1887
Volume 34, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The Hebrew negation adverbial ‘not’ seems to function very differently in Biblical Hebrew than it does in Contemporary Hebrew. This paper addresses this difference and discusses its evolution. The main question addressed in this paper is: How has Hebrew , originally an exceptive marker (with sentential scoping), ended up functioning solely as a privative in contemporary Hebrew? First, this paper argues that the biblical usage of was expanded and turned into a polyfunctional (or ‘polysemous’) item. This happened via a constructionalization process which led to grammatical changes (‘grammaticalization’): The initially implicated negation (via a generalized implicature) turned explicit (semantic). In addition, in Hebrew’s later periods, the usage of was narrowed and it became a privative. Thus, firstly, a pragmatically motivated path of constructionalization of in Biblical Hebrew is suggested. That is, the “pragmatic negation” that arose via a generalized implicature shifted to the semantic level (performing semantic negation, explicit negation). Secondly, ’s functions in post-biblical Hebrew periods are outlined, tracing its narrowing functions until its fixation in Contemporary Hebrew as a privative.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21062.bar
2023-04-05
2024-03-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bardenstein, Ruti
    2016 “The Hebrew Adverbial bixlal.” Entrepalavras61, 10–28, jul./dez. 10.22168/2237‑6321.6.6.2.10‑28
    https://doi.org/10.22168/2237-6321.6.6.2.10-28 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2020 “Persistent Argumentative Discourse Markers. The Case of Hebrew Rectification-Marker beʕecem (‘actually’).” Journal of Pragmatics1721, 254–269. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2022 “The Case of Question-Based Exclamatives. From Pragmatic Rhetorical Function to Semantic Meaning.” Intercultural Pragmatics19 (2): 209–232. 10.1515/ip‑2022‑2003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2022-2003 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bardenstein, Ruti, and Mira Ariel
    2019 “Ela (‘but’) in the Mishna and in Contemporary Hebrew (in Hebrew).” Balshanut ivrit731: 45–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chatzopoulou, Katerina
    2013 “Re(de)fining Jespersen’s Cycle.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics191: 31–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dahl, Osten
    1979 “Typology of Sentence Negation.” Linguistics171: 79–106. 10.1515/ling.1979.17.1‑2.79
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.1-2.79 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ghezzi, Chiara, and Piera Molinelli
    2014Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681600.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681600.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hansen, Maj-Britt M.
    2014 “Cyclicity in Semantic/Pragmatic Change: The Medieval Particle ja Between Latin iam and Modern French déjà.” InDiscourse and Pragmatic Markers. From Latin to the Romance Languages, ed. byChiara Ghezzi, and Piera Molinelli, 139–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681600.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681600.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2015 “Phénomènes de cyclicité dans l’évolution des marqueurs pragmatiques.” Keynote talk, 4th International Symposium on Discourse Markers in Romance Languages. Heidelberg, Germany, 6–9 May.
  10. 2018 “Cyclicity Phenomena in the Evolution of Pragmatic Markers. Examples from Romance.” InBeyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change, ed. bySalvador Pons Bordería, and Óscar Loureda Lamas, 51–77. Amsterdam: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gilnert, Lewish
    1982 “Negative and Non-assertive in Contemporary Hebrew.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London45 (3): 434–470. 10.1017/S0041977X00041513
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00041513 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldberg, Adele
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Jespersen, Otto
    1917 “Negation in English and Other Languages.” Historisk-Filologiske Meddelelser11.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kadmon, Nirit, and Fred Landman
    1993 “Any.” Linguistics and Philosophy16 (4): 353–422. 10.1007/BF00985272
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985272 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
    1965 “The Evolution of Grammatical Categories.” Diogenes511: 55–71. 10.1177/039219216501305105
    https://doi.org/10.1177/039219216501305105 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ladusaw, William
    1996 Negation and Polarity Items. InThe Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. byShalom Lappin, 321–341, Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Langacker, Roland
    1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Vol.11. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1991 “Cognitive Grammar.” InLinguistic Theory and Grammatical Description, ed. byFlip G. Droste, and John E. Joseph, 275–306. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.75.10lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.75.10lan [Google Scholar]
  19. 2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lehmann, Christian
    2005 “Pleonasm and Hyper Characterisation.” InYearbook of Morphology, ed. byGeert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 119–154. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Levi, Alissa
    2008 “Hebrew Negative Polarity Items šum and af.” InCurrent Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics, ed. bySharon Armon-Lotem, Gabi Danon, and Susan Rothstein, 313–336. John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.134.13heb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.134.13heb [Google Scholar]
  22. Meillet, Antoine
    1921/1912 “L’évolution des formes grammaticales.” Scientia (Rivista di Scienza)12 (26), 130–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sadock, Jerry
    1971 “Queclaratives.” Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society71, 223–232.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1974Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York; San Francisco; London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Tognini-Bonelli, Elena
    2001Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.6 [Google Scholar]
  26. Trousdale, Graeme
    2012 “Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Grammaticalization of Constructions.” InGrammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections, ed. byKristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems, and Tanja Mortelmans, 167–198. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.130.07tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.130.07tro [Google Scholar]
  27. Traugott, Elizabeth
    1997 “Unless and But Conditionals: A Historical Perspective.” InConditionals Again, ed. byAngeliki Athenasiadou, and René Dirven, 145–167. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.143.09clo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.143.09clo [Google Scholar]
  28. Traugott, Elizabeth. C., and Graeme Trousdale
    2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Trudgill, Peter
    1995 “Grammaticalisation and Social Structure: Non-standard Conjunction-Formation in East Anglian English.” InGrammar and Meaning, ed. byFrank R. Palmer, 136–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620638.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620638.008 [Google Scholar]
  30. van der Auwera, Johan
    2009 “The Jespersen Cycles.” InCyclical Change, ed. byElly van Gelderen, 35–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.146.05auw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.146.05auw [Google Scholar]
  31. van Gelderen, Elly
    2008 “Negative Cycles.” Linguistic Typology121: 195–243. 10.1515/LITY.2008.037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LITY.2008.037 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ma’agarim Database (MD): The Historical Dictionary Project of the Academy of the Hebrew Language
    Ma’agarim Database (MD): The Historical Dictionary Project of the Academy of the Hebrew Language: maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il
  33. The hetenten
    The hetenten: [https://auth.sketchengine.eu/#login?next=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.sketchengine.eu%2]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21062.bar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21062.bar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error