Palavras-chave
Spoken Israeli hebrew
Syntax
Métricas
Como Citar
Resumo
Thetic constructions are generally perceived as presenting a split between semantic and syntactic predication. Studies in theticity maintain that inverse order of subject and predicate is a prominent criterion for the identification of thetic sentences, with an added factor being the lack of agreement between the constituent perceived as subject and the constituent perceived as predicate. Another criterion for identifying a sentence as thetic is the so-called sentence focus as opposed to focus of a single sentence constituent. The purpose of this article is to present a syntactic analysis of thetic sentences that have been commonly analyzed as verb-initial ones or, in short, VS constructions, as manifested in Colloquial Israeli Hebrew. The analysis offered here is based on previous research on IH sentence structure, which demonstrated that many sentences in IH are unipartite, containing only a predicate domain. The syntactic approach underlying this analysis is functional, communicative, discourse-based, and grounded in information structure. For the study of spoken language, an analysis of segmental elements must be combined with prosodic analysis. The study of thetic constructions presented here draws on research into existential-presentative constructions in colloquial IH, viewing them as unipartite sentences. It will be proposed that what appears to be a VS structure should not be analyzed as a bipartite sentence where a verb (or predicate) is followed by a subject, but rather as a sentence consisting only of a predicate domain, which includes an essential predicative core in second position and an embedded initial component.
Referências
1. Abraham W. Preface: Traces of Bühler’s Semiotic Legacy in Modern linguistics. In: Bühler K. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Translated by Goodwin DF, in collaboration with Eschbach A. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2011, p. xiii-xlvii.
2. Abraham W. Introduction: What this volume is about. In: Abraham W, Leiss E, Fujinawa Y (eds.). Thetics and Categoricals. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2020, p. 1–10.
3. Abraham W. From Philosophical Logic to Linguistics: The Architecture of Information Autonomy: Categoricals vs. Thetics Revisited. In: Abraham W, Leiss E, Fujinawa Y (eds.), Thetics and Categoricals, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2020, p. 225–281.
4. Abraham W, Leiss E, Fujinawa Y (eds.).Thetics and Categoricals. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262; Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2020.
5. Baruch R. Existential Sentences in Modern Hebrew: Their Forms, Meaning and Usage. PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University; 2009. (Hebrew with English summary)
6. Becker I. It’s All About the Sentential Construction: Lexicalization of Complete Mono-clausal Sentences into Words – Evidence from Hebrew. STUD LANG 47/2, 2023, 463–504.
7. Benveniste É. Structure des relations de personne dans le verbe. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique 43/1, No. 126, 1946. = Problèmes de linguistique générale. I. Paris: Gallimard; 1966, ch. XVIII.
8. Bolinger DL. English Prosodic Stress and Spanish Sentence Order. Hispania 37/2, 1954, p. 152-156.
9. Bolinger DL. Intonation and Its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1989.
10. Bolozky S, Berman RA. Parts of Speech Categories in the Lexicon of Modern Hebrew. In: Berman RA (ed.), Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew: Background, Morpho-lexicon, and Syntax, (STUD LANG C, 210), Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2020, p. 265-330.
11. Borschev V, Partee BH. The Russian Genitive of Negation in Existential Sentences: The Role of Theme–Rheme Structure Reconsidered. In: Hajičová E, Sgall P, Hana J, Hoskovec T (eds.), Prague Linguistic Circle Papers, Vol. 4, (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague, n.s.), Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2002, p. 185-250.
12. Boumfeld N. Cleft Sentences in Spoken Hebrew. Hebrew Linguistics 72, 2018, p. 7-26. (Hebrew with English summary)
13. Brentano F. Psychology from an Empirical Point of View. Translated by Antos C. Rancurello, AC, Terrell, DB, McAlister LL, from Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt (1874, 1924); 1973, Sections V-IX.
14. Bühler K. Theory of Language: The representational function of language. Translated by Donald Fraser Goodwin, in collaboration with Achim Eschbach. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2011[11934].
15. Coffin EA, Bolozky S. Reference Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
16. Cornish F. L’absence de prédication, le topique et le focus : le cas des phrases ‘thétiques’. In: Jean-Marie Merle (ed.), La prédication. Faîtes de Langues 31-32, Paris: Ophrys; 2008, p. 121-131.
17. CoSIH. The Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew (CoSIH). <http://www.cosih.com/>.
18. Du Bois JW. Towards a dialogic syntax. COGN LINGUIST 25, 2014, p. 359-410.
19. Du Bois JW, Cumming S, Schuetze-Coburn S, Paolino D. Outline of Discourse Transcription. In: Edwards JA, Lampert MD (eds.). Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993, 45-89.
20. ELAN <https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan>
21. Eriksen PK, Kittilä S, Kolehmainen L. The World is Raining: Meteorological Predicates and Their Subjects in a Typological Perspective. In: Marja-Liisa Helasvuo ML, Huumo T (eds.), Subjects in Constructions – Canonical and Non-Canonical, (Constructional Approaches to Language, 16), Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2015, p. 205–228.
22. Espinal TM, Cyrino S. A Syntactically-Driven Approach to Indefiniteness, Specificity and Anti-Specificity in Romance. J LINGUIST 58, 2022, p. 535-570.
23. Frajzyngier Z. The de dicto domain in language. In: Traugott EC, Heine B.(eds.). Approaches to Grammaticalization. Volume 1. (Typological Studies in Language, 19:1.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins; 1991, p. 219-251.
24. Frajzyngier Z, Jasperson R. That-clauses and other complements. Lingua 83, 1991, p. 133-153.
25. Francez I. Existential propositions, PhD thesis, Stanford University, 2007.
26. García Macías JH. From the Unexpected to the Unbelievable: Thetics, Miratives and Exclamatives in Conceptual Space, PhD dissertation, University of New Mexico; 2016. <http://hdl.handle.net/1928/32294>
27. Gernsbacher MA, Hargreaves D. The Privilege of Primacy: Experimental Data and Cognitive Explanations. In: Doris L. Payne DL (ed.), Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility, (Typological Studies in Language, 22), Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins; 1992, p. 83-116.
28. Givón T. Topic, Pronoun, and Grammatical Agreement. In: Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, New York: Academic Press; 1976, p. 149-188.
29. Glinert L. The Grammar of Modern Hebrew, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.
30. Goldenberg G. Attribution in semitic Languages. In: Goldenberg G. Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings, Jerusalem: Magnes; 1998, p. 46-65.
31. Goldenberg G. On Verbal Structure and the Hebrew Verb. In: Goldenberg G. Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings, Jerusalem: Magnes; 1998, p. 148-197.
32. Goldenberg G. On Direct Speech and the Hebrew Bible. In: K. Jongeling, H. L. Murre, & van den Berg & L. van Rompay (eds.). Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Leiden: Brill, 1991, p. 79-96. = Gideon Goldenberg, Studies in Semitic Linguistics, Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998, 197-214.
33. Gross J, Millett AL, Bartek B, Bredell KH, Winegard B. Evidence for Prosody in Silent Reading, READ RES QUART 49/2, 2014, p. 189–208. Doi: 10.1002/rrq.67.
34. Halevy R. Syntax: Modern Hebrew. In: Khan G (ed.). Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill, 2013, vol. III, p. 707-722.
35. Halevy R. Non-Canonical ‘Existential-like’ Constructions in Colloquial Modern Hebrew. In: Ruchot T, Van Praet P (eds.). Atypical Predicate-Argument Relations, (Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa, 33), Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2016, p. 27–60.
36. Halevy R. Impersonal and Pseudo-Impersonal Constructions. In: Ruth A. Berman (ed.), Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew. Background, Morpho-lexicon, and Syntax, (STUD LANG C, 210), Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2020, p. 539-582.
37. Halevy R. The Existential Construction in Spoken Modern Hebrew: A Typological and Syntactical-Pragmatic Perspective. JoSS 11(00) 2022:e022005. <https://econtents.bc.unicamp.br/inpec/index.php/joss/article/view/17454>
38. Haspelmath M. Argument indexing: a conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms. In: Bakker D, Haspelmath M (eds.). Languages across Boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton; 2013, p. 197-224.
39. Hazout I. The Syntax of Existential Constructions. LINGUIST INQ 35/3, 2004, p. 393-430.
40. Herbart JF. Lehrbuch zur Einleitung in die Philosophie. Königsberg: Wilhelm Unzer, 1813.
41. Herbart JF. Lehrbuch zur Einleitung in die Philosophie. Fierte verbesserte und vermehrte Ausgabe. Königsberg: Wilhelm Unzer, 1837
42. Hirschberg J. Pragmatics and Intonation. In: Horn LR, Ward G (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics. (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics.) Malden, MA: Blackwel; 2004, p. 515-537.
43. Hoyt F. Impersonal Agreement as a Specificity Effect in Rural Palestinian Arabic. In: Parkinson DB, Benmamoun E (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XIII-XIV: Papers from the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Annual Symposia on Arabic Linguistics, (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV — Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 230), Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2002, p. 111-141.
44. Hoyt F. Specificity. In: Edzard L, de Jong RE (eds.), Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, Leiden: Brill; 2011. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1570-6699_eall_EALL_COM_0318>
45. Inbar A. Is Subordination Viable? The case of Hebrew ʃɛ ‘that’. Chimera 3/2, 2016. p. 287-310.
46. Inbar A. Subordination and Coordination? The functions of the particles še ‘that/which’ and ve ‘and’ in spontaneous Israeli Hebrew. PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University; 2019. (Hebrew with English summary)
47. Izre’el S. Basic Sentence Structure: A View from Spoken Israeli Hebrew. In: Caddéo S, Roubaud MN, Rouquier M, Sabio F (eds.) Penser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste. (Langues et langage, 20.) Aix-en-Provence: Presses Universitaires de Provence; 2012, p. 215-227.
48. Izre’el S. Unipartite Clauses: A View from Spoken Israeli Hebrew. In: Tosco M (ed.), Afroasiatic: Data and Perspectives, (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 339), Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2018, p. 235 – 259.
49. Izre’el S. Syntax, Prosody, Discourse and Information Structure: The Case for Unipartite Clauses; A View from Spoken Israeli Hebrew. RELIN 26/4, 2018, p. 1675-1726.
50. Izre’el S. The Syntax of Existential Constructions: The Spoken Israeli Hebrew Perspective, Part I: Existential-Presentative Constructions. JoSS 11, 2022. <https://doi.org/10.20396/joss.v11i00.16181>.
51. Izre’el S. The Syntax of Existential Constructions: The Spoken Israeli Hebrew Perspective, Part II: Negative Existential Constructions and Non-Presentative Uses of Existential Constituents. JoSS 11, 2022. <https://doi.org/10.20396/joss.v11i00.16183>.
52. Izre’el S. The Syntax of Presentative Constructions: The View from Colloquial Israeli Hebrew. In: Давидюк ТИ, Исаев ИИ, Мазурова ЮВ, Татевосов СГ, Федорова ОВ. (Ред.- сост.) Язык как он есть: Cборник статей к 60-летию Андрея Александровича Кибрика. Мockвa: Буки Веди; 2023, p. 121-128.
53. Izre’el S. Thetic Sentences and Syntactic Structure: What Can We Learn from Colloquial Israeli Hebrew? In: Nikolay Korotaev & Nina Sumbatova (eds.), Corpus Scientiae: Papers in Honor of Vera I. Podlesskaya, Moscow: Buki Vedi; 2024, p. 281-304. —— Russian title: Коротаев Н. А., Сумбатова Н. Р. (ред.) Состав науки: Сборник статей к юбилею Веры Исааковны Подлесской. М.: Буки-Веди.
54. Jenkins L. The English Existential, (Linguistische Arbeiten, 12), Tübingen: Niemeyer; 1975.
55. Kant I. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Neu herausgegeben von Theodor Valentiner, elfte, mit der zehnte gleichlautende AuflaAuflage = Sämtliche Werke, erster Band, Leipzig: Meiner; 1919 (11781).
56. Kant I. Critique of Pure Reason, (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant), translated and edited by Guyer P and Wood AW, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
57. Keisanen. T, Kärkkäinen E. Stance. In: Schneider KP, Barron A (eds.), Pragmatics of Discourse, (Handbooks of Pragmatics, 3), Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; 2014, p. 295-322.
58. Kibrik AA. Reference in Discourse, (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory) Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
59. Kibrik AA. Rethinking Agreement: Cognition-to-Form Mapping. COGN LINGUIST, 30/1, 2019, p. 37–83. <https://www.flf.vu.lt/dokumentai/kibrik_agreement_2019-1.pdf>
60. Koffka K. Principles of Gestalt Psychology, (The International Library of Psychology, 7) Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 1935 (repr. 1999).
61. Kogut S. On the Meaning and Syntactical Status of הִנֵּה [hinneh] in Biblical Hebrew. Scripta Hierosolymitana 31, 1986, p. 133-154.
62. Kuroda SY. The Categorical and the Thetic Judgment: Evidence from Japanese Syntax. FOUND LANG 9, 1972, p. 153-185.
63. Kuroda SY. Focusing on the Matter of Topic: A Study of wa and ga in Japanese. J EAST ASIAN LINGUIS 14, 2005, p. 1–58.
64. Kuzar R. Sentence Patterns in English and Hebrew, (Constructional Approaches to Language, 12), Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2012.
65. Kuzar, R. Nominalization: Modern Hebrew. In G. Khan (ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics Online. Brill; 2013. <https://doi.org/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_EHLL_COM_00000488>
66. Kwiatkowska A. Gestalt Principles in Linguistics. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis: Folia Linguistica 1997, p. 179-193. DOI: 10.18778/0208-6077.36.08
67. Ladusaw WA. Thetic and Categorical, Stage and Individual, Weak and Strong, in: Mandy H, Santelmann L (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV Ithaca, Cornell University Press, p. 220-229. <>semanticsarchive.net/Archive/2ExNzlkZ/ladusaw.salt4.pdf>
68. Lambrecht K. On the Status of SVO Sentences in French Discourse. In: Russel S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, (Typological Studies in language, 11), Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins; 1987, p. 217-261.
69. Lambrecht K. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. (Cambridge Studies in linguistics, 71.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
70. Lambrecht K. When Subjects Behave like Objects: An Analysis of the Merging of S and O in Sentence-Focus Constructions Across Languages. STUD LANG 24/3, 2000, p. 611-682.
71. Lambrecht K, Polinsky M. Typological Variation in Sentence-Focus Constructions. In: Kora Singer, Randall Eggert & Gregory Anderson (eds.), CLS 33: Proceedings from the Panels of the Chicago Linguistic Society's Thirty-third Meeting, April 17-19, 1997, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society; 1997, p. 189-206.
72. LaPolla RJ. Arguments for Seeing Theme-Rheme and Topic-Comment as Separate Functional Structures. In: JR Martin, YJ Doran, Figuedero G (eds.) Systemic Functional Language Description: Making Meaning Matter. London: Routledge, 2019, pp. 162-186.
73. Leipzig Glossing Rules <http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php>
74. Martin WM. Theories of Judgment: Psychology, Logic, Phenomenology, (Modern European Philosophy), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
75. Martin WM. Fichte’s Logical Legacy: Thetic Judgment from the Wissenschaftslehre to Brentano, in: Waibel VL, Breazeale D, Rockmore T (eds.), Fichte and the Phenomenological Tradition, Berlin: De Gruyter; 2010, p. 379-405.
76. Marty A. Gesammelte Schriften, II. Band, 1. Abteilung: Schriften zur deskriptiven Psychologie und Sprachphilosophie, Halle: Niemeyer; 1918.
77. Maschler Y. Word Order in Time: Emergent Hebrew (Ns)V/VNs Syntax. In: Arnulf Deppermann & Susanne Günthner (eds.), Temporality in Interaction, (Studies in Language and Social Interaction Series, 27), Amsterdam: Benjaminsl 2015, p. 201–236.
78. Maschler Y, Nir B. Complementation in Linear and Dialogic Syntax: The Case of Hebrew Divergently Aligned Discourse, COGN LINGUIST 25/3, 2014, p. 523-557.
79. Mathesius V. Functional Linguistics. In: Vachek J, Dušková L (eds.), Parguiana: Some Basic and Less Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistic School, (Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe, 12), Amsterdam: Benjamins; 1983, p. 121-142. [11929]
80. McNally L. Existential Sentences Crosslinguistically. ANNU REV LINGUIST 2, 2016, p. 211–231.
81. Melnik N. A Constructional Approach to Verb-Initial Constructions in Modern Hebrew. COGN LINGUIST 17/2, 2006, p. 153–198.
82. Melnik N. Agreement Alternations in Modern Hebrew. In: Ruth A. Berman (ed.), Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew: Background, Morpho-Lexicon, and Syntax, (STUD LANG C, 210), Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2020, p. 421-464.
83. Melnik N. Verb-Initial Constructions in Modern Hebrew. PhD dissertation, UC Berkeley; 2002.
84. Mettouchi A, Tosco M. Impersonal Configurations and Theticity: The Case of Meteorological Predications in Afroasiatic. In: Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal Constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2011, p. 307-323.
85. Miller-Naudé C, van der Merwe CHJ, הִנֵּה and Mirrativity in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew Studies 52, 2011, p. 53-81
86. Mithun M. Pronouns and Agreement: The Information Status of Pronominal Affixes. In: Brown D, Corbett G, Tiberius C (eds.), Agreement: A Typological Perspective, Special Volume of Transactions of the Philological Society, 101/2; 2003, p. 235-278.
87. Navon D. Forest Before Trees: The Precedence of Global Features in Visual Perception, COGNITIVE PSYCHOL 9, 1977, p. 353-383.
88. Navon D. The Forest Revisited: More on Global Precedence. Psychological Research 43, 1981, p. 1-32
89. Ozerov P. Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. J PRAGMATICS 138, 2018, 77-97.
90. Partee BH, Borschev V. The Semantics of Russian Genitive of Negation: The Nature and Role of Perspectival Structure. In: Kazuha Watanabe and Robert B. Young(eds.). Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications; 2004, p. 212–234.
91. Partee BH, Borschev V. Existential Sentences, Be, and the Genitive of Negation in Russian. In: Comorovski I, von Heusinger K (eds.), Existence: Semantics and Syntax. (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 84), Dordrecht: Springer; 2007, p. 147–190.
92. Partee BH, Borschev V, Paducheva E, Testelets Y, Yanovich I. The Role of Verb Semantics in Genitive Alternations: Genitive of Negation and Genitive of Intensionality, Oslo Studies in Language 4, 2012, p. 1–29
93. Payne DL (ed.), Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility, (Typological Studies in Language, 22), Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins; 1992.
94. Praat. <https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat>
95. Rollinger RD. Philosophy of Language and Other Matters in the Work of Anton Marty: Analysis and Translations, Amsterdam: Rodopi; 2010.
96. Rosén HB. Quelques phénomènes d'absence et de présence de l'accord dans la structure de la phrase en hébreu. Comptes rendus du groupe linguistique d'études chamito-sémitiques (G.L.E.C.S.) 10, 1965, p. 78-84
97. Rosén HB. Contemporary Hebrew, (Trends in Linguistics; State-of-the-Art Reports, 11), The Hague: Mouton; 1977.
98. Sasse HJ. The Thetic/Categorical Distinction Revisited, LINGUISTICS 25, 1987, p. 511–580. <https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511>
99. Sasse HJ. ‘Theticity’ and VS Order: A Case Study. STUF 48/1-2, 1995, p. 3-31.
100. Sasse HJ. Theticity. In: Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds.), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology; EUROTYP, 20-8), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2006, p. 255-308.
101. Sax DJ. Not Quite ‘Out of the Blue’? Towards a Dynamic, Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Thetic Sentences in English. In: Relevance Studies in Poland: Essays on language and communication, Volume 4; 2018, p. 24-53.
102. Schwarzwald OR. Modern Hebrew, (Languages of the World/Materials, 127), München: LINCOM Europa, 2001.
103. Shor L, Inbar, A. From Direct Evidentiality to Discursive Corroborative Evidence and Beyond: The Case of the Particle hine in Spoken Hebrew. Forthcoming.
104. Sornicola R. Theticity, VS Order and the Interplay of Syntax, Semantics and pragmatics, STUF 48/1-2, 1995, p. 72-83.
105. Sridhar, S. N., Cognition and Sentence Production: A Cross-Linguistic Study, (Springer Series in Language and Communication, 22), New York: Springer, 1988.
106. Talmy L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Volume I: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring, (Toward a cognitive semantics, 2), Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 2000.
107. Talmy L. Concept Structuring Systems in Language. In: Tomasello M (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, volume II. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum; 2003, p. 15-46.
108. Talmy L. A Taxonomy of Cognitive Semantics, Leiden: Brill; 2025.
109. Thompson SA. ‘Object Complements’ and Conversation: Towards a Realistic Account. STUD LANG 26, 2002, p. 125-164.
110. Tognini-Bonelli E. Corpus Linguistics at Work, (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 6), Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2001.
111. Sadka Y. Hinne in Biblical Hebrew. Ugarit Forschungen 33, 2001, p. 479-493.
112. Verhagen A. Construal and Perspectivization. In: Dirk Geeraerts D, Cuyckens H (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007, p. 48-81.
113. von Heusinger K. Indefiniteness and Specificity. In: Jeanette Gundel & Barbara Abbott (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reference, (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics), Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019, p. 146-167.
114. Wertheimer A. More Thoughts About Cleft Sentences. Hebrew Linguistics 49, 2001, 21-34. (Hebrew with English summary)
115. Wertheimer A. Cleft Sentences. In G. Khan (ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics Online. Brill. <https://doi.org/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_EHLL_COM_00000901>
116. Wilson DJ. The Thetic/Categorical Distinction as Difference in Common Ground Update: With Application to Biblical Hebrew. In: Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Yasuhiro Fujinawa (eds.), Thetics and Categoricals. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262), Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2020, p. 311–333.
117. Zimmerling AV. А.В. Циммерлинг, Линейно-акцентная грамматика и коммуникативно нерасчлененные предложения в русском языке (‘Linear-Accent Grammars and Thetic Sentences in Russian’), / А.В. Циммерлинг, AB, Лютикова EA (ред.), Архитектура клаузы в параметрических моделях, Москва: Языки славянской культуры, (Studia Philologica); 2016, p. 76-103.
118. Ziv Y. Selected Comment Expressions from CoSIH: Distribution, Functions and Analytical Challenges. In: Gonen E (ed.), Studies in Spoken Hebrew, (Te’uda, XXVII), Tel-Aviv University; 2016, 525-549. (Hebrew with English summary)
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Shlomo Izre'el