Imagine no possession: John Lennon in the construct statedanong1/conferences/2017-10_Gabi_Danon... · IntroductionandbackgroundNoR-CS?ConstraintsonR-CSNopossessionConclusions TheHebrewConstructState

Introduction and background No R-CS? Constraints on R-CS No possession Conclusions

Imagine no possession: John Lennon in theconstruct state

Gabi Danon

Bar Ilan University

October 16-17, 2017

Imagine no possession: John Lennon in the construct state Gabi Danon


The Hebrew Construct State

The Construct State (CS) is one of the three genitive constructions inModern Hebrew:

(1) tmunatpicture

ha-yeledthe-boy

‘the picture of the boy’

Head initialNo prepositional genitive markerNo overt case morphology



The puzzle: Proper names in CS

Observation: Proper names are often ungrammatical inside CS(Rothstein 2012):

(2) * xatulcat

saraSara

(intended:) ‘Sara’s cat’(3) * mexonit

cargabiGabi

(intended:) ‘Gabi’s car



Previous observations and data

Explicit discussion:Anecdotally mentioned by Borer (1999).Rothstein (2012): First explicit and detailed discussion

Seemingly contradictory examples in the literature:Ritter (1988): maxazot šeykspir ‘Shakespeare’s plays’Borer (1999): ?*tmunat van gogh ‘Van Gogh’s picture’ (slightlybetter in plural?)Borer (2013): tmunat van gogh ‘a picture of Van Gogh’ (but not‘a picture painted by van Gogh’)



Previous observations and data

Explicit discussion:Anecdotally mentioned by Borer (1999).Rothstein (2012): First explicit and detailed discussion

Seemingly contradictory examples in the literature:Ritter (1988): maxazot šeykspir ‘Shakespeare’s plays’Borer (1999): ?*tmunat van gogh ‘Van Gogh’s picture’ (slightlybetter in plural?)Borer (2013): tmunat van gogh ‘a picture of Van Gogh’ (but not‘a picture painted by van Gogh’)



Main claims

There is no ban against PNs in CS.

There is limited productivity of CS with an embedded referentialDP (not just PNs) in contemporary Hebrew.



Main claims

There is no ban against PNs in CS.There is limited productivity of CS with an embedded referentialDP (not just PNs) in contemporary Hebrew.



Background: R-CS and M-CS

The embedded nominal in a CS can be either referential ormodificational (Heller 2002, Borer 2009):

R-CS: Referential embedded DPM-CS: Modificational (non-referential) embedded XP (NP?)



Background: Referential CS (R-CS)

(4) horeyparents.m.p

[ha-yeledthe-boy.m.s

še-šavarthat-broke.m.s

etom

ha-xalon]the-window

‘the parents of the boy who broke the window’(5) menahel

manager.m.s[ha-xanutthe-store.f.s

ha-hi]the-dem.f.s

‘the manager of that store’

The embedded nominal is a referential DP.



Background: Modificational CS (M-CS)

(6) micjuice

[perotfruits

tropiyim]tropical

‘tropical fruit juice’(7) texnay

technician[tanurimovens

veand

mekarerim]refrigerators

‘oven and refrigerator technician’

The embedded phrase is non-referential (NP?)Interpretation: Kind modificationUnlike compounds: Productive and compositional (Borer 2009)



Register

CS usage is not uniform across registers:

M-CS is highly productive even in informal Hebrew, R-CS ismuch more restricted (Ravid & Shlesinger 1995).




What blocks a CS with an embedded proper name (PN)?

(8) * levheart

saraSara

(intended:) ‘Sara’s heart’(9) * ax

brotheršaronSharon

(intended:) ‘Sharon’s brother’

As a referential CS (R-CS)?As a modificational CS (M-CS)?




What blocks a CS with an embedded proper name (PN)?

(8) * levheart

saraSara

(intended:) ‘Sara’s heart’(9) * ax

brotheršaronSharon

(intended:) ‘Sharon’s brother’

As a referential CS (R-CS)?As a modificational CS (M-CS)?



Observation: PN in modificational CS

If a PN can get a modificational reading, it is grammatical in a CS:

(10) miškafeyglasses

JohnJohn

LennonLennon

‘John Lennon glasses’ (but not: ‘John Lennon’s glasses’)(11) kol

voiceDonaldDonald

DuckDuck

‘Donald Duck voice’ (but not: ‘Donald Duck’s voice’)

Also: ragley Maradona (‘Maradona legs’); tisroket Elvis (‘Elvishaircut’); bdixat David Levy (‘David Levy joke’); xiyux JackNicholson (‘Jack Nicholson smile’); etc.

Productivity: Grammatically productive, but requires highly salientshared knowledge.



Observation: PN in modificational CS

If a PN can get a modificational reading, it is grammatical in a CS:

(10) miškafeyglasses

JohnJohn

LennonLennon

‘John Lennon glasses’ (but not: ‘John Lennon’s glasses’)(11) kol

voiceDonaldDonald

DuckDuck

‘Donald Duck voice’ (but not: ‘Donald Duck’s voice’)

Also: ragley Maradona (‘Maradona legs’); tisroket Elvis (‘Elvishaircut’); bdixat David Levy (‘David Levy joke’); xiyux JackNicholson (‘Jack Nicholson smile’); etc.

Productivity: Grammatically productive, but requires highly salientshared knowledge.



PNs: In M-CS but not in R-CS?

Revised puzzle:PNs are allowed in M-CS but not in R-CS.

What’s behind this asymmetry?



PNs: In M-CS but not in R-CS?

Revised puzzle:PNs are allowed in M-CS but not in R-CS.

What’s behind this asymmetry?



Rothstein (2012): No ‘real’ R-CS

Rothstein (2012):The embedded XP in a CS is always an NP and is interpreted as apredicate; there is no truly referential CS involving an < e, e >function.PNs are blocked unless they can denote predicates.



Counterexamples?

PN are possible in a CS in at least the following cases:1 Nominalizations2 ‘Picture/Author CS’3 Embedded geographical PNs



Author CS

(12) šireypoems

le‘aLea

goldbergGoldberg

‘Lea Goldberg poems’ (Rothstein 2012)

According to Rothstein, the PN in this case is predicative (roughly,‘authored by L.G.’).

Claim: Not all instances of ‘author CS’ are modificational;example (12) is different from miškafey John Lennonetc.



Author CS

(12) šireypoems

le‘aLea

goldbergGoldberg

‘Lea Goldberg poems’ (Rothstein 2012)

According to Rothstein, the PN in this case is predicative (roughly,‘authored by L.G.’).

Claim: Not all instances of ‘author CS’ are modificational;example (12) is different from miškafey John Lennonetc.



Background: Definiteness spreading and et

A CS with an embedded definite is also definite.

(13) [tmunatpicture

[ha-yeled]]the-boy

‘the boy’s picture’

Testing for definiteness: The object marker et precedes a directobject iff the object is definite.

(14) ha-xatulthe-cat

rokenemptied

*(et)om

[sakitbag

[ha-ugiyot]].the-cookies

‘The cat emptied the bag of cookies.’(15) ha-xatul

the-catrokenemptied

(*et)(*om)

[sakitbag

[ugiyot]].cookies

‘The cat emptied a bag of cookies.’



Background: Definiteness spreading and et

A CS with an embedded definite is also definite.

(13) [tmunatpicture

[ha-yeled]]the-boy

‘the boy’s picture’

Testing for definiteness: The object marker et precedes a directobject iff the object is definite.

(14) ha-xatulthe-cat

rokenemptied

*(et)om

[sakitbag

[ha-ugiyot]].the-cookies

‘The cat emptied the bag of cookies.’(15) ha-xatul

the-catrokenemptied

(*et)(*om)

[sakitbag

[ugiyot]].cookies

‘The cat emptied a bag of cookies.’



M-CS with a proper name: No et

PNs on their own are definite:

(16) hishe

loneg

makiraknows

*(et)*(om)

[JohnJohn

Lennon].Lennon

‘She doesn’t know John Lennon.’

But in a M-CS with PN, there is no definiteness spreading:

(17) huhe

kanabought

(*et)(*om)

[miškafeyglasses

[JohnJohn

Lennon]].Lennon

‘He bought John Lennon glasses.’(18) ata

youyode‘aknow

la‘asotmake.inf

(*et)(*om)

[kolvoice

[DonaldDonald

Duck]]?Duck

‘Do you know how to make a Donald Duck voice?’



M-CS with a proper name: No et

PNs on their own are definite:

(16) hishe

loneg

makiraknows

*(et)*(om)

[JohnJohn

Lennon].Lennon

‘She doesn’t know John Lennon.’

But in a M-CS with PN, there is no definiteness spreading:

(17) huhe

kanabought

(*et)(*om)

[miškafeyglasses

[JohnJohn

Lennon]].Lennon

‘He bought John Lennon glasses.’(18) ata

youyode‘aknow

la‘asotmake.inf

(*et)(*om)

[kolvoice

[DonaldDonald

Duck]]?Duck

‘Do you know how to make a Donald Duck voice?’



Author CS is not (always) modificational

et is possible with ‘author CS’ (unlike true M-CS with PNs):

(19) aniI

ohevlove

(et)(om)

[šireypoems

[le‘aLea

goldberg]].Goldberg

‘I love L.G poems/the poems of L.G.’

M-CS/R-CS ambiguity?

Conclusion: Author CS is not necessarily modificational.



Author CS is not (always) modificational

et is possible with ‘author CS’ (unlike true M-CS with PNs):

(19) aniI

ohevlove

(et)(om)

[šireypoems

[le‘aLea

goldberg]].Goldberg

‘I love L.G poems/the poems of L.G.’

M-CS/R-CS ambiguity?

Conclusion: Author CS is not necessarily modificational.



Geographical names

Geographical names are perfectly acceptable inside CS:

(20) merkazcenter

londonLondon

‘the center of London’(21) iriyat

municipalitytelTel

avivAviv

‘the municipality of Tel Aviv’



Geographical names: No definiteness spreading

(22) tar‘eshow

lime

*(et)om

merkazcenter

london.London

‘Show me the center of London.’(23) i efšar

impossiblelenace‘axbeat.inf

*(et)om

iriyatmunicipality

telTel

aviv.Aviv

‘It’s impossible to beat the municipality of Tel Aviv.’

et ⇒ Definiteness spreading⇒ Not M-CS



PNs in CS: More common than it seems

Claim: CS+PN is not limited to isolated examples.



Wikipedia treebank

A random sample of 131,328 genitives automatically extracted fromthe Hebrew Wikipedia corpus.

Hebrew Wikipedia Dependency Parsed Corpus (Goldberg 2014):over 3.8M sentences, automatically parsed into dependencystructures.



Wikipedia treebank

A random sample of 131,328 genitives automatically extracted fromthe Hebrew Wikipedia corpus.

Hebrew Wikipedia Dependency Parsed Corpus (Goldberg 2014):over 3.8M sentences, automatically parsed into dependencystructures.



Wikipedia sample: PNs in CS

If a PN is embedded in a genitive construction, how likely is theconstruction to be a CS?

Genitive type Proper name Common noun TotalCS 15,189 (69.7%) 90,391 (82.5%) 105,580Double 3,176 (14.6%) 5,367 (4.9%) 8,543šel 3,420 (15.7%) 13,785 (12.6%) 17,205Total 21,785 (100%) 109,543 (100%) 131,328



Wikipedia sample: PNs in CS

If a PN is embedded in a genitive construction, how likely is theconstruction to be a CS?

Genitive type Proper name Common noun TotalCS 15,189 (69.7%) 90,391 (82.5%) 105,580Double 3,176 (14.6%) 5,367 (4.9%) 8,543šel 3,420 (15.7%) 13,785 (12.6%) 17,205Total 21,785 (100%) 109,543 (100%) 131,328



Intermediate conclusion: R-CS exists, but. . . ?

PNs are quite frequent in CS.Some attested cases are clearly R-CS.

We therefore reject an analysis based on a uniform modificationalsemantics of CS.

Revised question: When is an R-CS with an embedded PNungrammatical?



Intermediate conclusion: R-CS exists, but. . . ?

PNs are quite frequent in CS.Some attested cases are clearly R-CS.

We therefore reject an analysis based on a uniform modificationalsemantics of CS.

Revised question: When is an R-CS with an embedded PNungrammatical?



R-CS: Which relations?

Genitives can express many different relations, e.g:PossessionKinshipSocial relationsPart-whole (e.g., body part, part-whole/meronymy)Thematic relations of derived nounsContextual relations

Can an R-CS denote any relation?



The head of R-CS

Rosen (1957), Dobrovie-Sorin (2000, 2003), Heller (2002), Doron &Meir (2013):

The head noun of a (referential) CS must denote a lexicalrelation.

Example: iša : ‘woman’ (non-relational) or ‘wife’ (relational)

(24) ešetwife

ha-cayarthe-painter.m

‘the painter’s wife’ (adapted from Doron & Meir 2013)

Claim: This is not a sufficient condition for R-CS licensing.



The head of R-CS




(24) ešetwife






The head of R-CS




(24) ešetwife






The head of R-CS




(24) ešetwife






Claim: Semi-productive R-CS

Lexical licensing: R-CS is lexically constrained in ways that cannotbe reduced to simple semantic categories.



Example: Kinship nouns

(25) ešetwife



How productive is this?

(26) */?? ba‘alhusband

ha-cayeretthe-painter.f

(intended:) ‘the painter’s husband’

ba‘al is possible as a R-CS head with the ‘owner’ meaning:

(27) ba‘alowner

ha-toyotathe-Toyota(f)

ha-levanathe-white.f

‘the owner of the white Toyota’




(25) ešetwife








(27) ba‘alowner







(25) ešetwife








(27) ba‘alowner






Example: ‘picture’ and ‘painting’

(28) tmunatpicture

VanVan

GoghGogh

‘the picture of Van Gogh’

(29) * ciyurpainting

VanVan

GoghGogh

(intended:) ‘the painting of Van Gogh’

Proposal: R-CS is possible only for nouns that have their CSvariant stored in the lexicon (e.g., tmunat ‘picture (of)’).



Example: ‘picture’ and ‘painting’

(28) tmunatpicture

VanVan

GoghGogh

‘the picture of Van Gogh’

(29) * ciyurpainting

VanVan

GoghGogh

(intended:) ‘the painting of Van Gogh’

Proposal: R-CS is possible only for nouns that have their CSvariant stored in the lexicon (e.g., tmunat ‘picture (of)’).



‘Borrowing’

Observation: R-CS acceptability is often correlated with frequencyin high register usage.

(30) ozerassistant

ha-sarthe-minister

‘the minister’s assistant’

Compare to R-CS that is unlikely to be ‘borrowed’:

(31) * xaver(boy)friend

ha-šxenathe-neighbor.f

‘the neighbor’s (boy)friend’

Storage effects are expected for a non-productive construction.



‘Borrowing’


(30) ozerassistant

ha-sarthe-minister









‘Borrowing’


(30) ozerassistant

ha-sarthe-minister









So what now? Arbitrary lists?

Are there relations that are systematically absent from the CS?



Hypothesis: No possessive CS

What about possession?Heller (2002): Possible in CSBorer (2013): Not always

Claim: R-CS is no longer productive for possession.



Hypothesis: No possessive CS

What about possession?Heller (2002): Possible in CSBorer (2013): Not always

Claim: R-CS is no longer productive for possession.



Possessives: Productivity of cited examples

(32) kalbatdog.f

šaxenneighbor.m

exadone.m

‘a neighbor’s (female) dog’ (Heller 2002)

(33) kelevdog.m

šxenaneighbor.f

axatone.f

‘a neighbor’s (male) dog’

Native speaker judgments:(33) is noticeably worse than (32), possibly even ungrammatical.

Consequence: Examples like (32) actually argue against theproductivity of possessive CS.




(32) kalbatdog.f

šaxenneighbor.m

exadone.m


(33) kelevdog.m

šxenaneighbor.f

axatone.f







(32) kalbatdog.f

šaxenneighbor.m

exadone.m


(33) kelevdog.m

šxenaneighbor.f

axatone.f







(32) kalbatdog.f

šaxenneighbor.m

exadone.m


(33) kelevdog.m

šxenaneighbor.f

axatone.f






Going beyond anecdotal examples

Methodology: To test whether R-CS is productive for a givenrelation, we cannot rely on cherry-picking ourexamples.



Testing productivity

Suggested methodology: To test productivity of genitives:Select the (semantic) relation R to be tested.Construct 2 sets of nouns for which R issemantically applicable.Check grammaticality of all genitives formed frompairs of nouns out of these sets.



Example: Concrete non-relational N1 + animate N2

Can we freely construct possessive CS? Is the CS as productive asEnglish possessives?

(34) the linguist’s orange/butterfly/keyboard(35) the cat’s orange/butterfly/keyboard(36) the driver’s orange/butterfly/keyboard

N1 – concrete, non-relational: tapuz ‘orange’, parpar ‘butterfly’,mikledet ‘keyboard’, etc

N2 – animate: balšan ‘linguist’, xatul ‘cat’, nehag ‘driver’, etc



Example: Concrete non-relational N1 + animate N2

Can we freely construct possessive CS? Is the CS as productive asEnglish possessives?

(34) the linguist’s orange/butterfly/keyboard(35) the cat’s orange/butterfly/keyboard(36) the driver’s orange/butterfly/keyboard

N1 – concrete, non-relational: tapuz ‘orange’, parpar ‘butterfly’,mikledet ‘keyboard’, etc

N2 – animate: balšan ‘linguist’, xatul ‘cat’, nehag ‘driver’, etc



Testing novel R-CS

(Judgments are for the referential DP2 reading).

(37) * tapuzorange

ha-balšanthe-linguist

(intended:) ‘the linguist’s orange’(38) * mikledet

keyboardha-xatulthe-cat

(intended:) ‘the cat’s keyboard’(39) * parpar

butterflyha-nehagthe-driver

(intended:) ‘the driver’s butterfly

(Note: Making the embedded phrase ‘heavier’ would help avoid theM-CS reading).



Corpus evidence for lack of possessive CS

Possession is limited to human/animate embedded DPs.

Prediction: % CS with human PN < % CS with non-human PN



Corpus evidence for lack of possessive CS

Possession is limited to human/animate embedded DPs.

Prediction: % CS with human PN < % CS with non-human PN



Wikipedia sample: Human PNs

Looking only at the 21,785 genitives with a PN, do human-denotingnames pattern differently than other PNs?

Genitive type Human Unknown TotalCS 1,359 (38.1%) 13,830 (75.9%) 15,189Double 1,500 (42%) 1,676 (9.2%) 3,176šel 711 (19.9%) 2,709 (14.9%) 3,420Total 3,570 (100%) 18,215 (100%) 21,785

Human PNs: Out a given list of roughly 600 frequent names inthe corpus‘Unknown’: Not ‘pure’ non-human



Wikipedia sample: Human PNs

Looking only at the 21,785 genitives with a PN, do human-denotingnames pattern differently than other PNs?

Genitive type Human Unknown TotalCS 1,359 (38.1%) 13,830 (75.9%) 15,189Double 1,500 (42%) 1,676 (9.2%) 3,176šel 711 (19.9%) 2,709 (14.9%) 3,420Total 3,570 (100%) 18,215 (100%) 21,785

Human PNs: Out a given list of roughly 600 frequent names inthe corpus‘Unknown’: Not ‘pure’ non-human



What CS with human PNs do we find?

The corpus sample contains more than 1,300 instances of CS with ahuman PN. What are these?

Names of places: iyey šlomo ‘Solomon islands’Nominalizations: huledet yešu ‘birth of Jesus’Lexical relations: oyvey stalin ‘Stalin’s enemies’Names of abstract entities: xok gaus ‘Gauss’ law’Names of historical periods/events etc: milxamot napolyon

‘Napoleonic wars’Titles (CS?): rabi yosef karo ‘Rabbi Joseph Karo’

And what about possessives?Possessive CS is nearly non-existent.

















Conclusion: Back to proper names

PNs are not blocked in CS; what is blocked in CS is:their use as possessorstheir use with non-lexically-licensed head nouns

(40) * etpen

yaelYael

/ ha-balšanitthe-linguist.f

Intended: ‘Yael’s/the linguists’s pen’ (mod. from Rothstein2012)

(41) * axbrother

šaronSharon

/ ha-šxenathe-neighbor.f

(intended:) ‘Sharon’s/the neighbor’s brother’



Conclusion: Back to proper names

PNs are not blocked in CS; what is blocked in CS is:their use as possessorstheir use with non-lexically-licensed head nouns

(40) * etpen

yaelYael

/ ha-balšanitthe-linguist.f

Intended: ‘Yael’s/the linguists’s pen’ (mod. from Rothstein2012)

(41) * axbrother

šaronSharon

/ ha-šxenathe-neighbor.f

(intended:) ‘Sharon’s/the neighbor’s brother’



Possession differs from lexical relations

Possession and the CS: Possessive relations do not pattern withlexical relations (contra Heller 2002).

Nouns that are lexically possessive (e.g., bayit ‘house, home’) are theexception, not the rule.



Possession differs from lexical relations

Possession and the CS: Possessive relations do not pattern withlexical relations (contra Heller 2002).

Nouns that are lexically possessive (e.g., bayit ‘house, home’) are theexception, not the rule.



Thank you!

Comments are welcome:[email protected]


Documents

Imagine no possession: John Lennon in the construct statedanong1/conferences/2017-10_Gabi_Danon... · IntroductionandbackgroundNoR-CS?ConstraintsonR-CSNopossessionConclusions TheHebrewConstructState