Syntactic and Semantic Variation in Copular Sentences

Insights from Classical Hebrew

| University of the Free State
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027207135 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027260963 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
This book presents a novel account of syntactic and semantic variation in copular and existential sentences in Classical Hebrew. Like many languages, the system of Classical Hebrew copular sentences is quite complex, containing zero, pronominal, and verbal forms as well as eventive and inchoative semantics. Approaching this subject from the framework of Distributed Morphology provides an elegant and comprehensive explanation for both the syntactic and semantic variation in these sentences. This book also presents a theoretical model for analyzing copular sentences in other languages included related phenomena– such as pseudo-copulas. It is also a demonstration of what can be gained by applying modern linguistic analyses to dead languages. Citing and building off previous studies on this topic, this book will be of interest to those interested in the theoretical examination of copular and existential sentences and to those interested in Classical Hebrew more specifically.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 261]  2020.  xvi, 159 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.261
Table of Contents
Abbreviations
vii–ix
A note on Hebrew transcription
xi
Acknowledgements
xiii
Preface
xv–xvi
Syntactic and semantic variation in copular sentences: Insights from Classical Hebrew
1–146
Chapter 1. Introduction
3–10
Chapter 2. Non-verbal predication in cross-linguistic and theoretical perspective
11–37
Chapter 3. Non-verbal predication in Classical Hebrew
39–56
Chapter 4. A theory of syntactic and semantic variation in copular sentences with insights from the system of Classical Hebrew
57–93
Chapter 5. The copula in the left-periphery
95–107
Chapter 6. Existentials in Classical Hebrew
109–142
Chapter 7. Conclusions and a way forward for analyzing copular and existential sentences
143–146
References
147–157
Index
159
References

References

Adger, D. & Ramchand, G.
2003 Predication and Equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 325–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. and Smith, J.
2005 Variation and the minimalist program. In L. Cornips and K. Corrigan (eds.) Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social, 149-178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Al-Horais, N.
2006 Arabic verbless sentences: Is there a Null VP? Pragmalingüística 14:101–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Albrecht, C.
1887 Die Worstellung im hebräischen Nominalsatze. ZAW 7: 218–224.Google Scholar
1888 Die Worstellung im hebräischen Nominalsatze, Teil II. ZAW 8: 249–263.Google Scholar
Andersen, F. I.
1970 The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch [JBL Monograph Series 14]. Nashville TN: Abingdon Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle
1952 On interpretation. Aristotle I: Great Books of the Western World, R. M. Hutchins (ed.). Chicago IL: William Benton Publisher.Google Scholar
Arregi, K. and Nevins, A.
2007 Obliteration vs. impoverishment in the Basque g-/z-constraint. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 13(1).Google Scholar
2012 Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Springer Science & business Media.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C.
1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003 Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. & Croft, W.
2017 Lexical categories: Legacy, lacuna, and opportunity for functionalists and formalists. Annual Review of Linguistics 3:179–197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakir, M.J.
1979 Aspects of clause structure in Arabic: a study in word order variation in literary Arabic. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Balazs, J.
2012 The Syntax of Small Clauses. MA thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Balazs, J. and Bowers, J.
2017 Small clause and copular predication. In P. Stalmaszczyk (ed.) Understanding Predication: 97-142. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Basilico, D.
2003 The topic of small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 34(1):1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Asher, E.
2009 A Theory of Argument Realization and its Application to Features of the Semitic Languages. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Cooper, R.
1981 Generalized quantifiers and natural language. In Philosophy, Language, and Artificial Intelligence, J. Kulas, J. H. Fetzer & T. L. Rankin (eds), 241–301. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bartelmus, R.
1982 HYH: Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebräischen “Allerweltwortes.” St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E.
2000 The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A Comparative Study of Arabic Dialects. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2008 Clause structure and the syntax of verbless sentences. Current Studies in Linguistics Series 45:105–131.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. Ciconte, F. M. & Cruschina, S.
2013 Existential constructions in crosslinguistic perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistic 25(1):15–43.Google Scholar
Benton, R. C.
2009 Aspect and the Biblical Hebrew Niphal and Hitpael. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Ber, V.
2008 Hebrew Verb hyh as a Macrosyntactic Signal: Case Study of wayhy and the Infinitive with Prepositions Bet and Kaf in Narrative Texts. Bernː Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, B. A. M.
2011 BE-ing the Default: The Morphosyntax of Auxiliaries. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, B. & Zeijlstra, H.
2014 Upward Agree is superior. Ms., Toronto, Ontario & Göttingen: University of Toronto & Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. https://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/002350​/current​.pdf> (21 February 2020).
Blau, J.
1976 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bondaruk, A.
2013 Copular Clauses in English and Polish: Structure, Derivation and Interpretation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
2017 Polish specificational clauses are inverse predicational clauses. In P. Stalmaszczyk (ed.) Understanding Predication: 177-204. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bonet, E.
1991 Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Borer, H.
2013 Structuring Sense, Vol. III: Taking Form. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boulet, J. E.
2019 A Linguistic Reappraisal of the Biblical Hebrew Accusative. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Bowers, J.
1993 The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4): 591–656.Google Scholar
2001 Predication. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, K. Johnson, M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds), 299–333. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2):183–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brentano, F.
1870–77[1956]: Die Lehre vom Richtigen Urteil, published posthumously in an edition edited by F. Mayer-Hillebrand. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Brockelmann, C.
1953 Hebräische Syntax. Neukirchen: Kreis Moers.Google Scholar
Buth, R.
1999 Word order in the verbless clause: A generative-functional approach. In C.L. Miller (ed) The verbless clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic approaches, 79-108. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Camacho, J.
2015 What do Spanish copulas have in common with Tibetan evidentials? In New Perspectives on the Study of Ser and Estar [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 5], I. Pérez-Jiménez, M. Leonetti & S. Gumiel-Molina (eds), 173- 201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G.
1985 Formal semantics and the grammar of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 417–444.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program [Current Studies in Linguistics 28]. Cambridge MAː The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 Minimalist inquiries. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 Derivation by Phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2013 Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G.
1990 Ergative adjectives and the Lexicalist Hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8(1): 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B.
2008 Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118(3): 261–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J.
2017 On the linguistic status of predication. In Understanding Predication, P. Stalmaszczyk (ed.), 17–47. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cook, J. A.
2012 Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Cowper, E.
2010 Where auxiliary verbs come from. In Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–16. Montreal: Concordia University.Google Scholar
Cowper, E. & DeCaen, V.
2017 Biblical Hebrew: A formal perspective on the left periphery. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 38. http://​twpl​.library​.utoronto​.ca​/index​.php​/twpl​/article​/view​/28212> (25 November 2018).
Creissels, D.
2013 Existential predication in typological perspective. Talk given at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. Workshop: Space, Time and Existence: Typological, Cognitive and Philosophical Viewpoints 18–21 September, Split.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
1991a Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1991b The evolution of negation. Journal of Linguistics 27:1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, S.
2012 Focus in existential sentences. In Enjoy Linguistics! Papers Offered to Luigi Rizzi on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, V. Bianchi & C. Chesi (eds), 77–107. Siena: CISCL Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. A.
2008 Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
2008 The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. https://​www​.english​-corpora​.org​/coca/Google Scholar
den Dikken, M.
2006 Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeCaen, V.
1995 On the Placement and Interpretation of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
1999 A unified analysis of verbal and verbless clauses within Government-Binding Theory. In Miller (ed.), 109–131.Google Scholar
Devitt, D.
1994 Copula Constructions in Crosslinguistic and Diachronic Perspective. Unpublished PhD dissertation, SUNY, Buffalo.Google Scholar
Doron, E.
1983 Verbless Predicates in Hebrew. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
2003 Agency and voice: The semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural language Semantics 11(1): 1–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, M.
2006 Pronouns, agreement and focus in Egyptian Arabic. School of Oriental and African Studies Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 51–62.Google Scholar
Eid, M.
1983 The copula function of pronouns. Lingua 59(2–3): 197–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eide, K. M. & Åfarli, T. A.
1999 The syntactic disguises of the predication operator. Studia Linguistica 53(2): 155–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D.
2015 The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 On the distribution of stem alternants: Separation and its limits In The Morpheme Debate, A. R. Luis & R. Bermúdez-Otero (eds), 276–305. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. and Marantz, A.
2008 Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 1-53.Google Scholar
Embick, D. & Noyer, R.
2001 Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. and Noyer, R.
2007 Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289-324. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N.
2007 Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1997 The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V.
2018 Evidential commitment and feature mismatch in Spanish estar constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 128: 102–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ewald, H.
1827 Kritische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache ausführlich bearbeitet. Leipzig: Hahn.Google Scholar
Fakih, A. H. A.
2016 Agreement in Standard Arabic VSO and SVO word orders: A feature-based inheritance approach. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6(1): 21–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fehri, A. F.
1993 Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Francez, I.
2007 Existential Propositions. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
2009 Existentials, predication, and modification. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(1):1–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Freeze, R.
1992 Existentials and other locatives. Language 68(3): 553–595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gast, V. & Haas, F.
2011 On the distribution of subject properties in formulaic presentationals of Germanic and Romance. In Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 124], A. Malchukov & A. Siewierska (eds), 127–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gesenius, W.
1853 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 14th edn revised by E. Rüdiger, translated by T. J. Conant. New York NY: Appleton & Company.Google Scholar
1878 Hebräische Grammatik, 22nd edn revised by E. Kautzsch. Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel.Google Scholar
1909 Hebräische Grammatik, 28th edn revised by E. Kautzsch. Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel.Google Scholar
Gesenius, Wilhelm
1910 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd English edn, E. Kautzsch & A. E. Cowley (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
1990 Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, 2 Vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
González-Rivera, M.
2010 On the internal structure of Spanish verbless clauses. PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Y.
2002 The manifestation of genericity in the tense aspect system of Hebrew nominal sentences. In Themes in Arabic and Hebrew Syntax, J. Ouhalla & U. Shlonsky (eds), 267–298. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Groß, W.
1999 Is there really a compound nominal clause in Biblical Hebrew? In Miller (ed.), 19–49.Google Scholar
Gumiel-Molina, S. & Pérez-Jiménez, I.
2012 Aspectual composition in “ser/estar+adjective” structures: Adjectival scalarity and verbal aspect in copular constructions. Borealis–An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 1(1): 33–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halle, M.
2000 Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Research in Afroasiatic Grammar. Papers from the Third Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Sophia Antipolis, 1996 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 202; Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4], J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm & U. Shlonsky (eds), 125–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. & Marantz, A.
1993 Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
2012 How to compare major word-classes across the world’s languages. In Theories of Everything: In Honor of Edward Keenan, T. Graf, D. Paperno, A. Szabolcsi & J. Tellings (eds), 109–130. Los Angeles CA: University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Hatav, G.
1997 The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series 34]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 The Semantics-pragmatics Interface of the Biblical Hebrew Verb Forms. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
2007 Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 119–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H.
2014 On the identity of roots. Theoretical lingusistics, 40(3-4):225-276.Google Scholar
Harmelink, Brian L.
2011 Exploring the Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Uses of וַיְהִי in Biblical Hebrew. Dallas TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Harves, S.
2002 Unaccusative Syntax in Russian. General and Slavic Linguistics. PhD dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Hazout, I.
2004 The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 393–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K.
1992 Non-Verbal Predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, R. F.
1979 The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Holmstedt, R. D.
2002 The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
2009 Word order and information structure in Ruth and Jonah: A generative-typological analysis. Journal of Semitic Studies 54(1):111–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 The Biblical Hebrew pronoun as a copula. http://​ancienthebrewgrammar​.wordpress​.com​/2011​/02​/27​/hebrew​-pronominal​-copula/> (25 October 2012).
2014 Critical at the margins: Edge constituents in Biblical Hebrew. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 17: 109–156.Google Scholar
2016 The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Holmstedt, R. & Jones, A.
2014 The pronoun in tripartite verbless clauses in Biblical Hebrew: Resumption for left-dislocation or pronominal copula? Journal of Semitic Studies 59(1): 53–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, P. L.
2012 Unaccusativity at the Interfaces. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Isaksson, B.
1998 ‘Aberrant’usages of introductory wǝhāyā in the light of text linguistics. In K-D Schunck and M. Augustin (eds.) Lasset uns Brücken bauen...: collected communications to the XVth Congress of the International organization for the study of the Old Testament, Cambridge 1995. 9-25. Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Jenni, E.
2000 Die Präposition Lamed. Die hebräischen Präpositionen, Vol 3. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1977 X’ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O.
1937 Analytic Syntax. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Joüon, P.
1947 Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.Google Scholar
Joüon, P. & Muraoka, T.
2005 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd edn. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.Google Scholar
Jung, H.
2011 The Syntax of the BE-Possessive: Parametric Variation and Surface Diversities [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 172]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, I.
2016 Form and Meaning in the Hebrew Verb. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Katz, A.
1996 Cyclical Grammaticalization and the Cognitive Link between Pronoun and Copula. PhD dissertation, Rice University.Google Scholar
Keenan, E.
1987 A semantic definition of indefinite NP. In E. Reuland & A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds), The representation of (in)definiteness, 286–317. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Khan, G.
2005 Some aspects of the copula in North West Semitic. In Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, S. Fassberg & A. Hurvitz (eds), 155–176. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A.
1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kummerow, D.
2013 Object predication in Tiberian Hebrew: A typological approach to the nonverbal copula. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 16: 1–135.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S. Y.
1972 The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9(2): 153–185.Google Scholar
Levin, A.
1985 The distinction between nominal and verbal sentences according to the Arab grammarians. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 15:118–127.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M.
1995 Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Linton, J.
1983 Four Views of the Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin – Madison.Google Scholar
Longacre, D. G.
2014 Navigation points in text: Methodological and linguistic preliminaries for the study of the semantic, syntactic, and discourse-pragmatic functions of ויהי in Biblical Hebrew narrative. In Grappling with the Chronology of the Genesis Flood, S. Boyd & A. Snelling (eds), 639–704. Green Forest AR: Master Books.Google Scholar
Macías, J. H. G.
2016 From the Unexpected to the Unbelievable: Thetics, Miratives and Exclamatives in Conceptual Space. PhD dissertation, University of New MexicoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A.
1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–225.Google Scholar
2013a Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, O. Matushansky & A. P. Marantz (eds), 95–115. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130: 152–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marín, R. & McNally, L.
2011 Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(2): 467–502. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Markman, V. G.
2008 The case of predicates (revisited): Predicate instrumental in Russian and its restrictions. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1(2): 187–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marty, A.
1908 Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Grammatik und Sprachphilosophie. Halle: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNally, L.
1992 An Interpretation for the English Existential Construction. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
2011 Existential sentences. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning 2:1829–1848.Google Scholar
Merchant, J.
2015 How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46(2): 273–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michel, D.
1960 Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen. ACHandlungen zur Evangelischen Theologie. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen. L.
2011 Copular clauses. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds), 1805–1828. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Miller, C. L.
(ed.) 1999 The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Miller-Naudé, C.L. and Naudé, J.
2019 Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 56:179-199.Google Scholar
Moro, A.
1997 The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moshavi, A.M.
2010 Word order in the Biblical Hebrew finite clause: A syntactic and pragmatic analysis of preposing. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Muraoka, T.
1985 Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.Google Scholar
1999 The tripartite nominal clause revisited. In Miller (ed.), 187–213.Google Scholar
2006 Reflexions on an important study on the nominal clause in Biblical Hebrew. Bibliotheca Orientalis 63(5–6): 447–467. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murray, S. E.
2009 A Hamblin semantics for evidentials. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 19: 324–341. http://​www​.semanticsarchive​.net​/Archive​/2I5ZjdmY/> (21 February 2020).
2010 Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University. http://​www​.semanticsarchive​.net​/Archive​/WViOGQxY/> (21 February 2020).
2014 Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics 7: 1–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myler, N.
2016 Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 Complex copula systems as suppletive allomorphy. Talk Given at Between EXISTENCE and LOCATION: Empirical, Formal, and Typological Approaches to Existential Constructions. University of Tübingen 2 December 2016 (Note: Appendix 1 of this handout was updated on 15 May 2017).Google Scholar
2018 Complex copula systems as suppletive allomorphy. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Naudé, J.A., Miller-Naudé, C.L. and Wilson, D.J.
2019 Trajectories of Diachronic Change in Qumran Hebrew: Evidence from the Negative Existential in Post-Predicate Position. In Scribal Practice, Text and Canon in the Dead Sea Scrolls, J. Collins and A. Geyser-Fouché (eds.), 271-294. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Naudé, J. A.
1990 A syntactic analysis of dislocations in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 16:115–130.Google Scholar
1994 The verbless clause with pleonastic pronoun in Biblical Aramaic. Journal for Semitics 6(1):74–93.Google Scholar
1999 Syntactic aspects of co-ordinate subjects with independent personal pronouns. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 25(2):75–99.Google Scholar
2001 The distribution of independent personal pronouns in Qumran Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 27(2):91–112.Google Scholar
2002a Verbless clauses containing personal pronouns in Qumran Hebrew. Journal for Semitics 11(1):126–168.Google Scholar
2002b The third person pronoun in tripartite verbless clauses of Qumran Hebrew. In Pronouns: Representation and Grammar [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 52], H. J. Simon & H. Wiese (eds), 161–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew and a theory of language change and diffusion. In Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, C. L. Miller-Naudé & Z. Zevit (eds) 61–82. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Naudé, J. A. & Miller-Naudé, C. L.
2016 The contribution of Qumran to Historical Hebrew linguistics: Evidence from the syntax of participial negation. HTS Teologiese Studies 72(4). https://​hts​.org​.za​/index​.php​/hts​/article​/view​/3150​/6985> (22 February 2020) Crossref
2017 At the interface of syntax and prosody: Differentiating left dislocated and tripartite verbless clauses in Biblical Hebrew. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 48: 223–238.Google Scholar
Naudé, J. A. Miller-Naudé, C. L. & Wilson, D. J.
Forthcoming The negative existential cycle in Ancient Hebrew. In The Negative Existential Cycle from a Historical-Comparative Perspective, L. Veselinova & A. Hamari (eds). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Nevins, A. & Parrott, J. K.
2010 Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties. Lingua 120(5): 1135–1159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Niccacci, A.
1987 A neglected point of Hebrew syntax: Yiqtol and position in the sentence. Liber Annuus 37: 7–19.Google Scholar
1990 Sullo stato sintattico del verbo hāyâ. Liber Annuus 40: 9–23.Google Scholar
1993 Simple nominal clause (SNC) or verbless clause in Biblical Hebrew prose. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 6: 216–227.Google Scholar
1999 Types and functions of the nominal sentence. In Miller (ed.), 215–248.Google Scholar
Osborne, W.
2012 Anteriority and justification: Pragmatic functions of the We x-qatal form in direct speech in the Book of Genesis. OTE 25(2): 369–382.Google Scholar
Partee, B.
1987 Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, de Jongh & M. Stokhof (eds), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers [GRASS 8], 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1998 Copula inversion uzzles in English and Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting 1998, K. Dziwirek, H. Coats & C. Vakareliyska (eds), 361–395. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. & Borschev, V.
2002 The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: The nature and role of perspectival structure. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14: 212–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piñón, C.
1997 Achievements in an event semantics. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 7: 276–293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C., & Sag, I.
1994 Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.Y.
1989 Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(3): 365-424.Google Scholar
Preminger, O.
2013 That’s not how you agree: A reply to Zeijlstra. The Linguistic Review 30(3): 491–500. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, O. & Polinsky, M.
2015 Agreement and semantic concord: A spurious unification. Ms, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Progovac, L.
2006 The syntax of nonsententials: Small clauses and phrases at the root. In The Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary Perspectives [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 93], L. Progovac, K. Paesani, E. Casielles-Suárez & E. Barton (eds), 33–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pustet, R.
2003 Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A.
1997 Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G. C.
2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, T. R.
1987 Copular, Nominal, and Small Clauses: A Study of Israeli Hebrew. PhD Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Ritz, M.
2012 Perfect tense and aspect. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, R. Binnick (ed.), 881–907. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L.
1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar. Handbook in Generative Syntax, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Roberts, C.
2012 Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5: 6–1. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S.D.
1995 Pleonastics and the interpretation of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 26(3): 499-529.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S.
2001 Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
2004 The syntactic forms of predication. Predicates and Their Subjects [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 74], 100–129. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Predication. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 10, 2nd edn, K. Brown (ed.), 73–76. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roy, I.
2013 Nonverbal Predication: Copular Sentences at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B.
1920 Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. New York NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A.
2003 Function and concept. In Logicism and the Philosophy of Language: Selections from Frege and Russell, A. Sullivan (ed.). Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Safir, K.
1982 Syntactic Chains and the Definiteness Effect. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Sasse, H. J.
1987 The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25(3): 511–580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 Theticity. Arbeitspapiere 27. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Schneider, W.
1974 Grammatik des biblischen Hebräischen: Völlig neue Bearbeitung der “Hebräischen Grammatik für den akademischen Unterricht” von Oskar Grether. Munich: Claudius.Google Scholar
Seidel, G. J.
1993 Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre of 1794: A Commentary on Part 1. West Lafayette IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, C.
1999 Are nominal clauses a distinct clausal type? In Miller (ed.), 51–75.Google Scholar
Stalmaszczyk, P.
(ed.) 2017 Philosophy and Logic of Predication. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R.C.
1978 Assertion. In P. Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, 315-332. New York: New York Academia Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stassen, L.
1997 Intransitive Predication. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2009 Predicative Possession. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Stowell, T.
1978 What was there before there was there. In Proceedings of CLS 14 D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen, & K. W. Todrys (eds.), 458–471.Google Scholar
1981 Origins of Phrase Structure. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
1983 Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2(3): 285–312.Google Scholar
van der Merwe, C. H.
1999 The elusive Biblical Hebrew term ויהי: A perspective in terms of its syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in 1 Samuel. Hebrew Studies 40(1): 83–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2011 The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Hecke, P.
2008 Constituent order in existential clauses. In Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period, S. E. Fassberg, M. Bar-Asher & R. A. Clements (eds), 61–78. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Constituent order in היה-clauses in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In Hebrew in the Second Temple Period: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other Contemporary Sources, S. E. Fassberg, M. Bar-Asher & R. A. Clements (eds), 83–104. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vanoni, G.
1982 Ist die Fügung Hyy+ Circumstant der Zeit im althebräischen ein Satz? Biblische Notizen 17: 73–86.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z.
1957 Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66: 143–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Veselinova, L.
2013 Negative existentials: A cross-linguistic study. Rivista di Linguistica 25(1): 107–145.Google Scholar
2016 The negative existential cycle viewed through the lens of comparative data. In Cyclical Change Continued [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 227], E. van Gelderen (ed.), 139–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waltke, B. K. & O’Connor, M.
1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Williams, E.
1980 Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11(1): 203–238.Google Scholar
1994 Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. J.
2017 Copular and Existential Sentences in Biblical Hebrew. PhD dissertation, University of the Free State.Google Scholar
2019  Wayhî and theticity in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 45(1): 89–118.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. The thetic/categorical distinction as difference in common ground update: with application to Biblical Hebrew. In Information Structure: The Cross-linguistic Architecture of Thetics and Categoricals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wondem, M. A.
2014 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez. PhD dissertation, University Utrecht.Google Scholar
Wood, J.
2012 Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. PhD Dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
2015 Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woodard, S.
2009 The tripartite nominal clause in Biblical Hebrew: An analysis of extraposition with verbless clauses. GIALens 3(1). http://​www​.gial​.edu​/GIALend​/issues​.htm> (6 February 2012).
Zeijlstra, H.
2012 There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29(3): 491–539. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zevit, Z.
1998 The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew. Atlanta GA: Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Zewi, T.
1994 The nominal sentence in Biblical Hebrew. In Semitic and Cushitic Studies, G. Goldenberg & S. Raz (eds), 147–167. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
1996a Subordinate nominal sentences involving prolepsis in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Semitic Studies 41(1):1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996b The definition of the copula and the role of 3rd independent personal pronouns in nominal sentences of Semitic languages. Folia Linguistica Historica 17(1–2): 41–55.Google Scholar
1999a Time in nominal sentences in the Semitic languages. Journal of Semitic Studies 44(2):195–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999b Tripartite nominal clauses and appositions in Biblical Hebrew. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 36: 36–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Is there a tripartite nominal sentence in Biblical Hebrew? Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26: 51–63.Google Scholar
2013 Nominal clause. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 2, G. Khan (ed.), 830–839. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Abraham, Werner
2020.  In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262], ► pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 january 2021. 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.

Subjects

Linguistics

Semantics
Afro-Asiatic languages
Syntax
Theoretical linguistics
Morphology
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2020015786 | Marc record