Cover not available
Part of
Syntactic and Semantic Variation in Copular Sentences: Insights from Classical Hebrew
Daniel J. Wilson
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 261] 2020
► pp. 147–157

References

Adger, D. & Ramchand, G. 2003. Predication and Equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 325–359. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Horais, N. 2006. Arabic verbless sentences: Is there a Null VP? Pragmalingüística 14:101–116. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. & Croft, W. 2017. Lexical categories: Legacy, lacuna, and opportunity for functionalists and formalists. Annual Review of Linguistics 3:179–197. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. <[URL]> (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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2):183–224. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1990. Ergative adjectives and the Lexicalist Hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8(1): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. 2008. Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118(3): 261–295. DOI logoGoogle 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. <[URL]> (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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M., 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. [URL]Google Scholar
den Dikken, M. 2006. Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eide, K. M. & Åfarli, T. A. 1999. The syntactic disguises of the predication operator. Studia Linguistica 53(2): 155–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., 2015. The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fehri, A. F. 1993. Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francez, I. 2007. Existential Propositions. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
2009. Existentials, predication, and modification. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(1):1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeze, R. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68(3): 553–595. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1992. Non-Verbal Predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. The Biblical Hebrew pronoun as a copula. <[URL]> (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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130: 152–168. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marty, A. 1908. Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Grammatik und Sprachphilosophie. Halle: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, S. E. 2009. A Hamblin semantics for evidentials. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 19: 324–341. <[URL]> (21 February 2020).
2010. Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University. <[URL]> (21 February 2020).
2014. Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics 7: 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myler, N. 2016. Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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). <[URL]> (22 February 2020). DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piñón, C. 1997 Achievements in an event semantics. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 7: 276–293. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustet, R. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 1997. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G. C. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Predication. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 10, 2nd edn, K. Brown (ed.), 73–76. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, I. 2013. Nonverbal Predication: Copular Sentences at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R.C., 1978. Assertion. In P. Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, 315-332. New York: New York Academia Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woodard, S. 2009. The tripartite nominal clause in Biblical Hebrew: An analysis of extraposition with verbless clauses. GIALens 3(1). <[URL]> (6 February 2012).
Zeijlstra, H. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29(3): 491–539. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999b. Tripartite nominal clauses and appositions in Biblical Hebrew. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 36: 36–47. DOI logoGoogle 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