Journal articles
Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution (2011). Syntax 14(4), 297-317. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00154.x
» abstract PDF bibtex
Abstract
An implicit assumption in most Minimalist work is that DP as a whole carries all the phi-features with which external heads agree. In this paper I argue that under this assumption and the assumption that only a node that is phi-complete can delete the phi-features of a node with which it agrees, Chomsky's (2000, 2001) model of feature valuation is incompatible with a large body of work on the DP-internal distribution of phifeatures, according to which neither N nor D enter the derivation being phi-complete. I consider several possible solutions, and argue that this problem can most easily be avoided by adopting a feature sharing model of the operation Agree, as proposed by Frampton & Gutmann (2006) and Pesetsky & Torrego (2007). Finally, several implications for Chomsky's theory of abstract Case are also discussed.
An implicit assumption in most Minimalist work is that DP as a whole carries all the phi-features with which external heads agree. In this paper I argue that under this assumption and the assumption that only a node that is phi-complete can delete the phi-features of a node with which it agrees, Chomsky's (2000, 2001) model of feature valuation is incompatible with a large body of work on the DP-internal distribution of phifeatures, according to which neither N nor D enter the derivation being phi-complete. I consider several possible solutions, and argue that this problem can most easily be avoided by adopting a feature sharing model of the operation Agree, as proposed by Frampton & Gutmann (2006) and Pesetsky & Torrego (2007). Finally, several implications for Chomsky's theory of abstract Case are also discussed.
@ARTICLE{danon2011syntax,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Agreement and {DP}-internal feature distribution},
journal = {Syntax},
year = {2011},
volume = {14},
number = {4},
pages = {297--317},
doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00154.x},
keywords = {syntax, morphology, agreement, case, person, number, gender, DP, NP, feature sharing, features},
url = {http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/papers/Syntax-Agreement_and_DP-internal_feature_distribution.pdf}
}
Definiteness spreading in the Hebrew construct state (2008). Lingua 118(7), 872-906. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.012
» abstract PDF bibtex
Abstract
The Construct State (CS) in Modern Hebrew displays a phenomenon known asDefiniteness Spreading (DS), often characterized as having
the definiteness value of the CS determined by that of its embedded
genitive phrase. This is shown to be an oversimplification: semantically,
DS gives rise to no less than four different interpretation patterns
in definite-marked CSs. We examine the implications of these semantic
facts for a Minimalist analysis of DS in terms of the operation Agree.
It is argued that the formulation of Agree given in Chomsky (2000,
2001) does not provide the tools needed to account for these facts.
A further problem for a syntactic analysis based on Agree is posed
by the structural configuration found with adjectival CS modifiers,
where agreement takes place despite the lack of the c-command relation
required by Agree. This paper argues that both problems can be solved
by viewing the Agree operation as a feature sharing operation, as
proposed independently by several authors. Using this approach, all
four semantic patterns can be derived using an independently motivated
hypothesis regarding the interpretation of features at the syntax-semantics
interface.
The Construct State (CS) in Modern Hebrew displays a phenomenon known as
@ARTICLE{danon2008lingua,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Definiteness spreading in the {Hebrew} construct state},
journal = {Lingua},
year = {2008},
volume = {118},
number = {7},
pages = {872--906},
doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.012},
keywords = {syntax, semantics, definiteness, definiteness spreading, agreement, feature sharing, Hebrew},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.012}
}
Caseless nominals and the projection of DP (2006). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24(4), 977-1008. doi:10.1007/s11049-006-9005-6
» abstract PDF bibtex
Abstract
Modern Hebrew differentiates between definite and indefinite objects, using a prepositional object marker only in front of definites. This article explores the hypothesis that lack of an object marker when the object is indefinite follows from lack of abstract Case on indefinite objects. It is shown that indefinites in Hebrew are allowed in various other positions in which Case seems to be unavailable and in which definites are not allowed, a fact that gets a straightforward account under the proposed hypothesis that indefinites do not require Case. The possibility of having Caseless indefinites is then argued to follow from lack of a DP projection in Hebrew indefinites. The second part of this article aims to show that an analysis of indefinites in Hebrew as lacking a DP projection is indeed possible and can be motivated on independent grounds. This involves a reexamination of the arguments that have motivated the influential N-to-D analysis of Semitic noun phrases. I claim that most previous work on Semitic nominals is in fact compatible with an analysis in which nouns do not raise as high as the D position, and that the hypothesis that indefinites in Hebrew are not full DPs has some explanatory advantages over the view that all construct state nominals in Hebrew are DPs.
Modern Hebrew differentiates between definite and indefinite objects, using a prepositional object marker only in front of definites. This article explores the hypothesis that lack of an object marker when the object is indefinite follows from lack of abstract Case on indefinite objects. It is shown that indefinites in Hebrew are allowed in various other positions in which Case seems to be unavailable and in which definites are not allowed, a fact that gets a straightforward account under the proposed hypothesis that indefinites do not require Case. The possibility of having Caseless indefinites is then argued to follow from lack of a DP projection in Hebrew indefinites. The second part of this article aims to show that an analysis of indefinites in Hebrew as lacking a DP projection is indeed possible and can be motivated on independent grounds. This involves a reexamination of the arguments that have motivated the influential N-to-D analysis of Semitic noun phrases. I claim that most previous work on Semitic nominals is in fact compatible with an analysis in which nouns do not raise as high as the D position, and that the hypothesis that indefinites in Hebrew are not full DPs has some explanatory advantages over the view that all construct state nominals in Hebrew are DPs.
@ARTICLE{danon2006nllt,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Caseless Nominals and the Projection of {DP}},
journal = {Natural Language & Linguistic Theory},
year = {2006},
volume = {24},
pages = {977--1008},
number = {4},
doi = {10.1007/s11049-006-9005-6},
keywords = {syntax, DP, NP, Hebrew, noun phrase, case, definiteness, DOM, definite, indefinite, object marker},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9005-6}
}
משלימים שמניים והשמטת מילות יחס (2006). Hebrew Linguistics 58, 27-44.
» abstract PDF bibtex
Abstract
This article discusses a variety of structures in Modern Hebrew in which a PP argument may sometimes alternate with a nominal one, in what looks like an optional dropping of the preposition. This includes various kinds of verbs belonging to morphological templates that never subcategorize for a DP, as well as certain argument-taking adjectives. An interesting generalization that holds for all these cases is that only indefinite noun phrases may appear without the preposition, whereas definites require the use of the P. This is reminiscent of the fact that definite objects of transitive verbs in Hebrew must also be preceded by a prepositional element, which is not required (and not allowed) in front of indefinite objects.
Assuming that prepositions are Case assigners, the optional P-omission in front of indefinites suggests that indefinites in Hebrew do not require abstract Case. This, in turn, is argued to follow from a structural difference between definites, which are DPs, and indefinites, which are bare NPs in Hebrew. Hebrew is a language which has definite articles but lacks indefinite articles, and this is what allows indefinite noun phrases that do not project a DP level. The generalization is thus that Hebrew allows P-drop in front of NPs but not in front of DPs, because only DPs require Case.
This article discusses a variety of structures in Modern Hebrew in which a PP argument may sometimes alternate with a nominal one, in what looks like an optional dropping of the preposition. This includes various kinds of verbs belonging to morphological templates that never subcategorize for a DP, as well as certain argument-taking adjectives. An interesting generalization that holds for all these cases is that only indefinite noun phrases may appear without the preposition, whereas definites require the use of the P. This is reminiscent of the fact that definite objects of transitive verbs in Hebrew must also be preceded by a prepositional element, which is not required (and not allowed) in front of indefinite objects.
Assuming that prepositions are Case assigners, the optional P-omission in front of indefinites suggests that indefinites in Hebrew do not require abstract Case. This, in turn, is argued to follow from a structural difference between definites, which are DPs, and indefinites, which are bare NPs in Hebrew. Hebrew is a language which has definite articles but lacks indefinite articles, and this is what allows indefinite noun phrases that do not project a DP level. The generalization is thus that Hebrew allows P-drop in front of NPs but not in front of DPs, because only DPs require Case.
@ARTICLE{danon2006hl,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {משלימים שמניים והשמטת מילות יחס},
journal = {Hebrew Linguistics},
year = {2006},
volume = {58},
pages = {27--44},
keywords = {syntax, DP, NP, Hebrew, noun phrase, case, definiteness, DOM, definite, indefinite},
url = {http://www.gabidanon.info/papers/P-deletion_BI.pdf}
}
Quantification over partitions (2005). Snippets 11, 5-6.
» PDF bibtex
@ARTICLE{danon2005kol,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Quantification over Partitions},
journal = {Snippets},
year = {2005},
volume = {11},
pages = {5--6},
keywords = {semantics, quantifiers, determiners, numerals, plural, every, kol, partitions, measure},
url = {http://www.ledonline.it/snippets/index.html}
}
Syntactic definiteness in the grammar of Modern Hebrew (2001). Linguistics 39(6), 1071-1116. doi:10.1515/ling.2001.042
» abstract PDF bibtex
Abstract
Definiteness has often been assumed to play a role in syntax, most notably in relation to various "definiteness effects" and Case alternations (Belletti 1988, De Hoop 1992 and many others). The question whether this involves a semantic property which is relevant in syntax, or an independent syntactic representation of definiteness, remains to a large extent unanswered. This paper shows that, on the one hand, Hebrew provides independent evidence for assuming a definiteness feature in syntax; and on the other hand, this formal definiteness does not simply correlate with semantic definiteness and that there is no simple one-to-one mapping between the two kinds of definiteness. The second part of this paper focuses on the Hebrew object marker et, which appears only in front of DPs having the syntactic definiteness feature. I argue that et fulfills a requirement for structural Case which Hebrew verbs cannot assign, and that this requirement is related to the representation of definiteness as a formal feature and not to any semantic property. In this light I consider Belletti's (1988) theory of abstract Partitive, and show that Hebrew object marking seems to provide evidence against it.
Definiteness has often been assumed to play a role in syntax, most notably in relation to various "definiteness effects" and Case alternations (Belletti 1988, De Hoop 1992 and many others). The question whether this involves a semantic property which is relevant in syntax, or an independent syntactic representation of definiteness, remains to a large extent unanswered. This paper shows that, on the one hand, Hebrew provides independent evidence for assuming a definiteness feature in syntax; and on the other hand, this formal definiteness does not simply correlate with semantic definiteness and that there is no simple one-to-one mapping between the two kinds of definiteness. The second part of this paper focuses on the Hebrew object marker et, which appears only in front of DPs having the syntactic definiteness feature. I argue that et fulfills a requirement for structural Case which Hebrew verbs cannot assign, and that this requirement is related to the representation of definiteness as a formal feature and not to any semantic property. In this light I consider Belletti's (1988) theory of abstract Partitive, and show that Hebrew object marking seems to provide evidence against it.
@ARTICLE{danon2001def,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Syntactic Definiteness in the Grammar of {Modern Hebrew}},
journal = {Linguistics},
year = {2001},
volume = {39},
pages = {1071--1116},
number = {6},
doi = {10.1515/ling.2001.042},
keywords = {syntax, semantics, definiteness, DP, Hebrew, objects, Case, partitive, structural case, inherent case},
}
Chapters in books
The definiteness feature at the syntax-semantic interface (2010). In Features: Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics, Anna Kibort and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), 143-165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
» abstract PDF bibtex
Abstract
In some languages, such as Hebrew, definiteness is encoded as a morphosyntactic feature that not only contributes to the semantics but also plays a role in syntactic operations. In other languages, there is no evidence that definiteness as a feature is available to the syntactic component. In this paper I argue that differences in the range of interpretations of complex genitive constructions in Hebrew versus other languages show that there are two different strategies for constructing the meaning of complex nominals: one that relies on sharing a morphosyntactic definiteness feature (which is possible only in languages that have such a feature), and one that does not. Furthermore, it is argued that morphosyntactic definiteness in Hebrew is not a bivalent feature with two possible values, but a monovalent feature whose presence alternates with lack of specification, which accounts for various asymmetries between definiteness and indefiniteness.
In some languages, such as Hebrew, definiteness is encoded as a morphosyntactic feature that not only contributes to the semantics but also plays a role in syntactic operations. In other languages, there is no evidence that definiteness as a feature is available to the syntactic component. In this paper I argue that differences in the range of interpretations of complex genitive constructions in Hebrew versus other languages show that there are two different strategies for constructing the meaning of complex nominals: one that relies on sharing a morphosyntactic definiteness feature (which is possible only in languages that have such a feature), and one that does not. Furthermore, it is argued that morphosyntactic definiteness in Hebrew is not a bivalent feature with two possible values, but a monovalent feature whose presence alternates with lack of specification, which accounts for various asymmetries between definiteness and indefiniteness.
@INCOLLECTION{danon2010oup,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {The Definiteness Feature at the Syntax-Semantics Interface},
booktitle = {Features: Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
year = {2010},
editor = {Anna Kibort and Greville G. Corbett},
pages = {143--165},
address = {Oxford},
keywords = {syntax, semantics, definiteness, CSN, spreading, agreement, features,
definite, indefinite, Hebrew},
url = {http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/papers/Def_feature-OUP.pdf}
}
Copula [Modern Hebrew] (forthcoming). In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Geoffrey Khan (ed.). Brill.
» bibtex
@INCOLLECTION{danon2010copula,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Copula},
booktitle = {Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics},
publisher = {Brill},
year = {2010},
editor = {Geoffrey Khan},
keywords = {syntax, semantics, copula, Modern Hebrew, agreement, predication}
}
Definiteness [Modern Hebrew] (forthcoming). In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Geoffrey Khan (ed.). Brill.
» bibtex
@INCOLLECTION{danon2010def,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Definiteness},
booktitle = {Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics},
publisher = {Brill},
year = {2010},
editor = {Geoffrey Khan},
keywords = {syntax, semantics, Modern Hebrew, definiteness, definite article, features, construct state, noun phrase}
}
Definite article [Modern Hebrew] (forthcoming). In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Geoffrey Khan (ed.). Brill.
» bibtex
@INCOLLECTION{danon2010copula,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Definite article},
booktitle = {Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics},
publisher = {Brill},
year = {2010},
editor = {Geoffrey Khan},
keywords = {syntax, semantics, definite article, Modern Hebrew, definiteness, determiners, quantifiers, numerals, noun, adjective, agreement}
}
Determiners [Modern Hebrew] (forthcoming). In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Geoffrey Khan (ed.). Brill.
» bibtex
@INCOLLECTION{danon2010det,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Definite article},
booktitle = {Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics},
publisher = {Brill},
year = {2010},
editor = {Geoffrey Khan},
keywords = {syntax, semantics, Modern Hebrew, determiners, definite article, quantifiers, numerals, noun phrase}
}
Definiteness agreement with PP modifiers (2008). In Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics, Sharon Armon-Lotem, Gabi Danon and Susan Rothstein (eds.), 137-160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
» abstract PDF bibtex
Abstract
DP complements of prepositions in Modern Hebrew often bear morphosyntactic definiteness marking that is triggered by the definiteness value of the noun modified by the PP. Although reminiscent of definiteness agreement with attributive APs, the agreement observed with PPs is not always obligatory. This article argues that what distinguishes modifiers that display obligatory definiteness agreement is that they denote properties. I propose that the morphosyntactic definiteness feature of property-denoting modifiers is uninterpretable and therefore it must be checked by agreement. Checking is made possible by the fact that PPs in Hebrew have the structure of a construct state, where definiteness features `spread' from an embedded DP to a higher projection.
DP complements of prepositions in Modern Hebrew often bear morphosyntactic definiteness marking that is triggered by the definiteness value of the noun modified by the PP. Although reminiscent of definiteness agreement with attributive APs, the agreement observed with PPs is not always obligatory. This article argues that what distinguishes modifiers that display obligatory definiteness agreement is that they denote properties. I propose that the morphosyntactic definiteness feature of property-denoting modifiers is uninterpretable and therefore it must be checked by agreement. Checking is made possible by the fact that PPs in Hebrew have the structure of a construct state, where definiteness features `spread' from an embedded DP to a higher projection.
@INCOLLECTION{danon2008pp,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Definiteness Agreement with {PP} Modifiers},
booktitle = {Current Issues in Generative {Hebrew} Linguistics},
publisher = {John Benjamins},
year = {2008},
editor = {Sharon Armon-Lotem and Gabi Danon and Susan Rothstein},
pages = {137--160},
address = {Amsterdam},
keywords = {syntax, semantics, referentiality, PP, definiteness, construct state, agreement, feature sharing},
url = {http://www.gabidanon.info/papers/Definiteness_agreement_with_PPs.pdf}
}
התוכן הסמנטי של את (2008). In בלשנות עברית תאורטית, Galia Hatav (ed.), 253-277. Jerusalem: Magnes.
» bibtex
@INCOLLECTION{danon2008et,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {התוכן הסמנטי של את},
booktitle = {בלשנות עברית תאורטית},
publisher = {Magnes},
year = {2008},
editor = {Galia Hatav},
pages = {253--277},
address = {Jerusalem},
keywords = {syntax, semantics, definiteness, semantic type, type shifting, construct state, quantifiers, partitives},
}
Conference proceedings
Agreement with quantified nominals: implications for feature theory (2011).
In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8,
the proceedings of CSSP 2009.
» abstract PDF bibtex
Abstract
In Modern Hebrew, as in many other languages, subjects that are quantified noun phrases (QNPs) may trigger more than one agreement pattern on the verb/predicate: agreement with the morphological features of the noun, or with those of the quantifier. This alternation seems to pose a problem to most theories of agreement, which predict only one agreement pattern – with the head of the QNP. This paper argues that this agreement alternation can be accounted for by adopting the distinction between two clusters of features, INDEX and CONCORD, as in Pollard & Sag (1994) and Wechsler & Zlatic (2000, 2003). It is argued that this kind of analysis can best be implemented within the Minimalist framework if the framework allows for a certain amount of complexity in its feature system, where feature values are not restricted to simple atomic symbols.
In Modern Hebrew, as in many other languages, subjects that are quantified noun phrases (QNPs) may trigger more than one agreement pattern on the verb/predicate: agreement with the morphological features of the noun, or with those of the quantifier. This alternation seems to pose a problem to most theories of agreement, which predict only one agreement pattern – with the head of the QNP. This paper argues that this agreement alternation can be accounted for by adopting the distinction between two clusters of features, INDEX and CONCORD, as in Pollard & Sag (1994) and Wechsler & Zlatic (2000, 2003). It is argued that this kind of analysis can best be implemented within the Minimalist framework if the framework allows for a certain amount of complexity in its feature system, where feature values are not restricted to simple atomic symbols.
@INCOLLECTION{danon2011cssp,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Agreement with quantified nominals: implications for feature theory},
booktitle = {Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8},
year = {2011},
editor = {Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr},
pages = {75--95},
keywords = {syntax, semantics, agreement, quantiers, QNP, Hebrew},
}
The Hebrew object marker and semantic type (2002).
In IATL 17,
the proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the Israeli Association for
Theoretical Linguistics.
» abstract PDF bibtex
Abstract
It is well-known that the object marker in Hebrew, et, is used only in front of definite objects. In this paper I show that even though the distribution of et is governed by a formal notion of definiteness which is determined by syntactic factors, et itself is not semantically vacuous. I discuss the phenomenon of "definiteness spreading" in construct state nominals and show that this is not spreading of semantic definiteness. Use of et in front of a CSN, however, blocks an indefinite reading which would have been available otherwise. Other semantic effects of et involve distributive readings of conjunctions and the interpretation of wh-words and pseudoclefts. I propose that all these semantic effects can be derived from the assumption that et acts as a type shifting operator.
It is well-known that the object marker in Hebrew, et, is used only in front of definite objects. In this paper I show that even though the distribution of et is governed by a formal notion of definiteness which is determined by syntactic factors, et itself is not semantically vacuous. I discuss the phenomenon of "definiteness spreading" in construct state nominals and show that this is not spreading of semantic definiteness. Use of et in front of a CSN, however, blocks an indefinite reading which would have been available otherwise. Other semantic effects of et involve distributive readings of conjunctions and the interpretation of wh-words and pseudoclefts. I propose that all these semantic effects can be derived from the assumption that et acts as a type shifting operator.
@INPROCEEDINGS{danon2002iatl,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {The {Hebrew} Object Marker and Semantic Type},
booktitle = {Proceedings of {IATL} 17},
year = {2002},
editor = {Yehuda Falk},
publisher = {The Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics},
keywords = {semantics, et, Hebrew, type shifting, DOM, object marker, construct state, definiteness spreading},
note = {http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATL/17/},
url = {http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATL/17/}
}
The Hebrew object marker as a type-shifting operator (2001). In
Proceedings of the 6th Doctorate Meeting in Linguistics, Emmanuel Aim,
Kim Gerdes and Hi-Yon Yoo (eds.), 41-46. Paris: Université Paris 7.
» abstract PDF bibtex
Abstract
The Hebrew object marker, et, is often taken to be a marker of accusative case. But in addition to its syntactic properties, et also seems to have semantic content. When the presence of et is optional, it can be seen that et affects the interpretation of the object in various ways that might include specificity, definiteness or distributivity. I propose that all these semantic effects can be given a uniform account by assuming that et is the overt realization of a lifting operator from entities to generalized quantifiers.
The Hebrew object marker, et, is often taken to be a marker of accusative case. But in addition to its syntactic properties, et also seems to have semantic content. When the presence of et is optional, it can be seen that et affects the interpretation of the object in various ways that might include specificity, definiteness or distributivity. I propose that all these semantic effects can be given a uniform account by assuming that et is the overt realization of a lifting operator from entities to generalized quantifiers.
@INPROCEEDINGS{danon2001paris,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {The {Hebrew} Object Marker as a Type-Shifting Operator},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 6th Doctorate Meeting in Linguistics},
year = {2001},
editor = {Emmanuel Aim and Kim Gerdes and Hi-Yon Yoo},
pages = {41--46},
publisher = {Universit{\'e} Paris 7},
keywords = {semantics, et, Hebrew, type shifting, DOM, object marker},
url = {http://www.gabidanon.info/papers/Paris2001.pdf}
}
Two syntactic positions for determiners in Hebrew (1998). In IATL 13,
the proceedings of the 13th annual conference of the Israeli Association for
Theoretical Linguistics.
» PDF bibtex
Abstract
@INPROCEEDINGS{danon98,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Two Syntactic Positions for Determiners in {Hebrew}},
booktitle = {Proceedings of {IATL} 13},
year = {1998},
editor = {Adam Zachary Wyner},
pages = {55--73},
publisher = {The Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics},
keywords = {syntax, DP, determiners, Hebrew, numerals, definiteness, number},
url = {http://www.gabidanon.info/papers/IATL97.pdf}
}
Books as editor
(With Sharon Armon-Lotem and Susan Rothstein) Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (2008). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
» bibtex
@BOOK{jb-hebrew2008,
title = {Current Issues in Generative {Hebrew} Linguistics},
publisher = {John Benjamins},
year = {2008},
editor = {Sharon Armon-Lotem and Gabi Danon and Susan Rothstein},
number = {134},
series = {Linguistik Aktuell},
address = {Amsterdam},
url = {http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=LA%20134}
}
PhD and MA thesis
Case and Formal Definiteness: the Licensing of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases in Hebrew (2002). PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv.
» abstract PDF bibtex
@PHDTHESIS{danon2002phd,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {Case and Formal Definiteness: the Licensing of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases in {Hebrew}},
school = {Tel Aviv University},
year = {2002},
keywords = {syntax, DP, NP, Hebrew, noun phrase, case, definiteness, DOM, definite, indefinite},
url = {http://www.gabidanon.info/papers/Danon2002-dissertation.pdf}
}
The Syntax of Determiners in Hebrew (1996).
MA Thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv.
» abstract PDF bibtex
@MASTERSTHESIS{danon96,
author = {Danon, Gabi},
title = {The Syntax of Determiners in {Hebrew}},
school = {Tel Aviv University},
year = {1996},
keywords = {syntax, Hebrew, DP, determiners, quantifiers, numerals, CS, construct state, definiteness, number},
url = {http://www.gabidanon.info/papers/thesis.pdf}
}
(This list is also available as a BibTeX file)
