Reflexive verbs in Hebrew: Deep unaccusativity meets lexical semantics

Abstract

Reflexive verbs in Modern Hebrew show specific morphological marking: only one of the seven verbal templates in the language can be used for reflexives. Yet this morphological marking also appears on anticausative verbs, which have different syntactic and semantic properties. I provide an analysis of reflexivity in Hebrew which does not make reference to dedicated reflexive morphosyntax. By combining independently needed functional heads, the proposal explains what in the syntax underlies this morphology and how different kinds of verbs end up with identical morphophonological properties. To this end, I consider the lexical semantics of individual lexical roots as well as the syntactic configurations in which roots and arguments are embedded. The resulting theory is one in which lexical roots trigger specific interpretations of the syntax at the interfaces.

Templatic morphology as an emergent property

“…The latter example does not spirantize /b/ to [v]. 44 Kastner (2017), which adapts the original proposal by Doron (2003) to state that an abstract root √ ACTION modifies Voice, forcing an agentive reading. It is √ ACTION that blocks spirantization in the phonology and triggers the correct vowels for the templates currently under discussion, XiY " eZ and hitXaY " eZ.…”

“…Unlike in studies that implicitly treat XaYaZ and XiY " eZ as conjugation classes (Temkin Martínez 2008; Temkin Martínez and Müllner 2016; Gouskova 2012), it is worth pointing out that a grammatical difference holds between the two. As discussed by Doron (2003) and Kastner (2017), verbs in XiY " eZ have a itamar@itamarkast.net…”

“…I assume that Voice has a syntactic feature [±D], which either requires or prohibits a DP from merging in its specifier (Kastner 2016(Kastner , 2017. As a result, Voice can be instantiated in three different ways, (13): [+D], [-D] (underspecified) Underspecified Underspecified The tripartite classification of Voice heads need not be overt in all languages, but I will suggest that the three variants have distinct exponents in Hebrew.…”

“…Finally, verbs derived using unmarked Voice will be underspecified in this regard, (14b), (15b 16, enforcing an agentive reading of the verb. This element has been argued to be a root by Kastner (2017), although it is not crucial for present purposes whether it should be treated as a root or a functional head. Its main function, as is shown later on, is to entail that the external argument is an Agent, rather than an inanimate Cause, though individual roots might entail agentive readings even without √ ACTION (as with English assassinate).…”

Two Kinds of External Possession in Mississippi Choctaw

“…'In this section, I provide an account of the mechanics of semantic composition in internal possession (section 7.1), applicatives (section 7.2), and, bringing them together, EP via Appl (section 7.3). The account crucially makes use of the technology of delayed saturation , by which an unsaturated thematic role can be introduced by a functional head low in the structure but ultimately saturated by a DP argument merged as the specifier of a higher functional head (Wood 2014, Myler 2014, Wood 2015, Myler 2016, Kastner 2016, 2017, Wood & Marantz 2017). Because the recipient of the “delayed” θ role may also receive a thematic role from the local functional head it merges with (e.g., Appl), a DP may simultaneously receive two θ roles.…”