Volume 40, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. ARM
    = Archives Royales de Mari. Paris 1946
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Azar, M
    1995taxbir lešon ha-mišna [The syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Academy of Hebrew Language (in Hebrew).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barlas, Chaim
    1964 “ha-’aliya bi-tkufat 1919-1923” [The Aliyah between 1919 and 1923]. In Y. Erez (ed), sefer ha-aliya ha-šlišit [The book of the third Aliyah], 78–94. Tel Aviv: Am Oved.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bashevis-Zinger, Yitskhok
    1971Yentl der yeshive-bokher [Yentl the Yeshiva Boy], mayses fun hintern oyvn [Stories from Behind the Stove]. Tel Aviv: Y. L. Perets farlag. Transcription: the Jiddistik section, Germanistik department, Universität Trier (www.uni-trier.de/index.php?id=32594).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bendavid, Aba
    1965Le-takanat lešon ha-itonut [For a correct journalistic language]. Lešonénu la-ʿam16(3): 51–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Berman, R.A. & S. Bolozky
    1978Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Borer, H
    1984 Restrictive relatives in modern Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory2(2): 219–260. doi: 10.1007/BF00133282
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133282 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brockelmann, Carl
    1913Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Vol. 2. Berlin: Reuther and Reichard.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen, D
    1988 Coushitique–Omotique. In J. Perrot (ed.), Les langues dans le monde ancien et moderne. Part 3: Les langues Chamito–Sémitiques, D. Cohen (ed.), 243–295. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohen, Eran
    2008 Adjectival ša Syntagms and Adjectives in Old Babylonian. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies71: 25–52. doi: 10.1017/S0041977X08000025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X08000025 [Google Scholar]
  11. Comrie, Bernard
    1998 Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design: Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics1: 59–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2003 Typology and language acquisition: The case of relative clauses. In Anna Giacalone Ramat (ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, 19–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cooper, R.L
    1989Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. CoSIH
    =The Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew (humanities.tau.ac.il/~cosih).
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cristofaro, Sonia & Anna Giacalone Ramat
    2007 Relativization strategies in the languages of Europe. In Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and Mediterranean as linguistic areas: Convergences from a historical and typological perspective, 63–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.88.06cri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.88.06cri [Google Scholar]
  16. Deutscher, G
    2001 The rise and fall of a rogue relative construction. Studies in Language25(3): 405–422. doi: 10.1075/sl.25.3.02deu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.25.3.02deu [Google Scholar]
  17. Dillmann, August
    1907Ethiopic grammar, enlarged and improved by Carl Bezold, translated by James A. Crichton . London: Williams and Norgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dindelegan, Gabriela Panã
    (ed.) 2013The grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Doherty, C
    2014Clauses without ‘that’: The case for bare sentential complementation in English. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Durand, Jean-Marie
    1997Documents épistolaires de Mari (Littératures anciennes du proche-orient 16), Vol. 1. Paris: Cerf.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Fiorentino, G
    2007 European relative clauses and the uniqueness of the relative pronoun type. Rivista di Linguistica19(2): 263–291.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fleischer, Jürg
    2006 Dative and indirect object in German dialects: Evidence from relative clauses. In Daniel Hole , André Meinunger , & Werner Abraham (eds.), Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure (Studies in Language Companion Series 75), 213–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.75.10fle
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.75.10fle [Google Scholar]
  23. 2014 Slavic influence in Eastern Yiddish syntax: The case of vos relative clauses. International Journal of the Sociology of Language226: 137–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson
    2007 Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language31(2): 293–326. doi: 10.1075/sl.31.2.03fox
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.2.03fox [Google Scholar]
  25. Frayne, Douglas
    1993Sargonic and Gutian periods (2334-2113 BC). (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early periods 2). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. doi: 10.3138/9781442658578
    https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442658578 [Google Scholar]
  26. Giladi, Dan
    1973ha-yišuv bi-tkufat ha-’aliya ha-revi’it (1924–1929) [Jewish Palestine during the fourth alia period (1924–1929)]. Am Oved: Tel-Aviv.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gippert, J
    2011 Relative clauses in Vartashen Udi preliminary remarks. Iran and the Caucasus15(1-2): 207–230. doi: 10.1163/157338411X12870596615593
    https://doi.org/10.1163/157338411X12870596615593 [Google Scholar]
  28. Glinert, L
    1989The grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Goldenberg, Gideon
    1977 Imperfectly-transformed cleft sentences. Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 127–133. Jerusalem.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1995 Attribution in Semitic languages. Langues Orientales Anciennes: Philologie et Linguistique7: 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1996 ha-’ivrit ke-lašon šemit xaya [Hebrew as a living Semitic language]. Inha-lašon ha-’ivrit be-hitpatxuta u-be-hitxadšuta [Evolution and renewal: Trends in the development of the Hebrew language], 148–190. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Govberg-Afros, Elena
    2002Aspects of old Germanic hypotaxis: The relative clause in focus. Ph.D. dissertation, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Harris, A.C. & L. Campbell
    1995Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
  34. Haspelmath, Martin
    2001 The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Martin Haspelmath , Ekkehard König , Wulf Oesterreicher , & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft), 1492–1510. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110171549.2
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110171549.2 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hasselbach, R
    2005Sargonic Akkadian. A historical and comparative study of the syllabic texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2005Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511614132
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614132 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hendery, Rachel
    2012Relative clauses in time and space: A case study in the methods of diachronic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.101
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.101 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hever, Ya’ar & Yair Adiel
    2009 haxipus axar moca babalšanut ha’ivrit/hayisra’elit [The Search for an Origin (and a Way Out) in Hebrew/Israeli Linguistics]. Teorya ubikoret [Theory and Criticism] 35: 292–301.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Holmstedt, R.D
    2002 The relative clause in Biblical Hebrew: A linguistic analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2013 Relative clause: Biblical Hebrew. In Geoffrey Khan (ed.), The encyclopedia of Hebrew language and linguistics, Vol. 3, 350–357. Boston/Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Izre’el, Shlomo
    2003 The emergence of Spoken Israeli Hebrew. In Benjamin H. Hary (ed.), Corpus linguistics and Modern Hebrew: Towards the compilation of The Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew (CoSIH), 85–104. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Joüon, Paul & Takamitsu Muraoka
    2006A grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Revised English edition. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto biblico.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Keenan, Edward L
    1985 Relative clauses. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description1, Vol. 2, 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie
    1977 Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic inquiry8(1): 63–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kittilä, S. & A. Malchukov
    2009 Varieties of accusative. InThe Oxford handbook of case, 549–562. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lavine, James
    2003 Resumption in Slavic: Phases, cyclicity, and case. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics11: 355–372.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lehmann, Christian
    1984Der Relativsatz. Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 1988 Towards a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (Typological Studies in Language, Vol. 18), 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.18.09leh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.09leh [Google Scholar]
  49. Lissak, Moshe
    2009iyunim behistorya xevratit šel Yisra’el [Studies in Israeli social history]. Jerusalem: Bialik.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Maschler, Y
    2011 al hithavutan šel tavniyot min ha-siax: mišpaxat psukiyot ha-zika [Of the emergence of constructions from discourse: the relative clause family]. Lešonénu73: 167–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Matras, Y. & J. Sakel
    2007 Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language31: 829–865. doi: 10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat [Google Scholar]
  52. Murelli, Adriano
    2011a Relative constructions in European languages: A look at non-standard. Linguistischen Internationalen Promotionsprogramms (JournaLIPP)1: 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2011bRelative constructions in European non-standard varieties. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110238792
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238792 [Google Scholar]
  54. Naughton, James D
    2005Czech: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pat-El, N. & A. Treiger
    2008 On adnominalization of prepositional phrases and adverbs in Semitic. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft158(2): 265–283.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Peretz, Yizhak
    1967Mišpat ha-zika ba-ivrit le-xol tkufoteha [The Hebrew Relative Clause in all its phases]. Tel Aviv: Dvir.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Reckendorf, H
    1921Arabische syntax. Heidelberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Reshef, Yael
    2004 The modern Hebrew asyndetic relative clause: The rise of a new syntactic mechanism. Folia linguistica historica25(1-2): 115–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 2006 ‘ha-nose bo nadun’: limkora šel psukit ha-zika ha-bilti mekušeret be-ivrit bat zmanenu [the issue which we will discuss: about the source of the asyndetic relative clause in contemporary Hebrew]. ha-ivrit safa xaya [Hebrew (is) a living language] 4: 411–430.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Roma, Elisa
    2007 Relativisation strategies in Insular Celtic languages: History and contacts with English. In Paulo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as linguistic areas: Convergences from a historical and typological perspective (Studies in Language Companion SeriesVol. 88), 245–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.88.12rom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.88.12rom [Google Scholar]
  61. Shlesinger, Yitzhak
    1994ha-ivrit ha-modernit ha-ktuva [Written Modern Hebrew] (The History of the Hebrew Language: The Modern Division, Unit 11). Tel Aviv: The Open University.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Siloni, T
    1995 On participial relatives and complementizer D0: A case study in Hebrew and French. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory13(3):445–487. doi: 10.1007/BF00992738
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992738 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sommer, Ferdinand
    1931Vergleichende Syntax der Schulsprachen.3. Leipzig and Berlin: BG Teubner.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Sridhar, S.N
    1978 Linguistic convergence: Indo-aryanization of Dravidian languages. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences8(1): 197–215.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wheelock, Frederic M. & Richard A. LaFleur
    2005Wheelock’s Latin, Revised. New York: Harper Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. TAKDIN
    = The Legal Database (www.takdin.co.il/)
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Thomason, Sarah Grey
    2001Language contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. doi: 10.1016/b0‑08‑043076‑7/03032‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-08-043076-7/03032-1 [Google Scholar]
  68. 2008 Social and linguistic factors as predictors of contact-induced change. Journal of Language Contact2(1): 42–56. doi: 10.1163/000000008792525381
    https://doi.org/10.1163/000000008792525381 [Google Scholar]
  69. Troup, Andrew C
    2010The relative clause in Old English: An analysis of syntactic and stylistic ambiguity. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Wexler, Paul
    1990The schizoid nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic language in search of a Semitic past (Mediterranean Language and Culture Monograph Series 4). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Zeldes, A
    2013 Is Modern Hebrew standard average European? The view from European. Linguistic Typology17(3): 439–470. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2013‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2013-0021 [Google Scholar]
  72. Zewi, Tamar
    2013 Relative clause, Modern Hebrew. In Geoffrey Khan (ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics Vol. III, 359–363. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad
    2006 A new vision for Israeli Hebrew: Theoretical and practical implications of analyzing Israel’s main language as a semi‐engineered Semito‐European hybrid language. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies5(1): 57–71. doi: 10.1080/14725880500511175
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14725880500511175 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
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