The derivation of a concessive from an aspectual adverb by reanalysis in
Modern Hebrew
This paper traces the way ʕadayin ‘still’ in
Modern Hebrew (MH) emerged as a new concessive, developing out of an earlier
aspectual adverb which originated in Rabbinic Hebrew, after being borrowed
from Aramaic. The account adopted here provides us with the means to
describe and analyze the process of ʕadayin’s reanalysis in
MH, which is claimed to have been triggered by the use of
ʕadayin in adversative sentences opening with
ʔaval ‘but’ at the time Hebrew began to be influenced
by English. The input of the presupposition of ʔaval ‘but’
is taken into account as the major contribution to the process of
reanalysis, along with the original focus-sensitivity and anaphoricity of
ʕadayin.
Article outline
- Introduction
- 1.Inherited aspectual ʕadayin
- 2.The semantics of aspectual still
- 3.The development of concessive ʕadayin
- 4.The semantics of concessive ʕadayin
- 5.The development: Grammaticalization
- 6.Grammaticalization by reanalysis
- 6.1Pre-stage
- 6.2The turning point
- 6.3The post stage
- 7.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgment
-
Notes
-
References
References (29)
References
Ahituv, Shmuel. 2008. Echoes from the Past. Jerusalem: Carta.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ben Yehuda, Eliezer. Dictionary of Old and New Hebrew, vol.9. Jerusalem: Makor. (in Hebrew)
CAL: Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon online. <[URL]>
Dubnov, Keren. 2007. The development of concessive conjunctions for a simple
sentence in the language of Haskala. Shaarey Lashon 3: 86–95. (in Hebrew)![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic
Reanalysis. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Even-Shoshan, Abraham. 2000. The New Dictionary, Vol. 4. Tel Aviv: Am Oved, Kineret Zmora-Bitan, Dvir and Yediot Aharonot. (in Hebrew)![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gesenius, Wilhelm. 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, as edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch, 2nd English edn revised by Alfred E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Greenberg, Yael. 2006. Structuring aspectual and temporal relations with two
Hebrew adverbials, and the semantics/pragmatics of
still. In Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Logic and Language
(LoLa). Beáta Gyuris, László Kálmán, Chris Piñón & Károly Varasdi (eds.), pp.1–8. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences. <[URL]>![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Greenberg, Yael. 2010. Additivity in the domain of eventualities (or: Oliver
Twist’s More). In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14. Martin Prinzhorn, Viola Schmitt & Sarah Zobel (eds), 151–167. Vienna. <[URL]>![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
HALOT: Kohler, Ludwig & Baumgartner, Walter. 1994–2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: E. J. Brill.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2002. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact. Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Horn, Laurence R. 1970. Ain’t it hard (anymore). In Papers from the sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistics Society, Mary Ann Campbell et al. (eds), 318–327. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ippolito, Michela. 2007. On the meaning of some focus-sensitive
particles. Natural Language Semantics 15: 1–34. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kasowsky, Haim Yehoshua. 1958. Concordance of Mishnaic Hebrew, Vol. 3. Jerusalem: Massada. (in Hebrew)![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kasowsky, Haim Yehoshua. 1971. Concordance of Talmudic Hebrew, Vol. 28. Jerusalem: The Israel Ministry of Education. (in Hebrew)![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
König, Ekkehard. 1988. Concessive connectives and concessive sentences:
Cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic
principles. In Explaining Language Universals, John A. Hawkins (ed.), 145–166. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
König, Ekkehard. 1985. On the history of concessive connectives in English. Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Lingua 66: 1-19.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
König, Ekkehard. 1977. Temporal and non-temporal uses of ‘noch’ and ‘schon’ in
German. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(2):173–198.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
König, Ekkehard & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. Divergence and apparent convergence in the development of
yet and still
. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society (1982), Monica Macauley, Orin Gensler, Claudia Brugman, Inese Civkulis, Amy Dahlstrom, Kathrine Krile & Rob Sturm (eds), 170–179. Berkeley CA: CLS.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krifka, Manfred. 2000. Alternatives for aspectual particles: Semantics of
still and already
. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society, Lisa J Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya, Allysa B. Wulf & Alan C. L. Yu (eds), 401–412. Berkeley CA: CLS.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levy Jacob. 1924. Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und
Midraschim, Vol. 3. Berlin: Benjamin Harz.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Löbner, Sebastian. 1989. German schon – erst – noch: An integrated
analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 167–212. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Michaelis, Laura A. 1993. ‘Continuity’ within three scalar models: The polysemy of
adverbial Still
. Journal of Semantics 10: 193–237. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reshef, Yael. 2008. English in Israel: Sociolinguistic and linguistic
aspects. In Il mio cuore è a oriente: Studi di linguistica
storica, filologia e cultura ebraica dedicati a Maria Mayer
Modena [Quaderni di ACME 101], Francesco Aspesi, Vermondo Brugnatelli, Anna Linda Callow & Claudia Rozenzweig (eds), 733–751. Milano: Cisalpino.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Segal, Moshe Zvi. 1935. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Tel Aviv: Dvir. (in Hebrew)![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sokoloff, Michael. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and
Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press & Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97. Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Umbach, Carla. 2005. Contrast and information structure: A focus-based
analysis of but
. Linguistics 43(1): 207–232. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Winter, Yoad & Rimon, Mori. 1994. Contrast and implication in natural
language. Journal of Semantics 11(4): 365–406. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Hershkowitz, Isaac
2023.
The status of the Jewish temple in modern Hebrew literature (1848–1948): A big-data analysis.
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 38:3
► pp. 1101 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.