Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 40:4 (2016) ► pp.733–764

The modern Hebrew prepositional relative clause strategy

| The Hebrew University
Published online: 2 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.4.01coh
References (73)
ARM = Archives Royales de Mari. Paris 1946– Google Scholar
Azar, M. 1995. taxbir lešon ha-mišna [The syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Academy of Hebrew Language (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Barlas, Chaim. 1964. “ha-’aliya bi-tkufat 1919-1923” [The Aliyah between 1919 and 1923]. In Y. Erez (ed), sefer ha-aliya ha-šlišit [The book of the third Aliyah], 78–94. Tel Aviv: Am Oved.Google Scholar
Bashevis-Zinger, Yitskhok. 1971. Yentl der yeshive-bokher [Yentl the Yeshiva Boy], mayses fun hintern oyvn [Stories from Behind the Stove]. Tel Aviv: Y. L. Perets farlag. Transcription: the Jiddistik section, Germanistik department, Universität Trier ([URL]).Google Scholar
Bendavid, Aba. 1965. Le-takanat lešon ha-itonut [For a correct journalistic language]. Lešonénu la-ʿam 16(3): 51–78.Google Scholar
Berman, R.A. & S. Bolozky. 1978. Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 1984. Restrictive relatives in modern Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2(2): 219–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brockelmann, Carl. 1913. Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Vol. 21. Berlin: Reuther and Reichard.Google Scholar
Cohen, D. 1988. Coushitique–Omotique. In J. Perrot (ed.), Les langues dans le monde ancien et moderne. Part 3: Les langues Chamito–Sémitiques, D. Cohen (ed.), 243–295. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Cohen, Eran. 2008. Adjectival ša Syntagms and Adjectives in Old Babylonian. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 711: 25–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design: Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics 11: 59–85.Google Scholar
. 2003. Typology and language acquisition: The case of relative clauses. In Anna Giacalone Ramat (ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, 19–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cooper, R.L. 1989. Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
CoSIH=The Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew ([URL]).
Cristofaro, Sonia & Anna Giacalone Ramat. 2007. Relativization strategies in the languages of Europe. In Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and Mediterranean as linguistic areas: Convergences from a historical and typological perspective, 63–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, G. 2001. The rise and fall of a rogue relative construction. Studies in Language 25(3): 405–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dillmann, August. 1907. Ethiopic grammar, enlarged and improved by Carl Bezold, translated by James A. Crichton. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Dindelegan, Gabriela Panã (ed.). 2013. The grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doherty, C. 2014. Clauses without ‘that’: The case for bare sentential complementation in English. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durand, Jean-Marie. 1997. Documents épistolaires de Mari (Littératures anciennes du proche-orient 16), Vol. 11. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, G. 2007. European relative clauses and the uniqueness of the relative pronoun type. Rivista di Linguistica 19(2): 263–291.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg. 2006. Dative and indirect object in German dialects: Evidence from relative clauses. In Daniel Hole, André Meinunger, & Werner Abraham (eds.), Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure (Studies in Language Companion Series 75), 213–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Slavic influence in Eastern Yiddish syntax: The case of vos relative clauses. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2261: 137–161.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson. 2007. Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language 31(2): 293–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frayne, Douglas. 1993. Sargonic and Gutian periods (2334-2113 BC). (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early periods 2). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giladi, Dan. 1973. ha-yišuv bi-tkufat ha-’aliya ha-revi’it (1924–1929) [Jewish Palestine during the fourth alia period (1924–1929)]. Am Oved: Tel-Aviv.Google Scholar
Gippert, J. 2011. Relative clauses in Vartashen Udi preliminary remarks. Iran and the Caucasus 15(1-2): 207–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glinert, L. 1989. The grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon. 1977. Imperfectly-transformed cleft sentences. Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 127–133. Jerusalem.
. 1995. Attribution in Semitic languages. Langues Orientales Anciennes: Philologie et Linguistique 71: 1–20.Google Scholar
. 1996. ha-’ivrit ke-lašon šemit xaya [Hebrew as a living Semitic language]. In ha-lašon ha-’ivrit be-hitpatxuta u-be-hitxadšuta [Evolution and renewal: Trends in the development of the Hebrew language], 148–190. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
Govberg-Afros, Elena. 2002. Aspects of old Germanic hypotaxis: The relative clause in focus. Ph.D. dissertation, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Harris, A.C. & L. Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft), 1492–1510. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselbach, R. 2005. Sargonic Akkadian. A historical and comparative study of the syllabic texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hever, Ya’ar & Yair Adiel. 2009. haxipus axar moca babalšanut ha’ivrit/hayisra’elit [The Search for an Origin (and a Way Out) in Hebrew/Israeli Linguistics]. Teorya ubikoret [Theory and Criticism] 351: 292–301.Google Scholar
Holmstedt, R.D. 2002. The relative clause in Biblical Hebrew: A linguistic analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
. 2013. Relative clause: Biblical Hebrew. In Geoffrey Khan (ed.), The encyclopedia of Hebrew language and linguistics, Vol. 31, 350–357. Boston/Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Izre’el, Shlomo. 2003. The emergence of Spoken Israeli Hebrew. In Benjamin H. Hary (ed.), Corpus linguistics and Modern Hebrew: Towards the compilation of The Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew (CoSIH), 85–104. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies.Google Scholar
Joüon, Paul & Takamitsu Muraoka. 2006. A grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Revised English edition. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto biblico.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Relative clauses. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description1, Vol. 21, 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Kittilä, S. & A. Malchukov. 2009. Varieties of accusative. In The Oxford handbook of case, 549–562. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lavine, James. 2003. Resumption in Slavic: Phases, cyclicity, and case. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 111: 355–372.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz. Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (Typological Studies in Language, Vol. 181), 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lissak, Moshe. 2009. iyunim behistorya xevratit šel Yisra’el [Studies in Israeli social history]. Jerusalem: Bialik.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y. 2011. al hithavutan šel tavniyot min ha-siax: mišpaxat psukiyot ha-zika [Of the emergence of constructions from discourse: the relative clause family]. Lešonénu 731: 167–207.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. & J. Sakel. 2007. Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 311: 829–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murelli, Adriano. 2011a. Relative constructions in European languages: A look at non-standard. Linguistischen Internationalen Promotionsprogramms (JournaLIPP) 11: 1–21.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Relative constructions in European non-standard varieties. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naughton, James D. 2005. Czech: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pat-El, N. & A. Treiger. 2008. On adnominalization of prepositional phrases and adverbs in Semitic. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 158(2): 265–283.Google Scholar
Peretz, Yizhak. 1967. Mišpat ha-zika ba-ivrit le-xol tkufoteha [The Hebrew Relative Clause in all its phases]. Tel Aviv: Dvir.Google Scholar
Reckendorf, H. 1921. Arabische syntax. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Reshef, Yael. 2004. The modern Hebrew asyndetic relative clause: The rise of a new syntactic mechanism. Folia linguistica historica 25(1-2): 115–134.Google Scholar
. 2006. ‘ha-nose bo nadun’: limkora šel psukit ha-zika ha-bilti mekušeret be-ivrit bat zmanenu [the issue which we will discuss: about the source of the asyndetic relative clause in contemporary Hebrew]. ha-ivrit safa xaya [Hebrew (is) a living language] 41: 411–430.Google Scholar
Roma, Elisa. 2007. Relativisation strategies in Insular Celtic languages: History and contacts with English. In Paulo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as linguistic areas: Convergences from a historical and typological perspective (Studies in Language Companion Series Vol. 881), 245–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Yitzhak. 1994. ha-ivrit ha-modernit ha-ktuva [Written Modern Hebrew] (The History of the Hebrew Language: The Modern Division, Unit 11). Tel Aviv: The Open University.Google Scholar
Siloni, T. 1995. On participial relatives and complementizer D0: A case study in Hebrew and French. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13(3):445–487. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommer, Ferdinand. 1931. Vergleichende Syntax der Schulsprachen.3. Leipzig and Berlin: BG Teubner.Google Scholar
Sridhar, S.N. 1978. Linguistic convergence: Indo-aryanization of Dravidian languages. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8(1): 197–215.Google Scholar
Wheelock, Frederic M. & Richard A. LaFleur. 2005. Wheelock’s Latin, Revised. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
TAKDIN= The Legal Database ([URL])
Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2001. Language contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Social and linguistic factors as predictors of contact-induced change. Journal of Language Contact 2(1): 42–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Troup, Andrew C. 2010. The relative clause in Old English: An analysis of syntactic and stylistic ambiguity. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, Paul. 1990. The schizoid nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic language in search of a Semitic past (Mediterranean Language and Culture Monograph Series 4). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Zeldes, A. 2013. Is Modern Hebrew standard average European? The view from European. Linguistic Typology 17(3): 439–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zewi, Tamar. 2013. Relative clause, Modern Hebrew. In Geoffrey Khan (ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics Vol. III, 359–363. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad. 2006. A new vision for Israeli Hebrew: Theoretical and practical implications of analyzing Israel’s main language as a semi‐engineered Semito‐European hybrid language. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 5(1): 57–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Siegel, Jeff
2019. The relative pronoun strategy. Studies in Language 43:4 ► pp. 997 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.