Towards a linguistically motivated computational grammar for Hebrew 
Shuly Wintner 
Seminar ftir Sprachwissenschaft, Universitiit Ttibingen 
K1. Wilhelmstr. 113, 72074 Ttibingen, Germany 
shuly~sf s. nphil, uni-tuebingen, de 
Abstract 
While the morphology of Modem Hebrew is well 
accounted for computationally, there are few com- 
putational grammars describing the syntax of the 
language. Existing grammars are scarcely based on 
solid linguistic grounds: they do not conform to any 
particular linguistic theory and do not provide a lin- 
guistically plausible analysis for the data they cover. 
This paper presents a first attempt towards the con- 
struction of a formal grammar for a fragment of He- 
brew that is both linguistically motivated and com- 
putationaUy implementable. The grammar, concen- 
trating on the structure of noun phrases, is designed 
in accordance with HPSG, a linguistic theory that 
lends itself most naturally to computational imple- 
mentation. It is the first application of HPSG to any 
Semitic language. Several theoretical issues are ad- 
dressed, including the status of the definite article, 
the application of the DP hypothesis to Hebrew, def- 
initeness agreement in the noun phrase as well as 
definiteness inheritance in constructs. All the analy- 
ses presented in the paper were tested and their pre- 
dictions were verified. This is a work in progress, 
and the results described herein are preliminary. 
1 Introduction 
Modem Hebrew (MH) poses some interesting prob- 
lems for the grammar designer. The Hebrew script 
is highly ambiguous, a fact that results in many 
part-of-speech tags for almost every word (Ornan, 
1994). Short prepositions, articles and conjunctions 
are usually attached to the words that immediately 
succeed them. In addition, Hebrew morphology is 
very rich: a noun base might have over fifteen dif- 
ferent derivations, and a verb - over thirty. In spite 
of the difficulties, disambiguation of the script, as 
well as morphological analysis, were covered by a 
variety of works (Bentur et al., 1992; Choueka and 
Ne'eman, 1995; Oman and Katz, 1995). From a 
practical point of view, Hebrew morphology is well 
accounted for. 
The syntax of the language, however, remains 
an open problem. The first syntactic analyzer 
for Hebrew is described in (Cohen, 1984), but its 
grammar is implicit in a software system. Niren- 
burg and Ben-Asher (1984) describe a small-scale 
ATN for Hebrew, capable of recognizing very lim- 
ited structures. Unification-based formalisms were 
used for developing Hebrew grammars only re- 
cently. A limited experiment using PATR-II is de- 
scribed in (Wintner, 1992); it is extended (Wint- 
ner and Oman, 1996) to a reasonable subset of 
the language, on a different platform: Tomita's LR 
Parser/Compiler, which is based on LFG. The gram- 
mar recognizes sentences of wide variety and com- 
plexity, but the analyses it provides are not con- 
veyed in the framework of any particular linguis- 
tic theory. A different work along the same lines 
is (Yizhar, 1993): using the same framework, it con- 
centrates on the syntax of noun phrases, employing 
ideas from different linguistic theories. 
Works related to the syntax of Hebrew, and in 
particular to noun phrases, are abundant in the the- 
oretical linguistics literature (Borer, 1984; Ritter, 
1991; Siloni, 1994). All of them are carded out 
in Chomskian frameworks; none can be directly 
implemented computationally, and their predictions 
cannot be verified on the basis of existing on-line 
corpora. The practical contribution of these works 
is thus limited. 
This paper describes the first stages of an attempt 
to bridge the gap between linguistically theoretic 
analyses and computational implementations. Us- 
ing HPSG (Pollard and Sag, 1994) as the linguis- 
tic theory in which analyses are conveyed, gram- 
mars earl be directly implemented and their pre- 
dictions verified. HPSG is used for formally de- 
scribing the structure of a variety of languages, but 
this is the first time the theory is applied to any 
Semitic language. While some ideas of existing 
82 
Hebrew grammars, in particular (Wintrier and Or- 
nan, 1996) and (Yizhar, 1993), are incorporated 
into the work described here, the starting point is 
new: we present an account of several aspects of 
the Hebrew noun phrase, aligned with the general 
principles of HPSG. All the analyses described in 
the paper were computationally implemented us- 
ing AMALIA (Wintner, 1997a) as the development 
framework. The phenomena we address include the 
status of the definite article, the application of the 
DP hypothesis to Hebrew, definiteness agreement 
in noun phrases as well as definiteness inheritance 
in constructs. This is a work in progress, and the 
results described here are preliminary. The gram- 
mar is not intended to have a broad coverage, but 
rather to provide explanatory structures to linguisti- 
cally interesting phenomena. However, we hope to 
extend the coverage of the grammar in the future, 
maintaining its linguistic rigor. 
2 The framework 
HPSG is formulated as a set of constraints on typed (1) 
feature structures (TFSs) that are used to model 
linguistic information in all levels: from the lex- 
icon, through grammatical principles, to complete (2) 
analyses. HPSG "rules" are organized as princi- 
ples that set constraints on the properties of well- 
formed phrases, along with ID schemata that license 
certain phrase structures. The schemata are inde- 
pendent of the categories of the involved phrases; 
they state general conditions for the construction 
of larger phrases out of smaller ones, according to 
the function of the sub-phrases (e.g., subject-head, (3) 
head-complement, specifier-head etc.) ID schemata 
only license certain phrase combinations. They do 
not specify all the constraints imposed on the in- 
volved sub-phrases, as these are articulated by the 
principles. 
Like other current linguistic theories, HPSG is 
highly lexical: most of the information is encoded 
in highly articulated lexical entries associated with (4) 
words. The constraints on the grammar are usu- 
ally few and very general. An elaborate set of lexi- 
cat rules relates lexical entries, either to account for 
morphology or to introduce changes in the TFSs as- 
sociated with the basic entries. 
3 The structure of noun phrases 
3.1 The data 
Hebrew has one definite article, ha-, which attaches 
to words (nouns, adjectives, numerals and demon- 
stratives, bencefotl_h nominals), not phrases. Many 
elements in the noun phrase are marked for, and 
must agree on, definiteness (1). MH provides two 
major ways of forming genitive relations: free gen- 
itives (FG), in which the genitive phrase is intro- 
duced by the preposition Sell 'of' (2); and con- 
structs (CS), in which the head noun is morphologi- 
cally marked (and is said to be in the construct state, 
cs) and the genitive phrase must immediately follow 
it, preceding any other modifiers (3). In FG the def- 
initeness of the possessor is independent of that of 
the head, allowing for four different combinations 
of definiteness (both the head and the possessor can 
each be either definite or indefinite) (2); in CS, the 
definiteness of the phrase is inherited from the pos- 
sessor, allowing only two combinations: either both 
are definite, or both are not (3). The definite article 
never combines with cs-nouns. A poorly studied yet 
closely related phenomenon is cs-adjectives, which 
exhibit the same definiteness behavior (4). 
ha- sepr ha- gadol ha- ze/$1iSi 
the book the big the this/third 
'this big book / the third big book' 
(ha-) sparim Sell mSorer 
(the) books of poet 
'(the) books of a poet' 
(ha-) sparim Sell ha- mSorer 
(the) books of the poet 
'(the) books of the poet' 
siprei mSorer xdaSim 
books-cs poet new 
'new books of a poet' 
siprei ha- mSorer ha- xdaSim 
books-cs the poet the new 
'the new books of the poet' 
yruqqat (ha-) &einaym 
green-cs (the) eyes 
'a/(th¢) green eyed" 
3.2 Are noun phrases NPs or DPs? 
Following Abney (1987), analyses carried out in 
Chomskian frameworks view noun phrases as DPs, 
headed by the functional category D. The DP hy- 
pothesis (DPH) has been applied to a variety of lan- 
guages and is incorporated into most existing ac- 
counts for Modem Hebrew. Originally motivated 
83 
by the English '-ing' gerunds, that possess simul- 
taneously properties of both sentences and noun 
phrases, the importance of the DPH is that it assigns 
parallel structures to clauses and noun phrases; in 
particular, both are headed by functional categories. 
In HPSG, however, functional categories are dis- 
couraged: English noun phrases are viewed as NPs, 
headed by the noun, and determiners - as subcate- 
gorized specifiers of nouns (Pollard and Sag, 1994, 
section 9.4). HPSG analyses for other languages, 
notably German, consider article-noun combina- 
tions to be DPs (Netter, 1994). Preferring either 
of the two analyses, in the context of HPSG, boils 
down to deciding whether it is the determiner or the 
noun that heads a nominal phrase. Applying the cri- 
teria of (Zwicky, 1985) we show that in Hebrew it is 
the noun that heads the noun phrases. Netter (1994) 
lists several considerations in favor of each of the al- 
ternatives. In German, all the morphosyntactic fea- 
tures that must be transferred to the maximal pro- 
jection of a nominal phrase (for agreement or gov- 
ernment purposes) are manifested equally well both 
on the article and on the noun. Determinerless noun 
phrases require, in German, disjunctive subcatego- 
rization frames for nouns under an NP analyses, and 
empty categories in a DP analysis. Finally, it is the 
declension phenomenon that causes Netter 0994) 
to favor a DP analysis. When applied to MH, these 
considerations yield a different result: information 
that is relevant for agr~ment, such as number and 
gender, is expressed on the noun only; determiner- 
less phrases are always grammatical; and there are 
no declensions. 
Nevertheless, most existing analyses of MH noun 
phrases apply the DPH, with the definite article as 
the D head (Ritter, 1988; Ritter, 1991; Siloni, 1991; 
Siloni, 1994). For lack of space we cannot sur- 
vey the motivation for such analyses here; the argu- 
mentation relies on derived (deverbal) nouns, espe- 
cially in CS noun phrases, including the following 
observations: the inability of cs-nouns to be ren- 
dered definite directly (i.e., the fact that ha- never 
attaches to them); the impossibility of direct modifi- 
cation of such nouns (i.e., the fact the any adjectives 
must follow the genitive complement in CS); and 
the inheritance of definiteness from the complement 
in CS. These, along with theory-internal considera- 
tions, yield an analysis by which noun phrases are 
DPs, headed by the functional, possibly phonologi- 
cally null, category D, and necessitating a compul- 
sory movement of the head noun. FG noun phrases 
require yet another functional (and empty) category. 
We show in (Wintrier, 1998) that there is no theory- 
independent reason to apply the DPH to Hebrew; on 
the contrary, such accounts miss generalizations and 
yield wrong predictions. We show below that an NP 
analysis is not only possible but also plausible, ac- 
counting for a body of data, traditionally believed to 
require functional categories and compulsory head 
raising in noun phrases. 
Many of the limitations of the analyses men- 
tioned above are listed by Borer (1994), suggesting 
that definiteness is a feature of nouns, base gener- 
ated on the N stem. An affixal view of the MH defi- 
nite article is established in (Wintrier, 1997b), and is 
the starting point for the analysis we propose here. 
We first account for the fact that cs-nouns must have 
an immediate complement. We then explain why 
the article does not combine with cs-nominals. We 
justify a treatment of possessives as complements, 
and finally present an analysis for both FG and CS 
noun phrases as NPs. 
3.3 Prosodic dependency 
Most subcategorized complements are optional in 
Hebrew: objectless VPs are grammatical in many 
contexts, as are subjectless clauses. But compul- 
sory, immediate complementation is not unique to 
cs-nouns only; it is required in cs-adjectives and car- 
dinals, as well as in prepositions and some quanti- 
tiers. In spite of the differences among these ele- 
merits, there are some striking similarities: they can 
never occur without a complement, which cannot be 
extracted, or 'moved', but which can be replaced by 
a pronominal pronoun, which is always realized as 
a clitic (Borer, 1984, chapter 2). The data are sum- 
marized in (5). 
(5) siprei ha- m$or.rim / sipreihem 
books-cs the poets / books-l-3rd-pl-m 
'the poets' books I their books' 
$1o$t ha- m$or_rim / $1oStam 
three-cs the poets / three+3rd-pl-m 
'the three poets / the three of them' 
Sell ha- m$or_rim / $ellahem 
of the poets / of÷3rd-pl-m 
'of the poets / of them' 
'et ha- mSor_rim / 'otam 
ACC the poets / ACC÷3rd-pl-m 
'the poets (ACC) / them (ACC)' 
84 
&al yad ha- m$or.rim / &al yadam 
near the poets / near+3rd-pbm 
'near the poets / near them' 
koll ha- mSor_rim / kullam 
all the poets / all+3rd-pbm 
'all the poets / all of them' 
The need for an immediate complement is a result of 
these elements being prosodically weak. We do not 
suggest a theory of prosody in I-IPSG; rather, tak- 
ing advantage of the observation that the discussed 
constituents correlate well with phrases in MH, we 
account for them in the following way: we add a 
DEpendency feature to the lexical entries of words. 
The value of this feature can either be an empty list, 
or a list of one element, in which case the element 
must be reentrant with some element in some va- 
lence list of the word (in other words, DEP points 
to some element on the ARG_S value of the word). 
As the only relations between prosodically depen- 
dent words and their obligatory complements, in 
Hebrew, are those of head-complement or specifier- 
head, the obligatory complement is bound to be a 
member of the ARG_S of those words. In addition, 
we introduce the prosodic dependency principle, by 
which words that are specified as prosodically de- 
pendent must first combine with the obligatory com- 
plement they depend on; only then can the obtained 
phrases combine with other modifiers: 
In a headed phrase, in which one of the 
daughters is a word, either the DEP of this 
daughter is empty, or it is reentrant with 
(the SYNSEM value of) some other daugh- 
ter. 
3.4 The morphological nature of definiteness 
Why doesn't the definite article combine with cs- 
nouns? Not only nouns have construct states: ad- 
jectives (4) and numerals do, too, and ha- does not 
combine with the other cs-nominals either. The 
rules that govern the combination of ha- with nom- 
inals are simple, when the article is viewed as an 
affix (W'mtner, 1997b): (i) ha- attaches to words, 
not to phrases; (ii) it attaches only to nominals, and 
to all kinds of nominals; (iii) it only combines with 
indefinite words. An additional (boolean) feature, 
DEFiniteness, is required for encoding the value of 
definiteness in nominals. As definiteness agreement 
in Hebrew is not a semantic process, we add this 
feature to the CATegory of nominals (rather than to 
their CONTent). Since definiteness is a feature of 
phrases, inherited from the lexical head, DEF is a 
head feature, appropriate for all nominals. Viewing 
definiteness as a lexical process, we introduce the 
Definite Lexical Rule (DLR, 6). It operates on all 
nominal words whose DEFiniteness feature is '--'. 
In all categories its effect on the phonology is deter- 
mined by the same phonological rules, abstracted 
over by the function definite. The DLR changes 
the value of the path SYNSEMILOC\[CATIHEADIDEF 
from '-' to '+'. Adjuncts specify the heads they 
select as the value of the MOD feature in their lex- 
ical entries. Like any other nominal, they have a 
DEFiniteness feature, whose value is shared with the 
value of the path MODILOCICAT\]HEADIDEF. When 
the DLR operates on adjuncts, it results in a spec- 
ification of a '+' value for both paths. Thus it is 
guaranteed that definite adjectives, for example, are 
not only specified as definite but also select definite 
heads. As for cs-nominals, these are not indefinite; 
we show below that they are unspecified for defi- 
niteness, and hence the DLR cannot apply to them. 
(6) 
word 
L synsem : cat : ead: \[noml~\] \[def:- J 
word 
: cat \[nominal\] L s~nsem : cat head : 
3.5 Possessives as complements 
In standard I-IPSG (Pollard and Sag, 1994, section 
9.4.5) possessives are specifiers: they combine with 
an N's to form complete NPs through the specifier- 
head schema, and they express the expectation of 
an N' as the value of the SPECified feature in their 
HEADS, just like other determiners do. As Pollard 
and Sag (1994, p. 375) note, this analysis is valid 
for German and English, but other languages might 
require different accounts. We advocate a position 
by which possessives of all kinds are complements 
in MH. First, possessives differ from other deter- 
miners in their distribution. While most determin- 
ers precede the noun, possessives follow it (7). Sec- 
ond, possessives can regularly co-occur with other 
determiners (8). Thus, if determiners occupy the 
specifier position in NPs, possessives cannot fill the 
same function. Third, MH exhibits also eases of 
85 
clitic doubled constructions (Borer, 1984), where a 
genitive pronoun cliticizes onto the head noun and 
must agree with a doubled possessive on number, 
gender and person. Agreement is usually associated 
with complements (including subjects) and not with 
specifiers. 
(7) koll sepr 
every book 
'every book' 
koll / $1o$t ha- sparim 
all / three the books 
'all books / the three books' 
ha- sparim $selli / Sell dan 
the books my / of Dan 
'my/Dan's book' 
(8) koll sepr $selli / Sell dan 
every book my / of Dan 
'each of my/Dan's books' 
koll ha- sparim $selli / Sell dan 
all the books my / of Dan 
'all my/Dan's books' 
$1o$t ha- sparim $selli / Sell dan 
three the books my / of Dan 
'my/Dan's three books' 
Other arguments for viewing possessives as com- 
plements, in two languages that show many similar- 
ities to Hebrew, namely Welsh and Arabic, are given 
in (Borsley, 1995). We therefore view possessors as 
(most oblique) complements of nouns. When the 
noun has additional arguments, they are listed in its 
valence feature preceding the possessor. Thus, in 
the lexical entry of sept ('book'), the value of the 
COMPlement list has two members, an agent and 
an optional I possessor. When two possessives are 
present, the structure depicted in (9) is obtained. 
3.6 The structure of CS 
As cs-nominals are words, their lexical entries ex- 
press an expectation for an immediate complement; 
that is, an indication (the SYNSEM value) of the 
compulsory complement of cs-nominals is present 
in the lexical entry of the nominal. It is thus possible 
to share, in the lexicon, the values of the definiteness 
1Recall that most subeategorized elements are optional in 
Hebrew. 
feature in both the nominal and its complement. 
This results in only two possibilities of definiteness 
combinations for constructs, as opposed to the four 
possible combinations of free genitives. The con- 
struct form is generated from the absolute form by 
means of a morphological process, modelled by a 
lexical rule (10). Apart from modifying the phonol- 
ogy 2 of the nominal, this process has a double ef- 
fect. First, the rule picks a genitive complement 
from the COMP list, replaces it by a nominative noun 
phrase and unifies the values of the DEr: feature of 
the nominal and the complement it depends on. In 
addition, the rule sets the value of 'DEP' to this com- 
plement, to indicate that cs-nominals are prosodi- 
cally dependent. When the nominal is combined 
with its complement, the resulting phrase inherits 
the definiteness from the latter. Notice that the re- 
sults of this process, i.e., the lexical entries of cs- 
nouns, are not specified as 'DEF --' (in fact, they 
are not specified for definiteness at all), and hence 
the DLR cannot apply to them. The fact that cs- 
nominals cannot be rendered definite directly is nat- 
urally obtained. 
Noun-noun constructs are thus constructed by 
the head-complement schema. An independent cs- 
noun, with no immediate complement, cannot be 
promoted to the status of a phrase, as the depen- 
dency principle prohibits its combination with other 
phrases until its DEP requirements axe discharged. 
Since the DEF value of the construct head and its 
complement are shared, and since DEF is a head 
feature, it is also shared by the mother; thus, the 
DEF feature of the phrase is inherited from the 
complement, as required. This process is depicted 
in (11); notice in particular how the definiteness of 
the phrase is inherited from the complement using a 
reentrancy in the head. 
The similar properties noun-noun and adjective- 
noun constructs suggest that they are actually only 
two instances of one process: any analysis that 
would suggest two different mechanisms to account 
for both phenomena is bound to be redundant. We 
simply extend the analysis of noun-noun constructs 
to cs-adjectives: such adjectives are lexically speci- 
fied to subcategorize for nouns. They cannot occur 
independently, with no immediate complement, and 
hence are marked as dependent; the phrase is con- 
structed through the head-complement schema (12). 
We thus obtain a uniform, principled account for the 
2The function phon_reduce computes the phonology of the 
construct noun. 
86 
(9) 
\[- \[: phor~ : sept 
cat : ad : noun 
LCOmp8 : 
Ldep : 0 
H / 
I = \] sepe' Sell Hem;nlpvay L.o,, \[:':-: t~\] 
L ~°''" : Y-~.J/J \° 
L- ..... K~.o. J t',, ..... \[~o.J 
(lO) 
r word /-, F,-, r=-I 1 
Ldep : 0 
"word 
phon : phon.red.ce~ \[" 
~.,: ~.o', \[;:m\] L~o.,.:(D°~\[~.,:~..,,\[,,,-~I\].~> 
dep : (~ 
(11) 
I wortl 
phon : 
/ ,g-,., 
Ldep .. 
i phrue 1 phon : p;rxei ha-pnn ¢1| 11101111 
l word 
., ..... mro, r.. \[~.,~\] I. kcomps : (PP\[o0) 
L~,v : 0 
two phenomena, maintaining an NP view of noun 
phrases and requiring neither functional nor empty 
categories. 

References 
Steven Abney. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in Its 
Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusettes Insti- 
tute of Technology, Cambridge. 
Esther Bentur, Aviella Angel, and Danit Segev. 1992. 
Computerized analysis of Hebrew words. Hebrew 
Linguistics, 36:33-38, December. (in Hebrew). 
Hagit Borer. 1984. Parametric Syntax - Case Studies in 
Semitic and Romance Languages, volume 13 of Stud- 
ies in Generative Grammar. Foris Publications, Dor- 
drecht- Holland. 
Hagit Borer. 1994. The construct in review. In Jacque- 
line Lecarrne and Ur Shlonsky, editors, Proceedings 
of the Second Conference on Afroasiatic Linguistics, 
Sophia Anfipolis, France, June. (to appear in Studies 
in Afroasiatic Grammar). 
Robert D. Borsley. 1995. On some similarities and dif- 
ferences between Welsh and Syrian Arabic. Linguis- 
tics, 33:99-122. 
Yaacov Choueka and Yoni Ne'eman. 1995. "Nakdan- 
T", a text vocalizer for modern Hebrew. In Proceed- 
ings of the Fourth Bar-llan Symposium on Founda- 
tions of Artificial Intelligence, June. 
Daniel Cohen. 1984. Mechanical Syntactic Analysis of 
a Hebrew Sentence. Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University 
of Jerusalem. (In Hebrew). 
Klaus Netter. 1994. Towards a theory of functional 
heads. In John Nerbonne, Klaus Netter, and Carl Pol- 
lard, editors, German in Head-Driven Phrase Struc- 
ture Grammar, volume 46 of CSLI Lecture Notes, 
chapter 9, pages 297-340. CSLI, Stanford, CA. 
Sergei Nirenburg and Yosef Ben-Asher. 1984. HUHU 
- the Hebrew University Hebrew understander. Com- 
puter Languages, 9(3/4). 
Uzzi Ornan and Michael Katz. 1995. A new program for 
Hebrew index based on the Phonemic Script. Techni- 
cal Report LCL 94-7, Laboratory for Computational 
Linguistics, Technion, Haifa, Israel, July. 
Uzzi Ornan. 1994. Basic concepts in "romanization" of 
scripts. Technical Report LCL 94-5, Laboratory for 
Computational Linguistics, Technion, Haifa, Israel, 
March. 
Carl Pollard and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven 
Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago 
Press and CSLI Publications. 
Elizabeth Ritter. 1988. A head-movement approach to 
construct-state noun phrases. Linguistics, 26(6):909- 
929. 
Elizabeth Ritter. 1991. Two functional categories in 
noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew. In 
Susan D. Rothstein, editor, Perspectives on Phrase 
Structure: Heads and Licensing, volume 25 of Syn- 
tax and Semantics, pages 37-62. Academic Press. 
Tali Siloni. 1991. Noun raising and the structure of noun 
phrases. In Jonathan David Bobaljik and Tony Bu- 
res, editors, Papers from the third Student Conference 
in Linguistics, volume 14 of MIT Working Papers in 
Linguistics, pages 255-270. Department of Linguis- 
tics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139. 
Tali Siloni. 1994. Noun Phrases and Nominalizations. 
Ph.D. thesis, D6partment de linguistique g6n&ale, 
Universit6 De Gen~ve. 
Shuly Wintrier and Uzzi Ornan. 1996. Syntactic analysis 
of Hebrew sentences. Natural Language Engineering, 
1(3):261-288, September. 
Shuly Wintner. 1992. Syntactic analysis of Hebrew sen- 
tences using PATR. In Uzzi Ornan, Gideon Ariel),, 
and Edit Doron, editors, Hebrew Computational Lin- 
guistics, chapter 4, pages 105-115. Ministry of Sci- 
ence and Technology. (In Hebrew). 
Shuly Wintner. 1997a. An Abstract Machine for Unifi- 
cation Grammars. Ph.D. thesis, Technion - Israel In- 
stitute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, January. 
Shuly Wintner. 1997b. The affixal nature of the Hebrew 
definite article. Presented in Computational Linguis- 
tics in the Netherlands (CLIN-97), University of Ni- 
jmegen, December. 
Shuly Wintner. 1998. Noun phrases as NPs - the 
case of Hebrew. In Gosse Bouma, Geert-Jan Krui- 
jff, and Richard Oehrle, editors, Proceedings of the 
4th conference on Formal Grammar and the 5th con- 
ference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar 
(FHCG'98), Saarhrticken, Germany, August. 
Dana Yizhar. 1993. Computational grammar for Hebrew 
noun phrases. Master's thesis, Computer Science De- 
partment, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, June. 
(In Hebrew). 
ArnoldM. Zwicky. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics, 
21:1-29. 
