It’s all about the sentential construction
Lexicalization of complete mono-clausal sentences into words – Evidence from Hebrew
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.
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
References (95)
References
Allerton, David John. & Alan Cruttenden. 1979. Three
reasons for accenting a definite subject. Journal of
Linguistics 15(1). 49–53. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics
and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Becker &
Ariel. submitted. Scaffolding the sentential Ultimate construction into a word
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English
word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald. 2008. Constructions
and language change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berman, Ruth A. 1980. The case of an (S)VO language:
Subjectless constructions in Modern
Hebrew. Language 56(4). 759–776. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization
and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and
cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, Wallace L. 1974. Language and
consciousness. Language 50(1). 111–133. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language
universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William. 2001. Radical
Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological
perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dattner, Elitzur. 2008. Lower
Transitivity Constructions in Hebrew: The Case of Motion Verbs. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University MA thesis.
Dattner, Elitzur. 2019. The
Hebrew dative: Usage patterns as discourse profile
constructions. Linguistics 57(5). 1073–1110. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Divjak, Dagmar & Laura A. Janda. 2008. Ways
of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological
Society 106(2). 138–179. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dubnov, Keren. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gaeta, Livio & Davide Ricca. 2009. Composita
solvantur: Compounds as lexical units or morphological objects? Rivista di
Linguistica 21(1). 35–70.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic,
pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject
and topic, 151–188. New York: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar
approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical
approach to language. Trends in cognitive
sciences 7(5). 219–224. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, Martin. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction
grammar and its application to
English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The
Cambridge grammar of the English
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hundt, Marianne, Nadja Nesselhauf & Carolin Biewer. 2007. Corpus
linguistics and the
web. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Izre’el, Shlomo. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ježek, Elisabetta & Paolo Ramat. 2009. On
parts-of-speech transcategorization. Folia
Linguistica 43(2). 391–416. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo. 2007. Negativity
bias in language: A cognitive affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive
Linguistics 18(3). 417–443. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnson, Neal F. 1965. The psychological reality of
phrase-structure rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior 4(6). 469–475. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional
sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic
Inquiry 3(3). 269–320.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The
categorical and the thetic Judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of
Language 9(2). 153–185.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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].
Kuzar, Ron. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuzar, Ron. 2001. Hebrew
and Zionism: A discourse analytic cultural
study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuzar, Ron. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuzar, Ron. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuzar, Ron. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information
structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse
referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive
grammar. Vol I1. Theoretical
prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive
grammar. Vol II1. Descriptive
application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lehmann, Christian. 2020. Univerbation. Folia
Linguistica 54(41). 205–252. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lipka, Leonhard. 1992. An
outline of English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics, and
word-formation. Tübingen: Walter de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On
the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meibauer, Jörg. 2007. How
marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and
I/Q-interaction. Morphology 17(2). 233–259. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Melnik, Nurit. 2002. Verb-initial
constructions in Modern
Hebrew. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley PhD dissertation.
Melnik, Nurit. 2006. A
constructional approach to verb-initial constructions in Modern Hebrew. Cognitive
Linguistics 17(2). 153–198. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
O’Grady, William. 1998. The
syntax of idioms. Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory 16(2). 279–312. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
OED = Oxford English Dictionary
Online. 2019. Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ovid. 1998. Metamorphoses (trans. Melville, A. D.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Original work published 8 AD].![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosén, Haiim B. 1977. Contemporary
Hebrew. Paris: De Guyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosenthal, Ruvik. 2005/2018. milon ha-slang ha-makif (The comprehensive dictionary of Israeli
slang). Jerusalem: Keter Books. [in Hebrew].![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The
thetic/categorical distinction
revisited. Linguistics 25(3). 511–580. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomlin, Russell S. 1986. Basic word order: Functional
principles. London, UK: Croom Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization
and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vilkuna, Maria. 1989. Free
word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse
functions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wexler, Paul. 1990. The
schizoid nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic language in search of a Semitic
past. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)