Nora Boneh | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (original) (raw)

Papers by Nora Boneh

The Proceedings of the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 36) , 2018

Given that causative linguistic constructions are divisible into three parts: i) a cause (c); ii)... more Given that causative linguistic constructions are divisible into three parts: i) a cause (c); ii) an effect (e); and iii) the dependency (D) between (c) and (e), in studying the nature of (D), one should examine whether a one, all-encompassing, causative meaning component underlying the diverse linguistic phenomena is a justifiable position, or rather different ones should be distinguished for the various causative constructions. Only recently several philosophers argued in favor of theories of causal pluralism, allowing the co-existence of different notions of causation; some cognitive studies also indicate that people have a pluralistic conception of causation, similarly it has been proposed that the semantic content of (D) is different in various constructions, tracing whether the main verb encodes a necessary or a sufficient condition. This paper expands on this latter line of thought by focusing on the types of dependencies encoded within three verbal constructions in Hebrew, considering crucially whether these dependencies are asserted and/or presupposed. It argues, therefore, in favor of a non-unified semantic analysis for (D) denoted by the three verbal causative constructions to be passed under review here: overt causatives, verbs of change of state and caused activity verbs. According to the current proposal: Overt causatives assert necessary conditions; change of states causatives assert necessary conditions and presuppose potential sufficient conditions; and Caused activities only presuppose potential sufficient conditions.

In this paper we propose a syntactic analysis of dative DPs in ditransitive constructions in Russ... more In this paper we propose a syntactic analysis of dative DPs in ditransitive constructions in Russian, answering three questions: (I) what semantic roles the indirect object realizes; (II) how it is syntactically ordered with respect to the direct object realizing the theme argument, and (III) how the first two issues are related to the morphological encoding of the indirect object, as a PP or as a morphologically case-marked DP. Addressing first question (II) we show that two kinds of syntactic hierarchies between the two internal arguments of a ditransitive configuration coexist, and that there are two sorts of datives that are hierarchically higher than the theme: those that can reconstruct and those that cannot. We then establish an interpretative correlation between these two types of dative DP, showing that the former is locational and the latter is not, providing the answer to question (I) and elucidating what underlies the morphological similarity, question (III). The interpretative and syntactic differences between scrambled and base generated high datives lead us to claim that in Russian, dative ditransitives have two distinct underlying structures that are not derivationally related. A scalar approach to event structure enables us to pinpoint the interpretative correlate of each type of dative (locational vs. non-locational) and provides a conceptual argument in favor of a non-synonymy non-derivational approach we pursue here: a path scale encoding event schema cannot be transformed into a different scale based event schema due to movement of the dative DP. Finally, the scalar approach allows us to identify the lexical correlates of a possessive interpretation of the high dative vs. a more beneficiary-like interpretation. Extent scales allow the former whereas property and path scales facilitate the other.

The paper sets out to challenge the claim that the distribution of FCany in bare generic sentence... more The paper sets out to challenge the claim that the distribution of FCany
in bare generic sentences giving rise to dispositional readings
constitutes empirical evidence for the Possibility Hypothesis, assuming
that dispositional sentences feature a covert existential modal
quantifier equivalent to can or might. More generally, the paper attempts
to suggest that dispositional and habitual readings, which
arise in bare characterizing sentences, are not due to the same underlying
covert modal operator. What enables suggesting such a
view is the fact that bare characterizing sentences present different
properties from those characterizing sentences that feature overt
(temporal) quantification. It is shown that bare characterizing sentences
pattern alike aspectually, irrespective of whether they give
rise to a habitual or a dispositional reading. Following work by
Boneh & Doron (2010, 2013), it is suggested that whereas quantified
characterizing sentences feature the quasi-universal Gen, bare ones
feature a VP-level operator Hab, built on the availability of sums of
events in all relevant accessible worlds once a disposition for this
type of event iteration is manifested in the actual world.

The classic model of conversation based on the Common Ground (CG), introduced by Karttunen (1974)... more The classic model of conversation based on the Common Ground (CG), introduced by Karttunen (1974), Lewis (1979) and Stalnaker (1978), was shown to be insufficient for accounting for various conversational phenomena (inter alia Portner 2004, 2007, Farkas & Bruce 2009, Murray 2014). This paper further strengthens this line by analyzing a type of non-truth conditional non-core dative termed the Discursive Dative (DD) as a discourse management device (Krifka 2008, Repp 2013). The DD signals that the asserted proposition p constitutes an exception to a normative generalization believed by the speaker to be shared by the speech event participants. In order to capture the notion of exception we propose to divide the CG into two sets of worlds, those consistent with previous assertions and their presuppositions (CGA) and those consistent with generalizations (CGG). The DD signals a non-inclusion relation between the asserted proposition and the CGG. This enables us to distinguish between different types of mirativity effects, by drawing a distinction between adding a proposition p that was not previously in the speaker’s expectation-set (inter alia DeLancey 1997, 2001, Rett 2009, Peterson 2013, Rett & Murray 2013) and the present case of the DD, where p can very well be in the speaker’s expectation-set, but objectively expected that ~p.

In this paper we describe the pragmatic, lexical and syntactic properties of the Syrian Arabic Co... more In this paper we describe the pragmatic, lexical and syntactic properties of the Syrian Arabic Coreferential Dative Construction (CDC), featuring a dative element bearing agreement features which are identical to those of the subject in the clause, the Coreferential Dative (CD), and an obligatory expression of attenuative vague measure, described by us in Al-Zahre & Boneh (2010). We first show that the CD, which has no truth conditional meaning, contributes to the creation of a Conventional Implicature (Horn 2004, Potts 2005). Second, we propose a way to compositionally integrate the CD into the derivation of these constructions by arguing that the visible pronominal features are non-referential but rather the morphological reflex of checked uninterpretable phi-features on a defective applicative head. To couch the analysis in a wider context, we show how it can extend to other categories of non-core dative in Syrian Arabic.
In this paper we describe the pragmatic, lexical and syntactic properties of the Syrian Arabic Coreferential Dative Construction (CDC), featuring a dative element bearing agreement features which are identical to those of the subject in the clause, the Coreferential Dative (CD), and an obligatory expression of attenuative vague measure, described by us in Al-Zahre & Boneh (2010). We first show that the CD, which has no truth conditional meaning, contributes to the creation of a Conventional Implicature (Horn 2004, Potts 2005). Second, we propose a way to compositionally integrate the CD into the derivation of these constructions by arguing that the visible pronominal features are non-referential but rather the morphological reflex of checked uninterpretable phi-features on a defective applicative head. To couch the analysis in a wider context, we show how it can extend to other categories of non-core dative in Syrian Arabic.

This article critically scrutinizes the perceived view that the emergence of non-core dative cons... more This article critically scrutinizes the perceived view that the emergence of non-core dative constructions in Modern Hebrew is due to a Slavic-Yiddish influence. It studies the Biblical and Mishnaic sources, showing that these language strata contain highly similar constructions to the ones in Modern Hebrew. It additionally shows that parallel constructions existed in languages spoken in the Jewish communities at the time of the revival, revealing that this linguistic phenomenon is typologically widely attested. We therefore claim that this could be an example of an internalization of the old grammar in the new spoken language, enhanced by the fact that similar constructions are reflected in the non-Hebrew native languages of the revival era speakers. These speakers, at the same time, imported into their colloquial Hebrew a sub-type of non-core dative-the discursive dative-to which they could not have been exposed through the ancient written texts, since this type of dative construction occurs only in the spoken language.

MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Proceedings of IATL30

Leshonenu (in Hebrew), 2014

Based mainly on paraphrases of their meaning and their distributional properties, constructions c... more Based mainly on paraphrases of their meaning and their distributional properties, constructions containing non-core datives are customarily divided into several overlapping groups labeled benefactive/malefactive, affected, ethical, attitude holder, and personal datives. However, in the absence of sound semantic criteria, distributional properties do not suffice to sharply delineate these subgroups. In this paper, we argue that Modern Hebrew non-core datives should be subdivided into two subcategories.
Truth-conditional non-core datives form one category, here termed affected datives (of which the existing distinctions between possessive, beneficiary/ maleficiary datives fall under this category); the other is the non-truthconditional non-core dative, which is termed the ethical dative. We set aside the reflexive/coreferential dative, easily identifiable as a subcategory
of non-core datives because its phi-features match those of the subject DP.
In this paper we suggest the following meanings for each of these datives. Affected dative indicates a participant affected by an event e1, while this participant does not participate in this event, but in a different one e2. The identity of e2 is either provided by the context or accommodated, and a causal relation between e1 and e2 is presupposed. The affecting event is not necessarily cotemporal with, nor does it abut, the affected event.
Ethical dative relates the asserted proposition to the relevant part of the common ground against which it is to be evaluated. The relevant part of the common ground contains the set of shared beliefs regarding the probability of the proposition without the dative, which turns out to be unexpected given this common ground. In this case, the datival expression is not part of the
assertion, but indicates that the proposition asserted was unexpected at the time of the utterance. This dative is shown to be limited to pronouns strictly referring to speech-event participants. Finally, we also demonstrate grammatical differences between these datives.

Based mainly on paraphrases of their meaning and their distributional properties, constructions c... more Based mainly on paraphrases of their meaning and their distributional properties, constructions containing non-core datives are customarily divided into several overlapping groups labeled benefactive/malefactive, affected, ethical, attitude holder, and personal datives. However, in the absence of sound semantic criteria, distributional properties do not suffice to sharply delineate these subgroups. In this paper, we argue that Modern Hebrew non-core datives should be subdivided into two subcategories. Truth-conditional non-core datives form one category, here termed affected datives (of which the existing distinctions between possessive, beneficiary/maleficiary datives fall under this category); the other is the non-truth-conditional non-core dative, which is termed the ethical dative. We set aside the reflexive/coreferential dative, easily identifiable as a subcategory of non-core datives because its phi-features match those of the subject DP.
In this paper we suggest the following meanings for each of these datives. Affected dative indicates a participant affected by an event e1. This participant does not participate in event e1, but in a different one e2. The identity of e2 is either provided by the context or accommodated, and a causal relation between e1 and e2 is presupposed. The affecting event is not necessarily cotemporal with, nor does it abut, the affected event. Ethical dative relates the asserted proposition to the relevant part of the Common Ground against which it is to be evaluated. The relevant part of the Common Ground contains the set of shared beliefs regarding the probability of the proposition without the dative, which turns out to be unexpected given this Common Ground. In this case, the datival expression is not part of the assertion, but indicates that the proposition asserted was unexpected at the time of the utterance. This dative is shown to be limited to pronouns strictly referring to speech-event participants. Finally, we also demonstrate grammatical differences between these datives.

In this paper we will provide a description of what we term here the Coreferential Dative Constru... more In this paper we will provide a description of what we term here the Coreferential Dative Construction. The languages under consideration are Syrian Arabic, which has never been studied before from this respect, and Modern Hebrew. We will show that this construction, related to other constructions containing non-selected datives, expresses the speaker's stance or emotional attitude towards the described eventuality by seeing it as having weak relevance. We will also show that the most important grammatical difference between the two languages is that in Syrian Arabic the presence of the Coreferential Dative obligatorily triggers a special type of modification in the VP: it must be modified by an attenuative vague measure. The comparative approach will help to shed new light on previous analyses of Modern Hebrew data.

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2010

The paper argues that clausal possession is to be decomposed into three distinct, independently a... more The paper argues that clausal possession is to be decomposed into three distinct, independently attested, syntactic configurations, each associated with its own meaning. These include Location, represented as an ordinary small clause, the Part-Whole relation, which always has a complement structure within DP as its source, and an applicative structure ApplP, the source of (in)alienable possession, where humans are treated as special. The analysis we propose focuses on Palestinian Arabic and extends to English clausal possession and its realizations across have and be. Palestinian Arabic overtly distinguishes a number of ingredients which in other languages enter into possession less transparently: It marks Location and Part-Whole relations by distinct prepositions, it features a full-agreement/no-agreement distinction associated with scope, and, lacking have, it keeps separate P° and be, the ingredients often assumed to enter into its composition. The picture which emerges is partly familiar and partly new. We argue that the notion possession is never linguistically encoded as such, since none of the underlying representations proposed is associated exclusively with possession. We also argue that the subject in possessive clauses is a derived subject with both have and be. We attribute the differences between Palestinian Arabic and English to a difference in their agreement systems, which in conjunction with Economy, forces P° to extract from its PP, and leads to the formation of have. If we are correct, the cross-linguistic distribution of have and be may further reduce to parametric differences in agreement systems.

The paper examines the linguistic expression of habituality showing that two concepts must be dis... more The paper examines the linguistic expression of habituality showing that two concepts must be distinguished: gnomic habituality and actualized habituality. It is claimed, on the basis of Modern Hebrew, that the two concepts are derived from non-quantificational habitual operators -Hab which is modal and yields gnomic habituality, and Φ Hab which is aspectual and yields actualized habituality. The core meaning of both operators is iteration over a contextually long interval. Syntactically, the operators differ with respect to their position: Hab is argued to be a VP-level adverb and Φ Hab -an aspectual head. This is correlated with the fact that gnomic habituality is expressed via the simple form of the verb while the expression of actualized habituality involves periphrasis. The paper ends with a diachronic consideration of the Hebrew periphrastic form suggesting that its habitual use can already be detected in Biblical Hebrew.

The Proceedings of the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 36) , 2018

MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Proceedings of IATL30

Leshonenu (in Hebrew), 2014

Based mainly on paraphrases of their meaning and their distributional properties, constructions c... more Based mainly on paraphrases of their meaning and their distributional properties, constructions containing non-core datives are customarily divided into several overlapping groups labeled benefactive/malefactive, affected, ethical, attitude holder, and personal datives. However, in the absence of sound semantic criteria, distributional properties do not suffice to sharply delineate these subgroups. In this paper, we argue that Modern Hebrew non-core datives should be subdivided into two subcategories. Truth-conditional non-core datives form one category, here termed affected datives (of which the existing distinctions between possessive, beneficiary/maleficiary datives fall under this category); the other is the non-truth-conditional non-core dative, which is termed the ethical dative. We set aside the reflexive/coreferential dative, easily identifiable as a subcategory of non-core datives because its phi-features match those of the subject DP.
In this paper we suggest the following meanings for each of these datives. Affected dative indicates a participant affected by an event e1. This participant does not participate in event e1, but in a different one e2. The identity of e2 is either provided by the context or accommodated, and a causal relation between e1 and e2 is presupposed. The affecting event is not necessarily cotemporal with, nor does it abut, the affected event. Ethical dative relates the asserted proposition to the relevant part of the Common Ground against which it is to be evaluated. The relevant part of the Common Ground contains the set of shared beliefs regarding the probability of the proposition without the dative, which turns out to be unexpected given this Common Ground. In this case, the datival expression is not part of the assertion, but indicates that the proposition asserted was unexpected at the time of the utterance. This dative is shown to be limited to pronouns strictly referring to speech-event participants. Finally, we also demonstrate grammatical differences between these datives.

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2010

Cette thèse fournit une analyse des systèmes temporels de l'arabe standard, de l'arabe syrien et ... more Cette thèse fournit une analyse des systèmes temporels de l'arabe standard, de l'arabe syrien et de l'hébreu moderne. Le modèle syntaxique mis en place pour cette analyse applique l'idée que le temps et l'aspect grammatical sont définis par le même ensemble de relations pouvant exister entre des intervalles de temps. Les relations entre chaque paire d'intervalles sont codées par deux catégories syntaxiques. Les langues peuvent rendre structurellement visibles une seule de ces deux catégories ou les deux. S'agissant des langues étudiées ici, le postulat est qu'en hébreu la catégorie temporelle haute est celle qui est structurellement visible, et qu'en arabe (standard et syrien) il s'agit de la plus basse des deux. Une telle analyse permet de rendre compte du caractère purement temporel de l'hébreu et du caractère aspectuel de l'arabe. Ce modèle syntaxique est mis à l'épreuve dans deux domaines empiriques distincts, celui des phrases non-finies et celui des phrases à prédicats non-verbaux au présent, ces domaines permettant d'examiner la flexion (partiellement) séparée du verbe qui la porte. Sur le plan théorique, ce travail illustre le fait que la temporalité est dérivée dans la syntaxe et ne relève pas d'une position syntaxique fixe.