[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2021-hacohen-differential-object-marking-modern-hebrew/)

[home](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [docs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/) / [papers](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/) / [Modern Hebrew](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/he/) / Differential Object Marking in Modern Hebrew: Definiteness and partitivity

# Differential Object Marking in Modern Hebrew: Definiteness and partitivity

**Authors:** Aviya Hacohen; Olga Kagan; Dana Plaut · **Year:** 2021 · **Venue:** Glossa: a journal of general linguistics **Link:** [glossa-journal.org/article/id/5729](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5729/) · library `lingbulk-2021-hacohen-differential-object-marking-modern-hebrew` · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

[**5** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W3204424380) openalex · 2026-10-18[**1** citations in our library](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/cited-by/lingbulk-2021-hacohen-differential-object-marking-modern-hebrew/) of the 140673 papers whose bibliographies we read[Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://openalex.org/S4210226983)[licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

- [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5729)
- [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/5729/galley/21573/download)
- [DOI 10.16995/glossa.5729](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5729)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W3204424380)

**Authors (3)**

1. [Aviya Hacohen](https://openalex.org/A5066331699) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4832-3437) · h 3 · 81 citations · 22 works
2. [Olga Kagan](https://openalex.org/A5023297902) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4518-1859) · h 20 · 2507 citations · 192 works
3. [Dana Plaut](https://openalex.org/A5075810949) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8776-9395) · h 2 · 10 citations · 7 works

Citations and author metrics from openalex (2026-10-18); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

The object marker et is said to be licensed only by definite objects. The authors show that in colloquial Modern Hebrew it also optionally marks partitive objects such as "half of the people there" (xeci me-ha-anašim). In a judgment task, 41 native speakers rated sentences on a five-point scale, and partitives averaged 3.6 out of 5. Acceptance rose with preposed objects and with proportional quantifiers, compared with cardinals. The authors then argue that a partitive can be syntactically indefinite (no et) or syntactically definite by inheriting the definiteness of its complement (et). The analysis builds on Danon's account of agreement with quantified expressions, and it keeps the definiteness-based distribution of et.

## Ideas

- I1. Mark the object DP with syntactic definiteness (the article on the head noun, as Danon argues), not semantic definiteness: "ha-iš ha-ze" allows et, "iš ze" does not, though the meaning is the same. A rule in [Nouns, adjectives, pronouns and numerals](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/he/04-nouns-adjectives-pronouns/) checks this feature.
- I2. A test grid with the three manipulated variables (partitive vs non-partitive, proportional vs cardinal quantifier, unmarked vs preposed object): the parser or the frame reader must give the same object role for all cells, and the et rule must agree with the syntactic definiteness of the complement.
- I3. Use et as a cue for object reading in the Modern Hebrew reader: an et-marked DP is an object and carries definiteness; a partitive with me- and a definite complement can be et-marked, so its definiteness is inherited from the PP complement.

## For Mova

I1 is a rule and feature for [Nouns, adjectives, pronouns and numerals](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/he/04-nouns-adjectives-pronouns/), with the partitive case in [Prepositions, prefixes, conjunctions and particles](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/he/06-prepositions-particles/) (me- "of/from"). I2 is a test set for [7. Syntax](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/he/07-syntax/), built from the paper's variables; the 3.6/5 mean is a soft target for a judgment-based check, not a gold label. I3 belongs to the frame reading in `prag` once Modern Hebrew is parsed.

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.16995/glossa.5729](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5729)

```
@article{hacohen2021differential,
  title = {{Differential Object Marking in Modern Hebrew: Definiteness and partitivity}},
  author = {Hacohen, Aviya and Kagan, Olga and Plaut, Dana},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2021},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.5729},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5729}
}
```

- [← previous Stages rather than ages in the acquisition of movement structures: Data from sentence repetition and 27696 spontaneous clauses](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2021-friedmann-stages-rather-than-ages-acquisition/)
- [next → Approximation derived from a scalar exclusive particle associating with covert focus: The case of Hebrew be-sax ha-kol](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2021-orenstein-approximation-derived-scalar-exclusive-particle/)
- [↑ back to Modern Hebrew](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/he/)

## References

46 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024109008573)
2. Armon-Lotem, Sharon & Avram, Idit. 2005. The autonomous contribution of syntax and pragmatics to the acquisition of the Hebrew. In Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.), UG and External Systems: Language, Brain and Computation, 171–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https:// www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027294524-la.75.11arm Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2003. Agreement parallelism between sentences and noun phrases: A historical sketch. Lingua 113(8). 747–764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00127-4 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(02)00127-4)
3. Bleam, Tonia. 2005. The role of semantic type in differential object marking. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 19. 3–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.19.03ble [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.19.03ble)
4. Borer, H. 1999. Deconstructing the construct. In Johnson, Kyle & Roberts, Ian (eds.), Beyond Principles and Parameters, 43–89. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4822-1_3 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4822-1_3)
5. Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bossong%2C+Georg%2E+1985%2E+Empirische+Universalienforschung%3A+Differentielle+Objektmarkierung+in+den+neuiranischen+Sprachen%2E+T%C3%BCbingen%3A+Narr%2E)
6. Croft, William. 1988. Agreement vs Case Marking and Direct Objects. In Barlow, Michael & Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions, 159–180 Stanford: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Croft%2C+William%2E+1988%2E+Agreement+vs+Case+Marking+and+Direct+Objects%2E+In+Barlow%2C+Michael+%26+Ferguson%2C+Charles+A%2E+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Agreement+in+Natural+Language%3A+Approaches%2C+Theories%2C+Descriptions%2C+159%E2%80%93180+Stanfor)
7. Danon, Gabi. 2001a. The Hebrew Object Marker as a Type-shifting Operator. In Aim, Emmanuel & Gerdes, Kim & Yoo, Hi-Yon (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Doctorate Meeting in Linguistics, 41–46. Paris: Université Paris 7 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Danon%2C+Gabi%2E+2001a%2E+The+Hebrew+Object+Marker+as+a+Type%2Dshifting+Operator%2E+In+Aim%2C+Emmanuel+%26+Gerdes%2C+Kim+%26+Yoo%2C+Hi%2DYon+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+the+6th+Doctorate+Meeting+in+Linguistics%2C+41%E2%80%9346%2E+Paris%3A+Un)
8. Danon, Gabi. 2001b. Syntactic Definiteness in the Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Linguistics 39(6). 1071–1116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.042 Danon. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.042)
9. Gabi. 2002. The Hebrew Object Marker and Semantic Type. In Falk, Yehuda (ed.), Proceedings of IATL 17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.08.001 Danon. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.08.001)
10. Gabi. 2006. Caseless nominals and the projection of DP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24(4). 977–1008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9005-6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9005-6)
11. Danon, Gabi. 2008. Definiteness spreading in the Hebrew construct state. Lingua 118(7). 872– 906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.012 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.012)
12. Danon, Gabi. 2010. The definiteness feature at the syntax–semantics interface. In Kibort, Anna & Corbett, Greville G. (eds.), Features. Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, 143–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577743.003.0006 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577743.003.0006)
13. Danon, Gabi. 2013. Agreement alternations with quantified nominals in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics 49(1). 55–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000333 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226712000333)
14. de Hoop, Helen. 1992. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. Groningen, The Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen PhD dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=de+Hoop%2C+Helen%2E+1992%2E+Case+configuration+and+noun+phrase+interpretation%2E+Groningen%2C+The+Netherlands%3A+Rijksuniversiteit+Groningen+PhD+dissertation%2E)
15. de Jong, Jelly Julia. 1996. The Case of Bound Pronouns in Peripheral Romance. Groningen, The Netherlands: Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=de+Jong%2C+Jelly+Julia%2E+1996%2E+The+Case+of+Bound+Pronouns+in+Peripheral+Romance%2E+Groningen%2C+The+Netherlands%3A+Groningen+Dissertations+in+Linguistics%2E)
16. de Swart, Peter. 2003. The Case Mirror. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University Master’s thesis. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=de+Swart%2C+Peter%2E+2003%2E+The+Case+Mirror%2E+Nijmegen%2C+The+Netherlands%3A+Radboud+University+Master%E2%80%99s+thesis%2E)
17. de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Utrecht: LOT Publishers. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=de+Swart%2C+Peter%2E+2007%2E+Cross%2Dlinguistic+Variation+in+Object+Marking%2E+Utrecht%3A+LOT+Publishers%2E)
18. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2000. (In)Definiteness Spread: From Romanian Genitives to Hebrew Construct State Nominals. In Motapanyane, Virginia (ed.), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, 177–226. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dobrovie%2DSorin%2C+Carmen%2E+2000%2E+%28In%29Definiteness+Spread%3A+From+Romanian+Genitives+to+Hebrew+Construct+State+Nominals%2E+In+Motapanyane%2C+Virginia+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Comparative+Studies+in+Romanian+Syntax%2C+177%E2%80%93226%2E+Amst)
19. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2003. From DPs to NPs: a bare phrase structure account of genitives. In Coene, Martine & D’hulst, Yves (eds.), From NP to DP, Volume 2: The Expression of Possession in Noun Phrases, 75–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.56.08dob [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/la.56.08dob)
20. Dromi, Esther & Leonard, Laurence B. & Shteiman, Michal. 1993. The grammatical morphology of Hebrew-speaking children with specific language impairment: Some competing hypotheses. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 36(4). 760–771. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3604.760 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3604.760)
21. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistics Inquiry 22(1). 1–25. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=En%C3%A7%2C+M%C3%BCrvet%2E+1991%2E+The+Semantics+of+Specificity%2E+Linguistics+Inquiry+22%281%29%2E+1%E2%80%9325%2E)
22. Falk, Yehuda N. 1991. Case: Abstract and Morphological. Linguistics 29(2). 197–230. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.2.197 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.2.197)
23. Falk, Yehuda N. 2007. Constituent Structure and GFs in the Hebrew Nominal Phrase. In Zaenen, Annie & Simpson, Jane & King, Tracy Holloway & Grimshaw, Jane & Maling, Joan & Manning, Chris (eds.), Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: Variations on Themes by Joan W. Bresnan, 103– 126. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Falk%2C+Yehuda+N%2E+2007%2E+Constituent+Structure+and+GFs+in+the+Hebrew+Nominal+Phrase%2E+In+Zaenen%2C+Annie+%26+Simpson%2C+Jane+%26+King%2C+Tracy+Holloway+%26+Grimshaw%2C+Jane+%26+Maling%2C+Joan+%26+Manning%2C+Chris+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Archi)
24. Farkas, Donka. 2002. Specificity Distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19(3). 213–243. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.213 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.213)
25. Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Field%2C+A%2E+2009%2E+Discovering+Statistics+Using+SPSS+%283+rd+ed%2E%29%2E+Thousand+Oaks%2C+CA%3A+Sage+Publications%2E)
26. Frankel, Daniel G. & Amir, Marianne & Frenkel, Etha & Arbel, Tali. 1980. A developmental study of the role of word order in comprehending Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 29(1). 23–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(80)90088-0 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(80)90088-0)
27. Givón, Talmy. 1978. Definiteness and referentiality. In Greenberg, Joseph Harold & Ferguson, Charles Albert & Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 4. 291-330. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Giv%C3%B3n%2C+Talmy%2E+1978%2E+Definiteness+and+referentiality%2E+In+Greenberg%2C+Joseph+Harold+%26+Ferguson%2C+Charles+Albert+%26+Moravcsik%2C+Edith+A%2E+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Universals+of+human+language%2C+vol%2E+4%2E+291%2D330%2E+Stanford%3A+Stanf)
28. Grimm, Scott M. 2005. The Lattice of Case and Agentivity. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Universiteit van Amsterdam Master’s thesis. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Grimm%2C+Scott+M%2E+2005%2E+The+Lattice+of+Case+and+Agentivity%2E+Amsterdam%2C+The+Netherlands%3A+Universiteit+van+Amsterdam+Master%E2%80%99s+thesis%2E)
29. Guntsetseg, Dolgor & von Heusinger Klaus & Klein Udo & Niyazmetowa, Dildora. 2008. Differential object marking in Mongolian and Uzbek. Handout of talk presented at SFB 732, Stuttgart. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Guntsetseg%2C+Dolgor+%26+von+Heusinger+Klaus+%26+Klein+Udo+%26+Niyazmetowa%2C+Dildora%2E+2008%2E+Differential+object+marking+in+Mongolian+and+Uzbek%2E+Handout+of+talk+presented+at+SFB+732%2C+Stuttgart%2E)
30. Irimia, Monica Alexandrina. 2020. Variation in differential object marking: On some differences between Spanish and Romanian. Open Linguistics 6(1). 424–462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ opli-2020-0110 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/)
31. Janssen, Bibi & Meir, Natalia & Baker, Anne & Armon-Lotem, Sharon. 2015. On-line comprehension of Russian case cues in monolingual Russian and bilingual Russian-Dutch and Russian-Hebrew children. In Grillo, Elizabeth & Jepson, Kyle (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual Boston University conference on language development, 266–278. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.‏ Kagan, Olga. 2011. On Speaker Identifiability. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 19(1). 47–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jsl.2011.0008 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/jsl.2011.0008)
32. Kagan Olga. 2013. Semantics of Genitive Objects in Russian: A Study of Genitive of Negation and Intensional Genitive Case. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5225-2 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5225-2)
33. Klein, Udo & de Swart, Peter. 2011. Case and referential properties. Lingua 121(1). 3–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.005 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.005)
34. Lidz, Jeffrey. 2006. The grammar of accusative case in Kannada. Language 82(1). 10–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0054 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0054)
35. López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite Objects. Scrambling, Choice Functions, and Differential Marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001)
36. Manzini, M. Rita, & Franco, Ludovico. 2019. ‘Agreement of Structural Obliques’ Parameter: DOM and Pseudopartitives. Linguisticae Investigationes 42(1). 82–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ li.00030.man Özge, Umut. 2011. Turkish indefinites and accusative marking. In Simpson, Andrew (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 8), 253–267. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/)
37. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Rothstein, Susan D. (ed.), Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing 25 Syntax and Semantics, 37–62. New York: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373198_004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373198_004)
38. Ruigendijk, Esther & Friednmann, Naama. 2008. On the relation between structural case, determiners, and verbs in agrammatism: A study of Hebrew and Dutch. Aphasiology 22(9). 948– 969. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030701831482 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030701831482)
39. Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Shlonsky%2C+Ur%2E+1997%2E+Clause+Structure+and+Word+Order+in+Hebrew+and+Arabic%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
40. Siloni, Tal. 1997. Noun phrases and nominalizations: The syntax of DPs 40. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8863-8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8863-8)
41. Sutherland-Smith, Wendy. 1996. Spoken narrative and preferred clause structure: Evidence from Modern Hebrew discourse. Studies in Language 20(1). 163–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ sl.20.1.07sut Taube, Moshe. 2015. The usual suspects: Slavic, Yiddish, and the accusative existentials and possessives in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Jewish Languages 3(1–2). 27–37. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1163/22134638-12340035 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/22134638-12340035)
42. von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics 19(3). 245–274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.245 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.245)
43. von Heusinger, Klaus & Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages 9. 3–44. DOI: [http://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/](http://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/) img/?PID=PPN666048797_0009%7CLOG_0014 [↗](http://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/)
44. Wechsler, Stephen & Zlatić, Larisa. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language 76. 799–832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/417200 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/417200)
45. Wechsler, Stephen & Zlatić, Larisa. 2003. The many faces of agreement. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wechsler%2C+Stephen+%26+Zlati%C4%87%2C+Larisa%2E+2003%2E+The+many+faces+of+agreement%2E+Stanford%3A+CSLI+Publications%2E)
46. Wintner, S. 2000. Definiteness in the Hebrew noun phrase. Journal of Linguistics 36(2): 319–363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700008173 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700008173)