Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 40:4 (2016) ► pp.733–764

The modern Hebrew prepositional relative clause strategy

| The Hebrew University
Published online: 2 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.4.01coh
References
ARM
= Archives Royales de Mari. Paris 1946– Google Scholar
Azar, M
1995 taxbir lešon ha-mišna [The syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Academy of Hebrew Language (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Barlas, Chaim
1964 “ha-’aliya bi-tkufat 1919-1923” [The Aliyah between 1919 and 1923]. In Y. Erez (ed), sefer ha-aliya ha-šlišit [The book of the third Aliyah], 78–94. Tel Aviv: Am Oved.Google Scholar
Bashevis-Zinger, Yitskhok
1971 Yentl der yeshive-bokher [Yentl the Yeshiva Boy], mayses fun hintern oyvn [Stories from Behind the Stove]. Tel Aviv: Y. L. Perets farlag. Transcription: the Jiddistik section, Germanistik department, Universität Trier ([URL]).Google Scholar
Bendavid, Aba
1965 Le-takanat lešon ha-itonut [For a correct journalistic language]. Lešonénu la-ʿam 16(3): 51–78.Google Scholar
Berman, R.A. & S. Bolozky
1978 Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.Google Scholar
Borer, H
1984 Restrictive relatives in modern Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2(2): 219–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brockelmann, Carl
1913 Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Vol. 21. Berlin: Reuther and Reichard.Google Scholar
Cohen, D
1988 Coushitique–Omotique. In J. Perrot (ed.), Les langues dans le monde ancien et moderne. Part 3: Les langues Chamito–Sémitiques, D. Cohen (ed.), 243–295. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Cohen, Eran
2008 Adjectival ša Syntagms and Adjectives in Old Babylonian. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 711: 25–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1998 Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design: Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics 11: 59–85.Google Scholar
2003 Typology and language acquisition: The case of relative clauses. In Anna Giacalone Ramat (ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, 19–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cooper, R.L
1989 Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
CoSIH
The Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew ([URL]).
Cristofaro, Sonia & Anna Giacalone Ramat
2007 Relativization strategies in the languages of Europe. In Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and Mediterranean as linguistic areas: Convergences from a historical and typological perspective, 63–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, G
2001 The rise and fall of a rogue relative construction. Studies in Language 25(3): 405–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dillmann, August
1907 Ethiopic grammar, enlarged and improved by Carl Bezold, translated by James A. Crichton. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Dindelegan, Gabriela Panã
(ed.) 2013 The grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doherty, C
2014 Clauses without ‘that’: The case for bare sentential complementation in English. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durand, Jean-Marie
1997 Documents épistolaires de Mari (Littératures anciennes du proche-orient 16), Vol. 11. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, G
2007 European relative clauses and the uniqueness of the relative pronoun type. Rivista di Linguistica 19(2): 263–291.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg
2006 Dative and indirect object in German dialects: Evidence from relative clauses. In Daniel Hole, André Meinunger, & Werner Abraham (eds.), Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure (Studies in Language Companion Series 75), 213–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Slavic influence in Eastern Yiddish syntax: The case of vos relative clauses. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2261: 137–161.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson
2007 Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language 31(2): 293–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frayne, Douglas
1993 Sargonic and Gutian periods (2334-2113 BC). (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early periods 2). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giladi, Dan
1973 ha-yišuv bi-tkufat ha-’aliya ha-revi’it (1924–1929) [Jewish Palestine during the fourth alia period (1924–1929)]. Am Oved: Tel-Aviv.Google Scholar
Gippert, J
2011 Relative clauses in Vartashen Udi preliminary remarks. Iran and the Caucasus 15(1-2): 207–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glinert, L
1989 The grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon
1977 Imperfectly-transformed cleft sentences. Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 127–133. Jerusalem.
1995 Attribution in Semitic languages. Langues Orientales Anciennes: Philologie et Linguistique 71: 1–20.Google Scholar
1996 ha-’ivrit ke-lašon šemit xaya [Hebrew as a living Semitic language]. In ha-lašon ha-’ivrit be-hitpatxuta u-be-hitxadšuta [Evolution and renewal: Trends in the development of the Hebrew language], 148–190. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
Govberg-Afros, Elena
2002 Aspects of old Germanic hypotaxis: The relative clause in focus. Ph.D. dissertation, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Harris, A.C. & L. Campbell
1995 Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2001 The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft), 1492–1510. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselbach, R
2005 Sargonic Akkadian. A historical and comparative study of the syllabic texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2005 Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hever, Ya’ar & Yair Adiel
2009 haxipus axar moca babalšanut ha’ivrit/hayisra’elit [The Search for an Origin (and a Way Out) in Hebrew/Israeli Linguistics]. Teorya ubikoret [Theory and Criticism] 351: 292–301.Google Scholar
Holmstedt, R.D
2002 The relative clause in Biblical Hebrew: A linguistic analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
2013 Relative clause: Biblical Hebrew. In Geoffrey Khan (ed.), The encyclopedia of Hebrew language and linguistics, Vol. 31, 350–357. Boston/Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Izre’el, Shlomo
2003 The emergence of Spoken Israeli Hebrew. In Benjamin H. Hary (ed.), Corpus linguistics and Modern Hebrew: Towards the compilation of The Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew (CoSIH), 85–104. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies.Google Scholar
Joüon, Paul & Takamitsu Muraoka
2006 A grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Revised English edition. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto biblico.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L
1985 Relative clauses. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description1, Vol. 21, 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie
1977 Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Kittilä, S. & A. Malchukov
2009 Varieties of accusative. In The Oxford handbook of case, 549–562. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lavine, James
2003 Resumption in Slavic: Phases, cyclicity, and case. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 111: 355–372.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1984 Der Relativsatz. Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1988 Towards a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (Typological Studies in Language, Vol. 181), 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lissak, Moshe
2009 iyunim behistorya xevratit šel Yisra’el [Studies in Israeli social history]. Jerusalem: Bialik.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y
2011 al hithavutan šel tavniyot min ha-siax: mišpaxat psukiyot ha-zika [Of the emergence of constructions from discourse: the relative clause family]. Lešonénu 731: 167–207.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. & J. Sakel
2007 Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 311: 829–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murelli, Adriano
2011a Relative constructions in European languages: A look at non-standard. Linguistischen Internationalen Promotionsprogramms (JournaLIPP) 11: 1–21.Google Scholar
2011b Relative constructions in European non-standard varieties. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naughton, James D
2005 Czech: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pat-El, N. & A. Treiger
2008 On adnominalization of prepositional phrases and adverbs in Semitic. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 158(2): 265–283.Google Scholar
Peretz, Yizhak
1967 Mišpat ha-zika ba-ivrit le-xol tkufoteha [The Hebrew Relative Clause in all its phases]. Tel Aviv: Dvir.Google Scholar
Reckendorf, H
1921 Arabische syntax. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Reshef, Yael
2004 The modern Hebrew asyndetic relative clause: The rise of a new syntactic mechanism. Folia linguistica historica 25(1-2): 115–134.Google Scholar
2006 ‘ha-nose bo nadun’: limkora šel psukit ha-zika ha-bilti mekušeret be-ivrit bat zmanenu [the issue which we will discuss: about the source of the asyndetic relative clause in contemporary Hebrew]. ha-ivrit safa xaya [Hebrew (is) a living language] 41: 411–430.Google Scholar
Roma, Elisa
2007 Relativisation strategies in Insular Celtic languages: History and contacts with English. In Paulo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as linguistic areas: Convergences from a historical and typological perspective (Studies in Language Companion Series Vol. 881), 245–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Yitzhak
1994 ha-ivrit ha-modernit ha-ktuva [Written Modern Hebrew] (The History of the Hebrew Language: The Modern Division, Unit 11). Tel Aviv: The Open University.Google Scholar
Siloni, T
1995 On participial relatives and complementizer D0: A case study in Hebrew and French. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13(3):445–487. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommer, Ferdinand
1931 Vergleichende Syntax der Schulsprachen.3. Leipzig and Berlin: BG Teubner.Google Scholar
Sridhar, S.N
1978 Linguistic convergence: Indo-aryanization of Dravidian languages. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8(1): 197–215.Google Scholar
Wheelock, Frederic M. & Richard A. LaFleur
2005 Wheelock’s Latin, Revised. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
TAKDIN
The Legal Database ([URL])
Thomason, Sarah Grey
2001 Language contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Social and linguistic factors as predictors of contact-induced change. Journal of Language Contact 2(1): 42–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Troup, Andrew C
2010 The relative clause in Old English: An analysis of syntactic and stylistic ambiguity. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, Paul
1990 The schizoid nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic language in search of a Semitic past (Mediterranean Language and Culture Monograph Series 4). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Zeldes, A
2013 Is Modern Hebrew standard average European? The view from European. Linguistic Typology 17(3): 439–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zewi, Tamar
2013 Relative clause, Modern Hebrew. In Geoffrey Khan (ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics Vol. III, 359–363. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad
2006 A new vision for Israeli Hebrew: Theoretical and practical implications of analyzing Israel’s main language as a semi‐engineered Semito‐European hybrid language. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 5(1): 57–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Siegel, Jeff
2019. The relative pronoun strategy. Studies in Language 43:4 ► pp. 997 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.