1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 47, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 47, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Cross-linguistically, very few complete sentences, as opposed to a myriad of phrases, lexicalize to become words. I here offer an account for this skewed distribution, along the lines of Construction Grammar, by analyzing a set of mono-clausal sentences in Hebrew which have indeed become – or are on the verge of becoming – words. I adopt the distinction between categorical and thetic propositions, and show that only the latter can evolve into words. A thetic – unlike a categorical – proposition, much like a verb-phrase, enables a tight semantic bonding between its components to form an ‘interpretatively cohesive’ unit, which may lead to semantic change. An evaluative thetic – unlike a categorical – proposition is comment-like, hence ‘semantically-incomplete’, and in need of a topic from prior discourse to predicate on, which may lead to a change in grammatical status. All verb-phrases meet these two criteria but only few sentences do, hence, I argue, the skewed distribution of sources from which new words evolve.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21006.bec
2022-11-08
2024-10-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.21006.bec
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allerton, David John. & Alan Cruttenden
    1979 Three reasons for accenting a definite subject. Journal of Linguistics15(1). 49–53. 10.1017/S0022226700013104
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700013104 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ariel, Mira
    2008 Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ariel, Mira, Elitzur Dattner, John W. Du Bois & Tal Linzen
    2015 Pronominal datives: The royal road to argument status. Studies in Language39(2). 257–321. 10.1075/sl.39.2.01ari
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.2.01ari [Google Scholar]
  4. Becker & Ariel
    Becker & Ariel. submitted. Scaffolding the sentential Ultimate construction into a word
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bauer, Laurie
    1983 English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165846
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846 [Google Scholar]
  6. Becker, Israela & Rachel Giora
    2018 The Defaultness Hypothesis: A quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness production. Journal of Pragmatics1381. 149–164. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald
    2008 Constructions and language change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110211757
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211757 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berman, Ruth A.
    1980 The case of an (S)VO language: Subjectless constructions in Modern Hebrew. Language56(4). 759–776. 10.2307/413487
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413487 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blank, Andreas
    2001 Pathways of lexicalization. InWolfgang Raible, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König & Wulf Oesterreicher (eds.), Language universals and language typology, 1596–1608. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2005 Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615962
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615962 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, Cheryl
    1983 Topic continuity in written English narrative. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 313–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.3.07bro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3.07bro [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, Joan L.
    2003 Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. InMichael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, Vol.II1, 145–167. New York: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chafe, Wallace L.
    1974 Language and consciousness. Language50(1). 111–133. 10.2307/412014
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412014 [Google Scholar]
  15. Comrie, Bernard
    1989 Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson
    2018 Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21 [Google Scholar]
  17. Croft, William
    2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dahl, Östen & Kari Fraurud
    1996 Animacy in grammar and discourse. InThorstein Fretheim & Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility, 47–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.38.04dah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.38.04dah [Google Scholar]
  19. Dattner, Elitzur
    2008 Lower Transitivity Constructions in Hebrew: The Case of Motion Verbs. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 2019 The Hebrew dative: Usage patterns as discourse profile constructions. Linguistics57(5). 1073–1110. 10.1515/ling‑2019‑0022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0022 [Google Scholar]
  21. Diewald, Gabriele
    2006 Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. InDoris Schönefeld (ed.), Special Volume 1 of Constructions: Constructions all over – Case studies and theoretical implications. Available at: https://constructions.journals.hhu.de/article/view/443 (last access30 August 2022).
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Divjak, Dagmar
    2010 Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110220599
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220599 [Google Scholar]
  23. Divjak, Dagmar & Laura A. Janda
    2008 Ways of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological Society106(2). 138–179. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2008.00207.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00207.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Dubnov, Keren
    2005a šem ha-to’ar be-tafkid HGM ba-ʕivrit ha-xadaša be-rešita (Adjectives functioning as impersonals (Ḥagam) in early Modern Hebrew). InTamar Alexander, Josef Tobi, Dan Laor, Ziva Amishai-Maisels & Ora Schwartzwald (eds.), Iggud: Selected Essays in Jewish Studies, 31–40. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. [in Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 2005b tirgumey še’ila mivni’im ba-roved ha-mukdam šel ha-ʕivrit ha-xadaša (Structural loan translations in Early Modern Hebrew). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem PhD dissertation [in Hebrew].
  26. Epstein, Ruth
    1971 ha-mišpatim ha-musai’im bamikra (The object clauses in the Old Testament). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University MA thesis [in Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
    1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language64(3). 501–538. 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  28. Finkbeiner, Rita & Jörg Meibauer
    2016 Boris “Ich bin drin” Becker (‘Boris I am in Becker’). Syntax, semantics and pragmatics of a special naming construction. Lingua1811. 36–57. 10.1016/j.lingua.2016.04.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  29. Firbas, Jan
    1974 Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective. InFrantišek Daneš (ed.), Papers of functional sentence perspective, 11–37. Prague: Academia. 10.1515/9783111676524.11
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111676524.11 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fodor, Jerry A. & Thomas G. Bever
    1965 The psychological reality of linguistic segments. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior4(5). 414–420. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(65)80081‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(65)80081-0 [Google Scholar]
  31. Fried, Mirjam
    2009 Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames1(2). 262–291. 10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri [Google Scholar]
  32. Gaeta, Livio
    2015 Lexeme formation in a conscious approach to the lexicon. InLaurie Bauer, Lívia Körtvélyessy & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), Semantics of complex words, 115–140. Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑14102‑2_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14102-2_7 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gaeta, Livio & Davide Ricca
    2009 Composita solvantur: Compounds as lexical units or morphological objects?Rivista di Linguistica21(1). 35–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Givón, Talmy
    1976 Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. InCharles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 151–188. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 2003 Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in cognitive sciences7(5). 219–224. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  37. Haspelmath, Martin
    2001 Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert Malcolm Ward Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, 53–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.46.04has
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.46.04has [Google Scholar]
  38. 2019 What is the difference between a clause and a sentence?Available athttps://dlc.hypotheses.org/1725 (last access24 August 2022).
  39. Hilpert, Martin
    2013 Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2014 Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
    2002 The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hundt, Marianne, Nadja Nesselhauf & Carolin Biewer
    2007 Corpus linguistics and the web. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789401203791
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401203791 [Google Scholar]
  43. Izre’el, Shlomo
    2002 le-tahalixey ha-hit’havut šel ha-ʕivrit be-Israel (The emergence of Spoken Israeli Hebrew). InShlomo Izre’el & Margalit Mendelson (eds.), medabrim ʕivrit: le-xeker ha-lašon ha-meduberet ve-ha-šonut ha-lešonit be-Israel (Speaking Hebrew: Studies in the spoken language and in linguistic variation in Israel), 217–238. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press. [in Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2012 mispax o mišpat ― le-mivne ha-mišpat ba-ʕivrit ha-meduberet (Hebrew sentence structure: Old habits die hard). InMalka Muchnik & Tsvi Sadan (eds.), mexkarim be-ʕivrit u-ve-lešonot ha-yehudim lixvod Ora Schwarzwald (Studies in Hebrew and in Jewish languages in honor of Ora Schwarzwald), 399–416. Jerusalm: Carmel. [in Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Janda, Laura A. & Dagmar Divjak
    2015 The role of non-canonical subjects in the overall grammar of a language: A case study of Russian. InMarja-Liisa Helasvuo & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Subjects in constructions – Canonical and non-canonical, 293–318. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.16.11jan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.16.11jan [Google Scholar]
  46. Ježek, Elisabetta & Paolo Ramat
    2009 On parts-of-speech transcategorization. Folia Linguistica43(2). 391–416. 10.1515/FLIN.2009.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2009.011 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo
    2007 Negativity bias in language: A cognitive affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics18(3). 417–443. 10.1515/COG.2007.023
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.023 [Google Scholar]
  48. Johnson, Neal F.
    1965 The psychological reality of phrase-structure rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior4(6). 469–475. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(65)80044‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(65)80044-5 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý & Vít Suchomel
    2014 The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography1(1). 7–36. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kuno, Susumu
    1972 Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry3(3). 269–320.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
    1972 The categorical and the thetic Judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language9(2). 153–185.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Kuzar, Ron
    1989 mivne ha-meser šel ha-mišpat ba-ʕivrit ha-isre’elit (Message structure of the sentence in Israeli Hebrew) Jerusalem: the Hebrew University in Jerusalem PhD dissertation [in Hebrew].
  53. 1992 ha-x.g.m – xelek diber o ʕemda taxbirit? (The Nominal Impersonal: A part of speech or a syntactic construction?). Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects56(3). 241–248. [in Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 2001 Hebrew and Zionism: A discourse analytic cultural study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110869491
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869491 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2002 tavnit ha-x.g.m ha-pšuta ba-lašon ha-meyuceget ke-meduberet (The simple impersonal construction in spoken-like langauge). InShlomo Izre’el & Margalit Mendelson (eds.), medabrim ʕivrit: le-xeker ha-lašon ha-meduberet ve-ha-šonut ha-lešonit be-Israel (Speaking Hebrew: Studies in the spoken language and in linguistic variation in Israel), 329–352. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. [in Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 2006a tavnit mišpat ha-kiyum ke-toremet le-mašma’ut ha-kiyum (The contribution of the pattern of the existential sentence to existential meaning). InAaron ‏Maman & Steven Ellis Fassberg (eds.), mexkarim be-lašon (Language studies), 101–112. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University. [in Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 2006b digmei ha-mišpat šel ha-ʕivrit ha-isre’elit al-pi Rosén: ʕiyun bikorti ve-hacaʕot tikun (Sentence patterns of Israeli Hebrew according to Rosén: A critical review and a corrected model). Ha-ʕivrit ve-axyoteha (Hebrew and its sisters) 6–71. 269–294. [in Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 2012 Sentence patterns in English and Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.12 [Google Scholar]
  59. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994 Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2000 When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in Sentence-Focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language24(3). 611–682. 10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam [Google Scholar]
  61. Lambrecht, Knud & Maria Polinsky
    1997 Typological variation in Sentence-Focus constructions. InKora Singer, Randall Eggert & Gregory Anderson (eds.), Proceedings from the Panels of the 33rd Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 189–206. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar. VolI1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar. VolII1. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Lehmann, Christian
    2020 Univerbation. Folia Linguistica54(41). 205–252. 10.1515/flih‑2020‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2020-0007 [Google Scholar]
  65. Lipka, Leonhard
    1992 An outline of English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics, and word-formation. Tübingen: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Marantz, Alec
    1984 On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Maschler, Yael
    2018 The on-line emergence of Hebrew insubordinate she (‘that/which/who’) clauses. Studies in Language42(3). 669–707. 10.1075/sl.17065.mas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17065.mas [Google Scholar]
  68. Meibauer, Jörg
    2007 How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction. Morphology17(2). 233–259. 10.1007/s11525‑008‑9118‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-008-9118-1 [Google Scholar]
  69. Melnik, Nurit
    2002 Verb-initial constructions in Modern Hebrew. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley PhD dissertation.
  70. 2006 A constructional approach to verb-initial constructions in Modern Hebrew. Cognitive Linguistics17(2). 153–198. 10.1515/COG.2006.004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.004 [Google Scholar]
  71. Mithun, Marianne
    2006 Polysynthesis in the Arctic. InMarc-Antoine Mahieu & Nicole Tersis (eds.), Variations on polysynthesis: The Eskaleut languages, 3–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.86.01pol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.86.01pol [Google Scholar]
  72. Mithun, Marriane
    2014 Syntactic and prosodic structures: Segmentation, integration, and in between. InTommaso Raso & Heliana Mello (eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistics studies, 297–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.61.11mit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.61.11mit [Google Scholar]
  73. Mithun, Marianne
    2020 Grammaticalization and polysynthesis: Iroquoian. InWalter Bisang and Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Grammaticalization Scenarios from Africa, the Americas, and the Pacific, Vol.II1, 943–976. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110712735‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712735-008 [Google Scholar]
  74. Mor, Uri & Na’ama Pat-El
    2016 The development of predicates with prepositional subjects in Hebrew. Journal of Semitic Studies61(2). 327–346. 10.1093/jss/fgw016
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/fgw016 [Google Scholar]
  75. Noël, Dirk
    2016 For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics30(1). 39–53. 10.1075/bjl.30.03noe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.03noe [Google Scholar]
  76. O’Grady, William
    1998 The syntax of idioms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory16(2). 279–312. 10.1023/A:1005932710202
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005932710202 [Google Scholar]
  77. OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online
    OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online 2019 Oxford University Press.
  78. Ovid
    Ovid 1998 Metamorphoses (trans.Melville, A. D.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Original work published 8 AD].
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Pat-El, Na’ama
    2018 The diachrony of non-canonical subjects in Northwest Semitic. InJóhanna Barðdal, Na’ama Pat-El & Stephen M. Carey (eds.), Non-canonically case-marked subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers, 159–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.200.07pat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.200.07pat [Google Scholar]
  80. Ramat, Paolo & Davide Ricca
    1998 Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. InJohan van der Auwera & Dónall P. Ó. Baoill (eds.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 187–273. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110802610.187
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802610.187 [Google Scholar]
  81. Rosén, Haiim B.
    1977 Contemporary Hebrew. Paris: De Guyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110804836
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804836 [Google Scholar]
  82. Rosenthal, Ruvik
    2005/2018 milon ha-slang ha-makif (The comprehensive dictionary of Israeli slang). Jerusalem: Keter Books. [in Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Rubinstein, Eliezer
    1968 ha-mišpat ha-šemani: ʕiyunim be-taxbir yamenu (The nominal sentence: A study in the syntax of contemporary Hebrew). Tel Aviv: HaKibbutz HaMeuchad. [in Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
    1987 The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics25(3). 511–580. 10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511 [Google Scholar]
  85. Sommerer, Lotte, Spike Gildea, Jóhanna Barðdal & Elena Smirnova
    2015 Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  86. Stern, Naftali
    1983 x.g.m. u-dmuy poʕal + šem poʕal ba-ʕivrit ha-isre’elit (Impersonals (x.g.m) and verboids + infinitives in Israeli Hebrew). Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects47(3–4). 248–263. [in Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Titone, Debra A. & Cynthia M. Connine
    1994 Descriptive norms for 171 idiomatic expressions: Familiarity, compositionality, predictability, and literality. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity9(4). 247–270. 10.1207/s15327868ms0904_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0904_1 [Google Scholar]
  88. Tomlin, Russell S.
    1986 Basic word order: Functional principles. London, UK: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2003 Constructions in grammaticalization. InBrian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Malden: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch20
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  90. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
    2013 Constructionalization 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]
  91. van den Eynde, Karel
    1995 Methodological reflections on descriptive linguistics. Knud Togeby’s principles and the Pronominal Approach. InLene Schøsler & Mary Talbot (eds.), Studies in valency. Vol.I1, 111–130. Odense: Odense University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. van den Eynde, Karel, Sabine Kirchmeier-Andersen, Piet Mertens & Lene Schøsler
    2002 Distributional syntactic analysis and valency: Basic notions, procedures, and applications of the Pronominal Approach. InStephen M. Johnson & Bruce E. Nevin (eds.), The legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and information into the 21st century, Vol.II1, 163–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.229.13eyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.229.13eyn [Google Scholar]
  93. Vilkuna, Maria
    1989 Free word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Wexler, Paul
    1990 The schizoid nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic language in search of a Semitic past. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1988 The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21006.bec
Loading
It’s all about the sentential construction
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 47, 463 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21006.bec
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21006.bec
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21006.bec
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Construction Grammar; Hebrew; lexicalization; thetic/categorical distinction

Most Cited

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