Head movement in Hebrew nominals: A reply to Shlonsky

In his recent article (Shlonsky, U., 2004. The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua 114, 1465–1526), Shlonsky proposes a phrasal-movement analysis of word order in Hebrew (and Arabic) noun phrases and argues that the positioning of nominal modifiers with respect to the head-noun cannot be adequately handled by an N-raising derivation. In the present article I argue that in fact the head movement approach to Hebrew noun phrases handles the data more adequately and without as many stipulations. Specifically, I show that Shlonsky’s remnant phrasal movement analysis fails provide an account of three empirical problems: (i) the distinct behavior of light and heavy adjectives, (ii) the position of DP and PP complements of the noun, and (iii) the correlation between agreement in definiteness (but not necessarily in gender or number) and preversus post-nominal position of modifiers. Furthermore, I identify several theoretical complications needed for Shlonsky’s analysis to work and argue that they outweigh the apparent reduction in theoretical complexity that the elimination of head movement is supposed to result in. # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.