Enabling and allowing in Hebrew
A usage-based construction grammar account
Three-Argument Dative constructions in Hebrew include two sub constructions, each with a specific form-meaning correlation, a specific usage pattern, and a particular discursive context. Syntactically, the two sub-constructions differ in that the THEME argument can be either (i) a noun phrase, or (ii) an infinitival predicate. In particular, the verb natan ‘give’ represents a prototypical construal in both sub-constructions. That is, with a NP THEME argument the verb natan ‘give’ has its literal meaning. With an infinitival THEME argument, however, the verb has the meaning of ‘allow, enable.’ Analyzing corpus data of the Infinitival complement Construction (ii), I account for these uses of the verb natan ‘give’ in a Usage-Based Construction Grammar perspective (Bybee, 2010). Utilizing the exploratory statistics techniques of Multidimensional Scaling (Borg and Groenen, 2005), Multiple Correspondence Analysis (Greenacre, 2010), and Hierarchical Classification on Principal Components (Husson et al., 2011) on corpus data, I show that multiple factors play a role in structuring an Argument Structure Construction. Furthermore, based on the bottom-up statistical analysis I argue that the verb’s morphological paradigm is one of the main cues for interpreting the relevant event frame and Dative participant roles in Hebrew.
References (33)
References
Abbot-Smith, Kirsten & Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review 23(3): 275–290. ![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: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Borg, Ingwer & Groenen, Patrick J.F. 2005. Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications, 2nd edn. Berlin: Springer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 529–551. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, Joan L. & Eddington, David. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language 82(2): 323–355. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cox, Trevor F. & Cox, Michael A.A. 2001. Multidimensional Scaling, 2nd edn. Boca Raton FL: Chapman & Hall.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dattner, Elitzur. In progress. Mapping Hebrew Dative Constructions. PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Diessel, Holger. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone’. Language 64(4): 501–538. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gahl, Susanne & Yu, Alan C.L. 2006. Introduction to the special issue on exemplar-based models in linguistics.The Linguistic Review 23(3): 213–216. <[URL]> ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: 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)
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005b. Constructions, lexical semantics, and the correspondence principle. In The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation, Nomi
Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds). Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3): 532–568. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Greenacre, Michael. 2010. Correspondence Analysis in Practice, 2nd edn. Boca Raton FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Greenacre, Michael & Blasius, Jörg. 2006. Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods. Boca Raton FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2009. Quantitative Corpus Linguistics With R: A Practical Introduction. New York NY: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Husson, François, Lê, Sébastien & Pagès, Jérôme. 2011. Exploratory Multivariate Analysis by Example Using R. Boca Raton FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Husson, Francois, Josse, Julie, Lê, Sébastien et al. 2013. FactoMineR: Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Mining with R, version 1.25 <[URL]>
Kay, Paul. 1997. Words and the Grammar of Context. Stanford CA: CSLI.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kay, Paul & Fillmore, Charles J. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1): 1–33. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nenadic, Oleg & Greenacre, Michael. 2007. Correspondence Analysis in R, with two and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software 20(3): 1–13. <[URL]>![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
R Core Team. 2013, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. <[URL]>![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rencher, Alvin. 2012. Methods of Multivariate Analysis. Hoboken NJ: Wiley. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wedel, Andrew B. 2006. Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review 23(3): 247–274. ![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
Dattner, Elitzur
2019.
The Hebrew dative: Usage patterns as discourse profile constructions.
Linguistics 57:5
► pp. 1073 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.