n c o n j u n c t i o n wi th - eyn

o n l y i n l o c a t i v e s e n t e n c e s ( c f . ( 1 2 a ) ) , n o t i n e x i s t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e s

( c f . ( 1 2 b ) ) .

(12) a . h a r b e s f a r i m eyn+am ba - s i f r i a

many books NEG+CLE3rd .p l .masc .I in - the l i b r a r y 'Many books a r e n o t i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

b. * eyn+am h a r b e s f a r i m ba - s i f r i a NEG+CL many books i n - t h e l i b r a r y

The n e g a t i o n o f e x i s t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e s is o n l y a s i n (gb) .

I

Another d i f f e r e n c e is t h a t i n t h e n e g a t i o n o f l o c a t i v e

s e n t e n c e s t h e o r d e r theme-eyn - canno t be r e v e r s e d . Compare t h e

grammatical (7) and (8b) t o t h e s e n t e n c e s o f ( 1 3 ) , o f which o n l y

(1 3a) is grammatical .

(13) a . d a n i v e moze ka rega e yn+ am

Dani and Moshe right-now NEG CL

'Dani and Moshe a r e n o t h e r e r i g h t now.'

b . * karega eyn+am d a n i v e mo8e

right-now NEG CL Dani and Moshe

I n p o s s e s s i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s , - ye8 and - eyn have t h e same

d i s t r i b u t i o n . Ne i the r may appear wi th a c l i t i c :

(14) a . * yeg+nam le-dani h a r b e s f a r i m

CL to-Dani many books

b . * h a r b e s f a r i m ye&-nam le -dan i many books CL t o Dani

(15) a . * eyn+am le -dan i h a r b e s f a r i m

NEG CL t o Dani many books

b. * harbe s f a r i m eyn+am le-dani

many books NEG CL t o Dani

6.1.3 Tensed e x i s t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e s

I n t e n s e d s e n t e n c e s , t h e Aux h.y.y. a p p e a r s i n ( 1 1, and

r e p l a c e s - ye!, i n (2 ) and ( 7 ) :

(16 )

E s f a r i m rabim 1 a . y ihyu l e -dan i h a r b e s f a r i m

wi l l -be[3rd .masc .p l .I t o Dani many books

IDani w i l l have many books .I

s f a r i m rabim 1 b. hayu b a - s i f r i a h a r b e s f a r i m

were i n - t h e l i b r a r y many books

'The re were many books i n t h e 1 i b r a r y . I

c. d a n i a suy l i h y o t ba - s i f r i a

Dani may to-be i n - t h e l i b r a r y

IDani may b e i n t h e l i b r a r y . !

yel s h o u l d p r o b a b l y n o t be a n a l y s e d a s t h e ( s u p p l e t i v e ) - p r e s e n t p a r t i c i p l e o f h.y.y. F i r s t , - y e 1 is n o t a p r e s e n t p a r t i c i p l e .

P r e s e n t p a r t i c i p l e s a g r e e w i t h t h e v e r b i n [gender ] and [number]

o n l y , n o t i n [ p e r s o n ] . Agreement on ye!, is marked w i t h a c l i t i c ,

which shows agreement f o r [ p e r s o n ] t o o .

(17) a . a n i yek!+ni

I CL[l st . s i n g . I I am p r e s e n t .

b . a t ye l+nex you[ fem . s i n g . 1 CL[2nd . fem.s ingl

You a r e p r e s e n t .

Second, we would have t o s a y t h a t - y e 1 is a form o f h.y.y.

o n l y i n some o f i t s u s e s . When h.y.y. i s u s e d a s a c o p u l a i n

p r e d i c a t e nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n s , it c a n n o t be r e p l a c e d i n t h e p r e s e n t

t e n s e by @:

(18) a. h a - xana haya d a n i more

t h e y e a r was Dani t e a c h e r

' T h i s y e a r Dani was a t e a c h e r . '

b . * h a - xana yex d a n i more

t h e y e a r Dani t e a c h e r

T h i r d , p r e s e n t p a r t i c i p l e s may be n e g a t e d by - e y n , b u t - yex

c a n n o t :

(19) a . eyn h a r b e s f a r i m munaxim a 1 h a - madaf

NEG many books p l a c e d on t h e s h e l f

'Not many books a r e p l aced on t h e s h e l f . '

b . * eyn yel h a r b e s f a r i m a1 h a - madaf

NEG many books on t h e s h e l f

F o u r t h , agreement f a c t s are n o t t h e same f o r h.y.y and ye%. -

h.y.y. a lways a g r e e s w i t h t h e theme i n e x i s t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e s , ex - d o e s n ' t have to: 4

4 ~ n c o l l o q u i a l Hebrew, h.y.y. d o e s n o t have t o a g r e e w i t h t h e theme, b u t c a n b e i n t h e 3 r d pe r son m a s c u l i n e s i n g u l a r form.

(20) a. hayu harbe s fa r im ba - s i f r i a

were many books in- the l i b r a r y

'There were many books i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

b. * haya harbe s fa r im ba - s i f r i a

was many books in-the l i b r a r y

(21)

a. ye%+nam harbe s fa r im ba - s i f r i a CL many books in- the l i b r a r y

'There a r e many books i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

b. ye% harbe sfar im ba - s i f r i a

many books in- the l i b r a r y

'There a r e many books i n t h e l i b r a ry . '

h.y.y. agrees with t h e theme i n possess ive sen tences , ye% does not. -

(22) a . hayu li harbe s fa r im

were to-me many books

' I had many books .'

b. * haya li harbe s fa r im

was to-me many books

' I had many books .'

(23) a . * yeX+nam li harbe s f a r im

CL to-me many books

b. ye% li harbe s fa r im

to-me many books

I have many books.'

6.2 The a n a l y s i s o f &-less cons t ruc t ions

I assume t h e s t r u c t u r e of ( 1 t o be (241, where t h e PP is i n

s u b j e c t pos i t i on and t h e NP i n p r e d i c a t e pos i t ion . 5

(24) INFL PP NP

( l a , b ) have t h e following S - ~ t r u c t u r e s : ~

(25 a . Cpple-danil CNpsfarim rabiml iCNoml

j t o Dani books many

b. Cppba - s i f r i a l CNpsfarim rabiml iC~oml j

in-the l i b r a r y books many

Nom Case is always assigned t o an NP o f a f i n i t e S; i n t h i s ca se it

may be assigned t o t h e p red ica t e , s ince t h e s u b j e c t is assigned Case

by a prepos i t ion . A s for t h e & r o l e of t h e NP i n p red ica t e pos i t i on ,

I assume t h a t , a t l e a s t i n (25b) , it is assigned by t h e PP, s i m i l a r l y

t o t h e case where t h e PP i s i n p r e d i c a t e pos i t i on :

5 ~ h i s e n t a i l s t h a t Hebrew al lows t h e fol lowing a s sentences:

C s INFL XP YPI

where Y is C t N , 2VI and X i s CkN, -V1.

6 ~ r r e l e v a n t d e t a i l s omitted.

(26 ) ha-sfarim ba - s i f r i a

t h e books in-the l i b r a r y 'The books a r e i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

The problem with say ing t h e same t h i n g about (25a) is t h a t t h e

corresponding sentence wi th t h e PP i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n is

ungrammatical i n contemporary Hebrew:

(27 1 * ha - s fa r im le-dani

t h e books t o Dani

The contemporary Hebrew ve r s ion of (27) is:

(28 ) ha - s f a r im !!.el d a n i

t h e books of

'The books belong t o Dani.'

Since & and - l e a r e r e l a t e d , 7 I w i l l assume t h a t t h e PP i n (25a)

a s s i g n s a @-role t o t h e NP i n p r e d i c a t e p o s i t i o n , a s i n (25b) .

7 ~ i s t o r i c a l l y , - % e l is der ived from -- %e+le, where ge is a complementizer. For some p r e p o s i t i o n s o t h e r than - - l e , g e + ~ i s a f r e e v a r i a n t o f P i n c e r t a i n evironments i n contemporary Hebrew:

a . h a - tmunot ba - muzeon mactu xen be-eynay t h e p a i n t i n g s in- the museum pleased me

b. ha - tmunot 8 e - ba - muzeon mactu xen be-eynay

t h e p a i n t i n g s t h a t in- the museum pleased me both : ' I l i k e d t h e p i c t u r e s i n t h e museum.'

ge-ba-muzeon is not a r e l a t i v e c lause . A s shown i n Chapter 3, Pron is o b l i g a t o r y when t h e s u b j e c t o f a nominal sen tence is r e l a t i v i z e d .

Several c lues point t o t h e conclusion t h a t t h e theme s far im

rabim is not t h e sub jec t i n (25 ) . A s u b j e c t is adjacent t o - eyn i n

negated sentences, and i n case t h e sub jec t is f ronted , a c l i t i c shows

up on -. Neither is t r u e of t h e theme i n (25):8*9

(29 a. eyn le-dani sfar im rabim

'Dani doesn ' t have many books.'

b. * eyn sfar im rabim le-dani NEG books many t o Dani

(30) a. sfar im rabim eyn le-dani

books many NEG t o Dani 'There a r e many books t h a t Dani doesn ' t have.'

c . * sfar im rabim eyn+am le-dani books many NEG CL t o Dani

In t h e i r order r e l a t i v e t o t h e Aux h.y.y., t h e possessor

8~ w i l l concent ra te on (25a) . In case the PP i s l o c a t i v e , t h e f a c t s a r e d i f f e r e n t . This is due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e o f (i) is not (25b) but p a r a l l e l t o t h e one of ( 3 b ) . The s t r u c t u r e of (ii) i s p a r a l l e l t o t h e one o f (7b ) , i . e . , a l o c a t i v e sentence.

i. eyn sfar im rabim ba - s i f r i a 'There a r e n ' t many books i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

ii. sfarim rabim eyn+am ba - s i f r i a 'Many books a r e n ' t i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

9 ~ h e ungrammaticality of (3a ) is due t o d i f f e r e n t reasons, which we d i s c u s s below.

p h r a s e is s u b j e c t - l i k e and t h e theme i s p r e d i c a t e - l i k e . Aux c a n

e i t h e r p r e c e d e o r f o l l o w t h e s u b j e c t , which is c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e PP

b e i n g t h e s u b j e c t o f (25a ) :

(31 a . hayu l e - d a n i s f a r i m rab im

were t o Dani books many

b. l e - d a n i hayu s f a r i m rab im

both : 'Dani had many books .I

When t h e p r e d i c a t e is f r o n t e d , it must p r e c e d e Aux. T h i s e x p l a i n s

( 3 2 ) , assuming t h a t t h e p r e d i c a t e is rab im s f a r i m .

(32 a . s f a r i m rab im hayu l e - d a n i

books many were t o Dani

'Dani had many books. '

b . * hayu s f a r i m rab im l e - d a n i were books many t o Dani

The theme is a l s o u n s u b j e c t - l i k e i n t h a t it c a n n o t undergo

r a i s i n g . We come b a c k t o t h i s i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n .

(33) a . * s f a r i m rab im asuyim l e - d a n i l i h y o t

books many may t o Dani to-be

b. * s f a r i m rab im asuyim l i h y o t l e -dan i

books many may to-be t o Dani

6.3 The a n a l y s i s o f ye% -

6.3.1 E x i s t e n t i a l and l o c a t i v e sen tences

I t u r n t o t h e s t r u c t u r e o f s imple e x i s t e n t i a l sen tences with

yex, such a s ( 4 ) and (6a ) . I w i l l assume t h a t ye!! i s generated under

V , t h a t it a s s i g n s t h e @-role o f theme t o i t s o b j e c t and a s s i g n s it

Case. & a s s i g n s no @ r o l e t o i t s sub jec t . l o There a r e two p o s s i b l e

s t r u c t u r e s f o r an e x i s t e n t i a l sentence with - yex. - e is an e x p l e t i v e

element , p a r a l l e l t o t h e Engl ish t h e r e . 11

(34) a . INFL e [ ~ e i ! NP (PP)]

lo& is a counterexample t o Burz io l s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , which s t a t e s t h a t verbs a s s ign Case i f f t hey ass ign a @-role t o t h e i r s u b j e c t s . Another counterexample t o t h a t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n is noted i n Chomsky (1981, 109):

John impressed me a s i n t e l l i g e n t .

''1 l e a v e t h e ques t ion open of what l i c e n s e s t h e empty ca t ego ry e. It may be t h a t it is i l l i c i t un l e s s & i s f ron ted t o INFL, a s i n t h e case of o rd ina ry pro-drop with e x p l e t i v e elements ( c f . Chapter 2 ) .

I n ( 3 4 a ) , NP is governed and assigned Nom Case by - ~ e 8 . l ~ A

s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e i s (4) o r (3b ) , repea ted below a s (35) .

(35) ye8 harbe s f a r im ba - s i f r i a

'There a r e many books i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

I n (34b) , NP is a member o f a cosupe r sc r ip t i ng cha in t h a t i s

121n c o l l o q u i a l Hebrew marks its o b j e c t Accusative:

i. ye!i e t ha-sefer ha-ze ba - s i f r i a ACC t h e book t h i s in- the l i b r a r y

'There 's t h e book i n t h e l i b r a r y . ' ( l l l i s t l l reading)

o r 'There is a copy o f t h i s book i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

A s noted i n Ziv (1982a, 1982b), sen tences l i k e ( i ) a r e ambiguous between a lllistll read ing and an e x i s t e n t i a l r ead ing , bu t do not have a l o c a t i v e reading. ( i ) cannot be taken t o a s s e r t t h a t a s p e c i f i c copy o f t h e book is a t t h e l i b r a r y .

I w i l l fo l low Borer' s (1981) proposal t h a t t h e r e is a r e a n a l y s i s i n c o l l o q u i a l Hebrew o f - ye!i a s ass ign ing Accusative Case. Borer argues t h a t such r e a n a l y s i s i s common with l1ergativeI1 ( i n t h e sense o f Burzio (1981 1) verbs - verbs with Nominative o b j e c t s t h a t a s s ign no $-role t o t h e i r s u b j e c t s . 9 i n c o l l o q u i a l Hebrew does no t func t ion a s sentence nega t ion , b u t on ly a s t h e nega t ive coun te rpa r t o f - ~ e 8 . Accordingly, it t o o a s s igns Accusative Case :

ii. eyn et ha-sefer ha-ze ba - s i f r i a

NEG ACC t h e book t h i s in- the l i b r a r y

'There i s n ' t a copy o f t h i s book i n t h e l i b r a ry . '

( i i ) is unambiguous, u n l i k e ( i ) . A s i n Engl ish, t h e r e is no nega t ive coun te rpa r t t o t h e lllistll reading. That has probably t o do with t h e f a c t t h a t under t h e lllistll read ing sen tences a r e no t used t o make a s s e r t i o n s , bu t t o c a r r y out some s p e c i a l speech ac t .

Case marked, s i n c e t h e s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n is a s s i g n e d Case by AGR. 1 3

When INFL is a d j o i n e d t o d , 1 4 AGR shows up a s a c l i t i c b y a b s o r b i n g

t h e Nom Case f e a t u r e a s s i g n e d b y ye8. I f AGR d o e s n ' t a b s o r b it, t h e

c o s u p e r s c r i p t i n g c h a i n ( e J , NPJ) i s a s s i g n e d Case twice, and v i o l a t e s

t h e Case F i l t e r . The s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h (34b) is

( 6 a ) , r e p e a t e d be low a s (36):15

(36 yeX+nam h a r b e s f a r i m ( b a - s i f r i a )

CL C3rd .masc . p l l many booksCmasc1 i n - t h e l i b r a r y

'The re are many books ( i n t h e l i b r a r y ) .'

m o v e 4 c a n a p p l y t o move NP t o s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n i n (34b) b u t

n o t i n ( 3 4 a ) :

13see Chomsky (1981 , c h a p t e r 4 ) f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f c o s u p e r s c r i p t i n g c h a i n s . U n l i k e t h e case i n c h a i n s , c o s u p e r s c r i p t i n g c h a i n s do n o t i n v o l v e b i n d i n g , b u t are r e l e v a n t o n l y f o r t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f Case and @-ro le .

1 4 0 r - yeX a d j o i n e d t o INFL

151n ( 3 6 ) , t h e NP a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e c l i t i c is n o t an empty c a t e g o r y b u t a l e x i c a l c a t e g o r y . T h i s i s a case o f c l i t i c d o u b l i n g , c f . Bore r ( 1981 ) , Aoun ( 1981 ) and r e f e r e n c e s c i t e d t h e r e . Fo l lowing Aoun, I w i l l assume t h a t i n t h i s case e i t h e r t h e c l i t i c i s a non- a rgumen t , o r t h e c l i t i c and NP p o s i t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h it do n o t form a c h a i n .

I n (37a). Case i s assigned t o the chain twice. I n (37b). the c l i t i c

absorbs the Case assigned by &. (37b) i s what we cal led i n t he

introduction section a locat ive sentence. 16

Consider (38) and (39). (38) is an ex i s t en t i a l sentence; the

theme is - wh-moved from object position. (39) i s ambiguous; the theme

can be - wh-moved from object posit ion, as i n (39b) ( ex i s t en t i a l

reading), or it can be f i r s t moved t o subject posit ion, and then

wh-moved from subject posit ion, as i n (39c) ( loca t ive reading) . -

(38) a. kama ana8im ye8 b e t e l aviv

how-many people i n Tel-Aviv 'How many people a re the re in Tel-Aviv?'

b. [kama anaximli [INFL e Cyex ei be-tel avivl l

(39 a. kama ana8im yeS+nam be t e l aviv

how-many people CL i n Tel-Aviv 'How many people a re there i n Tel-Aviv?'

or 'How many people are in Tel-Aviv?'

b. [hama andim]! [ e j [ye&nam e i be-tel avivl

c. [kama ana~im]; [eJ lYe&nam e? be-tel avivl

We are now i n a position t o account for the asymmetries

6~ similar derivation of locat ive sentences from ex i s t en t i a l sentences i s proposed for English i n Stowell (1978).

between ye8 and eyn no ted i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n s e c t i o n . eyn is a - p a r t i c l e which is p a r t o f INFL ( c f . Chap te r 2 ) . U n l i k e - - ye8, eyn is

n o t a Case a s s i g n e r . T h e r e f o r e , when - eyn r e p l a c e s &,I7 t h e theme

is Case marked by INFL, n o t by eyn: 18 -

(40 )

[INFL eyn l e CNP (PPII

A s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e is (101 , r e p e a t e d be low a s ( 4 1 ):

(41 ) eyn h a r b e s f a r i m b a - s i f r i a

NEG many books i n - t h e l i b r a r y

'The re a r e n ' t many books i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

I f t h e c l i t i c a s s o c i a t e d w i t h - eyn shows up, it a b s o r b s Case

a s s i g n e d by INFL. The c h a i n (ami, e i ) i s t h e r e f o r e a s s i g n e d Case,

b u t h a r b e s f a r i m i s n ' t , t h u s v i o l a t i n g t h e Case F i l t e r :

(42 1 * eyn+ami ei [ h a r b e s f a r i m b a - s i f r i a l

NEG+CL[3rd .masc . p l . 1 [many books i n - t h e l i b r a r y 1

I f h a r b e s f a r i m is co indexed w i t h t h e s u b j e c t , t h e Case F i l t e r is

s a t i s f i e d , s i n c e t h e c h a i n ( - ami, ei, h a r b e s f a r i m i ) c o n t a i n s a Case-

marked p o s i t i o n :

is i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h - j u s t a s it is i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a n y v e r b a l form t h a t can be marked f o r t h e f e a t u r e [ p e r s o n ] .

181 l e a v e open t h e q u e s t i o n o f whe the r i n ( 4 0 ) t h e s u b j e c t and t h e theme form a c o s u p e r s c r i p t i n g c h a i n .

(43) * eyn+ami ei [harbe sfar imi ba - s i f r i a l

NEG+CL[3rd .masc .p l .I [many books in- the l i b r a r y ]

(43) is ru led out by t h e @-c r i t e r ion . The cha in

(ami, e i , harbe sfar imi) con ta in s two arguments: - ami and

harbe sfar imi .19 (43 ) can be salvaged by moving t h e theme t o sub jec t

p o s i t i o n and then t o t o p i c pos i t i on :

ha-sfarimi eyn+ami ei [e i b a - s i f r i a l 'The books a r e n ' t i n t h e l i b r a r y . '

The cha in (ami, - e i , ei) i n (44) s a t i s f i e s t h e Case F i l t e r a s d i d t h e

cha in i n (43 ) . I t s a t i s f i e s t h e @-c r i t e r ion s i n c e it c o n t a i n s on ly

one argument, namely - ami, t h e v a r i a b l e bound by ha-sfarimi. Both - e i s

i n t h e cha in a r e anaphors. 2 0

(45a) is an i n t e r r o g a t i v e coun te rpa r t of ( 4 4 ) , and is

t h e r e f o r e a l o c a t i v e cons t ruc t ion .

a. [eyze s f a r iml i [eyn+nami ei Lei ba - s i f r i a l l

what books NEG CL in- the l i b r a r y 'Which books a r e n ' t i n t h e l i b r a r y ? '

19cf . Chapter 3 f o r t h e t rea tment of c l i t i c s i n INFL a s ltchainedV t o t h e s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n , and f o r t r e a t i n g t h e s e c l i t i c s a s arguments.

20ha-sfarimi is not p a r t of t h e cha in , s i n c e it is i n t o p i c pos i t i on .

b. [eyze sfarimli [eyn e Lei ba - s i f r i a l I what books NEG in-the l ib ra ry

(45b) i s only ex is ten t ia l . The - wh-phrase i s moved t o COMP d i r ec t l y

from i t s predicate posit ion, i .e . the variable i s ei.

6.3.2 Possessive sentences

6.3.2.1. NP complements of

Going back to the s t ructure i n (34a), notice tha t it has a

para l le l with PP occupying the subject position:

(46 a. INFLPP [yeSNPI

b. le-dani [yex harbe sfariml 'Dani has many books .I

The para l le l t o (34b) is ungrammatical:

(47) a . * INFL P P ~ [ Y ~ ~ + C L N P ~ I

b. * le-danij ~ ~ e L n a m [harbe s fa r iml j l t o Dani CL many books

The cosuperscripting chain (dan i j , harbe sfarimj) contains two

arguments.

A s noted i n (33) , Raising of the theme is impossible i n

possessive sentences. Consider (48), the S-Structure of (33a):

(48) * [harbe s f a r imI i asuyim CSle-dani [ l i h y o t e i l l

many books may t o Dani to-be

The governing ca tegory f o r t h e anaphor ei is t h e embedded S. (48)

v i o l a t e s t h e b ind ing theo ry , s i n c e ei is not bound i n i ts governing

ca tegory .

6.3.2.2. S e n t e n t i a l complements o f ye%

ye8 can a l s o t ake s e n t e n t i a l complements:

(49) a . ye?i! Se ha - 8amayim mit'anenim

t h a t t h e sky cloud-up 'It sometimes happens t h a t t h e sky c louds up.'

b. ye8 l i x t o v xibur to-wri te composition

'One has t o write a composition.'

I assume t h a t t h e D-Structure o f (49a) i s (50):

(50) INFL e [ye3 S ' ]

What is t h e D-Structure f o r (49b)? There seem t o be two

p o s s i b i l i t i e s , namely (51a) and (51b) .

(51) a. INFL PRO [ ye!l [ V p l i x t o v x ibu r l 1

(49b) has p a r a l l e l s i n o t h e r t e n s e s , where PRO o f (51a) would

be governed:

(52 a. haya l i x t o v xibur

was to-wri te composition 'One had t o w r i t e a composition.'

b. yihye l i x t o v xibur will-be to-wri te composition 'One w i l l have t o w r i t e a composition.'

I t h e r e f o r e t a k e t h e D-Structure o f (49b) t o be (51b). Another

i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e c o r r e c t D-Structure f o r (49b) and (52) i s (51b)

i s t h a t t h e tensed forms of h.y.y. i n (52) a r e i n t h i r d person

masculine s i n g u l a r , which is t h e agreement form f o r t h e e x p l e t i v e

sub jec t :

(53 a . haya kage l i x t o v x ibu r

was hard to -wr i te composition 'It was hard t o w r i t e a composition.'

b. yihye kaxe l i x t o v xibur will-be hard to-wri te composition 'It w i l l be hard t o w r i t e a composition.'

Consider t h e fol lowing con t r a s t :

(54) a . * asuyim le-dani l i h y o t sfar im rabim

may[pll t o Dani to-be books many

b. asuyim l i h y o t le-dani sfar im rabim

mayCpl1 to-be t o Dani books many

'Dani may have many books.'

The s t r u c t u r e o f (54a) i s (55) . The mat r ix verb agrees i n

f e a t u r e s with s fa r im rabim, which i n d i c a t e s t h e ex i s t ence of t h e

cosupe r sc r ip t i ng cha in . 2 1

(55) * e j asuyim [ le -dani [ l i h y o t [ s f a r i m r a b i m l j l l

may t o Dani to-be books many

(55) i s ungrammatical s i n c e t h e cosupe r sc r ip t i ng cha in

( e j , s f a r im rabimj) i s marked f o r Case twice.

(54b) can be accounted f o r i f it has t h e fol lowing s t r u c t u r e :

(56) e$ asuyim [e$ l i h y o t [ l e -dani [ s f a r im rab iml j ]

may t o be "to Dani books many

So i s a small c l a u s e complement o f h . y . ~ . . ~ ~ Assuming ve rbs i n Hebrew

2 1 ~ i n c e s fa r im rabim is an R-expression and cannot not be bound, it i s cosuperscr ip ted r a t h e r than cosubscr ip ted with - e.

2 2 ~ h e r e is a l s o a p a r a l l e l s t r u c t u r e wi th a f u l l c l ause complement:

ei asuy lei l i h y o t re [ le-dani s f a r im rabim]]

may to-be t h a t t o Dani books many 'It may be t h a t Dani has many books.'

do not assign Case across a sen ten t ia l boundary, sfarim rabim can

only s a t i s f y the Case F i l t e r by v i r tue of par t ic ipat ing i n a chain

with the empty categories. The chain ( e J , e J , sfarim rabimj) is

assigned Nom Case by the AGR node of the matrix clause. The D-

Structure for (56) is therefore:

(57) e asuyim [ e l ihyot [le-dani sfarim rabimll

may to-be t o Dani books many

Move-Q derives (56) from (57) by Raising the second - e , which is

cosuperscripted with the theme, t o the matrix subject position.

Raising of the theme is impossible not only i f the s t ructure

is as i n (48), but a l so i f it is as i n (561, where the theme is i n a

small clause:

(58

* [sfarim rabimli asuyim [ e J l ihyo t [ 1e-dani eJ11 many books may So t o Dani to-be

(58) i s minimally d i f f e r en t from (59):

(59) Ceylu sfariml! red asuyim [ e i l ihyo t isle-dani eJ11 'What books might Dani have?'

Assuming t ha t So is the governing category for the rightmost - e i , (58)

is excluded, since t ha t t r a ce i s an anaphor not bound i n i t s

governing category. (59) is allowed, since - e i i n t h i s case is a -

var iable loca l ly A-bound by the wh-phrase eyze sfarim. -

6.4 Conclusion

Exis tent ia l and possessive sentences i n Hebrew have

predicates t ha t are referr ing NPs (what we have been ca l l ing theme).

Referring NPs i n predicate posit ion have t o be assigned Case and a

@-role. I n sect ions 2 and 3 we offered a t en t a t i ve account for

@-role assignment t o the theme. We discussed Case assignment t o the

theme by INFL, Aux, and the special pa r t i c l e - ye%. We predicted the

appearance of AGR as a c l i t i c i n these sentences i n case the theme

and the c l i t i c are assigned Case independently. I n negated

sentences, the c l i t i c shows up j u s t i n case the theme i s fronted t o a

topic posit ion. This follows from the f a c t t ha t - eyn, unlike ye%,

does not assign Case to the theme.

B i b l i o g r a p h y

Aoun, J. (1981) - The Formal Nature - o f Anaphoric R e l a t i o n s , MIT PhD

Diss.

B a l t i n , M.R. (1978) Toward - a Theory - of Movement Rules , MIT PhD Diss.

B a l t i n , M.R. (1982) " A Landing S i t e Theory of Movement Rules,"

L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 1 3 , 1-38.

Barwise, J . and R. Cooper (1981) "General ized Q u a n t i f i e r s and Na tura l

Language," L i n g u i s t i c s - and Ph i losophy 4 , 159-21 9.

Barwise, J. and J. P e r r y ( t o a p p e a r ) S i t u a t i o n s - and A t t i t u d e s , MIT

P r e s s .

B e l l e t t i , A. and L. R i z z i (1981) "The Syntax of - ne: Some T h e o r e t i c a l

I m p l i c a t i o n s ," - The L i n g u i s t i c Review 1 , 11 7-154.

Berman, R.A. ( 1978) Modern Hebrew S t r u c t u r e , U n i v e r s i t y P u b l i s h i n g

Pro j e c t s , Tel-Av i v . Berman, R.A. and A.Grosu (1976) "Aspects o f t h e Copula i n Modern

Hebrew," i n P. Cole , ed ., S t u d i e s - i n Modern Hebrew Syntax - and

Semant ics , North-Holland . Borer , H. (1 979) " R e s t r i c t i v e R e l a t i v e Clauses i n Modern Hebrew,"

m s . , MIT.

Bore r , H. (1981) P a r a m e t r i c V a r i a t i o n - i n C l i t i c C o n s t r u c t i o n s , MIT

PhD Diss. .

198

Borer, H. ( t o appear ) Parametr ic Var ia t ion - i n C l i t i c Construct ions,

Reidel , Dordrecht . Burzio, L. (1 981 ) I n t r a n s i t i v e -- Verbs and I t a l i a n A u x i l i a r i e s MIT PhD

Diss.

Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects -- of t h e Theory - of Syntax, MIT.

Chomsky, N. (1970) llRemarks on Nominalization," i n R. A. Jacobs and

P. S. Rosenbaum, eds. , Readings - i n Engl i sh Transformational

Grammar, Ginn, Waltham, Mass.

Chomsky, N. (1976) l lConditions on Rules of Grammar ,I1 L i n g u i s t i c

Analysis 2 , 303-51.

Chomsky, N. (1977a) Essays on Form and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , E l sev i e r

North-Holland , New York.

Chomsky, N. (1977b) "On - wh-movement ,11 i n P. W. Culicover , T. Wasow,

and A. Akmajian, eds. , Formal Syntax, Academic P re s s , New

York.

Chomsky, N. (1 981 ) Lec tu re s - on Government - and Binding, Fo r i s .

Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts - and Consequences -- o f t h e Theory - o f

Government - and Binding, L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y Monograph 6 , MIT.

Donnellan, K. (1 966 ) "Reference and Def in i t e Descr ip t ions , I1

Ph i losophica l Review LXXV, 281 -304.

Doron, E. (1982) "The Syntax and Semantics o f Resumptive Pronouns."

Texas L i n g u i s t i c s Forum 19.

Eid, M . (1983) "The Copula Function o f Pronouns,ll Lingua 59, 197-207.

Emonds, J . (1978) llThe Verbal Complex V1-V i n French," L i n g u i s t i c

I n q u i r y 9 , 151-175.

Engdahl , E. (1980) The Syn tax and Seman t i c s - o f Q u e s t i o n s - i n Swedish,

U . Mass. PhD D i s s .

Evans, G. (1980) pronoun^,^^ L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y 11 , 337-62.

Fodor , J .D. ( 1970) The L i n g u i s t i c D e s c r i p t i o n - o f Opaque C o n t e x t s ,

Unpubl i shed Ph.D. Diss, MIT.

Fodor , J .D . and I. Sag (1982) " R e f e r e n t i a l and Q u a n t i f i c a t i o n a l

I n d e f i n i t e s ,I1 L i n g u i s t i c s - and P h i l o s o p h y 5 , 355-98.

Geach, P.T. (1 968) R e f e r e n c e and G e n e r a l i t y , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y

P r e s s , I t h a c a .

Givon, T. (1976) IIOn t h e VS Order i n I s r a e l i Hebrew: P r a g m a t i c s and

T y p o l o g i c a l Change," i n i n P.Cole, ed . , S t u d i e s - i n Modern

Hebrew Syn tax and S e m a n t i c s , North-Holland.

G r o e n e n d i j k , J., T. J a n s e n and M. S tokhof (1981) Formal Methods - i n

t h e S t u d y o f Language: P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e T h i r d Amsterdam - - ---

Col loquium, The Mathemat ica l C e n t e r , Amsterdam.

Hankamer , J. (1 973) I IUnacceptable Ambiguity,I1 L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y 4 ,

1 7-68.

H i g g i n s , F.R. (1976) - The P s e u d o - c l e f t C o n s t r u c t i o n - i n E n g l i s h ,

I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y L i n g u i s t i c s Club. -

J a c k e n d o f f , R. (1977) - X-Syntax: - - - A S t u d y o f P h r a s e S t r u c t u r e ,

L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y Monograph 2 , MIT.

J a e g g l i , O.A. (1980) -- On Some P h o n o l o g i c a l l y - n u l l Elements - i n Syn tax ,

MIT PhD d i s s .

J e s p e r s e n , 0. (1965) - The P h i l o s o p h y - o f Grammar, Norton L i b r a r y , New

York.

Kamp, H. (1981) " A Theory o f T r u t h and Seman t i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n , l l i n

Groenend i j k e t a1 , 1981 . Kayne, R.S. (1975) F rench Syntax: - t h e T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Cyc le , MIT.

Kayne, R.S. ( 1 980) " E x t e n s i o n s o f B ind ing and Case-Marking,"

L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y 1 1 , 75-96.

Kayne, R.S. (1981 "ECP Ex tens ions , " L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y 12 , 93-133.

Kayne, R.S. (1981a ) "Unambiguous P a t h s , " i n J. Koster and R. May,

e d s . , L e v e l s - o f S y n t a c t i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n , F o r i s , Dord rech t .

Kayne, R.S. (1983) "Cha ins , C a t e g o r i e s E x t e r n a l t o S, and F rench

Complex I n ~ e r s i o n , ~ ' N a t u r a l Language & L i n g u i s t i c Theory 1 ,

107-1 39.

Kuroda, S.-Y. ( 1968) l 'Engl i sh R e l a t i v i z a t i o n and C e r t a i n R e l a t e d

Problems," Language 44 , 244-266.

Ladusaw, W.A. (1982) I1Semantic C o n s t r a i n t s o f t h e E n g l i s h P a r t i t i v e

C o n s t r u c t i o n , " i n D.P. F l i c k i n g e r , M. Macken and N. Wiegand,

eds . , P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e F i r s t West Coas t Confe rence i n Formal ----- - L i n g u i s t i c s .

Manzini , M. R. ( 1983 ) "On C o n t r o l and C o n t r o l Theory ," L i n g u i s t i c

I n q u i r y 1 4 , 421-446.

McCarthy, J . J. (1 979) Formal Problems - i n S e m i t i c Phonology - and

Morphology MIT PhD Diss.

McCarthy, J. J. (1981) "A P r o s o d i c Theory o f Nonconca tena t ive

Morphology," L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y 12 , 373-418.

t e r Meulen, A. (1981) "An I n t e n s i o n a l Log ic f o r Mass term^,^' i n

G r o e n e n d i j k e t a l . , e d s . , ( 1 9 8 1 ) .

M i l s a r k , G. (1976) E x i s t e n t i a l S e n t e n c e s - i n E n g l i s h , I n d i a n a

U n i v e r s i t y L i n g u i s t i c s Club.

Mi l sak , G. (1977) ItTowards an E x p l a n a t i o n o f C e r t a i n P e c u l i a r i t i e s o f

t h e E x i s t e n t i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n i n E n g l i s h ,I1 L i n g u i s t i c A n a l y s i s ,

3.1, 1-30.

Montague, R. ( 1 974) "The P r o p e r Trea tment o f Q u a n t i f i c a t i o n i n

Ord ina ry E n g l i s h ," i n R. Thomason, ed . Formal Ph i losophy , Yale

UP, New Haven.

P e s e t z k y , D. ( 1 982) wComplement izer - t race Phenomena and t h e

Nominative I s l a n d C o n d i t i ~ n , ~ ~ - The L i n g u i s t i c Review 1 ,

297-344.

P o l l o c k , J.-Y. (1982) "Sur Q u e l q u e s P r o p r i e t e s d e s P h r a s e s

C o p u l a t i v e s en F r a n c a i s . " m s . , P a r i s 12.

P o s t a l , P. ( 1971 ) -- Cross-over Phenomena, H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Wins ton,

New York.

Q u i n e , W.v.0. (1960) -- Word and O b j e c t , MIT P r e s s .

R i z z i , L. (1982) I s s u e s - i n I t a l i a n S y n t a x , F o r i s .

R e i n h a r t , Y. (1976) - The S y n t a c t i c Domain - o f Anaphora, MIT PhD Diss.

R e i n h a r t , T. (1979) I1A Second COMP P o s i t i o n , " p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e

1979 GLOW c o l l o q u i u m , P i s a .

R u b i n s t e i n , E. ( 1968) ha-mixpat ha-semani: iyunim b e - t a x b i r m a n e n u , - - - Hakibbu tz Hameuchad .

S a f i r , K. (1982) S y n t a c t i c Chains -- and t h e D e f i n i t e n e s s E f f e c t , MIT

PhD Diss.

S t o w e l l , T.A. (1978) "What was There B e f o r e There was There?" i n

D. Farkas e t a l s , eds. Proceedings - - from t h e Fourteenth

Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguis t ic Society.

Stowell, T.A. (1981 Origins - of Phrase S t ruc tu re , MIT Ph.D. Diss.

Tobin, Y. (1982) "Asserting One's Existence i n Modern Hebrew," Lingua

Wasow, T. ( 1979) Anaphora - i n Generative Grammar, E. Story-Sciencia,

Gent.

Williams, E. ( 1983) "Semantic vs. Syntac t ic Categories,". L ingu i s t i c s

and Philosophy 6 , 423-446. -

Ziv, Y. (1982a) "On So-called f E x i s t e n t i a l s f : a Typological P r ~ b l e m , ~ ~

Lingua 56, 261-82.

Ziv, Y. (1982b) "Another Look a t Def in i t e s i n existential^,^^ Journal

o f L i n g u i s t i c s 18, 73-88. -

Zwicky, A.M. (1977) "On C l i t i c ~ , ~ ~ Indiana University L ingu i s t i c

Club, Bloomington, Indiana.

T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n was t y p e d by t h e a u t h o r u s i n g t h e S c r i b e document f o r m a t t i n g s y s t e m c r e a t e d by B r i a n K. Re id . The c u r r e n t v e r s i o n h a s been m a i n t a i n e d and enhanced by U n i l o g i c , L td . The S c r i b e f o r m a t d e f i n i t i o n s f o r t h e s i s format f o r The U n i v e r s i t y of Texas a t A u s t i n w e r e d e v e l o p e d by R i c h a r d M. Cohen.

f o r m a t t i n g system c r e a t e d by Br ian K. Reid. The c u r r e n t v e r s i o n has been main ta ined and enhanced by U n i l o g i c , Ltd. The S c r i b e format d e f i n i t i o n s f o r t h e s i s format f o r The U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas a t Aus t in were developed by Richard M. Cohen.