Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 47:2 (2023) ► pp.463–504

It’s all about the sentential construction

Lexicalization of complete mono-clausal sentences into words – Evidence from Hebrew

 | Tel Aviv University
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.
Keywords: lexicalization, Hebrew, Construction Grammar, thetic/categorical distinction
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
Published online: 8 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21006.bec
References (95)
References
Allerton, David John. & Alan Cruttenden. 1979. Three reasons for accenting a definite subject. Journal of Linguistics 15(1). 49–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira, Elitzur Dattner, John W. Du Bois & Tal Linzen. 2015. Pronominal datives: The royal road to argument status. Studies in Language 39(2). 257–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker & Ariel. submitted. Scaffolding the sentential Ultimate construction into a word
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald. 2008. Constructions and language change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. 1980. The case of an (S)VO language: Subjectless constructions in Modern Hebrew. Language 56(4). 759–776. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Cheryl. 1983. Topic continuity in written English narrative. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 313–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1974. Language and consciousness. Language 50(1). 111–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson. 2018. Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Dattner, Elitzur. 2008. Lower Transitivity Constructions in Hebrew: The Case of Motion Verbs. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University MA thesis.
. 2019. The Hebrew dative: Usage patterns as discourse profile constructions. Linguistics 57(5). 1073–1110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Laura A. Janda. 2008. Ways of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological Society 106(2). 138–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
. 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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2009. Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1(2). 262–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, Livio & Davide Ricca. 2009. Composita solvantur: Compounds as lexical units or morphological objects? Rivista di Linguistica 21(1). 35–70.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 151–188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in cognitive sciences 7(5). 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert Malcolm Ward Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, 53–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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 logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Nadja Nesselhauf & Carolin Biewer. 2007. Corpus linguistics and the web. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
. 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
Janda, Laura A. & Dagmar Divjak. 2015. The role of non-canonical subjects in the overall grammar of a language: A case study of Russian. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Subjects in constructions – Canonical and non-canonical, 293–318. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ježek, Elisabetta & Paolo Ramat. 2009. On parts-of-speech transcategorization. Folia Linguistica 43(2). 391–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo. 2007. Negativity bias in language: A cognitive affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 18(3). 417–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Neal F. 1965. The psychological reality of phrase-structure rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4(6). 469–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3). 269–320.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic Judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9(2). 153–185.Google Scholar
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].
. 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
. 2001. Hebrew and Zionism: A discourse analytic cultural study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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
. 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
. 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
. 2012. Sentence patterns in English and Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol I1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol II1. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2020. Univerbation. Folia Linguistica 54(41). 205–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipka, Leonhard. 1992. An outline of English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics, and word-formation. Tübingen: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 2018. The on-line emergence of Hebrew insubordinate she (‘that/which/who’) clauses. Studies in Language 42(3). 669–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2007. How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction. Morphology 17(2). 233–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melnik, Nurit. 2002. Verb-initial constructions in Modern Hebrew. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley PhD dissertation.
. 2006. A constructional approach to verb-initial constructions in Modern Hebrew. Cognitive Linguistics 17(2). 153–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marriane. 2014. Syntactic and prosodic structures: Segmentation, integration, and in between. In Tommaso Raso & Heliana Mello (eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistics studies, 297–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2016. For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30(1). 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, William. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(2). 279–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. 2019. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ovid. 1998. Metamorphoses (trans. Melville, A. D.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Original work published 8 AD].Google Scholar
Pat-El, Na’ama. 2018. The diachrony of non-canonical subjects in Northwest Semitic. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Na’ama Pat-El & Stephen M. Carey (eds.), Non-canonically case-marked subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers, 159–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Rosén, Haiim B. 1977. Contemporary Hebrew. Paris: De Guyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Ruvik. 2005/2018. milon ha-slang ha-makif (The comprehensive dictionary of Israeli slang). Jerusalem: Keter Books. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
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
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25(3). 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte, Spike Gildea, Jóhanna Barðdal & Elena Smirnova. 2015. Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S. 1986. Basic word order: Functional principles. London, UK: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
van den Eynde, Karel, Sabine Kirchmeier-Andersen, Piet Mertens & Lene Schøsler. 2002. Distributional syntactic analysis and valency: Basic notions, procedures, and applications of the Pronominal Approach. In Stephen M. Johnson & Bruce E. Nevin (eds.), The legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and information into the 21st century, Vol. II1, 163–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1989. Free word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Wexler, Paul. 1990. The schizoid nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic language in search of a Semitic past. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar