Cover not available
Part of
Atypical predicate-argument relations
Edited by Thierry Ruchot and Pascale Van Praet
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 33] 2016
► pp. 27–60

Non-canonical ‘existential-like‘ constructions in colloquial Modern Hebrew

| Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The paper deals with the non-typical structure and coding properties of ‘existential-like’ constructions in Colloquial Modern Hebrew (CMH), with reference to parallels in some major Indo-European languages. The construction explored consists of an invariable (neuter) predicate incorporating an empty referential subject (S) morpheme, plus an explicit postverbal NP representing the logic-­semantic subject (S′) that is deficient in topicality and behaves like an O (though it is not a Patient argument). This construction exhibits inconsistency and instability in several aspects of its encoding. Taking the structure-based approach as its starting point, the paper’s main argument is that the construction under investigation is a special impersonal construction displaying a split between the grammatical S and semantic S′. Typologically, it proposes a unified account of the construction in both synthetic inflectional languages like Hebrew, which do not require an expletive/dummy-­subject, and in analytic inflectional languages like Germanic languages and French that do require it. The paper disputes the assumption that the postverbal NP in this construction is an O or an S that became an O. The underlying assumption of the paper is that a construction is a form-­meaning-function unit; accordingly, the construction at hand is examined not only from the structural and semantic viewpoint but also from the viewpoint of functional sentence perspective and the speaker’s perspectival choice with respect to the construal of the event.
Published online: 8 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.33.02hal
References (78)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra, Robert M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.). 2001. Non-Canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. A phrase nominale. In Problèmes de linguistique générale, vol. I, 151–167. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. 1980. The case of an (S)VO language: Subjectless constructions in Modern Hebrew. Language 56. 759–776. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty J. 1994. Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language 70. 233–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blau, Joshua. 1996. On the impersonal passive in the Bible: A comparative study against the background of the impersonal passive in Classical Arabic. Studies in Hebrew Linguistics (in Hebrew), 114–121. Jerusalem: Magness Press.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir & Barbara H. Partee. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of Theme-Rheme structure reconsidered. In Eva Hajicová, Petr Sgall, Jirí Hana & Tomáš Hoskovec (eds.), Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague (nouvelle série), 185–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and Form. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Brandi, Luciana & Patrizia Cordin. 1989. Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter. In Jaeggli Osvaldo & Kenneth J. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, 111–142. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Anatomy of a generalization. In Eric Reuland (ed.), Arguments and case: Explaining burzio’s generalization, 195–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins Revere, Pagliuca William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale une introduction typologique, 2 vols. Paris: Hermes Science Lavoisier.Google Scholar
. 2008. Impersonal and related constructions: A typological approach. Text of a series of 3 lectures given at the University of Tartu on June 02–03 2008. 1–52. Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar, syntactic theory in typological perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damourette, Jacques & Éduard Pichon. [1930] 1952. Des mots à la pensée. Essai de grammaire de la langue française, vol. 4. Paris: d’Artrey.Google Scholar
EHLL – Encyclopedia of Hebrew language and linguistics. 2013. Geoffrey, Khan (general ed.). Leiden: Brill. Also available online.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan-Terje. 1998. L’actance des langues germaniques. In Feuillet Jack (ed.), Actance et Valence dans les Langues de l’Europe, 789–809. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1968. The case for case. In E. Bach & R.T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of construction grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker & Florian Haas. 2011. On the distribution of subject properties in formulaic presentationals of Germanic and Romance: A diachronic-typological approach. In A. 
Malchukov & A. Siewierska (eds.), 127–166.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976a. On the VS word order in Israeli Hebrew: Pragmatics and typological change. In Peter Cole (ed.), Studies in modern Hebrew syntax and semantics, 153–181. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
. 1976b. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 149–188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1990 [1984]. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glinert, Lewis. 1989. The Grammar of modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon. 1995. Attribution in semitic languages. Langues Orientales Anciennes: Philologie et Linguistique 5–6. 1–20. [= Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings. Jerusalem: Magnes. 1998. 46–66.]Google Scholar
. 1998. On verbal structure and the Hebrew verb. In Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected writings, 148–196. Jerusalem: Magness Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. On grammatical agreement and verb-initial sentences. In Pier-Giorgio Borbone, Alessandro Mengozzi, & Mauro Tosco (eds.), Loquentes linguis: Studi linguistic e oriental in onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchetti, 329–335. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2013. Semitic languages: Features, structures, relations, processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grammaire de l’Académie française. 1932. Paris: Firmin-Didot et cieGoogle Scholar
Halevy, Rivka. 1992. Free and restricted adjectives in contemporary Hebrew (in Hebrew). In M. Bar-Asher (ed.), Language Studies 5–6, 521–536. Jerusalem: Magness.Google Scholar
. 1998. Between syntax and lexicon: Restricted collocations in contemporary hebrew (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magness Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. The functions of the non-lexical ze in contemporary Hebrew. (in Hebrew). Lešonenu 67 (The Academy of Hebrew Language: Jerusalem). 283–307.Google Scholar
. 2013. Syntax: Modern Hebrew. EHLL 3. 707–723.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Alexandra Aikhenvald, Robert. M.W. Dixon, & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), 53–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoop, Helen de & Andrej Malchukov. 2007. On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua 117. 1636–1656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto.1937. Analytic syntax. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of subject. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 305–334. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M. 1988. On the grammar-cognition interface: The principle of full interpretation. In Ruth M. Kempson (ed.), Mental representations – the interface between language and reality, 199–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey. 1984. Object markers and agreement pronouns in Semitic languages. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 47. 468–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter. 2003. From subject to object and from object to subject: (De)personalization, floating and reanalysis in presentative verbs. In Giuliana Fiorentino (ed.), Romance Objects: Transitivity in romance languages, 153–185. Berlin – New York: Mouton de gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective. A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 269–320.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. Categorical and thetic judgments: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9. 1–37. [French translation 1973: Jugements catégoriques et jugements thétiques. Languages 30. 82–110].Google Scholar
Kuzar, Ron. 2012. Sentence Patterns in English and Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, Peter & Dominique Willems. 2011. Coercion: Definitions and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics 49(6). 1219–1235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1994. L’actant H: sujet ou objet?. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 89(1). 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Actancy. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter [translated from L’actance, Paris 1994]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levi, Yaakov. 2013. Agreement: Biblical Hebrew. In EHLL, vol. 1 (Brillonline).Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topicSubject and topic: A new typology of language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 1999. Linking and optimality in the Norwegian presentational focus construction. Journal of Nordic Linguistics 22. 205–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & Ogawa Akio. 2011. Towards a typology of impersonal constructions. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), 19–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Siewierska Anna (eds.). 2011. Impersonal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Hans-Jürgen Sasse (eds.). 1995. Verb-Subject order and theticity in European languages. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 48 [special issue].Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3. 1–29.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne & Wallace, Chafe. 1999. What are S, A, and O. Studies in Language 23(3). 569–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki. 2001. Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and properties. In Alexandra Aikhenvald, Robert M.W. Dixon, & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society , 159–189. Berkley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
. 1983. Personal vs. impersonal constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 141–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given/new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 223–244. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In Sandra Thompson & William Mann (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fundraising text, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosén, Chaim B. 1977. Contemporary Hebrew. Mouton: The Hague. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tania. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics. An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. 53–94.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25. 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, Susan F. 1976. Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative semitic syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Introduction: Impersonalization from a subject vs. agent-centered perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society 106. 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, Miorita. 1985. Thetisch und Kategorisch: Funktion der Anordnung von Satzkonstituenten am Beispiel des Rumänischen und anderer Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory & Betty Birner. 1995. Definiteness and the English existential. Language 17. 722–742. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zewi, Tamar. 1997. Subject preceded by ’et in Biblical Hebrew. In Andreas Wagner (ed.), Studien zur Hebräischen Grammatik, 171–183. Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael. 1982. Another look at definites in existentials. Journal of Linguistics 18. 73–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Bondaruk, Anna
2024. On the Existential Use of the Verb “Brakować” ‘to Lack’ in Polish. Slavia Meridionalis 23 DOI logo
Izre'el, Shlomo
2022. The syntax of existential constructions. Journal of Speech Sciences 11 ► pp. e022001 ff. DOI logo
Halevy, Rivka
2020. Chapter 15. Impersonal and pseudo-impersonal constructions. In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210], ► pp. 539 ff. DOI logo
Halevy, Rivka
2020. Chapter 13. Transitivity and valence. In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210], ► pp. 465 ff. DOI logo
Halevy, Rivka
2022. What makes the dative-experiencer construction in Modern Hebrew different from its counterparts in European languages?. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 75:3 ► pp. 379 ff. DOI logo
Halevy, Rivka
2022. The existential construction in Spoken Modern Hebrew. Journal of Speech Sciences 11 ► pp. e022005 ff. DOI logo
Halevy, Rivka
2023. Non-subject oriented existential, possessive and dative-experiencer constructions in Modern Hebrew – a cross-linguistic typological approach. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 76:4 ► pp. 545 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.