Article published in:
Causation, Permission, and Transfer: Argument realisation in GET, TAKE, PUT, GIVE and LET verbs
Edited by Brian Nolan, Gudrun Rawoens and Elke Diedrichsen
[Studies in Language Companion Series 167] 2015
► pp. 271–293

Enabling and allowing in Hebrew

A usage-based construction grammar account

| Tel Aviv University
Three-Argument Dative constructions in Hebrew include two sub constructions, each with a specific form-meaning correlation, a specific usage pattern, and a particular discursive context. Syntactically, the two sub-constructions differ in that the THEME argument can be either (i) a noun phrase, or (ii) an infinitival predicate. In particular, the verb natan ‘give’ represents a prototypical construal in both sub-constructions. That is, with a NP THEME argument the verb natan ‘give’ has its literal meaning. With an infinitival THEME argument, however, the verb has the meaning of ‘allow, enable.’ Analyzing corpus data of the Infinitival complement Construction (ii), I account for these uses of the verb natan ‘give’ in a Usage-Based Construction Grammar perspective (Bybee, 2010). Utilizing the exploratory statistics techniques of Multidimensional Scaling (Borg and Groenen, 2005), Multiple Correspondence Analysis (Greenacre, 2010), and Hierarchical Classification on Principal Components (Husson et al., 2011) on corpus data, I show that multiple factors play a role in structuring an Argument Structure Construction. Furthermore, based on the bottom-up statistical analysis I argue that the verb’s morphological paradigm is one of the main cues for interpreting the relevant event frame and Dative participant roles in Hebrew.
Published online: 14 January 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.167.10dat
References

References

Abbot-Smith, Kirsten & Tomasello, Michael
2006 Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review 23(3): 275–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira
2008 Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borg, Ingwer & Groenen, Patrick J.F.
2005 Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications, 2nd edn. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 529–551. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Eddington, David
2006 A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language 82(2): 323–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Trevor F. & Cox, Michael A.A.
2001 Multidimensional Scaling, 2nd edn. Boca Raton FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dattner, Elitzur
In progress. Mapping Hebrew Dative Constructions. PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Diessel, Holger
2004 The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Mary Catherine
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone’. Language 64(4): 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, Susanne & Yu, Alan C.L.
2006 Introduction to the special issue on exemplar-based models in linguistics.The Linguistic Review 23(3): 213–216. http://​www​.reference​-global​.com​/doi​/abs​/10​.1515​/TLR​.2006​.007 DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, Dylan
2014 Correspondence analysis. Exploring data and identifying patterns. In Corpus Methods in Cognitive Semantics. Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy [Human Cognitive Processing 43], Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson, 443–486. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003 Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005a Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In Construction Grammars. Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions [Constructional Approaches to Language 3], Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds), 17–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005b Constructions, lexical semantics, and the correspondence principle. In The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation, Nomi 
Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Jackendoff, Ray
2004 The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3): 532–568. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenacre, Michael
2010 Correspondence Analysis in Practice, 2nd edn. Boca Raton FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Greenacre, Michael & Blasius, Jörg
2006 Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods. Boca Raton FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Thomas
2009 Quantitative Corpus Linguistics With R: A Practical Introduction. New York NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1980 Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Husson, François, Lê, Sébastien & Pagès, Jérôme
2011. Exploratory Multivariate Analysis by Example Using R. Boca Raton FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Husson, Francois, Josse, Julie, Lê, Sébastien et al.
2013 FactoMineR: Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Mining with R, version 1.25 http://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=FactoMineR
Kay, Paul
1997 Words and the Grammar of Context. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Fillmore, Charles J.
1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1): 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia
2012 Comparing constructicons: A usage-based analysis of the causative construction with doen in Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch. Constructions and Frames 4(1): 76–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nenadic, Oleg & Greenacre, Michael
2007 Correspondence Analysis in R, with two and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software 20(3): 1–13. http://​www​.jstatsoft​.orgGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B.
2001 Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure [Typological Studies in Language 45], Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds), 137–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2013, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://​www​.R​-project​.org/Google Scholar
Rencher, Alvin
2012 Methods of Multivariate Analysis. Hoboken NJ: Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew B.
2006 Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review 23(3): 247–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar