1

V. Motapanyane, ed., Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, Oxford, Elsevier, 2000, p. 177-226

(In)definiteness Spread: from Romanian Genitives to Hebrew Construct State Nominals* Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin CNRS, Universit Paris 7 This paper aims to establish the existence of two universal syntactic constraints imposed by the (Spec, DP) position: (i) Spec, DP can be lexically filled only if (a) D is empty or (b) filled with a definite article. (ii) Spec, DP cannot be filled with bare NPs. These constraints will be derived as consequences of the semantic composition that underlies DPs that contain a (Spec, DP) constituent: (iii) The head N denotes a function of type (e,e), which applies to the individual denoted by the DP in (Spec, DP) and yields the individual denoted by the overall possessive DP. I will then show that the "(in)definiteness spread" phenomenon found in Saxon genitives and Hebrew Construct State nominals (CSN's)) is due to the universal semantic rule in (iii), rather than to some marked, construction-specific mechanism of Spec-Head agreement in def features between the genitive DP and the D of the head N. Relying on the minimalist assumptions of Bare Phrase Structure, I will argue against the X'-theoretical formal universal according to which all nominal projections are projections of D. 1. Structural Genitive Case is assigned to (Spec, DP) Romanian overtly distinguishes between two distinct types of genitive DPs: (1) a. casa vecinului/vecinilor house-the neighbour-theGen/neighbours-theGen 'the neighbour's/the neighbours' house' b. casa unei vecine/unor vecine house-the afem-Gen neighbourfem-Gen/somefem-Gen neighboursfem-Gen 'a neighbour's (fem)/some neighbours'(fem) house' a. o cas a vecinului/ a unei vecine a house a neighbour-theGen/a afem-Gen neighbourfem-Gen 'a house of the neighbour's/of a neighbour's( fem)' b. acest obicei al vecinului/ al unei vecinei this habit al neighbour-theGen/al afem-Gen neighbourfem-Gen 'this habit of the neighbour's/of a neighbour's( fem)' c. casele de piatr ale vecinului/ ale unei vecinei houses-the in stone ale neighbour-theGen/ale afem-Gen neighbourfem-Gen 'the houses in stone of the neighbour's/of a neighbour's( fem)' d. primii studenti ai mamei mele first-the students ai mother-theGen my

(2)

* I would like to thank Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, Alex Grosu and Tali Siloni for helpful comments and Hagit

Borer for the patience with which she answered my questions on Hebrew.

'the first students of my mother's' In all these examples, Genitive Case is morphologically marked on the article: -luimsg, -eifsg, -lorpl are the Genitive forms (which are identical to the Dative forms) of the suffixal definite article and unui, unei, unor are the corresponding forms of the indefinite article. The examples in (2) differ from those in (1) by the presence of a pre-genitive particle, made up of an invariable part, a-, followed by the nominative forms of the definite article, which are inflected for number and gender: al/msgafsg/aimpl/alefpl. This particle agrees with the head noun. The first aim of this paper is to account for the alternation between "bare (morphological) genitives" and "al-genitives". The account to be proposed below follows the line of Grosu (1988, 1994), insofar as it attempts to treat Romanian genitives on a par with Saxon genitives, but diverges from Grosu's analysis itself. According to Abney (1986), Saxon genitives such as those in (3) are to be represented as in (3') (3) a. John's brother b. my sister's friend c. a neighbour's daugther DP Spec, DP D D' NP Spec, NP John my sister a neighbour 's 's 's N'

(3')

tJohn brother tmy sister friend ta neighbour daughter

In these configurations, the possessor DP moves from Spec, NP to Spec, DP in order to be assigned Case by a D element, namely the 's morpheme. Adapting this analysis, Grosu (1988, 1994) proposes that in Romanian, the assigner of genitive Case is the definite article. He furthermore assumes an adjacency constraint on the assignment of genitive Case, which is meant to account for the paradigm in (4), which shows that the case-assigner, i.e., the definite article, must be adjacent to the assignee, the genitivemarked DP: (4) a. cartea profesorului book-the teacher-theGen 'the teacher's book' b. *cartea nou profesorului book-the new teacher-theGen c. cartea nou a profesorului book-the new a teacher-theGen 'the teacher's new book'

Grosu's proposal successfully accounts for the examples at hand. In (4)a Gen Case can be assigned, because the possessor DP is adjacent to (more precisely, it immediately follows) the suffixal definite article -a. In (4)b the intervening adjective blocks Case-assignment, and the configuration can only be saved by the insertion of al, an element that Grosu analyzes as a dummy preposition carrying a dummy definite article. Although the categorial status of al/a/ai/ale is debatable (see section 2 below), the fact remains that this element contains a definite article, which, given Grosu's proposal, may assign Gen Case under adjaceny to profesorului (see (4)c). According to Grosu, the assignment of Gen Case in Romanian and the one that applies in Saxon genitives are alike insofar as: (5) Gen Case is assigned (i) under adjacency1 (ii) by a genitive case assigner of category D (the definite article and 's, respectively). The Abney-Grosu analysis summarized here is not completely satisfactory insofar as it relies on language-specific elements, the definite article in Romanian and 's in English, which do not seem to be characterizable in a unitary manner. We may indeed agree that the Romanian definite article is a D element, but such a categorial label is hard to accept for 's, and as a matter of fact this hypothesis is dropped in Abney (1987), who assumes that D dominates a null AGR rather than 's: (3") DP Spec, DP D' D NP Spec, NP [DP-genJohn]'s [DP-genmy sister]'s [DP-gena neighbour]'s [AGR] [AGR] [AGR] N' brother friend daughter

[DP-gent]

Under this alternative analysis, 's is a phrasal affix (see also Grosu (1994, section 7.4.2.) marking Genitive Case rather than a Case assigner. No adjacency constraint needs to be postulated, since the raising of N to D cannot put the N-head in front of 's. The problem, however, is that we must postulate the existence of a null determiner/agreement morpheme that does not independently exist in the language, but is restricted to co-occur with a Saxon genitive. Besides, the general proposal is confronted with the following challenges: (6) a. What kind of D elements are universally predicted to be Case-assigners? More precisely, do we expect indefinite or demonstrative articles to be able to assign Gen Case?
1According to Grosu (1988, 1994), the ungrammaticality of examples such as *the child doll's provides

evidence in favor of the hypothesis that 's assigns Genitive Case under adjacency : sequences of this type can be generated by Head-to Head movement of the N-head doll to the D position occupied by 's. To rule them out one would have to postulate an adjacency constraint.

b. Do we expect definite articles that are not suffixes on N to assign Gen Case? c. Do we expect D elements to assign Case under adjacency to any structural position? In what follows, I will argue instead that the assignment of Genitive Case in Romanian and in English Saxon genitives is not due to a particular Case-assigner, but rather to the structural position occupied by the DP that needs Case: (7) Structural Genitive Case is assigned to Spec, DP/Spec, Nmax.

Saxon genitives undoubtedly occupy a specific structural position inside nominal projections. Although the existence of such a position has been firmly established since the early 70's, its definition has changed depending on the changes of the syntactic model itself. Pre-GB and early GB studies referred to "the subject of NP", or to "Spec, NP". The label Spec, DP is related to the extension of X'-theory to functional categories (Chomsky (1986)), and more precisely to Abney's (1986, 1987) hypothesis according to which the maximal nominal projection is a projection of the functional category Det rather than a projection of the N-head itself. Because Abney's DP-hypothesis is still widely assumed in the current literature on nominal projections, I will use the DP-terminology essentially for readability reasons. This does not mean, however, that I subscribe to the DP-hypothesis as it stands. More precisely, I agree with the Det-as-head hypothesis, but not with the idea that all the maximal nominal projections occupying argument-positions are projections of D. The analyses to be proposed below will rely on the following basic assumptions, which are minimalist in spirit, although they have not as yet been explicitly postulated in minimalist accounts of DP-structure: (8) a. Bare NPs, i.e., nominal projections that lack the D-layer, may occupy argumentpositions. b. No movement from (Spec, NP) to (Spec, DP) applies. The proposition stated in (8)a essentially says that we do not want to postulate null D elements in the Lexicon, which is a sound methodological option. If two competing analyses cover the same range of data, preference should be given to the analysis that dispenses with null lexical elements over one that does not do so. The main objection that may be raised against (8)a is the presumed incompatibility between the semantic type of bare NPs and the fact that they are allowed to appear in argument positions. Theorists agree that bare NPs are property-denoting expressions (type (e,t)), as indicated by their occurrence in predicate-positions, e.g., Jean est mdecin 'John is physician'; Jean et Marie sont mdecins 'John and Mary are physicians'). Only those nominal projections that have the D-layer can have the semantic type of an argument (either individual-type (type e) or generalized quantifier (type ((e,t)t)). Theorists disagree, however, as to whether property-denoting expressions, in particular bare NPs, may or may not occupy argument positions. Thus, in examples such as John met friends last night, one may assume that friends is a projection of a null D (Longobardi (1994, 1996)), which as such is allowed to occupy an argument-position, on a par with any other type of DP. Alternatively, one may assume that despite being a mere property-denoting bare NP, friends is allowed to occupy an argument-position, due to particular rules of semantic composition (McNally (1995), van Geehoven (1996), Dobrovie-Sorin (1997)). The generalization in (8)a can thus be understood as meaning (8')a:

(8')

a. Property-denoting expressions are allowed to occupy argument-positions.

I will assume (8')a to be correct, which will become relevant only in later sections (starting with Section 8). There is yet another possible interpretation of (8)a: (8") a. Those nominal projections that lack D, but instead have a lexically-filled Spec position, end up having the semantic type of arguments (denote individuals). As we cannot anticipate the evidence in favor of (8")a, we ask the reader to set aside (until Section 10 below) his questions regarding the referential/argumental status of nominal projections lacking the D-layer and simply assume that (8)a is a possibility allowed by the syntax. Principle (8)b takes seriously one of the central claims of the minimalist model, the elimination of D-structure (and of its representational correlate, NP-chains). (8)b allows two possibilities: a given DP is either merged in (Spec, NP) and stays there or it is directly merged in (Spec, DP) and inherits a th-feature directly from the N-head itself (for a similar proposal in the V-domain see Manzini&Roussou (1997)). Given (8)a-b, the position occupied by Saxon genitives is not (Spec, DP), but rather (Spec, Nmax). I will nevertheless continue to use the labels DP and (Spec, DP), somewhat improperly, to refer not only to projections of D, but also to maximal nominal projections (Nmax) and their Spec positions (Spec, Nmax). The label NP will refer to nominal projections embedded under a D element, and (Spec, NP) will be the associated Spec position: (33) DP/Nmax Spec, DP/Nmax John's Compare French de-phrases: (9) (9') D la la maison de Jean DP NP Nnonmax maison Spec, NP de Jean house Nnonmax

We are not interested here in knowing whether the structure in (9') is the correct representation of le frre de Jean (we will come back to this issue shortly). I simply wanted to show that it is possible to distinguish between Spec, DP/Nmax and Spec, NP.

Notice that, following Giorgi and Longobardi (1991), I assume that Spec, NP can be on the right side of N (contra Kayne (1994)). In what follows, a similar departure from Kayne (1994) will be assumed for the (Spec, DP) position.2 Coming back to Romanian genitives, I will argue that they occupy the Spec, DP rather than the Spec, NP position (contra Dobrovie-Sorin (1987) and Grosu (1994)): (10) fata vecinului daughter-the neighbour-theGen DP D' [N+Dfat+a] Spec, DP/Spec, Nmax vecinului

(10')

Against the general background of the Bare Phrase Structure (BPS) approach to constituent structure (Chomsky (1994), (1995)), I assume that bound functional morphemes, the definite suffixal article in particular, do not occupy syntactic positions, but instead merge with their hosts, here the N-head, prior to syntactic Merge. Now, a constituent such as fata 'fille-la', made up of an N and a D head can only be labelled D' or DP (labels such as N, N' or NP would ignore the fact that the determiner itself belongs to this term). And if fata is assigned the label D', it can merge with a (Spec, DP) constituent, as in (10'). In this configuration, fat 'daughter' is a minimal-maximal category (in other words, both an N and an NP), which is allowed by the BPS format. Other alternative analyses of definite possessives can, of course, be imagined: even if made up of N and D, fata could be labelled N, and as such could merge with a complement and project NP, which would then merge with a null D element, which would attract fat 'daughter' at a later stage in the derivation (see the N-to-D rule assumed by Dobrovie-Sorin (1987) and Cornilescu (1993, 1994), among others). Although maintained in minimalist studies, this type of derivation is not forced upon us by minimalist principles, rather it seems to be an undesirable survival of the GB-type of analysis. It is in any case uneconomical compared to (10'), which is the minimal amount of structure that must be assumed for Romanian definite possessives. In sum, the basic assumption here is that Romanian genitives occupy the Spec, DP position. The preceding discussion was meant to show that this fact could be derived as a consequence of the suffixal nature of the definite article: because the definite article is a suffix in Romanian, an adnominal DP cannot be merged as a complement of N, but only as Spec, DP.3 Let me observe, however, that even if the correlation between the suffixal nature of the definite article and the projection of (Spec, DP) does not hold on general grounds, Romanian genitives may still be assumed to be in Spec, DP, and this is the only hypothesis relevant for our present purposes. It allows us to propose a unified analysis, namely that
2The rightward position of Spec, DP/Spec, Nmax may be a marked option, made available by language-specific

properties, e.g., the suffixal nature of the definite article. I leave this issue open for further research.
3Adjunction to DP is another option, which is available if the N+D term is labelled DP (see Section 3 below).

As will become clear below, the alternation between simple genitives and al-genitives indicates that Spec,DP's cannot be identified with DP-adjuncts (contra Kayne (1994)).

structural genitive Case is assigned in (Spec, DP), as stated in (7), for both Romanian and Saxon genitives, a proposal that will be extended to the Hebrew Construct State nominals in the sections that follow. It is important to stress that unlike Grosu's rule stated in (5), the rule in (7) proposed here does not mention the definite article per se. How can we then explain the contrast in (1) vs (2), repeated below, which shows that "bare" genitive Case can only be assigned if the head N carries the definite article. With any other determiner, the genitive DP is obligatorily preceded by al/a/ai/ale (al-genitives, henceforth): (1) a. casa vecinului/vecinilor house-the neighbour-theGen/neighbours-theGen 'the neighbour's/the neighbours' house' b. casa unei vecine/unor vecine house-the afem-Gen neighbourfem-Gen/somefem-Gen neighboursfem-Gen 'a neighbour's (fem)/some neighbours'(fem) house' a. o cas a vecinului/ a unei vecine a house a neighbour-theGen/a afem-Gen neighbourfem-Gen 'a house of the neighbour's/of a neighbour's( fem)' b. acest obicei al vecinului/ al unei vecinei this habit al neighbour-theGen/al afem-Gen neighbourfem-Gen 'this habit of the neighbour's/of a neighbour's( fem)'

(2)

The obligatory co-occurrence of the definite article with structural Genitive Case will be analyzed here as a consequence of the language-specific constraint stated in (11): (11) In Romanian, Spec, DP can be lexically filled only if D is filled with a definite article. Since structural Genitive Case can only be assigned to (Spec, DP) and since (Spec, DP) is subject to the constraint in (11), it follows that Genitive Case must co-occur with the definite article. If we leave aside examples like John's every student, the analysis of which is far from clear, Saxon genitives offer an instantiation of another language-specific constraint on (Spec, DP): (12) In English, Spec, DP/Spec, Nmax can be lexically filled only if D is empty.

At this point in our investigation, the propositions in (11) and (12) are mere empirical generalizations. An explanation as to why they should hold will be provided in section 10 below, where (11) and (12) will be shown to be the only possible options compatible with the rule of semantic composition that characterizes the elements that occupy (Spec, DP) positions. The choice between the two options is language specific, depending on the particular structure that DPs take in a certain language. 2. Al-Genitives

Since the constraint in (11) rules out the Spec, DP position in examples such as (2), headed by indefinite or demonstrative determiners, the two remaining options are to generate the adnominal DP (a) as a complement to N or (b) as an adjunct to DP: (2') D N DP NP DP2

b.

acest obicei this habit

al unei vecine al afem-Gen neighbourfem-Gen

(2") DP D b. acest this

DP DP2 N obicei habit al unei vecine al afem-Gen neighbourfem-Gen

I want to remain neutral regarding the choice between (2') and (2"), which correspond to the two classical hypotheses regarding relative clauses, as either DP-adjoined or as N-modifiers. For concreteness, and also because in certain environments al-genitives can only be analyzed as being DP-adjoined, I will assume (2"). Now, the only thing we know regarding those adnominal DPs that cannot go to Spec, DP but are instead adjoined to DP is that they cannot be assigned structural Gen Case, since this assignment can only apply to Spec, DP (see rule (7)). This correctly rules out genitive DPs without al/a (*un coleg vecinei. 'a colleague neighbourgenfsg'), and one could simply stipulate that al/a. is a default Case assigner. Note however that the internal make up of al-genitives is remarkable: al-genitives are made up of a genitive-marked DP, which as such must be assumed to get its Case as defined in rule (7). This analysis is indeed possible, as proposed by d'Hulst, Coene et Tasmowski (1997): al/a/.. can be analyzed as D'-constituents containing a pro-N element (the invariable particle a) followed by the definite article:4 (13) a. un biat al vecinului

4The configurations proposed here are simplified ("minimalist"?) versions of the more complex structures

proposed by d'Hulst, Coene et Tasmowski (1997). Functional layers such as AGRP, PossP or GenP (see Ritter (1991), Siloni (1994, 1997), Longobardi (1996) among many others) do not appear to be necessary for an account of the data considered here.

a son al neighbour-theGen 'a son [the one] of the neighbour's' b. o fat a vecinului a daughter a neighbour-theGen 'a daughter of the neighbour's' (13') DP1 D1 NP1 DP1 DP2 D2' Spec, DP DPGen a. un a o a biat [Na]+[Dl] son a+themasc vecinului neighbour+theGen-masc

b.

fat [Na]+[Da]5 vecinului daughter a+thefem neighbour+theGen-masc

In this configuration, DPGen occupies the (Spec, DP) position of DP2. Hence, structural genitive Case can be assigned by virtue of rule (7). This analysis of al-genitives is supported by the fact that they can occur in isolation: (14) a. Al Mariei nu mi-a plcut. al MaryGen not meDat-has pleased 'Mary's I didn't like' b. N-am vzut-o nc pe a vecinului. not-have1p seen-it yet PE a neighbour-theGen 'I/we haven't yet seen the neighbour's' DP D' Spec, DP DPGen a. [Na]+[Dl] a+themsg Mariei6 Marygen

(14')

5The definite feminine article does not form a separate segment here, presumably due to a reduction of a hiatus:

a (invariable particle) +a (definite article) => a.

6As explained in section 8 below, morphological Genitive Case must be marked, in the canonical case at least,

on the determiner of the genitive DP. Although proper names do not generally carry definite articles in Romanian, the -a ending of feminine singular proper names counts as a definite article on which Gen Case is marked.

10

b.

[Na]+[Da] vecinului a+thefsg neighbour-themsg-gen

In sum, al -genitives are analyzed here as definite possessive DPs headed by a pro-N element.7 This type of constituent can occur both as an independent DP and as a DP adjoined to another DP (in (13)a-b, al-can be analyzed as a kind of relative pronoun:8 the gloss of the overall DP would be 'a son/daughter [that is] one of the neighbour's'). 3. The Adjacency Constraint on the Assignment of Genitive Case Let us now examine the adjacency constraint on the assignment of Genitive Case:

7The exact status of al is not directly relevant for our analysis, which is mainly concerned with a crosslinguistic

analysis of Romanian genitives lacking al, Saxon genitives and Hebrew Construct State nominals. The central syntactic proposal made here is that these genitives all occupy the Spec,DP/Spec,Nmax position, in contrast to Romanian al-genitives, English of-genitives or Hebrew Sel-genitives, which sit either under NP, as complements or modifiers of the head N, or are adjoined to DP. This analysis of al-genitives is compatible with the prepositional status of al (Grosu (1988, 1994)). For lack of space I cannot review here the various arguments in favor of each of the two hypotheses regarding al. If Grosu's view turned out to be correct, we would need to assume that Genitive Case is assigned not only in the Spec, DP position, but also in a position governed by a preposition carrying the definite article. And indeed, elements that are undebatably prepositions assign Genitive Case in Romanian whenever a definite article is suffixed to them: ndrtul casei 'in+behind+the house+theGen', "behind the house", deasupra capului 'of+over+the head+theGen', "over the head". Note however that some of these prepositions are nominal stems (e.g., n spatele casei 'in back-the house-theGen' "behind the house"). Even in the absence of a relation to nouns, one may assume that those prepositions that take a definite article acquire nominal status (see numerals in a number of languages), in which case Genitive Case assignment in Romanian can be uniformly assigned by rule (7). Some adjectives allow possessive adjectives, although not nominal Genitives: (i) Vitejii ti fii brave+the your sons 'your brave sons' (ii) *Vitejii rii soldai brave+the country+theGen soldiers "the country's brave soldiers" According to Grosu (1994: 170-178), Genitive Case is assigned in (i), although not in (ii), due to an adjacency constraint that is too complex to be reviewed here. Some doubt regarding Grosu's hypothesis is shed by the ungrammaticality of the following examples, which indicates that the assignment of Genitive Case by adjectival heads to pronouns is not fully productive: (iii) *Tmpitul tu copil stupid+the your child 'your stupid child (iv) *bolnavul lui copil ill-the his child "his suffering child" In sum, the core case, and arguably the only one, of Genitive Case assignment in Romanian is covered by the rule in (7).
8According to Kihm (to appear), genitives of the Construct State type in Semitic (Arabic in particular) are to be

analyzed as a certain kind of relatives. Although I agree that this analysis is indeed correct for certain genitives, in particular for al-genitives, I do not believe that it is adequate for the Hebrew Construct State nominals, nor for the Romanian genitives that lack al.

11

(15)

a. cartea profesorului book-the teacher-theGen 'the teacher's book' b. *cartea nou profesorului book-the new teacher-theGen c. cartea nou a profesorului book-the new a teacher-theGen 'the teacher's new book'

I would like to argue that the adjacency-effect need not be stated as such, but is an indirect consequence of the assignment of genitive Case to (Spec, DP). The first step in the demonstration is the idea that a post-nominal adjective can merge with a definite noun only by adjoining to it: (16) (16') DP cartea book-the cartea nou book-the new DP Adj nou new

As already argued above, a suffixal article merges with N prior to the merge of the Adj, and the term N+D can be labelled D' or DP, but not N. Since N+D is not labelled N, the Adj cannot be embedded under NP. Nor can adjectives merge with D' as (Spec,DP) constituents (this position is reserved to maximal nominal projections, as argued below) or by adjunction (general principles prevent an X from adjoining to a X'-constituent). The only remaining option is DP-adjunction, as illustrated in (16').9

9I take the DP-adjunction of postnominal adjectives to be a language-particular rule, related to the suffixal

nature of the definite article. Although I want to leave aside a detailed analysis of the distribution of adjectives in Romanian, let me provide a somewhat broader picture of the various distributional possibilities: (i) cartea (cea) nou (a Mariei) book-the (CE+def art) new (a MaryGen) 'the book the new of Mary's' (ii) cartea Mariei ??(cea) nou book-the MaryGen ??(CE+def article) new (iii) cartea Mariei (cea) nou i scump book-the MaryGen (CE+def article) new and expensive These examples show that postnominal adjectives may, but need not, be preceded by cel/cea/cei/cele, a complex element made up of an invariable part, ce (formally identical to the wh-phrase ce 'what') followed by the definite article. According to Romanian traditional grammars, cel is an "adjectival article", a label that points to the fact that it (almost) always appears in front of an adjective. I take the possible insertion of cel in between the N-head and the Adj to indicate that Romanian adjectives (may) adjoin to the DP cointaining the N-head. Similarly, I tend to believe that in Hebrew, the obligatory insertion of the definite article ha in between an N preceded by another ha and the post-nominal adjective indicates that ha+Adj is adjoined to [DPha+N]. As observed by Tali

12

Given this configuration for adjectives following definite nouns, the Spec, DP position is not available for adnominal DPs. And since genitive Case can only be assigned to (Spec, DP), we explain why a possessor DP following a postnominal adjective cannot be marked with structural genitive Case. The only option for merging a possessor is DP-adjunction, and in this position al is necessary. The analysis of adjectives sketched here is only suggestive and it may well turn out to be on the wrong track. Note, however, that its incorrectness would not affect the core of the analysis of genitives proposed here, but only the attempt to derive the adjacency constraint on the assignment of Genitive Case from the structural position of adjectives. 4. French Adnominal DPs It can be argued that certain languages do not have a structural (Spec, DP) position, and correspondingly no structural Genitive Case. French is a case in point. In clear contrast with Romanian, French shows no overt difference in the realization of genitive DPs: (17) (18) la maison du voisin/de la voisine the house of+themsg neighbour/of thefsg neigbourfsg a. une maison du voisin/de la voisine a house of+themsg neighbour/of thefsg neigbourfsg b. cette maison du voisin/de la voisine this house of+themsg neighbour/of thefsg neigbourfsg c. la maison en pierre du voisin/de la voisine the house in stone of+themsg neighbour/of thefsg neigbourfsg

Milner (1982, 1995) argues, however, that the categorial status of de varies from (17) to (18): de would be a genitive Case-marker and a preposition, respectively. Although I agree that a distinction is needed in order to account for an important number of empirical phenomena, I believe that lexical ambiguity should be avoided. On methodological grounds, the best possible analysis is one that assumes the lexical identity of de and views whatever differences might exist between (17) and (18) as being triggered by structural distinctions that are neutralized by the subcategorization properties of de specified in the Lexicon, which can be stated as (19): (19) Insert de in front of adnominal N-projections.

This lexical definition of de allows it to be inserted in (17) and (18) alike, regardless of whether the structural positions occupied by the de-phrases are distinct or not. We could thus assume, following Milner (1982), that de -phrases occupy distinct structural positions depending on the type of Det: (20') would be correct for (20)b-d, but not for (20)a, which would instead be analyzed as in (20"):10

Siloni (p.c.), this hypothesis may seem problematic, because the adjective precedes the internal argument of event nominals. For a solution of this problem see footnote 31 below.
10These structures constitute an updating of those proposed by Milner (1982); see Dobrovie-Sorin

(forthcoming) for discussion.

13

(20)

a. l'tudiant de Jean the student of John b. un tudiant de Jean a student of John c. cet tudiant de Jean this student of John d. deux tudiants de Jean two students of John DP2 D2 N2 un fils ce deux NP2 DP1 de Jean

(20')

(20") D'2 D2 le

DP2 DP1 N2 fils de Jean

Note, however, that there is no decisive evidence in favor of this difference in structure (see Miller (1992) and Dobrovie-Sorin (forthcoming)). We may therefore choose to assume that all French genitive DPs occupy the same structural position, which means that in French, a Spec, DP position cannot be defined on purely structural grounds. Correlatively, there can be no distinct morphology corresponding to such a position. Hence, the uniform treatment of genitive DPs in French. Although a structural Spec, DP position does not seem to be well-motivated in French, certain genitive DPs differ from others by their subject-like properties. However, the subjectstatus of such genitives need not be assumed to be due to the structural position they occupy, but may instead be directly related to the type of Det:11 in the context of the definite article, de-phrases would count as DP-subjects, whereas in the context of any other determiner, dephrases would count either as nominal complements or as DP-adjuncts.12

11As argued in Dobrovie-Sorin (forthcoming), this is a reversal of Milner's (1982, 1995) proposal, which

postulates an intrinsic difference between a prepositional de and another de, which counts as a genitive Case marker. This categorial difference would correlate with a structural difference, which in turn would trigger a different choice of determiner on the head N.
12In Dobrovie-Sorin (forthcoming), the distinction between subject-like and complement-like de-phrases was

formulated, somewhat misleadingly, in terms of structural and morphological Genitive Case, respectively.

14

We may now try to understand why Romanian, but not French, has alternating genitives. What I take to be crucial is the fact that Romanian, but not French, has a (Spec, DP) position that can be structurally identified, and associated to it, a particular rule of Genitive Case (Gen) assignment. Precisely because this rule is structure-dependent, it cannot apply to all possessor DPs, hence a different mechanism of Genitive Case assignment is needed. Since French does not have a (Spec, DP) position that can be structurally identified, it does not have a structural rule of Genitive Case assignment: adnominal DPs are uniformly Case-marked by de. 5. Romanian Genitives as Construct State Nominals Romanian genitive constructions exhibit certain similarities with the Hebrew Construct State nominals13 (CSN's henceforth). According to the terminology used in Semitic grammars, the term "noun in the Construct State" refers to the head of the overall DP; the DP corresponding to the genitive DP is called "associate": (21) a. The determiner of the head N is severely constrained: Hebrew CSN's allow only an empty D (or a D filled with a null determiner) and Romanian genitives allow only the definite article (which is a suffix). b. Both CSN's and Romanian genitives show an adjacency constraint between the head N and the genitive/associate DP. c. In those contexts in which (21)a-b are not satisfied, genitive DPs cannot be "bare", but must be preceded by a particle (al/ai/a/ale in Romanian and invariable Sel in Hebrew). These similarities are all the more interesting as Romanian genitives do not have the morphophonological properties characteristic of Semitic CSN's: a noun "in the construct state" is phonologically reduced (bayit >beyt "house"), and correlatively forms with its associate a phonological word (Borer (1988)).14 Note furthermore that construct states in Hebrew and Arabic can be headed not only by nouns, but also by adjectives, gerunds or quantifiers (Borer (1988, 1996), Siloni (1994, 1997, 1998), Danon (1996), Fassi-Fehri (1997)). Romanian bare genitives are disallowed in these various constructions; they can only be constructed with definite nouns or with prepositions followed by a suffixed definite article, a case that I leave aside here (see Grosu (1994) and footnote 7 here). Although we have already dealt with the Romanian paradigms in previous sections, the relevant examples are repeated here, in order for the parallelism with Hebrew to appear as clearly as possible. The examples in (23) and (24) illustrate the constraint on determiners. The incompatibility between genitives and indefinite articles is overt in Romanian (see (23)b), whereas in Hebrew it only appears at the interpretative level.15 Since Hebrew has a null indefinite article (a characteristic to which we will return below), the example in (24)a could have one on the head N. It is the impossibility of the reading "a house of the man" that indicates that CSN's with definite associate DPs are (semantically) incompatible with an
13Most of the relevant properties of this Hebrew construction are also found in the other Semitic languages. 14As observed by Martine Coene (p.c.), Romanian possessive adjectives may give rise to a pattern that has the

morpho-phonological properies of the Hebrew Construct State: maic-sa, taic-tu, soru-mea 'mother-her/his, father-your, sister-my'. This construction is lexically restricted, it can only be used with certain terms of relation.
15If the "tanwin" (realized as an -n suffix) is analyzed as an indefinite article (for a refinement of this traditional

view, see Ayoub (1991), standard Arabic offers an overt manifestation of the incompatibility between Construct State and indefinite articles.

15

indefinite article on the head N. The incompatibility with the definite article ha , which is phonologically realized, can be directly observed (see (24)b):16 (23) a. b. casa omului house-thefsg man-themsg-Gen *o/*aceast cas omului a/this house man-themsg-Gen beyt ha-iS house the-man 'the house of the man/the man's house/*a house of the man' *ha-beyt ha-iS the-house the-man

(24)

a. b.

The examples in (25) illustrate the adjacency constraint: (25) a. *casa mare omului house-thefsg big man-themsg-Gen *beyt house ha-gadol ha-iS the-big the-man

b.

The examples in (26) and (27) show the presence of al and Sel in those configurations in which a CSN/genitive DP without al is prohibited: (26) a. b. (27) a. b. c. o/aceast cas a omului a/this house a man-themsg-Gen casa mare a omului house-thefsg big a man-themsg-Gen bayit Sel ha-iS house Sel the-man 'a house of the man' ha-bayit Sel ha-iS the-house Sel the-man 'the house of the man' ha-bayit ha-gadol Sel ha-iS 'the house the-big of the-man'

It is worth stressing that French de-genitives (and English of-genitives) are not constrained by (21)a-b, and correlatively no genitive alternation exists in French. The similarities between Hebrew and Romanian illustrated above have led Longobardi (1996) to suggest that Romanian genitives constitute a particular type of CSN, a hypothesis that was favored by the fact that the two constructions had both been independently analyzed as relying on the raising of the head N to D (see Dobrovie-Sorin (1987) and Cornilescu (1993, 1994) for Romanian, and Ritter (1987), Fassi-Fehri (1989), Siloni (1994, 1997) and
16Most of the Hebrew examples in this paper are borrowed from Borer (1988, 1996).

16

Borer (1996) for Hebrew; (Rouveret (1994) extends N-to-D to Welsh). Building on this quasi-unanimous analysis, Longobardi argues that the rule of N-to-D is the defining characteristic of CSN's across languages. This rule would be allowed only if the determiner is empty or a suffix (hence the restriction in (21)a), and would be subject to an adjacency constraint (hence (21)b).17 In case N-to-D is blocked, a "prepositional" Genitive must be used (see (21)c). Note that according to Longobardi, CS nominals (a label which, in his analysis, covers Romanian genitives) are allowed by enclitic articles, regardless of whether the latter are definite, as in Romanian, or indefinite. The tanwin of standard Arabic (see footnotes 15 and 28) offers interesting counterevidence against the hypothesis that enclisis per se is relevant: the head N of CS nominals in standard Arabic cannot be marked with the indefinite suffix -n, even if the associate of the CS is indefinite (this specification is needed in order to avoid a violation of the so-called "(in)definiteness spread" requirement). According to the generalization in (21)a, al-less Romanian genitives are allowed not because the head N is marked with a suffixal/enclitic article, but rather because the article is both enclitic (or rather suffixal) and definite. An understanding of why definiteness is crucial for the phenomena at hand will be provided in later sections (Section 10 and subsequent). Within the analysis proposed in Section 1 above, the suffixal nature of the article is relevant insofar as it allows (maybe forces) first Merge with the head N, resulting in a constituent labelled D', which in turn allows/forces the Genitive DP to merge in (Spec, DP). As will become clear below, the common properties of Romanian genitives and Hebrew CS nominals are precisely due to the fact that (in the relevant cases) the genitive/associate DP merges in (Spec, DP). 6. Romanian Genitives are not CSN's Longobardi's hypothesis that Romanian genitives constitute a particular case of CSN's cannot explain important contrasts between Hebrew and Romanian. First, Romanian genitives without al are incompatible with numerals on the head N, whereas Hebrew CSN's allow numerals (see (28)a vs (28)b). In this context, only al-genitives are allowed in Romanian (see (28)c): (28) a. b. 'arba'a bney melex four sons king 'four sons of a king' *patru fii unui rege

17Against the background of Bare Phrase Structure assumed here, the N-to-D rule can be restated as Head-to-

Head Merge, projecting a D' constituent, which subsequently merges with Spec, DP, as proposed in section 1 above for Romanian genitives. Since Spec, DP can be assigned structural genitive Case, we can account for the lack of Sel. When N-to-D (Merge or Move) is blocked, e.g., by the presence of an overt D element, the Spec, DP position is not available and correlatively the possessor DP cannot be assigned structural genitive Case, hence the necessary insertion of Sel. Although it is compatible with my main claims, this analysis is somewhat problematic on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Note first that according to Bare Phrase Structure (Chomsky (1994)), constituent structure is not projected by phrase-structure rules, but is instead gradually built by the Merge of items selected from the Lexicon. Under this view, each and every syntactic node must dominate lexical material. Thus, if we want to assume that CSN's are D-projections, we cannot assume that D is an empty syntactic position, but rather that it dominates a null determiner (or agreement) element listed in the Lexicon. The problem is that two distinct null determiners would have to be postulated, one corresponding to an indefinite article (which is allowed in Hebrew with both CSN's and free state nominals), and another one cooccurring with a noun in the Construct State. Further empirical problems will arise as we proceed, which will lead us to assume that CSN's are not D-projections, but rather bare NPs.

17

c.

'four sonsplur amsg-Gen king' patru fii ai unui rege 'four sonsplur ai amsg-Gen king'

Crucially, the Hebrew example in (28)a has a semantic interpretation that is clearly different from that of the corresponding Saxon genitive: (28)a means 'four sons of a king', whereas a king's four sons means 'the four sons of a king'. Correlative to the contrast between (28)a and (28)b is the one between (29)a-b and (30)a-b: (29) a. ben melex son king 'a son of a king' b. bney melaxim sons kings 'some sons of some kings' a. *un fiu unui rege a son amsgGen king b. *fii unor regi sons someGen kings

(30)

In this context an al genitive is required in Romanian: (31) a. un fiu al unui rege a son almsg amsgGen king 'a son of a king' b. fii ai unor regi sons aimpl someGen kings 'sons of some kings'

Finally, construct state is productively used to form so-called "CSN compounds" (Borer (1988)): (32) a. ben melex 'a son of king', "(a) prince" b. beyt xolim 'house sicks', "(a) hospital" c. gan yeladim 'garden children', "(a) kindergarden" a. beyt ec 'house wood', "(a) house of wood" b. gan peyrot tropyim 'garden fruit tropical', "(a) garden of tropical fruit" c. kos kafe 'cup coffee', "a cup of coffee"

(33)

18

The examples in (32) are true compounds, those in (33) illustrate a productive construction in which the associate is a modifier of the head N. To refer to examples of both kinds I will use Borer's term of "CSN compound", although compounds constitute just the frozen version of the productive modification pattern. In contrast to CSN's, Romanian genitives cannot be used as modifiers of the head N. In this case, even al -genitives are prohibited, the only possibility being the use of the preposition de, which can never be used as a genitive-marker (e.g., it never marks possession) in Romanian: (34) a. *o cas (a) lemn(ului) a house (afsg) wood(themsg-Gen) b. *o grdina (a) fructe(lor) tropicale a garden (afsg) fruit(thepl-Gen) tropical c. *o ceac (a) cafelei a cup (afsg) coffee(thefsg-Gen) a. o cas de lemn a house of wood b. o grdin de fructe tropicale a garden of fruit tropical c. o ceac de cafea a cup of coffee

(35)

In sum, CSN's contrast with Romanian genitives in allowing numerals, as well as an indefinite article interpretation on the head N, and in allowing the associate to be interpreted as a modifier. In all these respects, CSN's behave on a par with French de-genitives and English of-genitives: (36) (37) a. quatre fils d'un roi b. four sons of a king a. ???un fils d'un roi ?des/quelques fils d'un roi b. ???a son of a king ?some/several sons of a king a. la/une tasse de caf b. the/a cup of coffee

(38)

Although the examples in (37) are highly marginal, maybe unacceptable, they are not syntactically ill-formed in the way the Romanian examples in (30) are. Note that the examples brought up in this section, which give rise to contrasts between Romanian and Hebrew, are all built with indefinite possessors, whereas the examples of the preceding section, which are parallel in Romanian and Hebrew, are all built with definite possessors. 7. CSN's with Definite Possessors In what follows I will attempt to provide an analysis of the crosslinguistic variation shown by genitive constructions based on the idea that the rule of Genitive Case assignment stated in

19

(7), and repeated under (39), proposed in earlier sections for Saxon and Romanian genitives, also holds in Hebrew: (39) Structural Genitive Case is assigned to Spec, DP/Spec, Nmax.

I will furthermore assume that (Spec, DP) imposes severe constraints on the nature of the determiner on the head N. The only options are those described in (11) and (12), repeated here as (40)i-ii, which hold for Romanian and Saxon genitives, respectively (see Section 1 above): (40) Spec, DP can be lexically filled only if (i) D is empty or (ii) filled with a definite article. Definite possessors (marked with ha in Hebrew and a suffix in Romanian) are DPprojections, which are necessarily arguments (type e or type ((e,t)t), and as such need Case.18 Because they need Case, and because they are not marked with inherent Case, the DPassociates of CSN's must occupy the only position to which structural Case can be assigned, the (Spec, DP) position. They can appear neither as adjuncts nor as complements of N. Sel-genitives differ from CSN-associates insofar as they are inherently marked with genitive Case, which allows them to occupy any syntactic position, in particular they may occur as DP-adjuncts. The data seems to indicate that Sel-genitives can only be DP-adjuncts, but I will leave this stronger generalization open for further research. Let us now show that the rule in (39) and the constraint in (40) correctly account for the genitive configurations found in Hebrew, French and Romanian. Due to (40), French examples of the type in (41), where the head N carries the indefinite article, cannot be analyzed as having the de-phrase in (Spec, DP); the genitive may either be adjoined to the DP-projection of the head N, or it can be a modifier embedded under the NP projection of the head N. Both possibilities are allowed, because de-genitives are inherently Case-marked: (41) une maison de l'homme a house of the-man

Neither adjunction nor embedding under NP are available for DP-associates of CSN's, which, due to Case requirements, can only be merged in (Spec, DP). But this position is not available in (42)a, due to (40). Hence the ungrammaticality of (42)a (the only relevant analysis is the one in which the head N is interpreted as indefinite). The only possibility then is the use of a Sel-genitive (correlated with the free state), which is like French de-genitives insofar as it is inherently marked with genitive Case. (42) a. beyt ha-iS 'a house of the-man' = 'the house of the man' b. bayit Sel ha-iS = 'a house of the-man'

18Recall Chomsky's (1981) attempt to derive the Case-filter from the Th-Criterion.

20

Our analysis also accounts for the parallelism between the Hebrew examples in (42)a-b and the Romanian examples in (43)a-b: (43) a. *un elev vecinei mele a student neighbourfsgGen my b. un elev al vecinei mele a student almsg neighbourfsgGen my 'a student of my neighbour'

(43)a is ungrammatical, because Romanian genitives lacking al need structural genitive Case, which can only be assigned to the (Spec, DP) position, but this position is unavailable here because the head N takes an indefinite article. The example in (43)b is allowed, since algenitives can be embedded under NP or adjoined to DP (see section 2 above). In sum, the distribution of adnominal DPs is parallel in Romanian and Hebrew CSN's, and differs from that of de-DPs or of-DPs in English: the DP-associates of CSN's and the Romanian genitives without al must be assigned structural Case, and this forces them to occupy the (Spec, DP) position; in all other contexts, the genitive/associate DP must be preceded by al and Sel, respectively. 8. Indefinite Possessors Let us now come back to indefinite possessors, which give rise to important constrasts between Hebrew and Romanian, see (29)-(30), repeated here: (29) a. ben melex son king 'a son of a king' b. bney melaxim sons kings 'some sons of some kings' a. *un fiu unui rege a son amsgGen king b. *fii unor regi sons someGen kings

(30)

The ungrammaticality of the Romanian example in (30)a is parallel to the ungrammaticality of (42)a and (43)a: the genitive DP cannot be in Spec, DP, and as such cannot take structural genitive Case; only al-genitives are allowed, as in (31)a-b, repeated here: (31) a. un fiu al unui rege a son almsg amsgGen king 'a son of a king' b. fii ai unor regi sons aimpl someGen kings 'sons of some kings'

21

The grammaticality of the Hebrew examples in (29) is unexpected19 if we assume the associate noun, melex, to be a DP: as such it should occupy the (Spec, DP) position, but this is incompatible with the main N being (interpreted as) indefinite (recall again the generalizations in (11) and (12)). Let us now observe that the indefinite possessors in the Hebrew examples above lack an overt article. It is a general property of Hebrew indefinite nouns, both singular and plural, that they do not take an overt indefinite article, even when they occupy argument-positions. The lack of an overt indefinite article is clearly not related to the construct state configuration. First, free state nominals also lack an indefinite article. Second, there is no prohibition against an overt indefinite article on the associate of a CS nominal, as evidenced by Standard Arabic: although the tanwin is disallowed on the head of a CS nominal, it is allowed on the associate, e.g., bayt-u rajul-i-n 'house-Nom man-Gen-a', "a man's house". The absence of an overt article is compatible with two distinct analyses. According to Longobardi (1996), a null indefinite article fills the D position (Hebrew would be an "articledrop" language in the sense of Crisma (1995)). We will instead assume that indefinites are bare NPs- rather than DP-projections.20 Since BNPs do not have the semantic type of arguments (they are property-denoting expressions), we may assume that they do not need Case, and consequently they need not appear in (Spec, DP). There is, however, an even stronger requirement on the distribution of bare NPs: (44) Bare NPs cannot occupy the (Spec, DP) position.

It is important to stress that we do not assume a general ban against bare NPs in argumentpositions: although they are property-denoting expressions, bare NPs are allowed to occupy argument-positions of the verb21 or of the noun (see below). The prohibition in (44) follows from the requirement stated in (45), which is quite well-established for the verbal domain: in a wide variety of languages, BNPs are allowed to appear as direct objects, and more rarely as subjects, but only in positions that are arguably C-commanded by the verb: (45) BNPs must be lexically-governed.22

19Alex Grosu (p.c.) observes that indefinite construct states are highly marginal, and that they are only

acceptable if an adequate context is provided. As will become clear below, the markedness of indefinite CSN's is expected under our analysis.
20There is a third possibility, namely that the D position is empty at D-structure (Longobardi (1996)) and filled

by N-to-D raising at S-structure.

21There is a growing literature arguing that existential bare plurals are bare NP-projections, even when they

occupy argument-positions (McNally (1995), van Geehoven (1996), Dobrovie-Sorin (1997), DobrovieSorin&Laca (1998)). This analysis can be extended to bare nouns in general, in particular to bare singulars in languages such as Hebrew.
22This syntactic requirement is probably correlated with the particular rules of semantic composition that

account for bare NPs in argument positions, see van Geehoven's (1996) "semantic incorporation" or DobrovieSorin's (1997) proposal that bare NPs in argument-positions are property-denoting expressions that restrict the range of an existentially bound argument-variable. Crucially, this argument-variable does not arise as an LF translation of the BNP itself, but instead corresponds to an argument in the th-grid of the verbal predicate.

22

The analysis of Hebrew CSN's to be proposed below will be based on the assumption that the constraint in (45) also holds in the nominal domain: because they must be lexically-governed, BNP-associates of CSN's cannot appear in (Spec, DP), nor can they adjoin to DP. They can only be merged as sisters of the head N, as in (29'): (29') D N1 a. b. ben bney DP1 NP1 NP2 melex melaxim

This representation may be simplified by assuming that even the head N lacks the DP-level: (29") N1 ben NP1 NP2 melex

The ban on bare NPs in (Spec, DP) can be easily observed in Saxon genitives : (46) a. some friends' children b. *friends' children23

Although the relevant Romanian data is more complex, a careful analysis reveals that the constraint stated in (44) also holds in this language. Thus, although in Romanian, bare plurals can be used in subject and object argument positions, they cannot take Genitive Case. One could argue that this is so simply because Genitive Case can only be morphologically marked on the article. This is however not true, because with masculine proper names, which do not take an article in Romanian, a genitive form is constructed by prefixing lui, which indeed corresponds to a Gen definite article. It is worth mentioning that this type of Genitive marking is completely productive, as indicated by the fact that it extends to Datives (recall that Genitive and Dative markings are identical in Romanian):
23Examples such as those below, brought up by Alex Grosu (p.c.), may be taken to provide counterevidence

against (44): (i) Close friends' children ought to be treated like your own (ii) Paupers' wives rarely wear diamonds, rich men's mistresses often do so. DPs of this type may be analyzed as relying on a modification pattern (see Woisetschlaeger (1983), among others), in which case the Saxon genitive is not in (Spec,DP). The corresponding French examples are built with the "mass particle" de and are to be analyzed as relying on modification: (iii) Les enfants d'amis proches devraient tre traits comme les tiens. (iv) Les femmes de pauvres portent rarement des diamands, les maitresses de riches le font souvent.

23

(47)

a. cartea lui Mihai book-the themsgGen Mihai b. I-am scris lui Ion himDat-have1p written themsgDat Ion 'I/we wrote to John'

This form is completely general for masculine proper names,24 and we could expect the existence of a similar Genitive prefix for Romanian bare plurals. Quite interestingly, such an element does exist, in the form of an uninflected preposition, a for Genitives and la for Datives, which are used with cardinal indefinites (the cardinal itself cannot be morphologically marked for Case): (48) a. fetele a trei vecini daughters-the a three neighbours b. Am scris la trei vecini. have written la three neighbours '[I/we] wrote to three neighbours'

In sharp contrast with (48)a, the Genitive preposition a cannot be used with bare plural indefinites:25 (49) *fetele a vecini daughters-the a neighbours

The ungrammaticality of (49) can be analyzed as showing that bare plurals are not treated as DPs, but rather as "bare" NPs, which as such cannot appear in the (Spec, DP) position. Those indefinite possessors which carry indefinite articles are DP-projections, and as such they are freely allowed to take either Gen or Dat Case:
24The plural counterpart of lui is lor (which is the normal form of a Gen/Dat plural definite article, e.g. fata

vecinilor 'daughter-the neigbours-theplurGen'), but this form is not used as a prefix in front of bare plurals, neither as a Genitive marker, nor as a Dative marker: (i) (ii) *fetele lor vecini *Am scris lor vecini

The reason of this impossibility is quite easy to understand: lui and lor are forms of the definite article, which are compatible (although not normally used in Romanian) with proper names, but not with bare plurals, which are indefinite. To put it otherwise, examples such as (i)-(ii), if grammatical at all (they become so if lor is attached as a suffix to the possessor DP) would be interpreted as constructed with a definite possessor.
25The Dative preposition la apparently can appear with bare NPs:

(i) Am scris la vecini. The grammaticality of (i) could be analyzed as indicating that bare NPs are allowed in the argument position of indirect objects. Note however that vecini "neighbours" is only apparently a bare NP. It is indeed a general property of Romanian definite DPs that they drop the definite article when they are preceded by a preposition (n curte 'in courtyard', pe mas 'on table' etc.; the definite article is obligatory if the noun is modifie: n curtea ta 'in courtyar-the your' pe masa roie 'on table-the red'). The example in (i) indeed has a definite interpretation. It thus appears that Dative arguments cannot be expressed by bare NPs either, on a par with Genitives and in contrast with subject and objects.This generalization seems to be crosslinguistically widespread

24

(50)

a. copiii unor prieteni children-the someGen friends b. Am scris unor prieteni. have1p written someDat friends 'I/we wrote to some friends'

Coming back to Hebrew, it is reasonable to assume that the constraint in (44) also holds in this language. Bare NPs are illegitimate in the (Spec, DP) position, on a par with Romanian, but they are legitimate if embedded under NP,26 as in (29"). Note now that according to our analysis, CSN's constructed with indefinite possessors (see (29)) come out structurally identical with indefinite "CS compounds" (see (32)-(33)). More precisely, we are led to assume that the two readings of "ben melex", "prince" or "a son of a (particular) king", rely on the same syntactic representation (see (29")), in which the associate of the CSN functions as a modifier of N rather than as an argument. Although this outcome of our analysis may seem problematic, French data confirms the empirical generalization: (51) a. Jean est en train de jouer avec des enfants d'amis (qui habitent ct). John is playing with children of friends (who live next door) b. Jean est en train de recevoir des parents d'lves (de sa classe). John is talking to parents of students (of my class).

One must first observe that the indefinite possessor is preceded by de and not by des (contracted form of de+les ), the normal form of indefinite plurals in French (see J'ai rencontr des amis 'I met des friends', meaning "I met friends"). Since des indefinites are the closest French analogue of Romanian or Spanish bare plurals, the ungrammaticality of possessor des-indefinites is yet another instantiation of the constraint stated in (44).27 The uninflected preposition de (d') that appears in (51)a-b is on the other hand currently used with modifying adnominal complements, some of which have become true compounds: (52) a. tasse de caf, livre de classe, fusil de chasse, permis de travail cup of coffee, book of class, gun of hunting, permit of work b. pomme de terre, apple of ground 'potato'

26If we extend our analysis of the distribution of indefinite/bare NPs to event nominals, we are confronted with

the following problem, raised by Tali Siloni (p.c.): assuming that the complement position is occupied by the internal argument, where does the indefinite subject sit? The following options seem to me available: (i) following Borer (1996), we may assume that event nominals involve more structure than object-referring nominals, e.g., a verbal projection, in which case the indefinite subject could sit in (Spec,VP); or (ii) we may assume that internal arguments (marked with Sel) do not sit under N' but are instead DP-adjoined (see footnote 31).
27DPs such as des enfants des amis are grammatical in French, but they can only have the meaning 'children of

the friends': des is again the contracted form of de + les, but in possessive DPs, de is interpreted as a Genitive marker, and correspondingly, le(s) takes its standard, definite meaning. When des, du, de la are used with an indefinite meaning, de has the role of some sort of "mass particle": (i) J'ai examin des enfants malades. (ii) J'ai mang du beurre/de la farine/des pinards.

25

It thus appears that the French examples in (51)a-b are like the Hebrew examples in (29) insofar as they rely on adnominal modifiers of category NP rather than on genitive-marked DPs. The French examples also show that despite the fact that in these configurations the decomplement is structurally a bare NP modifier (it is headed by the invariable preposition de rather than by the plural indefinite article des), it can be interpreted as referring to a particular (plural) individual due to the larger linguistic context. Thus, the relative clause and the adnominal complement surrounded by brackets in (51)a-b trigger a referential reading for d'amis and d'lves. In sum, Hebrew indefinite CSN's are like French plural "genitives" headed by de insofar as their associate is a bare NP that is structurally a modifier that may be forced to take a referential/argumental status due to properties of the linguistic context. This analysis explains why indefinite CSN's are completely productive if the associate is interpreted as a modifier, but highly marginal if the associate is interpreted as an argument. The following examples are due to Tali Siloni (p.c.), who confirmed Alex Grosu's observation quoted in footnote 19): (53) ?(?) 'eSet pakid nimcet ba-xeder 'wife clerk is+found (=is) in+the-room "A clerk's wife is in the room"

Tali Siloni further observes that indefinite CSN's become more acceptable if the associate is modified (this is parallel to the French examples in (51), in which the referential interpretation of the de-phrase is brought about by the relative clause and modifier of the class) or if it takes 'exad 'one', which, according to some scholars, is developing into an optional indefinite article: (54) 'eSet pakid 'exad nimcet ba-xeder 'wife clerk one is+found (=is) in+the-room

The perfect acceptability of (54) is expected under our analysis: an indefinite in 'exad is not a bare NP, but a DP-constituent, which as such occupies the (Spec, DP) position, and correlatively behaves as a true argument rather than as a modifier.28 The difference between 'exad-indefinite associates and BNP-associates is left unexplained under current accounts, according to which indefinite associates lacking an overt determiner are DP-projections headed by a null indefinite article. Coming back to indefinite CSN's with BNP-associates, our analysis also explains why they are compatible with numerals: (28) a. 'arba'a bney melex four sons king "four sons of a king"

28Although standard Arabic is out of the scope of this paper, I expect a tanwin-marked associate to function as a

full DP-projection (on a par with 'exad-marked Hebrew indefinites) rather than as a bare NP. Correlatively, tanwin-marked and 'exad-marked associates are expected to contrast with Hebrew indefinite (bare NP) associates and behave on a par with Romanian indefinite genitives. I leave this issue open for further research.

26

(28')

a. D

DP1 NP1 NP2 bney melex

'arba'a N1

(28') is a legitimate structure because melex 'king'does not occupy (Spec, DP). Compare Romanian genitives without al , which necessarily occupy (Spec, DP), and correlatively disallow numerals: (28) b. *patru fii unui rege four sons amsgGen king c. patru fii ai unui rege four sons aimpl amsgGen king

Note that the structure in (28') contradicts the widely-assumed generalization according to which CSN's are incompatible with their D-position being overtly realized29 (see also (21)a, which was assumed above as a starting point of the discussion). Against the background of the analysis proposed here, the above-mentioned generalization need not be maintained. As argued in Section 10 below, the correct part of (21)a - which corresponds to the prohibition in (40) - follows as a consequence of the rule of semantic composition that characterizes the (Spec, DP) position. Since bare NP-associates do not occupy Spec, DP, they are not expected to fall under (40). Let us now briefly summarize the overall picture of the syntax of genitive constructions in the various languages under discussion here. I assume that the rule of genitive Case assignment and the categorial prohibition against bare NPs in (Spec, DP), see (39) and (40), repeated under (55)a-b, hold universally: (55) a. Structural Genitive Case is assigned to Spec, DP/Spec, Nmax. b. Spec, DP can be lexically filled only if (i) D is empty or (ii) filled with a definite article.

Languages vary depending on whether they have possessor expressions that are marked with inherent/prepositional Case30 (see de, of, Sel, al in French, English, Hebrew and Romanian, respectively) or instead require structural genitive Case (see Semitic associates of CSN's and Romanian genitives without al). Hebrew and Romanian show that those languages that have possessors with structural genitive Case also have possessors marked with inherent Genitive Case. This generalization follows from the fact that, as stated in (55)a, structural genitive Case can only be assigned to (Spec, DP). Since this position is not available in all possessive
29Note that the representation in (28'), in which numerals are hosted by D, might turn out to be incorrect. One

may instead adopt the analysis of numerals proposed in Danon (1996). I leave a careful analysis of Hebrew numerals open for further research.
30Note that morphological Case marking may either count as inherent Case marking (see German genitives) or

as structural Case (see Romanian simple genitives, as well as the associates of Arabic CSN's).

27

constructions (due to (55)b), inherent Genitive Case is also needed in languages with structural genitives. The common properties of Hebrew CSN's and Romanian genitives without al are all due to the fact that structural genitive Case is needed, which can only be assigned in (Spec, DP). Compare inherently-marked genitives, which are not constrained to appear in particular structural positions. The diverging properties of Hebrew CSN's and Romanian genitives follow from the difference in categorial status between Hebrew and Romanian indefinite possessors: the former are bare NPs, whereas the latter are DP-projections, on a par with definite possessors. As a consequence of the requirement in (45), Hebrew indefinite associates cannot appear in (Spec, DP), but must appear as sisters of N, where they are lexically governed, as required by bare NPs (see (45)). In sum, CSN's exhibit a strict correlation between the categorial status of CSNassociates and the position they occupy: (56) The associates of CSN's appear in Spec, DP (or rather, Spec, Nmax) or are embedded under NP (as either complements or modifiers) depending on whether they are DPs or bare NPs. Neither DP-associates nor BNP-associates of CSN's can be DP-adjuncts: DP-associates need structural Case, which cannot be assigned to DP-adjuncts, and BNP-associates must be lexically governed by N, a requirement that cannot be satisfied in a DP-adjoined position. Inherently-marked genitives, Sel-genitives in particular, can be DP-adjuncts.31 9. Overview of CSN's and (In)definiteness Spread According to the analysis proposed above, CSN's with definite associates are DP/Nmax constituents with the definite associate in (Spec, DP/Nmax): (57) ben ha-melex son the-king DP/Nmax N Spec, DP/Nmax

(57')

31The core evidence seems to suggest an even stronger generalization, according to

which Sel-genitives are necessarily DP-adjuncts, which seems to conflict with the fact that Sel-genitives can be internal arguments of nouns (see event nouns in particular). Any Hebrew noun can appear either in the CS or in the free state, regardless of whether it selects internal arguments or not. Within GB-type analyses, according to which internal arguments are generated as sisters of the head that selects them (see also the "first merge" requirement, which is a minimalist restatement of the same hypothesis), internal arguments of nouns (of event nouns in particular) are generated under N', as sisters of the head N, but they can only remain inside the NP/DP projection of the main N if the latter is in the CS. A noun in the free state pushes its internal argument into an adjunction position: within the analysis proposed here, Selphrases are DP-adjoined at S-structure/Spell-out, even if they are internal arguments, as in e.g., ha-harisa Sel ha-'ir be-'axzariyut 'the-destruction of the-city in-cruelty'. Although the reason of the displacement is different, the obligatory displacement of internal arguments that characterizes free state nominals brings to mind the obligatory displacement of sentential complements.

28

ben

ha melex

The structure in (57'), which is essentially the one assumed by Borer (1988), can be slightly modified in order to be rendered compatible with the rule of N-to-D movement (or N-to-D Merge), which is currently assumed for the analysis of CSN's since Ritter (1987). We simply need to postulate a null D element to which N moves (or which directely merges with N). Following Borer (1996), I assume that Hebrew non-process NP-projections are N-initial: (57") D DP NP N beyt ______________ Spec, NP ha iS

It thus appears that although our analysis of CSN's constructed with definite associates does not depend on the rule of N-to-D raising (or N-to-D first/direct Merge),32 it is compatible with such a rule. Note, however, that CSN's constructed with indefinite associates are not compatible with N-to-D: by assuming a null D for indefinite NPs, we lose the account proposed in the preceding section, which crucially relied on the idea that Hebrew bare NPs lack the functional level, and as such are bound to be merged as complements/modifiers of N. This means that the rule of N-to-D raising cannot be assumed to characterize all the instantiations of CSN's. Let us now observe that although the definite morpheme ha appears prefixed on the associate, both the associate and the head noun are interpreted as definite. Borer (1988) accounts for this interpretation by postulating a percolation mechanism by which the +def feature percolates from the complement DP to the head noun. As a result, both the complement DP and the head noun, as well as all intermediate nouns (see examples such as madaf sifrey ha-yalda 'shelf books the-girl', meaning "the shelf of the books of the girl") are marked as definite. Borer is aware that the sharing of +def features between complements and heads is not normally allowed, and she attributes the existence of this marked mechanism to the word-status of CSN's: the percolation of +def features is allowed inside phonological words. More recently, Borer (1996) tries to argue that the percolation of def features33 is mediated by the rule of N-to-D raising. The necessity of N-to-D would thus be derivable from the necessity of percolating the def features: in Borer's system, def features are assumed to be carried by N heads rather than by D elements, and the percolation of def features is the result of the incorporation of the head of the complement into the head of the CSN. Other
32One could further complicate the structure in (57') by adding various functional projections (NumberP, GenP,

etc.). Although such abstract layers are not needed for an account of the data at hand, they could be made compatible with my main claims.
33Note that Borer (1988) discusses only the percolation of +def features. The absence of an explicit analysis of -

def readings could be interpreted as indicating that the author believed that no percolation of features was needed in this case (as I explicitely argue here). Borer (1996) adheres to the dominant trend of thinking, which treats CSN's constructed with bare NP associates on a par with CSN's constructed with definite DP associates.

29

authors analyze the sharing of def features between the associate and the head of CSN's as relying on agreement with either (Spec, DP) or (Spec, AGRgen) (Fassi-Fehri (1989, 1993) and Siloni (1994, 1997), Longobardi (1996), respectively). This account is problematic: how can it be that the def features, although realized only once, are interpreted twice? Agreement phenomena are exactly of the opposite kind: a f-feature (gender, nr, person, Case) is interpreted only once, although it shows up on several elements.34 In sum, the current account of def spread is a marked, construction-specific mechanism, as acknowledged by Borer (1988). In section 10 below I will argue that this kind of mechanism can be dispensed with. In examples of the type in (57), ha marks as definite only the complement DP, the definite interpretation of the overall DP being due to the particular rule of semantic interpretation that needs to be postulated for DPs that contain a Spec, DP constituent. This analysis will be shown to extend to Saxon genitives and Romanian genitives without al. Consider now definite compound CSN's: (58) a. ben ha-melex son the king 'the son of king', 'the prince' b. beyt ha-xolim house the-sicks 'the hospital' c. gan ha-yeladim garden the-children 'the kindergarden' d. beyt ha-ec house the-wood 'the house of wood' e. gan ha-peyrot tropyim garden the-fruit tropical 'the garden of tropical fruit' f. kos kafe 'cup the-coffee', "the cup of coffee"

These examples clearly show that although the position of ha is fixed at S-structure (or Spellout), it can be interpreted in two distinct positions at LF: it may either determine the complement (as in 57) or the head N (as in (58)). Any analysis of examples such as (58) is bound to postulate some kind of percolation procedure (Borer (1988)), which may be implemented in different ways. We may assume that ha is initially merged with the head noun, and subsequently lowered to the embedded N by some phonological rule. Or conversely, ha is merged with the embedded N, and its +def feature percolates/raises at LF. (58') DP

34Compare also the (static or dynamic) agreement relation underlying Rizzi's (1991) Wh-criterion (later

extended to other "criteria" configurations): arguably, only the element in (Spec, CP) has an interpretable whfeature. The wh-feature on C is a formal feature, which accounts for the position of V+Infl, but carries no particular meaning. In sum, the dynamic agreement postulated by the Wh-Criterion does not generate two whphrases in the place of one.

30

NP N NP

ben ha melex ________________________ The LF raising of ha to D is presumably incompatible with the S-structure rule of N-to-D. Examples of the type in (58) thus constitute another type of CSN for which the rule of N-to-D raising is inadequate. Note that definiteness spread is not needed for the examples in (58): ha raises to D at LF (this is the only construction-specific interpretive rule of Hebrew CSN's), but crucially ha is not interpreted twice, as filling both D positions. Consider finally CSN's with indefinite associates. The analysis proposed in the preceding section allows us to dispense with construction-specific syntactic mechanisms that ensure that the -def feature of the genitive DP is shared by the head N such as "indefiniteness spread"/percolation of indefinite features: both the associate and the overall CSN are bare NPs, which as such can only be interpreted as indefinite. We are thus left with only one type of CSN, the examples in (57), which need some mechanism by which the +def feature of the associate DP percolates up to the head noun. In the next sections I will argue that this phenomenon, which will be identified with the (in)definiteness spread characteristic of Saxon genitives, is due to a particular rule of semantic composition, rather than to some agreement relation in def features between the genitive DP and the D of the head noun. 10. (Spec, DP) and the Semantic Composition of DPs The remaining sections of the paper will be devoted to the semantic composition of possessive DPs in which the possessor is in (Spec, DP). The proposal will have to account both for the (in)definiteness spread phenomenon and for the syntactic constraints stated in (55)b and repeated here: (59) Spec, DP can be lexically filled only if (i) D is empty or (ii) filled with a definite article.

It is clear that such a restriction is completely unexpected if we assume that possessive DPs rely on the standard rules of semantic composition, according to which the determiner applies to the property denoted by the NP. I will argue that those DPs that contain a (Spec, DP) constituent cannot be composed in this way: the D' constituent obtained by merging D (type ((e,t), ((e,t),t)) with NP (type (e,t)) already has the semantic type of an argument (type ((e,t),t)), and as such it can only merge with a DP-adjunct. The generalization obtained so far is that in possessive DPs constructed with canonical D-elements, the possessor can occupy an adjunct position (or a complement position under NP)), but not the (Spec, DP) position. The semantic incompatibility between (Spec, DP) and Det's such as demonstrative or indefinite articles thus matches the negative part of the syntactic universal stated in (59), according to which (Spec, DP) is incompatible with determiners other than the definite article. Run-of-the-mill determiners only allow possessor DPs to merge as complements of N or as DP-adjuncts: (60) o fat a vecinei

31

a daughter afsg neighbourf 'a daughter of the neighbour' (60') DP1 (et,t) Dx (et,t) D (et, (et,t)) o a NP (et) fat daughter a vecinei afsg neighbourf DP2 (et,t)

From the point of view of the Merge operation, a DP that contains (Spec, DP) and one that relies on DP-adjunction are comparable: D merges with NP, and then the resulting term, notated Dx in (60'), merges with another DP. The difference resides only in the label of Dx: if Dx is a D'-constituent, its sister is in (Spec,DP), and if Dx is a DP, its sister is adjoined to it. No type-mismatch arises with adjunction configurations: by applying D to NP we get a constituent of type ((e,t),t), which is an adequate type for the host of a DP-adjunct.35 At this point, one might conclude that a DP-adjunct cannot be distinguished from a Spec, DP constituent. However, Romanian and Saxon genitives, as well as Hebrew CSN's provide clear syntactic evidence in favor of the existence of adnominal DP's which are not adjuncts: adjuncts must be preceded by al and by Sel, in contrast to genitives without al and CSN associates. We have also seen that those adnominal DP's that are not adjuncts impose severe constraints on the type of determiner. This syntactic generalization matches with the semantic incompatibility discussed here. Thus, on both syntactic and semantic grounds we are led to the negative conclusion in (61): (61) (Spec, DP) is incompatible with a D-element of type ((e,t), ((e,t),t)).

Indefinite, cardinal or demonstrative determiners are of type ((e,t), ((e,t),t)), and indeed they are incompatible with genitive DPs in (Spec, DP). We may now use the positive syntactic generalizations stated in (59) in order to find out what the rule of semantic composition could be. Since in certain languages, (Spec, DP)
35There is, however, a remaining problem: is it possible to combine a constituent of type ((e,t),t), see Dx -which

we now identify with DP - with another constituent of type ((e,t),t), the DP-adjunct? We may assume that the predicate-modification rule, which is currently allowed to combine sets of individuals (type (e,t)), can be extended to the composition of sets of properties (type ((e,t),t)): the denotation of o fat a vecinei 'a daughter of the neighbour's' is obtained by intersecting the set of properties of an individual y (such that y is a daughter of an individual x) with the set of properties of an individual z (such that z is related to the neighbour). Another possibility is to assume that al-genitives are not DP-adjoined, but rather complements of the N-head (see (2')), in which case we first compose the genitive with the head N, yielding a property/set of individuals (the set of the individuals that are daughters of the neighbour), and then we apply the denotation of Det to this set of individuals. Note, however, that this analysis cannot be adopted for Sel-complements, which, as argued above, can only be analyzed as being DP-adjoined at Spell-out. We may assume LF reconstruction into NP, which is available either due to the presence of an NP-trace in the complement position of the N-head (if we assume first Merge into that position) or due to the presence of a th-feature on the N-head.

32

necessarily co-occurs with an empty D, we know that the rule of semantic composition that we are trying to find can dispense with determiners. For the purposes of semantic composition, it does not matter whether D is empty or filled with a null article: under both analyses, D does not count for semantic interpretation. Since D does not count for semantic composition, the denotation of the overall nominal projection is obtained by applying the denotation of the head N to the denotation of the DP in (Spec, DP). Now, if we assume that both (Spec, DP) and the overall DP denote generalized quantifiers (i.e., are of type (et,t)), we can only relate them by assuming a rule of predicate-modification, with D' itself denoting a generalized quantifier. But then, we are back to the semantic composition suggested in footnote 35, which characterizes DP-adjunction. The only possibility left open is to assume an individual-type denotation (type e) for both Spec, DP and the overall DP. Correlatively, D', or more precisely the NP dominated by D', denotes a function that maps individuals to individuals: (62) The sister of (Spec, DP) denotes a function from individuals to individuals.

To make this proposal explicit, consider the examples in (63)a-c, represented as in (63')a-c. (63) a. Mary's sister b. Mary's youngest sister c. a neighbour's house DP/Nmax Spec, DP/Nmax a. b. c. D'/Nnonmax

(63')

Mary's sister Mary's youngest sister a neighbour's house

The denotation of the overall DP in (63)a is calculated by applying the sister of function to the individual denotated by Mary. Similarly, (63)b denotes the individual obtained by applying the function youngest sister of to the individual denotated by Mary. Finally, (63)c denotes the individual obtained by applying the function house of to the individual variable contributed by the indefinite DP a neighbour.36 The free variable in (63)c is bound by existential closure (the exact implementation of which is irrelevant here):

36Our analysis is consistent with DRT-type approaches (according to which indefinites contribute individual

variables to the LF representation, see Kamp (1981) and Heim (1982)). Within Generalized Quantifier Theory, type-shifting operations (Partee&Rooth (1983)) are available, which allow indefinites to denote individuals, in certain contexts at least. A bit more complex are examples such as (i) Every student's house was carefully observed,

where the genitive phrase is "essentially quantificational", i.e., irreducible to individual-type denotation. The correct interpretation ("for every x, x is a student, the house of x was carefully observed") can be obtained by first applying Quantifier Raising to every student; the house-of function will then apply to the variable bound by the raised quantifier.

33

(63") a. Mary's sister => y = f(x), where f = the sister of ^ x = Mary b. Mary's youngest sister => y = f(x), where f = the youngest sister of ^ x = Mary c. a neighbour's house => y = f(x), where f = the house of ^ x = //a neighbour// The analysis proposed here constitutes an extension of Frege's (1891) analysis of functional nouns, e.g., the capital of the German empire. Unlike Frege, we do not assume that the functional denotation stated in (62) obtains only if the head N intrinsically denotes an (e,e) function. In our view, the functional denotation is contextually determined: the sister of (Spec, DP) denotes a function from individuals to individuals regardless of the lexical properties of the head N (or of the NP), which may be functional (mother, youngest sister, etc.), relational (brother, sister, friend, etc.), or simply property-denoting (house, pencil, dress, etc.). Note also that the functional analysis proposed here is distinct from the relational analysis that Barker (1995) assumes for the head N associated to a genitive DP: the relational analysis is compatible with any kind of D (see Barker (1995)), whereas the functional analysis is only compatible with an empty D (or with a definite article, as shown below). The semantic analysis proposed here for Saxon genitives extends to the Hebrew CSN's that contain a definite DP-associate: (64) a. beyt ha-iS house the-man b. galgaley ha-mexonit wheels the-car

In contrast to Saxon genitives, the DP-associate of CSN's is located on the right of the head N: (64') DP/Nmax D'/Nnonmax a. b. beyt galgaley Spec, DP/Nmax ha-iS ha-mexonit

In addition to the different location of (Spec, DP), the head N of CSN cannot be modified by an Adj nor can it take a DP-complement as a sister. Given these limitations, D' can only dominate bare N-elements. Beyond these syntactic peculiarities, Hebrew CSN's with definite DP associates can be assumed to rely on the rule of semantic composition proposed above for Saxon genitives: (64") a . beyt house the man => y = h af i(S x), where f =

house

If the head N is plural, e.g., galgaley 'wheels', the overall DP denotes the maximal group (plural individual) associated to the individual denoted by ha mexonit 'the car' by the function wheels of. (64") b. galgaley ha mexonit => y = f (x), where f = wheels of and x = //the car//

34

wheels the car Finally, the same rules of semantic composition can be assumed for Romanian DPs constructed with genitive DPs without al: (65) a. casa vecinului house-the neighbour-themsgGen b. rotile maSinii wheels car-thefsgGen

Although it is not necessary for the functional analysis of the head N, the definite article is compatible with such an analysis: we may analyze it either as being expletive (Milner (1982, 1995); Vergnaud&Zubizarreta (1992)) or as indicating that the main N denotes a function from individuals to individuals (unlike Lbner (1985), I do not assume that this characterization of the definite article should be extended to all its uses). The semantic analysis proposed here thus completely matches the crosslinguistic syntactic generalizations, according to which (Spec, DP) can be lexicalized only if D is empty or filled with a definite article. The choice between these two possibilities, namely the obligatory presence of the definite article in certain languages (e.g., Romanian) versus its obligatory absence in other languages (English or Hebrew), is not due to semantic composition, but rather to morpho-syntactic crosslinguistic differences. One can speculate and say that Spec, DP may co-occur with a definite article only if the latter is a suffix, as in Romanian. This is however only a tentative generalization, which must be further investigated. 11. (In)definiteness Spread Saxon genitives are known to be characterized by "(in)definiteness spread": the overall DP is interpreted as either definite or indefinite depending on whether the genitive DP itself is definite or indefinite (Jackendoff (1974)). This generalization is supported by the syntactic tests of indefiniteness: (66) a. There is a man/*the man/??John in the garden. b. There is a man's dog/*the man's dog/??John's dog in the garden.

Since current analyses of Saxon genitives assume the canonical kind of semantic composition, based on the necessary presence of a determiner, they are forced to assume some (copying, agreement or percolation) mechanism that provides the main N with the lacking Det-features by borrowing them from the Det of the genitive DP. Such constructionspecific mechanisms are problematic for reasons that we have already evoked above in relation to similar proposals regarding CSN's. The rule of semantic composition proposed above allows us to provide a natural, non stipulative explanation for the (in)definiteness spread that characterizes Saxon genitives. Consider indeed the difference between (63")a-b and (63")c, repeated under (67)a-c): (67) a. Mary's sister => y = f(x), where f = the sister of ^ x = Mary b. Mary's youngest sister => y = f(x), where f = the youngest sister of ^ x = Mary c. a neighbour's house => y = f(x), where f = the house of ^ x = //a neighbour//

35

In (67)a-b, the sister-of /youngest-sister-of functions apply to a constant individual (denoted by Mary ), and therefore they yield constant individuals, hence the definite interpretation. Compare (67)c, where the house-of function applies to the variable x contributed by the indefinite genitive DP, a neighbour. The overall DP has an indefinite, i.e., variable, meaning, because the values of the house-of function vary depending on the values of the variable to which it applies. Under this analysis, no determiner on the head N is needed in order to construct the denotation of the overall DP, hence no mechanism of feature-percolation need be assumed. In sum, the phenomenon known as (in)definiteness spread does not rely on a syntactic mechanism that provides the main N with Det features, but instead is the consequence of the functional analysis of the head N. This analysis straightforwardly extends to Romanian genitives: the definite article on the head noun does not indicate that the overall possessive DP is definite, but rather that the head noun denotes an (e,e) function; the overall DP itself counts as (in)definite depending on whether the genitive itself is (in)definite. As already observed in previous sections, the definiteness spread that characterizes CSN's can be identified with the (in)definiteness spread found with Saxon genitives: in beyt ha-iS, the house-of function applies to the constant individual denoted by ha iS, hence the definite reading of the overall DP itself. However, as already observed by Borer (1996), CSN's and Saxon genitives do not show the same type of the indefiniteness spread: (68) a. beyt iS house man 'a house of a man' a man's house b. bney melex sons king 'some sons of a king' a king's sons a. a man's daughter = 'the daughter of a man' 'a daughter of a man' b. a man's daughters = 'the daughters of a man' 'some daughters of a man'

(69)

The functional analysis of the head noun accounts for the readings found with the Saxon genitives illustrated in (69), which are characterized by a uniqueness presupposition: a man's daughter presupposes that the man has only one daughter, and a man's daughters refers to the maximal set of the man's daughters. The readings indicated for the Hebrew examples in (68) clearly do not carry uniqueness presuppositions. This interpretive contrast between Saxon genitives and Hebrew CS nominals goes against Fassi-Fehri (1989, 1993) and Longobardi (1996), who believe that Saxon genitives and the Hebrew CS share the same kind of '(in)definiteness spread'. The difference in interpretation between indefinite Saxon genitives and indefinite CSN's correlates with the fact, already pointed out in section 8 above, that indefinite CSN's are compatible with numerals. Compare again the unacceptability of numerals with Romanian bare, i.e., al-less, genitives, which contrasts with their grammaticality in Hebrew CSN's: (70) *patru fii unui rege four sons amsgGen king (the example becomes gramm. with an al Gen)

36

(71)

'arba'a bney melex four sons king = "four sons of a king 'the four sons of a king'

The ungrammaticality shown in (70) is expected under the hypothesis that Romanian genitives occupy the (Spec, DP) position, which requires the main N to be interpreted as denoting an (e,e) function: the functional interpretation of the head N is incompatible with numerals, because numerals must compose with property-denoting NPs. Crucially, the Hebrew example in (71) has a semantic interpretation that is clearly different from that of the corresponding Saxon genitive: (71) means 'four sons of a king', whereas a king's four sons means 'the four sons of a king'. The interpretation of the Hebrew example in (71) cannot be obtained via the functional analysis, which correctly accounts for Saxon genitives. Conversely, whatever mechanism could explain the Hebrew data cannot extend to Saxon genitives, since the relevant readings are missing. The interpretive data reviewed here corroborate the syntactic analysis proposed in section 8: indefinite CSN's cannot be subsumed under the analysis of definite CSN's: whereas definite associates are DPs that occupy (Spec, DP), indefinite associates are bare NPs embedded as complements of N. Correlatively, definite CSN's rely on the functional denotation of the head N, whereas indefinite CSN's are just bare NPs that contain bare NP possessors, a configuration that constitutes a particular instantiation of "compound CSN's". 12. Extension to Definite Possessives in French and English According to Jackendoff (1974), Milner (1982) and Barker (1993), the generalization stated in (72) holds in French and English: (72) A definite DP containing a possessor (possessive DP, henceforth) is (in)definite just in case the possessor is (in)definite. [Barker's generalization is in terms of (non)familiarity] The notion of possessor covers of-phrases, Saxon genitives, as well as possessive adjectives (his, her, etc.). The generalization in (72) is needed in order to account for an observation that goes back to Prince (1979): possessive DPs violate the familiarity constraint. Thus, although possessive DPs are definite expressions, they can be used as first mentions, see sequences such as A man came in. His daughter ... The generalization in (72) also covers the behaviour of "weak definites" (Poesio's (1994) label): definite descriptions of the form le N de NP/ the N of NP, e.g., le fils d'un paysan/ the son of a farmer do not give rise to the definiteness constraint: (73) a. ? There is the student of a linguist in the garden. b. Il est arriv la fille d'un fermier/*la fille du fermier. Milner's (1982) description of the French data brings in further tests which, although questioned by some French linguists (Corblin (1987); Flaux (1992, 1993)), appear to strongly support the hypothesis that definite expressions containing an indefinite genitive indeed take weak readings: impossibility of left or right dislocation, occurrence in predicate position (after the copula), or in the object position of have:

37

(left or right) dislocation (74) a. *Un linguiste, je le connais depuis lontemps. b. *La fille d'un linguiste, je la connais depuis longtemps. c. Jean/le voisin/ce boulanger, je le connais depuis longtemps. subject position of BE+ possessor (75) a. ??Un apartement/l'appartement d'un voisin est moi. b. Cet appartement/l'appartement de Jean est moi. All existing analyses of possessive DPs agree on the basic empirical generalization stated in (72) and differ only in the way in which (72) is relevant for the particular implementation that each author chooses: Prince's (1979) "provisionally salient objects", Barker's (1991, 1993) distinction between familiarity and saliency or Poesio's (1994) cancellation of familiarity all depend on the "anchoring" stated in (72), of the possessive DP to the possessor. The functional analysis proposed here provides a deeper insight into the phenomenon, by allowing us to understand why the generalization in (72) should hold at all. We have already established above that the functional analysis of the head N is compatible with the definite article: Romanian genitives occupy (Spec, DP) and correlatively the head N denotes an (e,e) function. There is little, maybe no evidence in favor of the idea that French dephrases occupy the (Spec, DP) position. Some evidence exists against the idea that English of-phrases occupy (Spec, DP): (76) a. the son of a farmer; the student of a well-known linguist b. *the firetruck of John

The contrast shown in (76)a-b indicates that of -phrases cannot be freely generated in a structural, non-thematic position such as (Spec, DP). They can only be merged as complements of N, an operation that is constrained by the selectional properties of the noun: relational nouns select for a complement (hence the grammaticality of (76)a), non-relational nouns do not (hence the ungrammaticality of (76)b). We are thus led to conclude that the functional denotation of the head N arises not only in the context of (Spec, DP), but also with definite possessive DPs. In this case then, the functional denotation is triggered by the definite article itself. Recall that Lbner (1985) argues that all the uses of the definite article correlate with a functional use of the head N. For the purposes of the present paper we need not commit ourselves to this extension. Our main conclusions can be summarized as follows: (77) or b. the head N carries the definite article. This disjunctive generalization indicates that the mapping between syntactic Merge and semantic composition is not homomorphous: structurally distinct configurations can be interpreted via the same rule of semantic composition. Note on the other hand, that morphological marking and syntactic structure are correlated in a much stricter way: in both Romanian and English, those DP's that occupy (Spec, DP) carry a special morphology: The head N of a possessive DP denotes a function from individuals to individuals if a. the possessor DP is in (Spec, DP)

38

morphological genitive Case and 's, respectively. Compare French: de is inserted in front of all adnominal DPs, and there is no clear evidence that the (Spec, DP) position can be structurally defined. Similarly, the morpho-phonological peculiarities of Hebrew CSN's solely indicate that several nouns belong to the same maximal projection, the internal syntax of which may vary. References Abney, S. (1986) "Functional Elements and Licensing", paper presented at GLOW 1986, Girona, Spain Abney, S. (1987) The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect, MIT dissertation. Ayoub, G. (1991) "La nominalit du nom ou la question du tanwin", Arabica xxxviii, 151213. Barker, C. (1991) Possessive Descriptions , University of California at Santa Cruz dissertation. Barker, C. (1993) "Definite Possessives and Discourse Novelty", Chicago Linguistic Society 28, Papers from the 28th Regional Meeting, vol. I, pp 26-41. Barker, C. (1995) Possessive Descriptions, CSLI Publications, Dissertations in Linguistics series, revised version of Barker (1991) Borer (1988) "On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs", in Booij&Jaap van Marle (eds.) Morphological Yearbook, Foris. Borer (1996) "The Construct in review", in J. Lecarme, J. Lwenstamm&U. Schlonsky (eds.) Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar, Academic Graphics, The Hague. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Dorcrecht:Foris. Chomsky, N. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1994) Bare Phrase Structure, Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5, MIT. Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1998) "Minimalist Inquiries: the framework", MIT manuscript. Corblin, F. (1987) Indfini, dfini et dmonstratif. Constructions linguistiques de la rfrence, Genve, Droz. Cornilescu, A. (1993) "Notes on the Structure of Romanian DP and the Assignment of the Genitive Case", University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 3.2. Cornilescu, A. (1994) "Remarks on the Romanian Ordinal Numeral", Revue roumaine de linguistique 39. Crisma, P. 1995 "Notes on th Structure of Old English DP", ms, Universita di Venezia, UCLA. Danon (1996) The Syntax of determiners in Hebrew, http://www.tau.ac.il/danon/Thesis.html) D'Hulst, Y., M. Coene et L. Tasmowski (1997) "Last Resort Strategies in DP: Article Reduplication in Romanian and French", ms, UIA, Anvers. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1987) "A propos de la structure du groupe nominal en roumain", Rivista di grammatica generativa, 12: 123-152. Dobrovie-Sorin (1997) "Types of Predicates and the Representation of Existential Readings", Proceedings of SALT (Stanford, April 1997), Cornell University Press. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (forthcoming) "De la syntaxe l'interprtation, de Milner (1982) Milner (1995): le gnitif", Lardreau, G. (ed.) Cahier Jean Claude Milner, Verdier, Paris. Dobrovie-Sorin&Laca (1998) "La gnricit entre la rfrence l'espce et la quantification gnrique", Actes du Colloque Langues et grammaire (Paris, June 1997).

39

Fassi-Fehri, A. (1989) "Generalized IP Structure, Case and VS Word Order", in I. Laka & A. Mahajan (eds.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 75-113. Fassi-Fehri, A. (1993) Issues in the Structure of Arabic Classes and Words, Kluwer, Dordrecht. Fassi-Fehri, A. (1997), "Layers in the distribution of Arabic Adverbs and Adjectives and their licensing", to appear in M. Eid, ed., Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics 11, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Flaux, N. (1992) "Les syntagmes nominaux du type le fils d'un paysan: rfrence dfinie ou indfinie?", le Franais moderne, pp 113-140. Flaux, N. (1993) "Les syntagmes nominaux du type le fils d'un paysan: rfrence dfinie ou indfinie?", le Franais moderne, pp 23-45. Frege, G. (1891), Funktion und Begriff, reedited in Gottlob Frege, Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung Vandenhoeck and Rupprecht, Gttingen, 1969, 17-39. Ghomeshi, J. (1997) "Non-projecting nouns and the EZAFE Construction in Persian", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 729-788. Giorgi, A. and G. Longobardi (1991) The Syntax of Noun Phrases. Configuration, Parameters and Empty Categories, Cambridge University Press. Grosu, A. (1988) "On the Distribution of Genitive Phrases in Rumanian, Lingustics 26: 931949. Grosu, A. (1994), Three Studies in Locality and Case, Routledge, London and New York. Heim, I. (1982), The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite NPs, Ph D dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, published by Garland, New York, 1989. Jackendoff, R. 1974, An Introduction to the X-bar Convention, ms, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana. Kamp, H. (1981), "A theory of truth and Discourse Representation", in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, eds., Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts 135. Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press. Kihm, A. (to appear), "Wolof Genitive Constructions and the Construct State", in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Afroasiatic languages (Sophia-Antipolis, 1996). Lbner, S. (1985) "Definites", Journal of Semantics 4, 279-326. Longobardi, G. 1994. "Reference and Proper Names: a theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form", Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609-669. Longobardi, G. (1996) "The Syntax of N-raising: a minimalist theory", manuscript.
Manzini, R. & A. Roussou, 1997, "A Minimalist Theory of A-Movement and Control", manuscript.

McNally, L. (1995) Bare plurals in Spanish are interpreted as properties. G. Morrill & R. Oehrle.Proceedings of the 1995 ESSLLI Conference on Formal Grammar. Miller, Ph. (1992) Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar, New York: Garland. Milner, J.C. (1982) Ordres et raisons de langue, Paris, Le Seuil. Milner, J.C. (1995) "L'interprtation des gnitifs", Langues et langage. Problmes et raisonnement en linguistique. Mlanges offerts A. Culioli par J. Bouscaren, J.J. Franckel et S. Robert, PUF. Partee, B.H., and M. Rooth (1983) "Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity, in R. Buerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, eds., Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, Berlin: de Gruyter.

40

Poesio, M. (1994) "Weak Definites", Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, SALT 4. Prince (1979) "On the Given/New Distinction", Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 15. Ritter, E. (1987) "NSO orders in Modern Hebrew", J.Mc.Donough & B. Plunkett (eds.) Proceedings of NELS 17:521-537. Ritter, E. (1988) "A Head Movement Approach to Construct-State Noun Phrases", Linguistics, 26.6, 909-929. Ritter, E. (1991) "Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew", Syntax and Semantics 25, 37-62. Rizzi (1991) Residual V-second and the wh-Criterion, Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2, Geneva. Rouveret (1994) Syntaxe du gallois. Principes gnraux et typologie, CNRS Editions. Siloni, T. (1994) Noun Phrases and Nominalization, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva. Siloni, T. (1997) Noun Phrases and Nominalization, Kluwer. Siloni, T. (1998) "Adjectival Constructs and Inalienable Constructions", www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/linguistics/semitic/index.html)), van Geehoven, V. (1996) Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Expressions, dissertation, University of Tbingen. Vergnaud, J.R. and M.L. Zubizarreta "The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 595-652. Woisetschlaeger, E. (1983) "On the question of definiteness in "an old man's book", Linguistic Inquiry 14, 1, pp 137-154.

41

Editing note for the Romanian examples: alt q = a with a diacritic alt t = t with a diacritic alt s = s with a diacritic