Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Rafael Dias Minussi
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas (FFLCH/SBD) |
| Defense date: | 2008-07-01 |
| Examining board members: |
Ana Paula Scher;
Márcia Maria Cançado Lima;
Evani de Carvalho Viotti
|
| Advisor: | Ana Paula Scher |
| Abstract | |
The main aim of this work is to investigate the relationship between definiteness and Case in Hebrew. This will be done by analyzing the Construct State and the phenomenon of Differential Object Marking. By doing so, we intend to shed some light on the phenomenon of Definiteness Spreading, on the Case Theory, on the Construct State and syntactic compounds and on the semantics of ´et. In order to analyze the data, we worked within the framework of Distributed Morphology (Cf. HALLE; MARANTZ (1993), HALLE (1997) e MARANTZ (1997)), considering, as well, the Minimalist Program (Cf. CHOMSKY (1998, 2001)), both of them, recent developments of Generative Theory. Due to this fact - and differently from other Construct State analysis that dont take the compounds into consideration our analysis provides an explanation for the formation of both the Construct State and the syntactic compounds. This is achieved by focusing on the structure of these constructions: the former is a structure derived from two abstract roots, and the later is formed by a single root. The structure of the compounds aims at reflecting the non-compositional interpretation, which is typical in these cases. The Construct State structure, on the other hand, emphasizes the compositionality in its interpretation, the Definiteness Spreading and the non-direct modification of the head. In other words, we suggest that the relationship between Case and definiteness in Hebrew is a formal and dependent one. It is formal because it is expressed by the features of the nominal that must be valued, checked, maintained for proper insertion of phonological content, and late-inserted by the Morphological Component; and it is dependent because Case cannot be checked without definiteness. (AU) | |