Locality Constraints on the Interpretation of Roots: The Case of Hebrew Denominal VERBS

By Maya Arad. 2003

394 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Category of Roots (2013, background): “…[v v [nn [√FORM]]]]] (form) [a a [v v [ √FORM]]] (formal) b. [v v [√FORM]] (form) [a a [ √FORM]] (formal) The matter is particularly tricky within DM because of the assumption (see Marantz 2000, Arad 2003, Marvin 2002) that non-compositionality is delimited by the domain of (first) categorization.”
The reliability of acceptability judgments across languages (2018, background): “(7) H1 (Arad 2003): a. Dani Dani tsava painted et ACC ha-kirot the-walls be-laka. in-varnish ‘Dani painted the walls with varnish.’ b. *Dani Dani siyed whitewashed et ACC ha-kirot the-walls be-laka. in-varnish ‘Dani whitewashed the walls with varnish.’”
Roots, stems, and the universality of lexical representations: evidence from Hebrew. (2007, background): “These two questions are, in principle, orthogonal: Arad (2003) shows that lexical roots can correspond to strings of consonants and vowels.”
A Split Analysis of Plurality: Number in Amharic (2016, background): “However, there has been much controversy over how far up the structure idiosyncratic interpretations of the root are allowed (see, e.g., Marantz 1997, 2001, 2013, Arad 2003, 2005, Borer 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, Alexiadou 2009, Harley 2009b, 2014, Anagnostopoulou and Samioti 2014).”