Abstract
To argue against a long established assumption seems to be not that easy task. In this article, I argue against one of those assumptions, namely (in)definiteness spread in Semitic Construct State (CS). I argue that CSs are of two types: either definite or indefinite. The former refers to those CSs, where the head N is syntactically definite, in the sense of having the definite article al-/ha- (the, Arabic/Hebrew), and the latter to those not having it. Three tenets constitute the crux of this paper: i) the controversy (in)definiteness spread gives rise to among Semitic scholars, ii) there does exist good evidence that the head N of CSs can take the definite article in Arabic and Hebrew, and iii) in Arabic the absence of the indefinite article (marker) -n on the head N has presumably to do with what I call VCR (= the Vowel Contextualization Rule) like several similar other phonological phenomena in the language. As for the specifici-ty/uniqueness denoted by the head N of a CS in some contexts, I propose that such specificity has nothing to do with definiteness spread, but rather it may be linked to a Universal Gram-mar (UG) principle, which correlates specificity/uniqueness with possessivization cross-linguistically, or to a UG parameter in the case of Semitic CSs.
Highlights
A Construct State (CS) like (1) below is a DP construction in Semitic languages
This article has developed a theory of formaldefiniteness of the head N in Semitic CSs, arguing against a long established tradition that the head N in a CS acquires itsdefiniteness from its genitive DP complement (GDC) viadefiniteness spread
In support of my assumptions, I propose the Vowel Contextualization Rule (VCR) which accounts for the absence of the indefinite -n in Arabic, concluding that the former refers to those CSs which are syntactically and semantically definite
Summary
A Construct State (CS) like (1) below is a DP construction in Semitic languages. One of the properties of CSs is the (in)definiteness spread, where (in)definiteness is claimed to spread from the genitive DP complement (GDC) to the head N, and to the whole construct. G. Heller 2002; DobrovieSorin 2001, 2003; Borer 1988, 1996, 1999; Shlonsky 2004; Alshara’i 2014; Alanbari 1997; Sichel 2002, 2003; Ritter 1988, 1991; Mohammad 1988, 1999; Ouhalla 2009) argue that there is no (in)definiteness spread, and some others (see Danon 2006, 2008; Siloni 2001, 2003; Fassi Fehri 1999; Benmamoun 2000, 2003; among others) argue that it takes place in some CSs while in some others it does not. Prosodic, morpho-syntactic, syntactic and semantic, among others, have emerged which tried to account for (in)definiteness spread in Smeitic These approaches relate (in)definiteness spread to other properties of CS in general such as “its word-like properties, the ungrammaticality of attaching the definite article to the head of a construct, and the word order” among other properties (Danon 2008: 887). I briefly touch on some of these approaches in what follows
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
