1

TAU Colloquium

March 13, 2014

Hebrew verbless sentences revisited Ilona Spector Shirtz

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Ilona.spector@gmail.com

0. Outline of the talk:

Introduction:

Data: Hebrew nominal sentences with PronH and PronZ

Previous analyses briefly

My proposal: PronH is a copula, PronZ is a subject.

Sentences containing them are Broad Subject constructions.

Broad subjects:

General

H and Z sentences as Broad Subject sentences

Obligatoriness of H in equatives

Obligatoriness of H with bare singulars and ILPs

Z is a narrow subject

Z is a weak pronoun

A new typology of Z in Hebrew

Conclusions

1. Introduction

1.1. Data

Hebrew exhibits two types of copular sentences:

1. Sentences with pronoun hu (Doron 1983, 1986; Rothstein 1995, 2001; Sichel 1997;

Shlonsky 2000; Heller 1999, 2002; Greenberg 2002, 2008). Henceforth H sentences.

2. Sentences with pronoun ze (Sichel 1997; Heller 1999, 2002; Greenberg 2008;

Danon 2012, in press). Henceforth Z sentences.

(1) a. dani hu/ze ha-xaver haxi tov šeli

Dani H/Z the-friend best my

„Dani is my best friend‟.

b. rica hi/zot pe‟ilut bri‟a

running H/Z activity healthy

„Running is a healthy activity‟.

c. dani hu/ze baxur gavoha

Dani H/Z guy tall

„Dani is a tall guy‟. (Greenberg 2008)

2

Differences between H and Z sentences:

i. Agreement:

H agrees with the subject1, Z agrees with the predicate or remains in its masc.sgl.

default form:

(2) a. ha-parcufim Sela hem/*hi bdixa

the-facesmasc.pl. her Hmasc.pl./Hfem.sgl. jokefem.sgl.

„Her faces are a joke‟.

b. ha-parcufim Sela *ele/ze/zot bdixa

the-faces her Zpl./Zmasc.sgl./Zfem.sgl. jokefem.sgl.

„Her faces are a joke‟.

When the predicate is AP, this AP agrees with the subject in H sentences, but not in Z

sentences:

(3) a. banana hi teima/*hu taim

banana Hfem.sgl. deliciousfem.sgl./Hmasc.sgl. deliciousmasc.sgl.

„Banana is delicious‟.

b. banana *zot teima/ze taim

banana Zfem.sgl. deliciousfem.sgl./Zmasc.sgl. deliciousmasc.sgl.

„Banana is a delicious thing‟.

ii. Distribution:

While H is not limited by the category of elements that can follow it, Z imposes

restrictions on the range of predicates; Z cannot be followed by an AP or a PP when

agreeing:

(4) a. rina hi talmida/ xaxama/ ba-bayit/ xavera Seli/giveret kohen

Rinafem Hfem studentfem /smart/ at-the-home/ friend my/ Mrs.Cohen

„Rina is a student/smart/at home/my friend/Mrs.Cohen‟.

b. rina zot talmida/ *xaxama/ *babayit/ xavera Seli/ giveret cohen

Rinafem Zfem studentfem /smart/ at-the-home/ friend my/ Mrs.Cohen

„Rina is a student/smart/at home/my friend/Mrs.Cohen‟.

When Z does not agree, (non-agreeing) AP,PP and VP are good:

(5) a. ha-parcufim Sela ze macxik/*macxikim

the-faces hermasc.pl. Z funnymasc sgl.funnymasc pl,

„Her faces are funny‟

1 It can agree with the predicate nominal if the latter is a referential expression (Doron 1983).

3

b. ha-xulcot ze al ha-madaf

the-shirts Z on the-shelf

„The shirts' location is on the shelf‟.

c. la‟alot be-madregot ze yea‟yef et ruti

to-g-up in-stairs Z will.tire acc. Ruti

„To go up the stairs will make Ruti tired‟.

iii. Semantic effects:

Denotation widening (Heller 1999, Greenberg 2008): the subject of non-agreeing Z

sentences undergoes „denotation widening‟, whereby the predicate does not apply

directly to the subject, but to a contextually understood eventuality related to the

subject:

(6) a. yeladim ktanim ze nexmad

children small Z nice

„(Raising/having) small children is nice‟.

b. yeladim ktanim hem nexmadim

children small Hmasc.pl. nice.masc.pl

„Small children are nice‟..

As part of denotation widening, Z sentences can be uttered in contexts where one tries

to classify the subject as belonging to a certain taxonomic class (Greenberg 2008,

Danon 2012):

(7) a. ha-magavot ze ba-ambatya

the-towels Z in-the-bathroom

„The towels' location is in the bathroom‟.

b. ha-magavot hen ba-ambatya

the-towels H in-the-bathroom

„The towels are in the bathroom‟.

Following from this underlying eventuality, the subject of Z sentences can also be

interpreted collectively (Danon 2012):

(8) a. Sney orxim ze meacben

two guests Z annoying

„Two guests is annoying‟.

b. Sney orxim hem me‟acbenim

two guests Hmasc.pl. annoyingmasc.pl.

„Two guests are annoying‟.

In (8a) the reading of two guests is collective. The predicate applies to situations

involving two guests. In (8b) – distributive reading: two specific guests, each of

which is individually irritating.

4

How can we account for all the above differences between H and Z sentences?

Why Z sentences are the ‘odd ones out’ in terms of semantics and agreement?

How are these sentences differ from ∅H/Z sentences?

Why do we need pronominal copulas at all, if Hebrew can form nominal sentences

without them?

1.2. Previous analyses:

H analyses:

Doron (1983): H is not a verb nor a subject, it is an agreement clitic on Infl (To), i.e. a

pronominal copula. H is a theta assigner.

Rapoport (1987): follows Doron, but H is needed for case assignment.

Rothstein (1995): follows Doron, but H is needed for mediating the predication

relation.

Greenberg (2002): Semantic constraint: H sentences are generic, -H sentences are

non-generic. H lexicalizes Gen.

H vs. Z analyses:

Sichel (1997): syntactic analysis. H and Z are both copulas. H is high, in AgrS, and Z

is low in AgrO.

Heller (1999, 2002):H and Z are both copulas. H lexicalizes predication, Z lexicalizes

equation. Z is further divided into agr.Z and non-agr.Z.

Greenberg (2008): Follows Heller + accounts for Z +AP by inserting empty N before

NP.

Danon (2012, in press): Follows Heller and Greenberg‟s H-for-predication Z-for-

equation view. Non agr. Z never agrees with the subject since the subject has no index

features.

No account has answered all the questions and accounted for all the properties of H

and Z sentences successfully.

1.3. My Proposal:

In predicate nominal clauses such as [Subj H/Z Pred], H is a pronominal clitic on T.

Z is a pronominal subject.

In both cases:

(1) Subj is in Broad Subject position

(2) The sentence has an additional Narrow Subject

5

(9) TP 3 Rina TP 3 zoti T‟ 3 T SC

∅ 3 ti 3 studentit

(10) TP 3 Rina TP 3 proi T‟ 3 T SC

hi 3 ti 3 studentit

2. Broad Subjects

2.1. General properties of broad subject sentences:

Specifiers can be generated recursively (Chomsky 1995). Some languages have

multiple SpecTPs, hence multiple subjects. Multiple subjects have been proposed for

Japanese, Modern Standard Arabic and Modern Hebrew (Doron 1995, 1996, Heycock

1993, Doron and Heycock 1999, Heycock and Doron 2003, Alexopoulou, Doron and

Heycock 2004, Doron and Heycock 2010).

(11) mary-ga kami-ga nagai (koto) Japanese

Mary-NOM hair-NOM long (fact)

„Mary has long hair‟.

(12) al-baytu alwan-u-hu zahiyat-un Arabic

the-houseNOM colorsNOM-its brightNOM

„The house has bright colors‟.

(13) ruti sof-a lenaceax Hebrew

Ruti end-her to-win

„Ruti is destined to win‟.

6

The leftmost NP in these constructions is a Broad Subject (heneceforth BS). Its

predicate is a complete sentence with its own subject, a narrow subject (NS).

Recursive predication. The broad subject and the following clause form a predication

relation, the clause denoting a property. A property denotation is achieved by

abstracting on a weak pronoun in the clause (including ∅ in Japanese). The weak

pronoun is bound by the broad subject. Narrow subjects raise to spec-TP from their

thematic position. Broad subjects are merged in situ, forming a predication with the

clause abstracted over.

(14) [TP rina [TP sof-a [T …lenaceax]]]

BS NS

These are not cases of left dislocation (LD). Beside many differences between BS and

LD constructions (such that BS occur in A position, exhibiting subject properties),

only BS and not LD can involve downward entailing quantifiers (15), non-specific

indefinites (16) and wh-elements (17) in BS position:

(15) a. af exad eyn lo zman la-dvarim ha-ele BS

nobody there-is-no to-him time to-the-things the-these

„Nobody has time to these things‟.

a. *No one, I would expect him to be patient LD

b. *nessun uomo, lo ho visto CLLD

no man him have.I seen

„No man, I have seen him‟.

(16) a. paxot anaSim yeS lahem savlanut be-yameynu BS

less people there-is to-them patience in-days.our

„Less people have patience these days‟.

b. *paxot anaSim, hem metaylim ba-rxov LD

less people H walk in-the-street

„Less people, they walk in the street‟.

(17) a. mi yeS lo zman la-dvarim ha-ele? BS

who there-is to-him time to-things the-these

„Who has time for these things?‟.

b. *mi, lo raiti oto? LD

who neg saw.I him

„Who, I didn‟t see him?‟.

This will be used as a diagnostic for BS status of a given sentence, when it is

ambiguous between LD and BS interpretations.

ii. Semantics of BS:

BSs behave like subjects of ILPs. They can be generic but not existential.

7

Milsark (1974):

Weak construal ambiguous Strong construal

A dog three, etc. the, this/that

Sm men several, many neither, both

This gúy bare plurals every, each, all

most

Milsark‟s generalization: DP under a weak construal (e.g. indefinites) cannot combine

with ILP:

(18) *Sm men are tall.

Thus, ILPs can only combine with strong DPs.

Why?

1. Diesing (1992): Mapping Hypothesis:

Material from VP maps into nuclear scope.

Material from IP maps into restrictive clause.

Since SLPs project a Davidsonian event variable (Kratzer 1989, 1995), it must be

bound by ∃ operator in the VP domain (existential closure, Heim 1982). This also

gives weak readings of indefinites, possible only with SLPs.

Subjects of ILPs, on the other hand, cannot reconstruct. They are generated in SpecTP

and mapped onto restrictive clause, outside the scope of existential closure. Thus,

subjects of ILP can receive only a strong construal (such as generic interpretation) and

no existential readings are possible. Subjects of SLP, on the other hand, are generated

in SpecVP and can raise to SpecTP, thus both readings are available for them, since

they reconstruct.

(19) a. Fireman are intelligent.

Gen/*∃ ILP

b. Fireman are available.

Gen/∃ SLP

Broad subjects are similar to subjects of ILP. The BS is merged in situ in higher

SpecTP, and does not raise from inside VP of the clause nor reconstructs. It thus

escapes existential closure.

That is why it cannot be existential, but generic:

(20)a kafe tov ma‟amidim oto lirSut ha-orxim b-a-boker

coffee good stand.cause.3.m.pl. it to-disposal the-guests in-the-morning

„Good coffee is made available to the guests in the morning‟.

8

b * kafe tov he'emidu oto lirSut ha-orxim ha-boker

coffee good stood.cause.3.m.pl. it to-disposal the-guests this-morning

„Good coffee was made available to the guests this morning‟.

2. Ladusaw (1994): ILPs necessarily occur in categorical sentences, thus weak NPs

cannot be their subjects.

Categorical vs. Thetic, after Kuroda (1972):

Thetic: affirmation or denial of material of a judgment. Simple judgment. Presentation

of an entity or eventuality. Basis for judgment: a description. Affirmation or denial of

description (existential commitment).

Categorical: double judgment. First, recognition of that which is to be made the

subject. Second, affirming or denying what is expressed by the predicate about the

subject. The subject is presupposed (presented as an individual) and then a predicate

is predicated of it. Basis for judgment: an object and a property (predication).

Ladusaw: ILPs must be predicates in categorical judgments. The subject of a

categorical judgment cannot be a nonspecific indefinite because its reference is

presupposed. Strong construals are the result of this presupposition. Thus the subject

of ILP must be strong.

Weak readings of indefinites are the result of existential closure because of thetic

mode of judgment. If existential closure is always in the VP, then thetic judgments are

formed from material inside VP.

ILPs are not descriptions, they are properties. So they cannot form a thetic judgment.

BS always combines with a property (a predicate) and always has strong construal (no

∃).

Thus BS is always the subject of a categorical judgment.

2.2. H and Z sentences are BS sentences:

I propose the following structure for H and Z sentences:

(21) a. rina hi studentit

Rina H student

„Rina is a student‟.

b. [TP Rina [TP pro [T hi […studentit]]]]

(22) a. rina zot studentit

Rina Z student

„Rina is a student‟.

b. [TP Rina [TP zot [T ∅ […studentit]]]]

9

For both sentences I argue that Rina is a BS. For H sentences I argue that H is a clitic

on T (after Doron 1983), serving as a pronoun abstracted over, bound by the BS. H is

needed to license pro. Pro is needed for predicate formation.

For Z sentences I argue that Z is a narrow subject. It is a weak demonstrative pronoun,

which cannot be bound by the BS. The BS in Z sentences is licensed by an aboutness

relation. Semantic and agreement properties of Z sentences follow from its weak

status.

In the rest of the talk, I will motivate my proposal.

3. Obligatoriness of H in equatives:

(23) a. dani (hu) nexmad/rofe/ al ha-gag

Dani H nice doctor on the-roof

„Dani is nice/ a doctor/ on the roof‟.

b. dani *(hu) mar kohen

Dani H Mr. Cohen

„Dani is Mr.Cohen‟.

H is optional in predicational sentences. When it is present, it signals a BS

construction. When it is absent, this is a regular subject-predicate sentence. In a

simple sentence (e.g. Dani nexmad), the predicate can combine with the subject DP

directly. Conversely, the predicate can be turned into a derived property which can be

further predicated of the broad subject (Dani hu nexmad). The differences between

the two structures will result in different forms of judgment; the H sentence contains a

BS which signals a categorical judgment.

H is obligatory in equatives. Why?

The postcopular element in equatives is a DP, not a predicate, thus it cannot combine

with the subject DP. In order to make it a predicate, i.e. a function with an open slot, a

pro is inserted. H is needed to license pro.

Licensing of pro: pro is not licensed in Hebrew present tense (Doron 1983, Shlonsky

2009, int.al), because present tense is nominal (no person features), meaning the

inflection is not rich enough to license pro/satisfy the EPP (Taraldsen 1978, Rizzi

1986, Ouhalla 1994, Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 1998, int.al.).

(24) *pro roca tapuax

wantfem.sgl. apple

„Wants an apple‟.

If present tense is provided with person features, pro is possible:

(25) pro eyneni roca tapuax

neg.1.prs. want apple

„I don‟t want an apple‟.

11

However, 3prs. pro is possible only with an antecedent which identifies pro:

(26) a.*pro eyneno roce tapuax

neg.3.prs. want apple

„He doesn‟t want an apple.

b. danii amar Se proi eyneno roce tapuax

Dani said that neg.3.prs. apple

„Dani said that (he) doesn‟t want an apple‟.

Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998): If V has morphology, no need for pro. The

morphology on V satisfies the EPP by raising of V to T, together with its agreement

clitic. No SpecTP is created. However, when V has not enough morphology, the EPP

has to be satisfied by an XP. The XP in this case might be a (referential) pro, as long

as it is properly identified, i.e. provided with reference.

In our case, in nominal sentences there is not enough inflection to license pro since

the predicate has not enough agreement morphology. The BS cannot satisfy the EPP

since it is merged externally. H is then needed to license pro in BS nominal sentences,

providing a bundle of features (H) on T:

(27) a. * pro hu mar kohen

H Mr. Cohen

„Is Mr.Cohen‟.

However, H providing pro with features is still not enough, just as in (26a). pro also

needs a reference. In (26b) this is the long-distance antecedent Dani, and so is in

(27b), where Dani is the BS.

b. dani pro hu mar kohen

Dani H Mr. Cohen

„Dani is Mr.Cohen‟.

In other words, 3prs. pro needs phi-features in addition to reference. Just one of these

two is not enough to license pro. After H provides pro with features, BS then binds

pro, providing it with reference.

4. Obligatoriness of H with bare singulars and ILPs:

Reminder: broad subjects are subjects of categorical judgments and behave like

subjects of ILPs, allowing only strong construal (generic and not existential).

i. Kinds:

Chierchia (1998) – English bare plurals denote plural properties. When they are used

as arguments, they are shifted to kinds.

Doron (2003) – In Hebrew also bare singulars can denote kinds. When definite, the

definite determiner turns them into a kind. However, when they are bare, without

being definite, they can still refer to kinds.

11

When a bare singular refers to kind in Hebrew, H is obligatory:

(28) a. ha-namer (hu) nadir

the-tiger H rare

b. namer *(hu) nadir

tiger H rare

„The tiger is rare.‟

In order to shift a property into a kind, the bare singular needs to occupy the BS

position. BS position signals a categorical judgment, where the subject has a specific

interpretation, since it cannot reconstruct: it is an individual, and not a property which

can be existentially closed. Therefore, a generic kind interpretation is available. The

BS must bind pro, and pro is licensed by H. Thus H is obligatory, just as in equatives.

ii. ILPs

When the predicate is ambiguous between SL and IL readings, the sentence with H

disambiguates it, allowing only ILP interpretation:

(29) a. dani šikor SLP

Dani drunk

„Dani is drunk‟

b. dani hu šikor ILP

Dani H drunk

„Dani is a drunkard‟.

This is expected, since BS behave like subjects of ILPs. When H is present, this is a

BS construction, and the ambiguous predicate is interpreted only as ILP.

5. Z is a narrow subject:

In this section, I argue that Z is a subject, and not a copula. Moreover, I show that Z is

a weak pronoun, thus is different from H (a clitic) and from deictic, strong pronoun Z.

Z, being a weak pronoun, strengthens the proposal regarding its subject status (since

weak pronouns are necessarily XPs and not heads (Cardinaletti and Starke 1999)). In

addition, it explains all the distributional and semantic properties associated with Z

sentences, such as agreement to the right, denotation widening and limitation on the

type of categories licit in the predicate position.

5.1. Z is a subject

On the current proposal, Z in nominal sentences is argued to occupy a narrow subject

position, contra previous proposals to view Z as a copula. Several classic subjecthood

tests confirm this hypothesis.

1. Co-occurrence with haya:

12

(30) a. af malon be-eilat ze lo (haya) ha-xalom Seli

no hotel in-Eilat Z neg. was the-dream my

„No hotel in Eilat was ever my dream‟.

b. af malon be-eilat hu lo (*haya) ha-xalom Seli

no hotel in-Eilat H neg. was the-dream my

„No hotel in Eilat was ever my dream‟.

Z can co-occur with the verb h.y.y („to be‟) in the past tense, which occupies T on

standard assumptions. This follows if Z does not occupy T as well, i.e. if Z is not a

clitic on T. H, on the other hand, is mutually exclusive with haya, it being a clitic on T

(Doron 1983).

2. Co-occurrence with raising verbs:

(31) a. kol beaya ze xaSuv

every problem Z important

„Every problem is important‟.

b. kol beaya ze alul lihyot xaSuv

every problem Z might to-be important

„Every problem might be important‟.

(32) a. kol beaya hi xaSuva

every problemfem.sgl. Hfem.sgl. importantfem.sgl.

„Every problem is important‟.

b. *kol beaya hi alula lihyot xaSuva

every problem Hfem.sgl. mightfem.sgl. to-be importantfem.sgl.

„Every problem might be important‟

The BS [kol beaya] is merged in situ. The narrow subject, on the other hand, raises

from SC. This is especially apparent with raising verbs, as in (b). H, on the other

hand, cannot raise since it is not in subject position. A possible assumption that Z

raises as a copular head would not be feasible here, since this would violate the Head

Movement Constraint (Travis 1984), postulating that heads can move only to closest

c-commanding heads. If Z was a head (i.e. a copula), it could not have moved above

the raising verb, skipping it, but rather should have had to adjoin it, it being the

closest head.

5.2. Z is a weak pronoun

According to Cardinaletti and Starke‟s (1999) familiar typology of personal pronouns,

which is proposed to hold universally, personal pronouns can be divided into three

classes, based on their distribution, morphology, phonology and referential properties:

clitics (XO) – weak pronouns (XP) – strong pronouns (XP)

13

Typology of demonstratives of C&S is similar in terms of weak vs. strong; there are

simple demonstratives (deficient/weak) and intensified demonstratives (strong) in a

given language.

Combining the two typologies in terms of strength, we get the following:

demonstratives (intensified>deficient)> personal pronouns (strong>weak>clitics).

Which one is Z in nominal sentences? Morphologically, it looks like a demonstrative,

similar to ostensive ze („this‟) and its definite counterpart ha-ze („this one‟), located

on the left side of the spectrum. However, Z has been claimed to be a copular head

(i.e. a clitic), meaning it should occupy the right side of the spectrum.

Hypothesis: Z in nominal sentences is somewhere in the middle; it is stronger than a

clitic, but weaker than intensified demonstrative. Our Z is hypothesized to be a

deficient demonstrative. If so, semantic properties, distribution and agreement in Z

sentences naturally follow from Z‟s weak status.

Importantly, Z is not a clitic, meaning not a copula.

First I will argue that Z is a weak pronoun, different from strong pronouns. I will also

argue that Z is different from clitics, which are weaker. Finally I will show that Z is

different from intensified deictic demonstrative Z. In addition, I will argue that

nominal Z itself has two strength values, being weak or medium, refining the

typology of Hebrew demonstrative Z started by Hazout (1994) and Sichel (2001,

2008). Along the way I will demonstrate how this classification of Z enables us to

explain all the „peculiar‟ properties of Z sentences.

5.3. Strong vs. weak vs. clitic

First, let us see that nominal Z is not a clitic, meaning it is not Xo and thus, not a

copula. As opposed to H, which I argued, following Doron (1983), to be a clitic on T,

Z can be stressed:

(33) a. kol exad me-hem ZE ha-atid šelanu

each one of-them Z the-future our

„Every one of them is our future‟.

b. * kol exad me-hem HU ha-atid šelanu

each one of-them H the-future our

„Every one of them is our future‟.

This is a property distinguishing weak pronouns from clitics (C&S 1999, Laenzlinger

and Shlonsky 1997). Clitics can never bear stress. We test with quantifiers that cannot

be interpreted as left-dislocated, since otherwise stressed HU is possible as a

resumptive subject:

c. dani, HU ha-atid šelanu

Dani H the-future our

„Dani, he is our future‟.

14

Now to some aspects w/r to which strong and weak pronouns differ, following C&S:

i. Morphology. Strong pronouns tend to be more morphologically complex and/or

have more allomorphs. When Z is strong, a plural suppletive stem ele/elu/halalu can

be used:

(34) a. ele/elu/halalu yaclixu ba-bxina

Zpl. will-succeed in-the-test

„These/those will succeed in the test‟.

b. dani ve dina *ele/*elu/*ha-lalu/ze ha-xaverim ha-xadaSim Seli

Dani and Dina Zpl. Zmasc.sgl. the-friends the-new my

„Dani and Dina are my new friends‟.

In addition, strong Z has a fem.sgl. allomorph zoti with a pejorative/indifference

flavor:

(35) a. zoti yac‟a im xaver Seli

Zfem.sgl. went-out with friend my

„This one went out with my friend‟.

b. rina *zoti/zot xavera Seli

Rina Zfem.sgl. friend my

„Rina is my friend‟.

These allomorphs are impossible in nominal sentences with Z (This is the colloquial

zoti, and not a cluster of zot+hi).

ii. Phonology. Strong pronouns are phonologically independent, while weak pronouns

form a prosodic unit with an adjacent morpheme and are prone to phonological

processes:

(36) a. zot dafna

Zfem.sgl. Dafna

„This is Dafna‟.

b. ha-xavera Selo zoddafna assimilation

the-friend his Zfem.sgl.+Dafna

„His friend is Dafna‟.

And indeed, the feminine form of weak Z, zot, forms a prosodic unit with the adjacent

DP dafna, while the [t] of zot assimilates to [d] of dafna in voicing. After the strong Z

in (a), on the other hand, there is a small pause in pronunciation.

iii. Coordination. Only strong pronouns can be coordinated:

(37) a. ze ve zot Se Sam mamaS madlikim

Zmasc.sgl. and Zfem.sgl. that there really cool

„This and that one over there are really cool‟.

15

b. *dani ve ruti ze ve zot xaverim

Dani and Ruti Zmasc.sgl. and Zfem.sgl. friends

„Dani and Ruti are friends‟.

iv. Modification. Only strong pronouns can occur with high modifiers (only, also):

(38) a. rak zot yafa

only Zfem.sgl. pretty

„Only this one is pretty‟.

b. *dina rak zot gveret kohen

Dina only Zfem.sgl. Mrs. Cohen

„Dina only is Mrs.Cohen‟.

If Z is weak, it has no reference on its own (no index features). It must have an

antecedent. Maybe the antecedent is BS?

Having established that Z is a weak pronoun, we must not forget that Z is a

demonstrative. Demonstratives are different from personal pronouns in terms of

referential properties. Demonstratives are usually disjoint from any c-commanding

antecedent (BT-C), while personal pronouns must not be co-referential only with local

antecedent (BT-B), and can be anaphoric when weak.

If Z is a demonstrative, it cannot be bound (co-referential) with the BS because the BS

has descriptive content (this would violate BT-C).

5.4 deficient vs. intensified demonstratives

A strong, deictic demonstrative Z is subject to Principle C of BT, i.e. may not be A-

bound (Sichel 2001, 2008):

(39) hii xoSevet Se *zoti ta‟avod heytev.

she thinks that Zfem.sgl. will-work well

„She thinks that this (intended-„she‟) will work well‟.

Strong Z also cannot be bound by a quantifier (i.e. function as a bound variable):

(40) *kol studentit xoSevet Se zoti ta‟avod heytev.

every student thinks that Zfem.sgl. will-work well

„Every student thinks that this (intended-„she‟) will work well‟.

In addition, even when there is no binding, Z can only be co-referential with a

pronoun outside its c-command domain:

(41) a. ha-baxur Se diber itai /*im dinai etmol batuax

the-guy that talked with-her/with Dina yesterday certain

Se zoti hiclixa ba-bxina

that Zfem.sgl. succeeded in-the test

16

„The guy that talked to her/to Dina yesterday is certain that this one succeeded

in the test‟.

b. ha-baxur Se diber im zoti etmol batuax

the-guy that talked with Zfem.sgl. yesterday certain

Se hii/*dinai hiclixa ba-bxina

that she/Dina. succeeded in-the test

„The guy that talked to this one yesterday is certain that she/Dina

succeeded in the test‟.

What are the referential properties of weak nominal Z?

Referential properties of nominal Z can be tested via the interaction with the negation

head eyn. The subject may appear below it, in SpecVP, or raise above it to SpecTP.

When the subject raises, it triggers agreement on eyn, expressed in the form of a

pronominal clitic:

(42) a. eyn ha-xevra mitxayevet be-Sum cura Se hi

neg the-company obligated in-any form that she

lehavtiax haxzarat pritim Se avdu

to-promise return items that got-lost

„The company is not obligated in any possible way to promise to return

any lost items‟.

b. ha-xevra eyn-a mitxayevet be-Sum cura Se hi

the-company negfem.sgl. obligated in-any form that she

lehavtiax haxzarat pritim Se avdu

to-promise return items that got-lost

„The company is not obligated in any possible way to promise to return

any lost items‟.

This is true for referential subjects, such as ha-xevra and is consistent with Shlonsky‟s

(2000) observation that the clitic on the inflecting eyn must be associated with a fully

referential subject NP. When the subject is arbitrary pro, as in impersonal

constructions, this pro cannot raise above eyn:

(43) a. be-xevra zo eyn pro mitxayvim be-Sum cura Se hi

in-company this neg obligate.pl in-any form that she

lehavtiax haxzarat pritim Se avdu

to-promise return items that got-lost

„In this company (they) are not obligated in any possible way to promise to

return any lost items‟.

b. *be-xevra zo pro eyn-am mitxayvim be-Sum cura Se hi

in-company this negmasc.pl. obligate.pl in-any form that she

lehavtiax haxzarat pritim Se avdu

to-promise return items that got-lost

„In this company (they) are not obligated in any possible way to promise to

return any lost items‟.

17

The generalization is, thus, the following: only a referential subject can bind a clitic

on eyn.

With this in mind, we will now examine Z in several types of nominal sentences. This

test will show us whether we are dealing with a referential or non-referential Z.

6. A new typology

6.1 ‘Widener’ Z

Let us first examine Z which appears in predicational sentences. This Z is non-

agreeing and leads to denotation widening (including collective and classificational

readings), therefore is referred to as „widener‟ Z:

(44) a. zvuv ba-marak ze bari

fly in-the-soup Z healthy

„(Having) a fly in the soup is healthy‟.

b. yeladim ze kaSe

children Z hard

„(Having/raising) children is hard‟.

c. agvaniya ze adom /*zot aduma

tomato Zmasc.sgl. redmasc.sgl. / Zfem.sgl. redfem.sgl.

„(A) tomato is red‟.

d. Sney orxim ze meacben /*ele meacbenim

two guests Zmasc.sgl. irritatingmasc.sgl. / Zpl. irritatingmasc.pl.

„(Having) two guests is irritating‟.

With respect to the eyn-test, widener Z in nominal sentences patterns with expletives:

(45) a. ze margiz Se medabrim be-kol ram expletive Z

Z annoying that talk.imprs. in-voice loud

„It is annoying that (people) talk loudly‟.

b. eyn ze margiz Se medabrim be-kol ram

neg Z annoying that talk.imprs. in-voice loud

„It is not annoying that (people) talk loudly‟.

c. *ze eyn-o margiz Se medabrim be-kol ram

Z negmasc.sgl. annoying that talk.imprs. in-voice loud

„It is not annoying that (people) talk loudly‟.

(46) a. zvuv be-marak ze bari „widener Z‟

fly in-the-soup Z healthy

„(Having) a fly in the soup is healthy‟.

b. zvuv be-marak eyn ze bari

fly in-the-soup neg Z healthy

„(Having) a fly in the soup is not healthy‟.

18

c. *zvuv be-marak ze eyn-o bari

fly in-the-soup Z negmasc.sgl. healthy

„(Having) a fly in the soup is not healthy‟.

Z in these examples appears only below eyn, and is unable to bind the agreement clitic

on it. This means that similarly to expletive Z, „widener‟ Z is non-referential. This is

why sentences with non-agreeing „widener‟ Z result in denotation widening; Z cannot

co-refer to the referent of the BS since it has no index features. This follows from the

binding and co-indexation restrictions observed with demonstratives in general; as we

saw, demonstratives observe principle C and cannot be co-indexed with a full DP

antecedent (Sichel 2001, 2008). This means that Z is actually not bound by the BS,

and that is what makes the following sentence ungrammatical:

(47) *dani ze gavoha

Dani Z tall

„Dani is tall‟.

This sentence is grammatical only on the denotation widening reading, meaning

something like „climbing Dani‟ and not that Dani himself is tall. If Z would have been

co-indexed with the referent of the BS, i.e. Dani, we would expect also the referential

reading to be grammatical, meaning that Dani himself is tall.

Widening is derived from the binding restrictions on demonstratives.

Classification interpretation and collective readings are also kinds of denotation

widening, stemming from the weak status of Z. For example, consider Z sentences

uttered in contexts where one classifies objects as belonging to a certain taxonomic

class or a typical location:

(48) a. ha-magavot ze ba-ambatiya

the-towels Z in-the-bathroom

„The towels‟ location is in the bathroom‟.

b. Sney orxim ze meacben

two guests Z. irritating

„(Having) two guests is irritating‟.

(49) a. ha-magavot hen ba-ambatiya

the-towels H in-the-bathroom

„The towels are in the bathroom‟.

b. Sney orxim hem meacbenim

two guests H. irritating

„Two guests are irritating‟.

Z points toward a situation involving towels, and the predicate provides their typical

location. Similarly, Z points toward guests collectively, namely towards a situation

involving two guests. As noticed by Greenberg (2008), the towels do not have to

actually exist for this sentence to be true. This is natural under the current analysis;

„the towels‟ occupy a BS position and since broad subjects cannot reconstruct, they

19

escape an existential closure and behave like subjects of ILPs, thus the sentence does

not make any assertions as to the actual location of the towels, but only to their usual

location.

6.2 ‘Pointer’ Z

In addition to widener Z, there are also nominal sentences containing Z which is

capable of agreement. In the position of the predicate nominal occurs an NP/DP.

These sentences do not result in denotation widening:

(50) a. ha-xavera Seli zot/ze rina

the-friendfem my Zfem/Zmasc Rina

„My friend is Rina‟.

b. dina zot/ze gveret kohen

Dina Zfem/Zmasc Mrs. Cohen

„Dina is Mrs.Cohen‟.

c. rica zot/ze pe‟ilut mesukenet

running Zfem/Zmasc activity dangerous

„Running is a dangerous activity‟.

With respect to „eyn‟, this Z patterns with the strong, deictic Z:

(51) a. zot ima Seli deictic Z

Z mother my

„This is my mother‟.

b. *eyn zot ima Seli

neg Z mother my

„This is not my mother‟.

c. zot eyn-a ima Seli

Z negfem mother my

„This is not my mother‟.

(52) a. ha-xavera haxi tova Seli zot ima Seli pointer Z

the-friend most good my Z mother my

„My best friend is my mother‟.

b. *ha-xavera haxi tova Seli eyn zot ima Seli

the-friend most good my neg Z mother my

„My best friend is not my mother‟.

c. ha-xavera haxi tova Seli zot eyn-a ima Seli

the-friend most good my Z negfem mother my

„My best friend is not my mother‟.

21

Z appears above eyn, binding the agreement clitic pronoun on it. This means that this

Z is referential and does not need an antecedent. Therefore it is not bound by BS.

But why does it agree and why does it appear only with NP/DP?

Hypothesis: Referentiality of this Z is connected to agreement and distribution of the

elements which follow it. Agreeing Z points toward the referent of the predicate

nominal NP/DP. By agreement with it, Z copies its features and becomes referential.

This Z does not result in denotation widening since Z points „to the right‟ and not to

the situation of the BS.

Distribution and agreement:

As to the distribution of elements following both Zs, the strong, deictic Z can appear

also with predicates, while agreeing Z in nominal sentences is limited to appear only

with NP/DP in predicate position:

(53) a. ze dani deictic Z

Z Dani

„This is Dani‟.

b. ze yakar

Z expensive

„This is expensive‟.

c. ze al ha-madaf

Z on the-shelf

„This is on the shelf‟.

d. ze ya‟avod heytev

Z will-work well

„This will work well‟.

(54) a. dina zot gveret kohen/beaya /ha-mora Seli pointer Z

Dina Zfem Mrs.Cohen/problemfem/the-teacherfem my

„Dina is Mrs.Cohen/ a problem/ my teacher‟.

b. *dina zot yafa /ba-bait /ta‟avod heytev

Dina Zfem prettyfem/in-the-house/will-workfem well

„Dina is pretty/ at home/ will work well‟.

This Z is thus different from deictic Z. While the weak, widener Z, points toward a

situation denoted by the BS, this Z points toward the referent of the following

referential NP/DP, therefore let us call it „pointer Z‟. Assuming that Z is always weak

in nominal sentences, pointer Z also starts out weak, meaning no phi nor index

features. Since only NP/DPs have a full set of phi features, they transmit them to Z via

agreeing with it, thus agreement of Z „to the right‟ (since APs and PPs do not have

inherent number and gender, they cannot transmit them to Z, and that is why Z cannot

21

inflect when appearing with those predicates). Z then acquires features and becomes

stronger, but not as strong as deictic Z. Therefore, pointer Z is medium.

This is not the standard agreement where the predicate is probing the subject, but

rather here the subject is the probe and the predicate is the goal, much in the spirit of

Chomsky (1995) for There is a man in the room and Moro (1994, 1997) for expletive

constructions in English and Italian. For example, according to Moro, an expletive

pro in subject position (which is a weak element, as our Z) must have the same

features as the predicate:

(55) a. pro sono io

am I

b. *pro siamo io

are I

c. *pro è io

is I

This pro, being an expletive, has no features of its own, but it must have them in order

to be properly licensed. Thus pro copies phi features of the referential predicate

nominal it is predicated of. An independent evidence for agreement between two DPs

when they are linked by a predicative relation comes from embedded copula-less

Small Clauses in Italian:

(56) Maria considera [SC Gianni amic-o/*i]

Maria considers Gianni friendmasc.sgl./*pl.

„Maria considers Gianni a friend‟.

Similar evidence is available in Hebrew:

(57) rona ro‟a be [SC dani xaver/*xaverim]

Rona sees in Dani friendmasc.sgl./friendspl.

„Rona sees in Dani a friend‟.

Thus, in the same manner that pro copies the features from the predicate nominal it

agrees with, Z copies the features of the NP/DP.

This accounts for the fact that Z agrees. It also accounts for the limited distribution of

elements following this Z. the fact that pointer Z does not have to agree, as opposed to

deictic Z which must agree, also points toward its weak status. Cardinaletti and Starke

(1999) reach a similar conclusion w/r to the English expletive „there‟, arguing it to be

a deficient demonstrative.

Even though pointer Z acquires phi features through agreement with pred. NP/DP, it

still does not have index features. Therefore it is not co-indexed with BS, as expected

from demonstratives. Thus, BS can have no features at all, but Z is still feminine

because it acquired gender from agreeing with the predicate NP:

(58) laruc zot peilut mesukenet

to-run Zfem activityfem dangerousfem

„Running is a dangerous activity‟.

22

The lack of co-reference between narrow subject Z and the BS also explains the

following contrast:

(59) a. ani/at zot iska mecuyenet

I youfem Zfem bargainfem excellentfem

„I am/ you are an excellent bargain‟.

b. *ani/at hi iska mecuyenet

I youfem Hfem bargainfem excellentfem

„I am/ you are an excellent bargain‟.

Because the BS and Z are not coindexed, their features do not have to match.

Therefore (a), with 1/2prs. BS and 3prs.Z is grammatical. In the H sentence, on the

other hand, the copula H must match features to its narrow subject pro. Pro must be

coindexed, and it is - with the BS, that is why mismatch in features between the BS

and the NS is impossible.

If Z is not bound by the BS, how the BS is licensed?

6.3 Licensing of BS

If it is true that Z cannot be bound, how the abstraction of the matrix clause happens?

In BS constructions, the matrix clause needs to be a predicate in order to combine

with BS. In order to build the predicate, we need a variable, which must be bound.

Typically, this variable is a pronoun, which is bound by the BS. But it does not have

to be.

In Japanese, BS are licensed with no overt pronoun, but rather by an „aboutness‟

relation:

(60) New York-ga koosoo-kentiku-ga ooi

New York-NOM high-rise-NOM is-plentiful

„New York has many high-rise buildings‟. (Heycock 1993:169)

In Japanese, the BS does not bind an overt pronoun needed for abstraction, i.e. to

achieve a property denotation needed for the predication relation between the BS and

the clause. Instead, abstraction needed for licensing the BS could be on the implicit

Davidsonian argument. In such a way, Japanese allows sentences in which the Broad

Subject is licensed by an “aboutness” relation. Similarly to Japanese, instead of being

bound by the BS, Z points toward a situation which includes the BS, establishing an

aboutness relation. Predicate formation happens when lambda is binding the Z, Z

being a demonstrative variable.

In BS constructions, the matrix clause needs to be a predicate in order to combine

with BS. Z is the variable needed for building the predicate. Lambda abstraction is

thus made possible, when lambda is binding the Z, Z being a demonstrative variable.

In H sentences, the variable needed for predicate formation is pro. Since pro has

index features, it is coindexed with the BS.

23

6.4 The New Typology of Z

Morphosyntactically, then, there are 3 types of Z: strong deictic Z, medium pointer Z

and weak expletive and widener Z. Functionally, however, we can talk about Z

pointing towards entities (strong deictic and medium pointer Z, both agreeing and

binding a clitic on eyn, i.e. non-weak) and Z pointing towards eventualities (weak

expletive and weak widener Z, both in default masc.sgl form, not able to bind a clitic

on eyn), i.e. bifurcating Z into weak and non-weak, replicating C&S‟s findings:

(61)

demonstratives (intensified>deficient)> personal pronouns (strong>weak>clitics).

Z

3 non-weak weak expletive

3 ze margiz Se..

„It is annoying that..‟ strong medium deictic pointer widener

zot Rina Dina zot gv.Kohen zvuv ba-marak ze mag’il

„This is Rina‟ „Dina is Mrs.Cohen‟. Having a fly in the soup is disgusting‟.

7. Conclusions:

The proposed analysis explains the following:

H is obligatory in equatives because it licenses pro. Pro is needed to form a

predicate to be predicated of BS out of the referential predicate nominal. In

predicational sentences H is optional: whenever H is present, we have a BS

sentence. When no H is present – a regular subject-predicate sentence.

H is obligatory with bare singulars as kinds. To be interpreted as such, the bare

sgl. needs to occupy the BS position. the BS binds pro. H is there to license

pro.

All the „peculiar properties of Z sentences stem from Z being a weak

demonstrative pronoun in a narrow subject position:

Denotation widening happens because Z, as a demonstrative, cannot be bound

by BS and therefore cannot refer to its referent. Instead, there is an „aboutness‟

relation between Z and BS.

Agreement of Z is to the right because Z can agree only with a referential DP

which follows it. Agreement of H is to the left because H agrees with pro and

pro is bound by BS.

Z cannot agree with a predicate AP since the latter has no inherent phi features

and neither does Z, since it is weak.

24

8. References:

Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (1998) “Parametrizing Agr: word order, verb-

movement and EPP-checking.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491-539.

Alexopoulou, T., Doron, E., Heycock, C., (2004). “Broad subjects and clitic left dislocation”.

In: Adger, D., De Cat, C.,Tsoulas, G. (Eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and Their

Effects, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory(59).Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp.

329–358 (chapter 14).

Cardinaletti, A., and Starke, M. (1999). "The typology of structural deficiency: A case study

of the three classes of pronouns." In Riemsdijk, Henk van (ed.),Clitics in the languages

of Europe. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cardinaletti, A., and Starke, M. (1999). "Responses and demonstratives". In Riemsdijk,

Henk van (ed.),Clitics in the languages of Europe . New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chierchia, G. (1998). “Reference to Kinds across Languages”. Natural Language Semantics

6. 339-405.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Danon, G. (2012). “Nothing to Agree on: Non-agreeing subjects of copular clauses in

Hebrew”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59(1–2), 85-108.

Danon, G. (in press). “Ma ze ze? Nituax taxbiri Sel ha-oged “ze” ba-ivrit ha-modernit”. To

appear in Hebrew Linguistics.

Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Doron, E. (1983). Verbless Predicates in Hebrew. PhD Dissertation, The University of Texas

at Austin.

Doron, E. (1986). “The pronominal copula as agreement clitic”. In Syntax and Semantics

(19): 313-332.

Doron, E. (1995). 'Predication by Resumptive Pronouns in Arabic'. IATL 2: Proceedings of

the Tenth Annual Conference of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics. ed. by

A. Mittwoch and M. Hovav. 1-21.

Doron, E. (1996). 'The Predicate in Arabic'. Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar. ed. by J.

Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm and U. Shlonsky. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 77-

87.

Doron, E., (2003). “Bare singular reference to kinds”. In: Proceedings of Semantics and

Linguistic Theory XIII. pp. 73–90.

Doron, E., Heycock, C., (1999). “Filling and licensing multiple specifiers”. In: Adger, D.,

Pintzuk, S., Plunkett, B., Tsoulas, G. (Eds.), Specifiers: Minimalist Approaches. Oxford

University Press, Oxford, pp. 69–89.

Doron, E., Heycock C., (2010). “In Support of Broad Subjects in Hebrew”. Lingua (120), pp.

1764- 1776.

Greenberg, Y. (2002) “The Manifestation of Genericity in the Tense Aspect System of

Hebrew Nominal Sentences”, in Ohalla, J. & Shlonsky, U. (eds.), Themes in the syntax

of Arabic and Hebrew. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Greenberg, Y. (2008). “Predication and equation in Hebrew (nonpseudocleft) copular

sentences”. In: Armon-Lotem, S., G. Danon and S. D. Rothstein (eds.), Current Issues

in Generative Hebrew Linguistics. pp. 161–196.

Hazout, I. (1994). “The Hebrew pronoun ze and the syntax of sentential subjects”. In Lingua

93: 265– 282.

Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Amherst, MA:

University of Massachusetts PhD Thesis.

Heim, I., H. Lasnik and R. May. (1991). Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22:63-

101.

Heller, D. (1999). The Syntax and Semantics of Specificational Pseudoclefts in Hebrew. MA

Thesis, Tel Aviv University.

Heller, D. (2002). “On the Relation of Connectivity and Specificational Pseudoclefts”,

Natural Language Semantics (10.4), pp. 243-284.

25

Heycock, Caroline. 1993. Syntactic Predication in Japanese. Journal of East Asian

Linguistics 2: 167-211

Heycock, C., Doron, E., (2003). “Categorical subjects”. Gengo Kenkyu (123), 95–135.

Holmberg, A. (2005) “Is There a Little Pro? Evidence from Finnish,” Linguistic Inquiry 36:

533-564.

Kratzer, A. (1988). “Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates”. Short conference version

in M. Krifka (ed.): Genericity in Natural Language. Proceedings of the 1988 Tübingen

Conference, SNS-Bericht 88-42, 247-284.

Kratzer, A. (1995).Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates. In G. Carlson and J. Pelletier

(eds.): The Generic Book. Chicago (Chicago University Press), 1995, 125-175.

Kuroda S. Y., (1972). “Categorical and thetic judgments: Evidence from Japanese syntax”.

Foundations of Language 9. 1-37.

Ladusaw, W. A. (1994). “Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong”. In

Proceedings of SALT IV, ed. M. Harvey and L. Santelmann, 220--229. Cornell U.

DMLL, Ithaca, NY.

Laenzlinger C. and U. Shlonsky (1997). “Weak pronouns as LF clitics: clustering and

adjacency effects in the pronominal systems of German and Hebrew”. Studia Linguistica

5, 154-185.

May, R. (1977) The Grammar of Quantification. PhD Thesis, MIT.

Milsark, G. (1974). Existential Sentences in English. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.

Moro, A. (1997). The raising of predicates. Predicative noun phrases and the theory of

clause structure. Cambridge University Press

Rapoport, T. (1987). Copula, Nominal and Small Clauses. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.

Rizzi, L. (1986) “Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro,” Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501-

557.

Rothstein, S. (1995). “Small clauses and copular constructions”. In A. Cardinaletti & T.

Guasti (eds.), Small Clauses, Syntax and Semantics 28. Academic Press: New York pp27-

48.

Rothstein S. (2001). Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Shlonsky, U. (2000). “Subject positions and copular constructions”. In Bennis, Hans,

Everaert, Martin & Reuland, Eric (eds.) Interface Strategies. Pp. 325-347. Amsterdam:

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Shlonsky, U. (2009). “Hebrew as a partial null-subject language”. Studia Linguistica (63.1),

pp. 133- 157.

Sichel, I. (1997). “Two Pronominal Copulas and the Syntax of Hebrew Nonverbal

Sentences”. Texas Linguistics Forum 38, 295- 306.

Sichel, I. (2001). Studies in the Syntax of Pronouns and Features. PhD Thesis, CUNY.

Sichel,I.(2008) “Kinuyim romzim ve-anafora”(=Demonstrative Pronouns and

Anaphora/Hebrew). In G. Hatav (ed.) Balshanut Ivrit Te'oretit (=Hebrew Theoretical

Linguistics). Magnes publishers, Jerusalem, p. 279-307.

Taraldsen, K. T. (1978). “On the NIC, vacuous application, and the that-t Filter”. Indiana

University Linguistic Club.

Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD Dissertation, MIT.