Cover not available
Part of
Language Contact, Continuity and Change in the Genesis of Modern Hebrew
Edited by Edit Doron, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Yael Reshef and Moshe Taube
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 256] 2019
► pp. 143–178

The change in Hebrew from a V-framed to an S-framed Language

| The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The paper discusses a change in the typological profile of Hebrew in terms of lexicalization patterns. These patterns concern the way in which the conceptual components of event descriptions of motion or change are distributed across morpho-syntactic categories when they include in addition in addition a specification of manner in the same nuclear clause. V-framed languages require the verb to express the motion or change, and manner, if expressed, must be expressed otherwise. S-framed languages allow the verb to express the manner and the motion or change to be expressed by a satellite such as a prepositional phrase. Biblical Hebrew is shown to have properties of V-framed languages, while Modern Hebrew shows properties of S-framed languages. The article shows that Hebrew first developed a locative/directional distinction, allowing manner verbs of a variety of sorts to appear with directional phrases. More recently, constructions with non-subcategorized objects have begun to appear. The article shows that these constructions developed from reanalyses of Classical Hebrew collocations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Complex motion event descriptions – A typology
  • 3.Factors contributing to V- and S-framedness
    • 3.1Lexical factors
    • 3.2Compositional factors
  • 4.Biblical Hebrew
    • 4.1Lexical factors
    • 4.2Compositional factors
  • 5.Modern Hebrew
    • 5.1Lexical factors
    • 5.2Compositional factors
  • 6.Further S-framed properties in MH
  • 7.Historical development
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.256.06rap
References (69)
References
Acedo-Matellán 2010. Argument Structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface: A case study in Latin and other languages. PhD dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Acedo-Matellán, Victor & Mateu, Jaume. 2013. Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic approach. Probus 25: 227–265.Google Scholar
Alonge, A.. 1997. “Semantica lessicale e propriet`a sintattiche dei verbi di movimento italiani: Analisi di dati acquisiti da dizionari di macchina e da un corpus testuale computerizzato”, in L. Agostiniani, P. Bonucci, G. Giannecchini, F. Lorenzi and L. Reali, eds., Atti del III Convegno della Societ`a Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples, Italy, 31-63.Google Scholar
Bar-Asher, Moshe. 2015. Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute & the Academy of the Hebrew Language. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. 2017. Diachronic syntactic studies in Hebrew pronominal reciprocal constructions. In Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, Cynthia Miller & Ziony Zevit (eds), 209–244. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2008. On the nature of goal marking and delimitation: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 44: 283–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John, Levin, Beth Wei & Tham, Shiao . 2010. The typology of motion events revisited. Journal of Linguistics 46: 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. & Slobin, Dan I. 1994. Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Borochovsky, Esther & Sovran, Tamar. 2003. Hebrew Construction Grammar. In Hebrew– A Living Language III, Rina Ben-Shahar & Gideon Toury (eds), 31–50. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute, Tel Aviv University, and Hakibbutz Hame’uxad. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Cummis, Sarah. 1996. Movement and direction in French and English. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 31–54Google Scholar
Croft, William A., Barðdal, Jóhanna, Hollmann, Willem B., Sotirova, Violeta & Taoka, Chiaki. 2010. Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 10], 201–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, S. 1998. “Le mouvement directionnel dans une perspective d’analyse monos´emique”, Langues et Linguistique 24: 47-66.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit & Dubnov, Keren. 2017. The locative alternation in Biblical (and Modern) Hebrew. In Studies in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics, Adina Moshavi & Tania Notarius (eds), 321–360. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, Maria Theresa & Mateu, Jaume. 2010. On classes of idioms and their interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1397–1411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Even Shoshan, Avraham.1986. Hamilon Hehadash. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer.Google Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio. 2007. The exhaustive lexicalisation principle. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 34(2): 165–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Ramchand, Gilliam. 2005. Prepositions and results in Italian and English: An analysis from event decomposition. In Perspectives on Aspect, Henk Verkuyl, Henriëtte de Swart & Angeliek van Hout (eds), 81–105. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2016. Against deficiency-based typologies. Manner-alternation parameters in Italian and English. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from `Going Romance’ 28, Ernestina Carrilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo & Sandra Perei (eds), 103–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fong, Vivienne. 1997. The Order of Things: What Directional Locatives Denote. PhD dissertation, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1973. A syntactic syncretism in English and French. In Issues in Linguistics, Braj B. Kachru, Robert B. Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli & Sol Saporta (eds), 257–278. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Henkin, Roni. 1998. Motion in Hebrew: Issues in the typology and rhetoric of motion expressions. Lešonenu 61(4). (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. Twisting the night away. Language 73: 534–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenni, Ernst. 2013. Preposition: Biblical Hebrew. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Geoffrey Khan (ed.) Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael Allan. 1996. Foundations of French Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayegama, Taro. 2003. Why English motion verbs are special. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 3: 341–373. Seoul: The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A. 2013. Describing motion events in Old and Modern French: Discourse effects of a typological change. In Variation and Change in the Encoding of Motion Events [Human Cognitive Processing 41], Juliana Goschler & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds), 163–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lepetit, X. & Schosler, Lena. 2009. Verbs of movement in a diachronic and typological perspective. In Mélanges plurilingues offerts à Suzanne Schlyter à l’occasion de son 65 ème anniversaire, Petra Bernardini, Verner Egerland & Jonas Granfeldt (eds), 269–280. Lund: Lunds Universitet.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Lexicalized meaning and manner/result complementarity. In Studies in Composition and Decomposition of Event Predicates, Berit Gehrke and Boban Arsenijevic (eds). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
. 2013. Manner and result: A view from clean . In Language Description Informed by Theory [Studies in Language Companion Series 147], Rob Pensalfini, Myfany Turpin & Diana Guillemin (eds), 337–358. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2019. In Lexicalization Patterns, Robert Truswell (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Event Structure. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca. 2005. Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: The case of Italian verb particle constructions. SKY Journal of Linguistics 18: 145–173.Google Scholar
Mateu, Jaume. 2010. On the l-syntax of manner and causation. In Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations: A Cross-linguistic Perspective [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 158], Maia Duguine, Susana Huidobro & Nerea Madariaga (eds), 89–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Conflation and incorporation processes in resultative constructions. In Telicity, Change, and State: A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure, Violete Demonte & Louise McNally (eds), 252–278. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateu, Jaume and Gemma Rigau. 2009. Romance Paths as Cognate Complements. Dins P. Masullo Erin, O’Rourke & Chia-Hui Huang, eds. Romance Linguistics: Structures, Interfaces, and Microparametric Variation. 227–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mateu, Jaume & Rigau, Gemma. 2010. Verb-particle constructions in Romance: A lexical-syntactic account. Probus 22: 241–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClure, William. 1994. Syntactic Projections of the Semantics of Aspect. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2004. Event paths, conflation, argument structure, and VP shells. Linguistics 42: 523–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to Aspect [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 110], Susan D. Rothstein (ed.), 13–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Building scalar changes. In The Roots of Syntax and the Syntax of Roots, Hagit Borer, Artemis Alexiadou & Florian Schaeffer (eds). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. A constructional idiom in Modern Hebrew: The influence of English on a native Hebrew collocation. Journal of Jewish Languages 3: 325–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77(4): 766–797. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Reflections on the complementarity of manner and result. In Syntax, Lexicon and Event Structure, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, Ronald. 1985. Motion in Tswana and its characteristic lexicalization. Studies in African Linguistics 16: 57–87.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1997. Mind, code, and text. In Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to T. Givón, Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 437–467. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2000. Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In Evidence for Linguistic Relativity [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 198], Susanne Niemeier & René Dirven (eds), 107–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Relating Events in Narrative, 2: Typological and Contextual Perspectives, Sven Strömqvist & Ludo Verhoeven (eds), 219–257. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sobin, Dan I. 2006. What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories [Typological Studies in Language 66], Maya Hickmann & Stéphane Robert (eds), 59–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snyder, William. 2012. Parameter theory and motion predicates. In Telicity, Change, and State: A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure, Violete Demonte & Louise McNally (eds), 279–299. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Son, Minjeong. 2007. Directionality and resultativity: The cross-linguistic correlation revisited. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 34(2): 126–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, Grace. 1997. Cross-linguistic Differences in the Expression of Motion Events and their Implications for Second Language Acquisition. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Song, Grace & Levin, Beth. 1998. A compositional approach to cross-linguistic differences in motion expressions. Presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Zaretskaya, Marina. 1998. Verb prefixation in Russian as lexical subordination. Linguistics 36: 1- 39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tai, James H-Y. 2003. Cognitive relativism: Resultative construction in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 4(2): 301–316.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Semantics and syntax of motion. In Syntax and Semantics 4, John P. Kimball (ed.), 181–238. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 57–149. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1966. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Verkerk, Annemarie. 2013. Scramble, scurry and dash: The correlation between motion event encoding and manner verb lexicon size in Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3: 169–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Diachronic change in Indo-European motion event encoding. Journal of Historical Linguistics 4: 40–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul & Darbelnet, Jean. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Wienold, Götz. 1995. Lexical and conceptual structures in expressions for movement and space: With reference to Japanese, Korean, Thai, and Indonesian as compared to English and German. In Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 114], Urs Egli, Peter E. Pause, Cristoph Schwarze, Arnim von Stechow & Götz Wienold (eds), 301– 340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Louisa & Oh, Eunjeong. 2007. On the Syntactic Composition of Manner and Motion. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Menete, Sérgio N. & Guiying Jiang
2024. Another member out of the family: the description of manner of gait in Changana verbs of motion. Folia Linguistica 58:2 ► pp. 401 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.