Cover not available
Part of
Language Contact, Continuity and Change in the Genesis of Modern Hebrew
Edited by Edit Doron, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Yael Reshef and Moshe Taube
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 256] 2019
► pp. 33–54

The limits of multiple-source contact influence

The case of ecel ‘at’ in Modern Hebrew

| The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The paper examines the opposition of existential-possessive constructions with le- ‘to’, the inherited strategy in Hebrew for denoting possession, and similar constructions with ecel ‘at’. The latter, induced by several languages in contact with Hebrew throughout its history (Arabic, Yiddish, Russian), began to encroach upon the domain of the former at various stages of the language, including Emerging Modern Hebrew, but ended up being relegated to other functions. The paper surveys the functions of ecel in Modern Hebrew and examines the question of why this contact-induced construction did not become entrenched as the dominant existential-possessive construction.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some sociolinguistic background
  • 3.The existential construction with the preposition ecel in Emerging Modern Hebrew
  • 4.On the early history of existential constructions with ecel and le-
    • 4.1Constructions with lə- in the Bible
    • 4.2Constructions with ʔēṣɛl in the Bible
    • 4.3Constructions with le- and ʔeṣel in Post-Biblical Hebrew
    • 4.4Existential constructions with le- and ʔeṣel in Medieval Hebrew
  • 5.The distribution of existential constructions with ecel vs. le- in Modern Hebrew
    • 5.1Locative reading
    • 5.2Disposal and possessive reading
    • 5.3Pertentive reading
      • 5.3.1In spoken and sub-standard written registers
      • 5.3.2Topics
  • 6.The preposition ecel with other constructions
    • 6.1With pertentive function
    • 6.2With evaluative function
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.256.02tau
References (17)
References
Benveniste, Émile 1960. Être et avoir dans leur fonctions linguistiques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistiqe. LV (1960). Reprinted in: E. Benveniste. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique Générale, Vol. I. 187–207. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Ben-Amotz, Dan & Ben-Yehuda, Netiva. 1973. World Dictionary of Hebrew Slang (Hebrew title: milon ʕolami le-ʕivrit meduberet). Jerusalem: Lewin-Epstein.Google Scholar
Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer et al. (eds). 1948–1959. Milon halašon haʕivrit ha-yešana vehaħadaša. Tel Aviv: laʕam.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit & Grodzinsky, Yosef. 1986. Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization: The case of Hebrew dative clitics. In Syntax and Semantics, 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Hagit Borer (ed.), 175–215. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1970. Locationals: A study of the relations between ‘existential’, ‘locative’ and ‘possessive’ constructions. Working Papers in Language. 3. Standford CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
1978. Existential, locative, and possessive construction. In Universals of Human Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 85–126. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 2010. Adpositions: Function-marking in Human Languages. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isačenko, Alexander V. 1974. On ‘have’ and ‘be’ languages (a typological sketch). In Slavic Forum: Essays in Linguistics and Literature, Michael S. Flier (ed.), 43–77. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian. 2013. Multiple sources and multiple causes multiply explored. Studies in Language 37(3): 675–691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klatzkin, Jacob. 1928–1933. Ocar hamunaħim hafilosofiim (Thesaurus philosophicus linguae Hebraicae), 4 Vols. Berlin: Eškol.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1967. A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3–4: 390–396.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Schiff, Leora. 2005. Spoken Israeli Hebrew revisited: Structures and variation. In Studia Semitica: The Journal of Semitic Studies Jubilee Volume [Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 16], Philip S. Alexander, George J. Brooke, Andreas Christmann, John F. Healey & Philip C. Sadgrove (eds), 145–191. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, Aynat 2019. Existential possessive modality in the emergence of Modern Hebrew. In Linguistic Contact, Continuity and Change in the Genesis of Modern Hebrew [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 256], Edit Doron, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Yael Reshef & Moshe Taube (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon 2009. Predicative Possession. 55–93. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Taube, Moshe 1984. Langues-être, langues-avoir et le Yiddish. Orbis 33(1–2): 222–235.Google Scholar
2015. The usual suspects: Slavic, Yiddish, and the accusative existentials and possessives in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Jewish Languages 3(1–2): 27–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah & Kaufman, Terence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar