Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 47:2 (2023) ► pp.463–504

It’s all about the sentential construction

Lexicalization of complete mono-clausal sentences into words – Evidence from Hebrew

| Tel Aviv University

Cross-linguistically, very few complete sentences, as opposed to a myriad of phrases, lexicalize to become words. I here offer an account for this skewed distribution, along the lines of Construction Grammar, by analyzing a set of mono-clausal sentences in Hebrew which have indeed become – or are on the verge of becoming – words. I adopt the distinction between categorical and thetic propositions, and show that only the latter can evolve into words. A thetic – unlike a categorical – proposition, much like a verb-phrase, enables a tight semantic bonding between its components to form an ‘interpretatively cohesive’ unit, which may lead to semantic change. An evaluative thetic – unlike a categorical – proposition is comment-like, hence ‘semantically-incomplete’, and in need of a topic from prior discourse to predicate on, which may lead to a change in grammatical status. All verb-phrases meet these two criteria but only few sentences do, hence, I argue, the skewed distribution of sources from which new words evolve.

Keywords: lexicalization, Hebrew, Construction Grammar, thetic/categorical distinction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The constructional change studied determines the constructional model adopted
    • 2.1The constructional change studied
    • 2.2The constructional model adopted
  • 3.The structural properties of categorical and thetic propositions in Hebrew
    • 3.1 Xaval ‘it’s too bad/a pity’
    • 3.2 Ba ‘it feels like’
    • 3.3 Efšar ‘it’s possible’
    • 3.4 En ‘there is/are no’
    • 3.5The sentences studied here and their usage as words
      • 3.5.1 Xaval al ha-zman (Originally ‘it’s a waste of time’)
      • 3.5.2 Ba livkot (originally ‘it feels like crying’)
      • 3.5.3 Efšar lehištage’a (originally ‘it’s possible to go crazy’)
      • 3.5.4 En dvarim ka-ele/u (originally ‘there are no such things’)
  • 4.‘Interpretative cohesion’ enabled by theticity drives the semantic change
    • 4.1Phrases are interpretatively cohesive units and therefore tend towards semantic opacity
    • 4.2Dativeless thetic propositions are interpretatively cohesive units and therefore lend themselves to semantic opacity
      • 4.2.1The predicate in dativeless thetic propositions and the NP that follows form an interpretatively cohesive unit
      • 4.2.2The predicate in dativeless thetic propositions and the infinitive that follows form an interpretatively cohesive unit
  • 5.‘Semantic Incompleteness’ enabled by theticity drives the grammatical change
  • 6.The semantic change and the change in grammatical status may benefit from the absence of the dative participant
    • 6.1The potential interference of the dative participant with the semantic change
    • 6.2The potential interference of the dative participant with the change in grammatical status
  • 7.A possibly related phenomenon?
  • 8.Summary and Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 8 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21006.bec
References
Allerton, David John. & Alan Cruttenden
1979 Three reasons for accenting a definite subject. Journal of Linguistics 15(1). 49–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira
2008 Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, Elitzur Dattner, John W. Du Bois & Tal Linzen
2015 Pronominal datives: The royal road to argument status. Studies in Language 39(2). 257–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker & Ariel
submitted. Scaffolding the sentential Ultimate construction into a word
Bauer, Laurie
1983 English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Israela & Rachel Giora
2018 The Defaultness Hypothesis: A quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness production. Journal of Pragmatics 1381. 149–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald
2008 Constructions and language change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A.
1980 The case of an (S)VO language: Subjectless constructions in Modern Hebrew. Language 56(4). 759–776. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blank, Andreas
2001 Pathways of lexicalization. In Wolfgang Raible, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König & Wulf Oesterreicher (eds.), Language universals and language typology, 1596–1608. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2005 Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Cheryl
1983 Topic continuity in written English narrative. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 313–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2003 Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, Vol. II1, 145–167. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1974 Language and consciousness. Language 50(1). 111–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1989 Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson
2018 Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Kari Fraurud
1996 Animacy in grammar and discourse. In Thorstein Fretheim & Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility, 47–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dattner, Elitzur
2008 Lower Transitivity Constructions in Hebrew: The Case of Motion Verbs. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University MA thesis.
2019 The Hebrew dative: Usage patterns as discourse profile constructions. Linguistics 57(5). 1073–1110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2006 Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. In Doris Schönefeld (ed.), Special Volume 1 of Constructions: Constructions all over – Case studies and theoretical implications. Available at: [URL] (last access 30 August 2022).
Divjak, Dagmar
2010 Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Laura A. Janda
2008 Ways of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological Society 106(2). 138–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubnov, Keren
2005a šem ha-to’ar be-tafkid HGM ba-ʕivrit ha-xadaša be-rešita (Adjectives functioning as impersonals (Ḥagam) in early Modern Hebrew). In Tamar Alexander, Josef Tobi, Dan Laor, Ziva Amishai-Maisels & Ora Schwartzwald (eds.), Iggud: Selected Essays in Jewish Studies, 31–40. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
2005b tirgumey še’ila mivni’im ba-roved ha-mukdam šel ha-ʕivrit ha-xadaša (Structural loan translations in Early Modern Hebrew). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem PhD dissertation [in Hebrew].
Epstein, Ruth
1971 ha-mišpatim ha-musai’im bamikra (The object clauses in the Old Testament). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University MA thesis [in Hebrew].
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita & Jörg Meibauer
2016 Boris “Ich bin drin” Becker (‘Boris I am in Becker’). Syntax, semantics and pragmatics of a special naming construction. Lingua 1811. 36–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan
1974 Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective. In František Daneš (ed.), Papers of functional sentence perspective, 11–37. Prague: Academia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. & Thomas G. Bever
1965 The psychological reality of linguistic segments. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4(5). 414–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2009 Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1(2). 262–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, Livio
2015 Lexeme formation in a conscious approach to the lexicon. In Laurie Bauer, Lívia Körtvélyessy & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), Semantics of complex words, 115–140. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, Livio & Davide Ricca
2009 Composita solvantur: Compounds as lexical units or morphological objects? Rivista di Linguistica 21(1). 35–70.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1976 Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 151–188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003 Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in cognitive sciences 7(5). 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2001 Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert Malcolm Ward Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, 53–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 What is the difference between a clause and a sentence? Available at [URL] (last access 24 August 2022).
Hilpert, Martin
2013 Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
2002 The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Nadja Nesselhauf & Carolin Biewer
2007 Corpus linguistics and the web. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izre’el, Shlomo
2002 le-tahalixey ha-hit’havut šel ha-ʕivrit be-Israel (The emergence of Spoken Israeli Hebrew). In Shlomo Izre’el & Margalit Mendelson (eds.), medabrim ʕivrit: le-xeker ha-lašon ha-meduberet ve-ha-šonut ha-lešonit be-Israel (Speaking Hebrew: Studies in the spoken language and in linguistic variation in Israel), 217–238. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
2012 mispax o mišpat ― le-mivne ha-mišpat ba-ʕivrit ha-meduberet (Hebrew sentence structure: Old habits die hard). In Malka Muchnik & Tsvi Sadan (eds.), mexkarim be-ʕivrit u-ve-lešonot ha-yehudim lixvod Ora Schwarzwald (Studies in Hebrew and in Jewish languages in honor of Ora Schwarzwald), 399–416. Jerusalm: Carmel. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. & Dagmar Divjak
2015 The role of non-canonical subjects in the overall grammar of a language: A case study of Russian. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Subjects in constructions – Canonical and non-canonical, 293–318. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ježek, Elisabetta & Paolo Ramat
2009 On parts-of-speech transcategorization. Folia Linguistica 43(2). 391–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo
2007 Negativity bias in language: A cognitive affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 18(3). 417–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Neal F.
1965 The psychological reality of phrase-structure rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4(6). 469–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý & Vít Suchomel
2014 The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1(1). 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1972 Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3). 269–320.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1972 The categorical and the thetic Judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9(2). 153–185.Google Scholar
Kuzar, Ron
1989 mivne ha-meser šel ha-mišpat ba-ʕivrit ha-isre’elit (Message structure of the sentence in Israeli Hebrew) Jerusalem: the Hebrew University in Jerusalem PhD dissertation [in Hebrew].
1992 ha-x.g.m – xelek diber o ʕemda taxbirit? (The Nominal Impersonal: A part of speech or a syntactic construction?). Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects 56(3). 241–248. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
2001 Hebrew and Zionism: A discourse analytic cultural study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 tavnit ha-x.g.m ha-pšuta ba-lašon ha-meyuceget ke-meduberet (The simple impersonal construction in spoken-like langauge). In Shlomo Izre’el & Margalit Mendelson (eds.), medabrim ʕivrit: le-xeker ha-lašon ha-meduberet ve-ha-šonut ha-lešonit be-Israel (Speaking Hebrew: Studies in the spoken language and in linguistic variation in Israel), 329–352. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
2006a tavnit mišpat ha-kiyum ke-toremet le-mašma’ut ha-kiyum (The contribution of the pattern of the existential sentence to existential meaning). In Aaron ‏Maman & Steven Ellis Fassberg (eds.), mexkarim be-lašon (Language studies), 101–112. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
2006b digmei ha-mišpat šel ha-ʕivrit ha-isre’elit al-pi Rosén: ʕiyun bikorti ve-hacaʕot tikun (Sentence patterns of Israeli Hebrew according to Rosén: A critical review and a corrected model). Ha-ʕivrit ve-axyoteha (Hebrew and its sisters) 6–71. 269–294. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
2012 Sentence patterns in English and Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud & Maria Polinsky
1997 Typological variation in Sentence-Focus constructions. In Kora Singer, Randall Eggert & Gregory Anderson (eds.), Proceedings from the Panels of the 33rd Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 189–206. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol I1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol II1. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2020 Univerbation. Folia Linguistica 54(41). 205–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipka, Leonhard
1992 An outline of English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics, and word-formation. Tübingen: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1984 On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael
2018 The on-line emergence of Hebrew insubordinate she (‘that/which/who’) clauses. Studies in Language 42(3). 669–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg
2007 How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction. Morphology 17(2). 233–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melnik, Nurit
2002 Verb-initial constructions in Modern Hebrew. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley PhD dissertation.
2006 A constructional approach to verb-initial constructions in Modern Hebrew. Cognitive Linguistics 17(2). 153–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2006 Polysynthesis in the Arctic. In Marc-Antoine Mahieu & Nicole Tersis (eds.), Variations on polysynthesis: The Eskaleut languages, 3–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marriane
2014 Syntactic and prosodic structures: Segmentation, integration, and in between. In Tommaso Raso & Heliana Mello (eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistics studies, 297–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2020 Grammaticalization and polysynthesis: Iroquoian. In Walter Bisang and Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Grammaticalization Scenarios from Africa, the Americas, and the Pacific, Vol. II1, 943–976. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mor, Uri & Na’ama Pat-El
2016 The development of predicates with prepositional subjects in Hebrew. Journal of Semitic Studies 61(2). 327–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk
2016 For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30(1). 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, William
1998 The syntax of idioms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(2). 279–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online
2019 Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ovid
1998 Metamorphoses (trans. Melville, A. D.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Original work published 8 AD].Google Scholar
Pat-El, Na’ama
2018 The diachrony of non-canonical subjects in Northwest Semitic. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Na’ama Pat-El & Stephen M. Carey (eds.), Non-canonically case-marked subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers, 159–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramat, Paolo & Davide Ricca
1998 Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In Johan van der Auwera & Dónall P. Ó. Baoill (eds.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 187–273. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosén, Haiim B.
1977 Contemporary Hebrew. Paris: De Guyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Ruvik
2005/2018 milon ha-slang ha-makif (The comprehensive dictionary of Israeli slang). Jerusalem: Keter Books. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Rubinstein, Eliezer
1968 ha-mišpat ha-šemani: ʕiyunim be-taxbir yamenu (The nominal sentence: A study in the syntax of contemporary Hebrew). Tel Aviv: HaKibbutz HaMeuchad. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1987 The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25(3). 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte, Spike Gildea, Jóhanna Barðdal & Elena Smirnova
2015 Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stern, Naftali
1983 x.g.m. u-dmuy poʕal + šem poʕal ba-ʕivrit ha-isre’elit (Impersonals (x.g.m) and verboids + infinitives in Israeli Hebrew). Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects 47(3–4). 248–263. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Titone, Debra A. & Cynthia M. Connine
1994 Descriptive norms for 171 idiomatic expressions: Familiarity, compositionality, predictability, and literality. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9(4). 247–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S.
1986 Basic word order: Functional principles. London, UK: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2003 Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
2013 Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van den Eynde, Karel
1995 Methodological reflections on descriptive linguistics. Knud Togeby’s principles and the Pronominal Approach. In Lene Schøsler & Mary Talbot (eds.), Studies in valency. Vol. I1, 111–130. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
van den Eynde, Karel, Sabine Kirchmeier-Andersen, Piet Mertens & Lene Schøsler
2002 Distributional syntactic analysis and valency: Basic notions, procedures, and applications of the Pronominal Approach. In Stephen M. Johnson & Bruce E. Nevin (eds.), The legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and information into the 21st century, Vol. II1, 163–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria
1989 Free word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Wexler, Paul
1990 The schizoid nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic language in search of a Semitic past. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1988 The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar