Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 34:1 (2024) ► pp.28–54

The cyclic nature of negation: From implicit to explicit

The case of Hebrew Bilti (‘not’)

| Ben-Gurion University
The Hebrew negation adverbial bilti ‘not’ seems to function very differently in Biblical Hebrew than it does in Contemporary Hebrew. This paper addresses this difference and discusses its evolution. The main question addressed in this paper is: How has Hebrew bilti, originally an exceptive marker (with sentential scoping), ended up functioning solely as a privative in contemporary Hebrew? First, this paper argues that the biblical usage of bilti was expanded and turned into a polyfunctional (or ‘polysemous’) item. This happened via a constructionalization process which led to grammatical changes (‘grammaticalization’): The initially implicated negation (via a generalized implicature) turned explicit (semantic). In addition, in Hebrew’s later periods, the usage of bilti was narrowed and it became a privative. Thus, firstly, a pragmatically motivated path of constructionalization of bilti in Biblical Hebrew is suggested. That is, the “pragmatic negation” that arose via a generalized implicature shifted to the semantic level (performing semantic negation, explicit negation). Secondly, bilti’s functions in post-biblical Hebrew periods are outlined, tracing its narrowing functions until its fixation in Contemporary Hebrew as a privative.
Keywords: grammaticalization, polyfunctionality, Jespersen’s Cycle, negation, privative, construction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background and terminology
    • 2.1Constructionalization
    • 2.2Grammaticalization
    • 2.3Negative Polarity Items (NPIs)
    • 2.4Jespersen’s Cycle
    • 2.5The history of Hebrew
    • 2.6Methodology and corpora
  • 3.The constructionalization path of Hebrew bilti
    • 3.1Biblical bilti
      • 3.1.1 Bilti as an exclusion operator
      • 3.1.2 Bilti as a conditioned-exception npi
      • 3.1.3 Bilti ‘im ‘except if/unless/if not’
      • 3.1.4 Ad bilti ‘until no more’ as a negation collocation
      • 3.1.5 Le-bilti as an adverbial negation operator
      • 3.1.6A summary of bilti’s Biblical preposition-phrase uses
      • 3.1.7 Bilti as a privative
      • 3.1.8The constructionalization of Biblical Hebrew bilti and other exceptives
      • 3.1.9 Bilti in post-biblical periods
  • 4.Summary and conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
  • Corpora
Published online: 5 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21062.bar
References (33)
References
Bardenstein, Ruti. 2016. “The Hebrew Adverbial bixlal .” Entrepalavras 61, 10–28, jul./dez. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “Persistent Argumentative Discourse Markers. The Case of Hebrew Rectification-Marker beʕecem (‘actually’).” Journal of Pragmatics 1721, 254–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. “The Case of Question-Based Exclamatives. From Pragmatic Rhetorical Function to Semantic Meaning.” Intercultural Pragmatics 19 (2): 209–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardenstein, Ruti, and Mira Ariel. 2019. “ Ela (‘but’) in the Mishna and in Contemporary Hebrew (in Hebrew).” Balshanut ivrit 731: 45–61.Google Scholar
Chatzopoulou, Katerina. 2013. “Re(de)fining Jespersen’s Cycle.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 191: 31–40.Google Scholar
Dahl, Osten. 1979. “Typology of Sentence Negation.” Linguistics 171: 79–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara, and Piera Molinelli. 2014. Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt M. 2014. “Cyclicity in Semantic/Pragmatic Change: The Medieval Particle ja Between Latin iam and Modern French déjà .” In Discourse and Pragmatic Markers. From Latin to the Romance Languages, ed. by Chiara Ghezzi, and Piera Molinelli, 139–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. “Phénomènes de cyclicité dans l’évolution des marqueurs pragmatiques.” Keynote talk, 4th International Symposium on Discourse Markers in Romance Languages . Heidelberg, Germany, 6–9 May.
2018. “Cyclicity Phenomena in the Evolution of Pragmatic Markers. Examples from Romance.” In Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change, ed. by Salvador Pons Bordería, and Óscar Loureda Lamas, 51–77. Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar
Gilnert, Lewish. 1982. “Negative and Non-assertive in Contemporary Hebrew.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 45 (3): 434–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. “Negation in English and Other Languages.” Historisk-Filologiske Meddelelser 11.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit, and Fred Landman. 1993. “Any.” Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (4): 353–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1965. “The Evolution of Grammatical Categories.” Diogenes 511: 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1996. Negation and Polarity Items. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 321–341, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Roland. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Vol. 11. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. “Cognitive Grammar.” In Linguistic Theory and Grammatical Description, ed. by Flip G. Droste, and John E. Joseph, 275–306. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2005. “Pleonasm and Hyper Characterisation.” In Yearbook of Morphology, ed. by Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 119–154. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Levi, Alissa. 2008. “Hebrew Negative Polarity Items šum and af .” In Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics, ed. by Sharon Armon-Lotem, Gabi Danon, and Susan Rothstein, 313–336. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1921/1912. “L’évolution des formes grammaticales.” Scientia (Rivista di Scienza) 12 (26), 130–148.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerry. 1971. “Queclaratives.” Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 71, 223–232.Google Scholar
. 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York; San Francisco; London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. “Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Grammaticalization of Constructions.” In Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems, and Tanja Mortelmans, 167–198. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1997. “ Unless and But Conditionals: A Historical Perspective.” In Conditionals Again, ed. by Angeliki Athenasiadou, and René Dirven, 145–167. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. C., and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1995. “Grammaticalisation and Social Structure: Non-standard Conjunction-Formation in East Anglian English.” In Grammar and Meaning, ed. by Frank R. Palmer, 136–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 2009. “The Jespersen Cycles.” In Cyclical Change, ed. by Elly van Gelderen, 35–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2008. “Negative Cycles.” Linguistic Typology 121: 195–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpora
Ma’agarim Database (MD): The Historical Dictionary Project of the Academy of the Hebrew Language: [URL]
The hetenten: [https://auth.sketchengine.eu/#login?next=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.sketchengine.eu%2]
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bardenstein, Ruti & Avi Gvura
2023. Motion verbs and future constructions: the case of Hebrew omed le-V ‘standing (up) to-V’/‘(be) about to-V’. Journal of Pragmatics 218 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.