Journal articles

מה זה זה? ניתוח תחבירי של האוגד "זה" בעברית המודרנית ‎ (2015). Hebrew Linguistics 69, 23-43.
» abstract PDF bibtex

Abstract
Verbless clauses in Hebrew involving the pronominal copula ze never display subject-copula or subject-predicate agreement, with the copula and adjectival predicates invariably being in the default masculine singular form. Additionally, these sentences are often characterized by an interpretation that differs from the typical predicational interpretation found with the copula hu. After surveying the basic syntactic and semantic properties of ze-clauses, this paper argues against several possible analyses which would explain these properties by claiming that the clause-initial noun phrase is not the subject. Instead, it is argued that the clause-initial noun phrase is a featureless DP in subject position, where lack of features blocks not only agreement but also the possibility of binding and control relations; features of the noun, in this case, are present at the NP level but are not present at the DP level. This leads to the question of what constrains the distribution of such featureless DPs. Following standard assumptions in current minimalist syntax, lack of agreement is argued to correspond to lack of Case; and following the central insight of the Visibility Condition of Chomsky (1986), it is argued that the possibility of having a Caseless DP is limited to non-thematic DPs. Hence, lack of agreement in ze-clauses is argued to follow from general syntactic principles rather than from any construction-specific property, under the assumption (independently argued for in previous work) that ze-clauses are not predicational. This is further supported by showing that similar syntactic and semantic properties can be found in a variety of Hebrew raising constructions that do not involve the copula ze, as well as in similar constructions found in other, unrelated, languages.
@ARTICLE{danon2015ze,
  author = {Danon, Gabi},
  title = {מה זה זה? ניתוח תחבירי של האוגד "זה" בעברית המודרנית},
  journal = {Hebrew Linguistics},
  year = {2015},
  volume = {69},
  pages = {23--43},
  keywords = {syntax, Hebrew, copula, agreement, theta roles, case},
  url = {https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/papers/Danon2015-ze_BI.pdf}
}

Agreement alternations with quantified nominals in Modern Hebrew (2013). Journal of Linguistics 49(1), 55-92. doi:10.1017/S0022226712000333
» abstract PDF bibtex

Abstract
Crosslinguistically, quantified noun phrases (QNPs) trigger one of four agreement patterns: with the quantifier, with the noun, default agreement, or semantic agreement. This paper focuses on agreement alternations in Hebrew, and argues that they follow not from variations in hierarchical structure but from the availability of multiple means of assigning values to the QNP's features. Building upon the INDEX-CONCORD analysis of Wechsler & Zlatic (2003) and adapting it to the Minimalist framework, it is argued that certain agreement patterns are the result of the quantifier bearing a set of abstract features that don't match its morphologically-triggered ones. Variations in QNP agreement patterns are then argued to be subject to constraints at the interfaces of syntax with both semantics and morphology. Overall, it is claimed that even apparent cases of non-local agreement with non-nominative NPs do not really pose a counterexample to established models of agreement, and that this supports the view that the system of φ-features cannot be simply an unstructured bundle of morphological features.
@ARTICLE{danon2013jl,
  author = {Danon, Gabi},
  title = {Agreement alternations with quantified nominals in Modern Hebrew},
  journal = {Journal of Linguistics},
  year = {2013},
  volume = {49},
  number = {1},
  pages = {55--92},
  doi = {10.1017/S0022226712000333},
  keywords = {syntax, semantics, morphology, quantifiers, QNP, features, agreement, index, concord},
  url = {https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/papers/Danon2012jl.pdf}
}

Two Structures for Numeral-Noun Constructions (2012). Lingua 122(12), 1282-1307. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2012.07.003
» abstract PDF bibtex

Abstract
This paper has two main goals: to argue that crosslinguistically there are two major types of numeral-noun constructions, one in which a projection of the numeral occupies a specifier position and one in which the numeral heads a recursive nominal structure; and to show that the choice between these two structures is partially constrained by the presence of number features and case. It is shown that numerals bearing nominal number morphology display a cluster of properties that often distinguishes them from other numerals in the same language; I claim that presence of morphosyntactic number makes the numeral sufficiently `noun-like' to be subject to general principles of case theory.
@ARTICLE{danon2012lingua,
  author = {Danon, Gabi},
  title = {Two Structures for Numeral-Noun Constructions},
  journal = {Lingua},
  year = {2012},
  volume = {122},
  number = {12},
  pages = {1282--1307},
  doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2012.07.003},
  keywords = {syntax, semantics, morphology, cardinal numerals, features, number, case, plurality},
  url = {https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/papers/Danon2012lingua.pdf}
}

Nothing to Agree on: Non-agreeing subjects of copular clauses in Hebrew (2012). Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59(1–2), 85-108. doi:10.1556/ALing.59.2012.1-2.4
» abstract PDF bibtex

Abstract
Copular clauses in Hebrew with the copula ze never allow their subjects to agree with the copula or with the post-copular predicate. Following previous work, it is shown that such clauses are not predicational and that their subjects often get a 'hidden event' interpretation. After ruling out an analysis that takes the copula to be the actual subject and an analysis involving a clausal subject, it is argued that these clauses involve a subject that lacks the features needed for subject-external agreement, while having the features needed for subject-internal agreement.
@ARTICLE{danon2012alh,
  author = {Danon, Gabi},
  title = {Nothing to Agree on: Non-agreeing subjects of copular clauses in {Hebrew}},
  journal = {Acta Linguistica Hungarica},
  year = {2012},
  volume = {59},
  number = {1--2},
  pages = {85--108},
  doi = {10.1556/ALing.59.2012.1-2.4},
  keywords = {syntax, semantics, agreement, features, index, concord, copula, predicate},
  url = {https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/papers/Danon2012ALH.pdf}
}

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.
@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 = {https://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 as Definiteness 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.
@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.
@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.
@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 = {https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/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.
@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 and collections

Syntactic (dis)agreement is not semantic agreement (2014). In Advances in the Syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case, Bondaruk, Anna, Gréte Dalmi and Alexander Grosu (eds.), 95-116. John Benjamins.
» abstract bibtex

Abstract
This chapter looks at two cases where subject agreement in Hebrew does not follow the morphosyntactic (phi) features of the subject: singular agreement with plural subjects, and plural agreement with singular group-denoting subjects. The paper argues that there are important differences between these two cases; in particular, it is argued that the former is not agreement but lack of agreement, whereas the latter involves (syntactic) agreement. Lack of agreement is tied to constraints on thematic role assignment. Neither case poses a real problem to current syntactic models of agreement.
@INCOLLECTION{danon2014jb,
  author = {Danon, Gabi},
  title = {Syntactic (dis)agreement is not semantic agreement},
  year = {2014},
  pages = {95--116},
  booktitle = {Advances in the Syntax of {DPs}: Structure, agreement, and case},
  publisher = {John Benjamins},
  editor = {Anna Bondaruk and Gréte Dalmi and Alexander Grosu},
  keywords = {syntax, semantics, features, agreement, semantic agreement},
}

Hebrew QNP agreement: Towards an empirically based analysis (2013). In Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics XV, 5-23.
» abstract PDF bibtex

Abstract
Quantified noun phrases (QNPs) in subject position may trigger agreement with the quantifier or with the noun. Previous work (Danon 2011, 2013) has proposed a theoretical model for explaining such alternations, but left open the empirical question of speaker preference. This paper describes preliminary findings from an ongoing research project aimed to answer this question. It is shown that speakers have a strong preference for noun agreement when the noun in the QNP is plural, whereas a much more heterogeneous pattern emerges when the QNP contains a singular/group noun. The empirical findings are argued to support an analysis in which the features involved in agreement are formally distinct from those marked morphologically on Q and N, which allows us to maintain a syntactic model of agreement even for apparent cases of 'semantic agreement'.
@ARTICLE{danon2013bwpl,
  author = {Danon, Gabi},
  title = {Hebrew QNP agreement: Towards an empirically based analysis},
  journal = {Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics},
  year = {2013},
  volume = {XV},
  pages = {5--23},
  keywords = {syntax, semantics, morphology, quantifiers, QNP, features, agreement, semantic agreement},
  url = {https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/papers/Danon2013bwpl.pdf}
}

Copula [Modern Hebrew] (2013). In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Geoffrey Khan (ed.), 627-631. Brill.
» bibtex

@INCOLLECTION{danon2010copula,
  author = {Danon, Gabi},
  title = {Copula},
  booktitle = {Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics},
  publisher = {Brill},
  year = {2013},
  editor = {Geoffrey Khan},
  pages = {627--631},
  address = {Leiden},
  keywords = {syntax, semantics, copula, Modern Hebrew, agreement, predication}
}

Definiteness [Modern Hebrew] (2013). In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Geoffrey Khan (ed.), 684-690. Brill.
» bibtex

@INCOLLECTION{danon2010def,
  author = {Danon, Gabi},
  title = {Definiteness},
  booktitle = {Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics},
  publisher = {Brill},
  year = {2013},
  editor = {Geoffrey Khan},
  pages = {684--690},
  address = {Leiden},
  keywords = {syntax, semantics, Modern Hebrew, definiteness, definite article, features, construct state, noun phrase}
}

Definite article [Modern Hebrew] (2013). In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Geoffrey Khan (ed.), 682-684. Brill.
» bibtex

@INCOLLECTION{danon2010copula,
  author = {Danon, Gabi},
  title = {Definite article},
  booktitle = {Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics},
  publisher = {Brill},
  year = {2013},
  editor = {Geoffrey Khan},
  pages = {682--684},
  address = {Leiden},
  keywords = {syntax, semantics, definite article, Modern Hebrew, definiteness, determiners, quantifiers, numerals, noun, adjective, agreement}
}

Determiners [Modern Hebrew] (2013). In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Geoffrey Khan (ed.), 716-717. Brill.
» bibtex

@INCOLLECTION{danon2010det,
  author = {Danon, Gabi},
  title = {Definite article},
  booktitle = {Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics},
  publisher = {Brill},
  year = {2013},
  editor = {Geoffrey Khan},
  pages = {716--717},
  address = {Leiden},
  keywords = {syntax, semantics, Modern Hebrew, determiners, definite article, quantifiers, numerals, noun phrase}
}

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.
@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 = {https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/papers/Def_feature-OUP.pdf}
}

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.
@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 = {https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/papers/Danon2008PPs.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.
@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.
@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.
@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 = {https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/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 = {https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/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.
» 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 = {https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/papers/Danon2002-dissertation.pdf}
}

The Syntax of Determiners in Hebrew (1996). MA Thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv.
» 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 = {https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/papers/Danon1996-MA_thesis.pdf}
}