Cover not available
Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 15:2 (1991) ► pp.423–457
Book review

Lewis Glinert. The Grammar of Modern Hebrew
Cambridge University Press, 1989. xxviii + 580 pp. £55 $89.50

Reviewed by
| Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Tel-Aviv University
Published online: 1 January 1991
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.15.2.10tob
References
Aphek, Edna; and Tobin, Yishai
1988 Word systems in modern Hebrew: Implications and applications. Leiden and New York: E. J. Brill [= Contributions to the Sociology of Jewish languages 31].Google Scholar
1989 The semiotics of fortune-telling. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Foundations of Semiotics 221].Google Scholar
Bahat, Jacob; and Ron, Mordechai
1976 ve-dayek. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.Google Scholar
Ben David, Aba; and Shai, Hadassa
1974 madrix lašon. Jerusalem: Israel Television and Radio Authority Information Center.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth A.
1978 Modern Hebrew structure. Tel-Aviv: University Publishing Projects.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred
1971 Modern linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana; and Olshtain, Elite
1984 “Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP)”. Applied Linguistics 5:3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana; Danet, Brenda; and Gherson, Rimona
1985 “The language of requesting in Israeli society”. In: J. Forgas (ed.) Language and social situations, 113–139. Berlin: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bogoch, Bryna; and Danet, Brenda
1984 “Challenge and control in lawyer-client interaction: A case study in an Israeli legal aid office.” Text 41:1–3. 249–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1977 Meaning and form. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Chayen, M. J.; and Dror, Z.
1976 mavo le-dikduk ticruni ivri. Tel-Aviv: University Publishing Projects.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A.
1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT University Press.Google Scholar
Diver, William
1979 “Phonology as human behavior.” In: Aaronson, D. and Reiber, P. (eds) Psycholinguistic research: Implications and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 161–186.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils
1973 Linguistic stylistics. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, Erica; van Putte, Florimon; and Tobin, Yishai
1987 “Cross-linguistic equivalence, translatability and contrastive analysis.” Folia Linguistica 211:2–4. 373–405.Google Scholar
Katriel, Tamar
1987 Talking straight: ‘Dugri’ speech in Israeli Sabra culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lepschy, Giulio
1970 A survey of structural linguistics. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Le Roy, Maurice
1967 The main trends in modern linguistics, trans, by G. Price. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Propp, Vladimir
1984 Theory and history of folklore, trans, by A. Y. and R. P. Martin et al.. ed. intro. and notes by A. Liberman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rosén, Haiim
1977 Contemporary Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton. [Trends in Linguistics State-of-the-Art Reports 111.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey
1980 Schools of linguistics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1959/1966 Course in general linguistics ed. by C. Bally and A. Sechehaye. trans, by W. Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library / Mc Graw Hill.Google Scholar
Sivan, Reuben
1979 lexikon le-šipur ha-lašon. Tel-Aviv: Karni.Google Scholar
Tobin, Yishai
1982 “Asserting one’s existence in modern Hebrew: A Saussurian-based analysis of the domain of attention in selected ‘existentials’.” Lingua 581. 341–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985 “Two aspects of sign theory.” Bulletin CILA 411. 120–141.Google Scholar
1986/1988 “Aspectual markers in modern Hebrew: A signoriented approach.” In: D. Assaf (ed.) Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Hebrew and Jewish languages Vol. 11, 53–60. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. Reprinted in Morag, S. (ed.) Studies on Contemporary Hebrew, vol. 21, 584–592. Jerusalem: Academon.Google Scholar
1986a “Discourse variation in the use of selected contrastive conjunctions’ in modern Hebrew: Theoretical hypotheses and practical applications with regard to translation.” In: J. House-Edmonson and S. Blum-Kulka (eds) Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, 259–277. Tübingen: Gunther Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
1986b Review: Geoffrey Sampson, Schools of linguistics . Lingua 681. 99–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed) 1988a The Prague school and its legacy. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins [= Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 271]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988b “Phonetics versus phonology: The Prague School and Beyond.” In: Y. Tobin 1988a: 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988c “Two quantitative approaches to phonology: a contrastive analysis.” In: H. Bluhme (ed.) Beiträge zur quantitativen Linguistik, 71–112. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
1988d “Modern Hebrew tense: A study of the interface of objective and subjective spatio-temporal and perceptual deictic relations.” In: Ehrich, V. and Vater, H. (eds), Temporalsemantik: Beiträge zur Linguistik der Zeitreferenz, 52–80. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988e “The dual number in modern Hebrew: A signoriented approach.” Journal of Literary Semantics 12:3. 176–201.Google Scholar
1988f “A semantic analysis of the modern Hebrew interrogatives eix and keitsad = HOW.” General Linguistics 28:3. 183–219.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1989a From sign to text: A semiotic view of communication. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Foundations of Semiotics 201). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989b “Space, time and point of view in the modern Hebrew Verb.” In: Y. Tobin (1989a) 61–92.Google Scholar
1989c “The ayin-dalet system in modern Hebrew: A signoriented approach.” In: Harald Weydt (ed.) Sprechen mit Partikeln, 391–402. Berlin, Amsterdam and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1989d “A functional approach to invariance, to invariance, variation and markedness: The two ‘HOWS’ in Modern Hebrew a case in point.” La Linguistique 25.2. 143–166.Google Scholar
1990a Semiotics and Linguistics. London and New York: Longman (Longman Linguistics Library Series).Google Scholar
1990b “A combinatory phonolgy of the Hebrew triconsonantal (CCC) root system.” La Linguistique 271. 1–17.Google Scholar
1991a “Process and result and the Hebrew infinitive.” In: K. Jongeling and L. van Rompay (eds), Studies on Hebrew and Aramaic syntax, 194–210. Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991b “The future tense in modern Hebrew: From sign to text.” Folia Linguistica 24:3–4, 457–512.Google Scholar
1991c “Principles for a contrastive phonotaetics: The Hebrew triconsonantal (CCC) root system a case in point”. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 261. (in press).Google Scholar
1991d “Existential particles and paradigms in Modern Hebrew”, in press Multilingua 101:1–2. 93–108.Google Scholar
in press. Process and result in language: A study of aspect in the English verb. (Longman Linguistics Library Series). London and New York: Longman.
in prep (a). Invariance, markedness and distinctive feature analysis: A contrastive study of the semantic systems of Hebrew and English. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory series). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
in prep. (c). “Systems of the morphological structure; Hebrew (Semitic).” In: Booij, G.; Lehmann, C. and Mugdan, J. eds. Morphology: A handbook of inflection and word formation Walter de Gruyter Berlin Amsterdam and New York
Tobin, Yishai; and Simms, Norman
1988 “Seeds of the pomegranate: A dual evaluation of Vladimir Propp (Review Essay of Vladimir Propp’s Theory and history of folklore .” Mentalities/Mentalités 5:1, 4–13.Google Scholar
Yaeger-Dror, Malcah; and Sister, Elaine
1987 “ ‘Scuse me, waitaminute!’: irective use in Israeli Hebrew.” Linguistics 251: 1127–1163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar

CORPUS

Amos
1984 ha-derex le-ein xarod (The road to Ein Harod). Tel-Aviv: Am Oved.Google Scholar
Moran, Orit
1982 ma še-gur-ha-gorila tsarix (What the baby-gorilla needs). Tel-Aviv: Kinneret.Google Scholar
Nezer, Zacharia
1978 ximia klalit (General chemistry). (Vol. 11). Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.Google Scholar
Paradise, Jehuda
1977 keitsad letsalem yeladim (How to photograph children). Tel-Aviv: Sadan.Google Scholar
Reicher, Gideon
1980 šigaon (Madness). Tel-Aviv: Zmora, Bitan, Modan.Google Scholar
Shafrir, Benjamin
1985 lehiyot meurav (To be involved). Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.Google Scholar
Sened, Yonat and Alexander
1981 kvar erets noševet (The land inhabited). Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.Google Scholar
SM
= 1967 šnayim mi-mišpaxa (Two from a family). Kibbutz Revivim.Google Scholar
SL
= 1967 siax loxamim (Soldiers talk about the six-day war). Recorded and edited by A group of young Kibbutz members, Tel-Aviv, Maarexet Ha-Ixud. October 1967.Google Scholar
NT
= 1970 nigadel tsmaxim (Let’s grow plants). Prepared by the Curriculum Planning Unit, Israel Education Ministry, Tel-Aviv: Maalot.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

du Toit, J. S. & J. A. Naudé
1993. TAALKUNDIGE PARADIGMAS IN INLIGTINGKUNDIGE PERSPEKTIEF: DIE HERWINNING VAN RESENTE STUDIES IN HEBREEUSE GRAMMATIKA. South African Journal of Linguistics 11:sup18 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 april 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.