Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 42:3 (2018) ► pp.669–707

The on-line emergence of Hebrew insubordinate she- (‘that/which/who’) clauses

A usage-based perspective on so-called ‘subordination’

| University of Haifa, Israel
This study examines the on-line emergence of insubordinate clauses in Hebrew conversation as constrained by local interactional contingencies, questioning traditional notions of grammatical ‘subordination’ and contributing to conceptions of grammar as a locally sensitive, temporally unfolding resource for social interaction. The clauses examined are syntactically unintegrated (unembedded in any matrix clause), or loosely-integrated (cannot be viewed unambiguously as constituting a relative, complement, or adverbial clause), yet they all begin with she- – the general ‘subordinating conjunction’ in traditional Modern Hebrew grammar. All 102 insubordinate she- clauses found throughout a 5.5 hour audio-recorded corpus were classified according to their discourse function: modal, elaborative, or evaluative/epistemic. Leaving aside the modal type, the remaining insubordinate she- clauses (N = 70, 69%) are shown to emerge on-line while speakers are busy performing a variety of tasks and responding to local interactional contingencies. In all of these cases she- functions as a generic ‘wildcard’ tying back to immediately prior discourse and projecting an elaboration/evaluation of it, in either same- or other-speaker talk. The findings concerning insubordinate clauses suggest a usage-based perspective also on canonical subordinate clauses, positioning canonical and syntactically unintegrated clauses at two ends of a continuum.
Keywords: insubordination, cosubordination, subordination, emergent on-line syntax, projection, interactional linguistics, spoken Hebrew syntax, elaboration, evaluation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
  • 3.Modal insubordinate she- clauses
  • 4.Evaluative/epistemic insubordinate she- clauses
  • 5.Elaborative insubordinate she- clauses
    • 5.1NP elaborations
      • 5.1.1NP elaborations in response to a request for elaboration
    • 5.2Entire clause elaborations
      • 5.2.1Co-constructed entire clause elaborations
    • 5.3Elaboration of a complex linguistic (and embodied) component
    • 5.4No elaborated prior
    • 5.5Requesting elaboration
  • 6.Insubordinate she- clauses between elaboration and evaluation
  • 7.Summary and discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17065.mas
References (84)
References
Anward, Jan. 2004. ‘att’ [‘that’]. Språk och stil 131. 65–85.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1978. That’s a problem in Hebrew. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Linguistics Department M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2000. On line-syntax – oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur 851. 43–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 251. 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Why are increments such elusive objects? An afterthought. Pragmatics 17(4). 647–658. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 311. 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bergsträsser, G. 1909. Das hebräische Präfix še . ZAW 291. 40–56.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth. 1978. Modern Hebrew Structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.Google Scholar
Blau, Yehoshua. 1966. yesodot hataxbir [Foundations of syntax]. Jerusalem: hamaxon ha’ivri lehaskala bixtav.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2007. Grammar in time: the non-restrictive ‘which’-clause as an interactional resource. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 551. 51–82.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono. 2007. ‘Incrementing’ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German, and Japanese. Pragmatics 17(4). 513–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margaret Selting. 2017. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2016. Routes to insubordination: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds.), Insubordination, 393–422. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Susanne Günthner (eds.). 2015. Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2002. The Akkadian relative clauses in cross-linguistic perspective. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 921. 86–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
forthcoming. Representing discourse. Linguistics Department, University of California at Santa Barbara (Fall 2012 version). [URL]
Du Bois, John W., Susanna Cumming, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, & Danae Pao-lino. 1992. Discourse Transcription: Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4. Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nicolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Honoré Watanabe (eds.). 2016. Insubordination. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, & Sandra A. Thompson. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Yael Maschler & Susanne Uhmann. 2010. A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10). 2487–2505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson. 2007. Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language 311. 293–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2011. Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. In Peter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 156–185. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The dynamics of dass-constructions in everyday German interactions – a dialogical perspective. In Susanne Günthner, Wolfgang Imo, and Jörg Bücker (eds.), Grammar and Dialogism, 179–205. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hendery, Rachel. 2012. Relative Clauses in Time and Space: A case study in the methods of diachronic typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmstedt, Robert D. 2007. The etymologies of Hebrew ašer and še. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 431. 9–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Talmi Givón (ed.), Discourse and Semantics (Syntax and Semantics, vol. 12), 213–241. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1987. Emergent grammar. In Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 131, 139–157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1998. Emergent grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 155–175. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance? In Martin Pütz, Susanne Neimeier & René Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition, 109–129. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Peter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 22–44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huehnergard, John. 2006. On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative še-. In S. E. Fassberg & A. Hurvitz (eds.), Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, 103–125. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2008. Conjunction and sequenced action: The Estonian complementizer and evidential particle et . In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 125–152. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1968. Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Landau, Rachel. 1975. mishpat hazika umishpat levay hatoxen lesugav ba’ivrit shel yameynu [The relative clause and the attributive content clause in Modern Hebrew]. Bikoret Ufarshanut [Criticism and Interpretation] 7–81. 132–136.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Tsuyoshi Ono. 2014. The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. Pragmatics 24(3). 561–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Eeva-Leena Seppänen. 2008. Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum: The Finnish että . In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 153–178. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehti-Eklund, Hanna. 2002. Om att som diskursmarkör [About that as a discourse marker]. Språk och stil 111. 81–118.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene. 1991. On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 201. 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 231. 325–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. On the grammaticization of ke’ilu (‘like’, lit. ‘as if’) in Hebrew talk-in-interaction. Language in Society 311. 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. On the emergence of adverbial connectives from Hebrew relative clause constructions. In Peter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 293–331. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. 'al hithavutan shel tavniyot min hasiax: mishpaxat psukiyot hazika [On the emergence of constructions from discourse: The case of the family of relative clauses]. Leshonenu (‘Our Language’) 731. 167–207.Google Scholar
. 2012. Emergent Projecting constructions: The case of Hebrew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language 36(4). 785–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. The emergence of Hebrew loydea / loydat (‘I dunno masc/fem’) from interaction: Blurring the boundaries between discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle. In Andrea Sansò & Chiara Fedriani (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives, 37–69. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Fishman, Stav. Forthcoming. From multi-clausality to discourse markerhood: The Hebrew ma she- (‘what that’) construction in so-called ‘pseudo-clefts’.
Maschler, Yael & Carmit Miller Shapiro. 2016. The role of prosody in the grammaticization of Hebrew naxon (‘right/true’): Synchronic and diachronic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 921. 42–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Bracha Nir. 2014. Complementation in linear and dialogic syntax: The case of Hebrew divergently aligned discourse. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3). 523–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael, Hilla Polak-Yitzhaki, Stav Fishman, Carmit Miller Shapiro, Netanel Goretsky, Gallith Aghion & Ophir Fofliger. 2017. The Haifa Corpus of Spoken Hebrew. [URL].
Mertzlufft, Christine & Camilla Wide. 2013. The on-line emergence of postmodifying att- and dass-clauses in spoken Swedish and German. In Eva Havu & Irma Hyvärinen (eds.), Comparing and Contrasting Syntactic Structures. From Dependency to Quasi-subordination, 199–229. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 841. 69–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olson, Michael. 1981. Barai clause junctures: Toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Ornan, Uzzi. 2003. The mysteries of waw connective. Zeitschrift fuer die alttestamentlicheWissenschaft 1151. 241–255.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg. 2011. Emotion and desire in independent complement clauses: A case study from German. In Mario Brdar, Stefan Th. Gries & Milena Žic Fuchs (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Convergence and Expansion, (Human Cognitive Processing 32), 87–114. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2011. Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. In Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 103–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla & Yael Maschler. 2016. Disclaiming understanding? Hebrew 'ani lo mevin/a (‘I don’t understand masc/fem’) in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 1061. 163–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Pursuing a response. In Maxwell J. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 152–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quintilian. The Institutio oratoria of Quintilian, with an English translation by H. E. Butler. London: W. Heinemann.
Roberts, Murat H. 1944. The science of idiom: A method of inquiry into the cognitive design of language. Publications of the Modern Language Association 591. 291–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosén, Haiim. 1976. A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew: With an Introduction to the Classical Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 2006. Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting and . In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles, 315–338. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, & Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 531. 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2004. The ‘upward staircase’ intonation contour in the Berlin vernacular: An example of the analysis of regionalized intonation as an interactional resource. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Cecilia E. Ford (eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction, 201–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 261. 125–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsadka, Yitshak. 1989. taxbir veshixbur [Syntax]. Tel Aviv: Horev.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 1984. A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 542–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, Sarah D’Hertefelt & An Van Linden. 2012. A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language 361. 123–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinert, Regina. 2012. Complement clauses in spoken German and English: Syntax, deixis and discourse-pragmatics. Folia Linguistica 46(1). 233–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wide, Camilla. 2014. Constructions as resources in interaction. Syntactically unintegrated att ‘that’-clauses in spoken Swedish. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (eds.), Expanding the Scope of Construction Grammar, 353–388. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Zewi, Tamar. 2008. mishpetey toxen be’ivrit [Content clauses in Hebrew]. Leshonenu [Our Language] 701. 627–657.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie, F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Montébran, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux, G. Merminod & G. Philippe
2024. Les si-indépendantes dans l’interaction : un continuum d’insubordination. SHS Web of Conferences 191 ► pp. 01016 ff. DOI logo
Becker, Israela
2023. It’s all about the sentential construction. Studies in Language 47:2 ► pp. 463 ff. DOI logo
Inbar, Anna & Yael Maschler
2023. Shared Knowledge as an Account for Disaffiliative Moves: Hebrew ki ‘Because’-Clauses Accompanied by the Palm-Up Open-Hand Gesture. Research on Language and Social Interaction 56:2 ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Maschler, Yael & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2022. Pseudo-cleft-like structures in Hebrew and French conversation: The syntax-lexicon-body interface. Lingua 280 ► pp. 103397 ff. DOI logo
Berman, Ruth A.
2020. Chapter 11. Nominalizations. In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210], ► pp. 375 ff. DOI logo
Maschler, Yael
2020. Chapter 4. The insubordinate – subordinate continuum. In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Maschler, Yael & Stav Fishman
2020. From multi-clausality to discourse markerhood: The Hebrew ma she- ‘what that’ construction in pseudo-cleft-like structures. Journal of Pragmatics 159 ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Yael Maschler, Leelo Keevallik & Jan Lindström
2020. Chapter 1. Complex syntax-in-interaction. In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 september 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.