Langue de mouton en 2 lettres

cookiesinheaven.com livre Presses du l’Inalco TransAireS les Prédication existentielle dans... thé existential construction and ...

La Prédication existentielle dans les langues naturelles : valeurs und repérages, structures et modalités

|
*

This document highlights significativement properties of the existential construction in current talked Hebrew and shows that thé special morphosyntactic make‑up ns this restrictions is no restricted to a prééminence regarding existence, oui this notion is typically understood. The main argument of the paper is that auto fact that Hebrew is a language of artificial inflectional verb forms, whereby the subject is constantly incorporated into thé verb form, and thus does not require thé encoding of année expletive has tarif reaching repercussions for the analysis ns the atypical alignment of the construction at issue, and most crucially thé object‑like behavior and coding properties of the NP representing the entity whose survie (or occurrence) is asserted. Auto paper refutes auto view the this single thematic NP is a subject that is reanalyzed as an object, et offers a nouveau syntactic and pragmatic analysis pour the construction oui a whole, when providing an explanation for the dentrate for its patent alignment.

Vous lisez ce: Langue de mouton en 2 lettres


Le page s’attache à souligner les propriétés importantes des expression existentielles avec compétence employées en Hébreu parlé. Leur structure morphosyntaxique spécifiquement ne se réduction pas à cette d’une priorité rendant l’existence, telle qu’elle les notion est normalement comprise. L’argument nécessaire réside dans le à faire que l’Hébreu est ns langue au système verbal compilation flexionnel und que le sujet est toujours indiqué par la forme de verbe, ce qui fabriquer inutile l’encodage ns explétive et se faire répercute dessus l’analyse de plus longue portée du l’alignement atypique du la construction en question. Reconnaissance important encore est le fait que cest asserté objet qui indiqué le comportement et les attributs de l’entité à lintérieur l’existence (ou l’occurrence) dorient dénotée par ns NP. Recherche proposée refuser l’opinion fort laquelle cette seul NP thématique soit un matière revu prendre plaisir objet et offre d’un nouvelle analyse syntaxique und pragmatique aux la confinements prise dedans son ensemble, assez en fournissant une explication aux la motivation de son alignement atypique.


1 E.g., McNally, 2011, a.o. 2 Cf. Croft, 2001; Fillmore, 1988 ; Goldberg, 1995, a.o.

1The hatchet “existential sentence” is regularly used by scholars1 à refer to a specialized restrictions that expresses a proposition about the survie or presence ns someone jaune something. Pursuing incarcération Grammar,2 thé existential restrictions (henceforth ext) is viewed as a reconnaissance form‑meaning‑function unir that is no restricted venir a ceiling assertion du existence, but rather refers à a dedicated morphosyntactic restrictions built approximately a monovalent predicator, through which a discrepancy between thé grammatical form and the logical heureux is grammaticalized.


le 3 Sasse, 1987, p. 568 4 on the limites “thetic” vs. “categorical” see Lambrecht, 1987; Sasse, 1987, a.o.

2The linguistic and philosophical literary works subsumes ext sentences under thé category traditionally known as thetic. Sentences in thé thetic formats are event‑centric, in auto sense that auto utterance expressed reports an event or state du affairs which is perceived from without, as an undifferentiated unit. à quote Sasse3, “the thetic belles of declare is provided whenever thé speaker suspect that the hearer expects unitary informations to be given about thé whole instance in question.”4


5 Williams, 1984; Francez, 2007, 2009, a.o.

3The hallmark of a la phrase in auto “thetic‑format” is the absent of auto basic relier between subject and predicate. In our case, the entity or the individual around which there is an assertion of existence, presence jaune occurrence (hereafter e‑np)—defined by some scholars ont the pivot5—is no in auto default position of a topic. It means that auto e‑np, which is the seul obligatory design template in the construction (in auto sense that the la phrase would no be substantial without it), go not jouer the role of a “predication base” (hypokeimenon, subiectum). Année additional modifying phrase such ont a locative phrase, likewise termed ont coda, is discovered in auto ext, marqué its existence is not requested in all circumstances. The henchmen contention du this examine is that auto ext does not involve an loi of predication, in thé sense de a semantic relier between a subject et a predicate.6 In divers words, sentences in the ext do not ajuster into a ordinaire thematic pattern consisting of a predicate and argument(s), hence thé thematic et syntactic status of its e‑np appear venir be problematic. Thé present study says that thé syntactic and semantic charpente of the ext is not subject to thé decompositional mechanisms employed in a continual predication. Instead, cette is suggested to interpret it ont one bloquer predication.7 In quel follows, I demonstrate that the idiosyncrasy de the ext start from auto fact that it integrates its unités into une “block predication,” both conceptually and structurally.8


4On a moyennant with this assumption, this study seeks to support that the e‑np does not jouer in the incarcération at stake a duty of année argument de any sort, rather it is à be interpreted as an integral part de the predication oui a whole. In mh, ont in plenty of languages worldwide, as cognitive a form‑meaning‑function unit, thé ext incarcération allows pour a vast range of other readings as well as bare assertion ns existence.


9 Borschev & Partee, 2002, 2007.

5Sentences in auto ext invoke a holistic, calendrier interpretation de activities in a given space. The participation in the event of individual entities that are frequently in a position de a topic, jaune in terms ns “perspectival structure”9—the personnage (or “primary figure”), is backgrounded, and viewed ont part of the ground. Furthermore, in most de the boîte the e‑np is not discussed again in auto discourse. Thus, based on discourse useful considerations, ce seems that there is little appui to analysis this element ont an s. But, then, is ce to be analyzed ont an o or, diachronically, as an s that became an o? thé present inspection aims venir cope with this controversial issue.


10 on the problematic concept of “markedness” view Haspelmath, 2006.

6Apparently, in most cases the ext has an unmarked or rather “less marked”10 counterpart in the plain “categorical format” that provides a similar propositional meaning. Nevertheless, there room subtle distinctions between the ext and its alternates in the plain restrictions that derive not seul from their morphosyntactic properties cible also from your compositional meaning, information structure et the perspectival de construction according à which the event is presented. However, it is important to store in mental that thé ext may in some boîte have no plain alternant, or the alternant may role in a complete different meaning. Finally, ce is amazing to noter that, respond to to the common intuition, in many des boites in voluntarily oral fabrication of mh conférencier employ the ext as the unmarked or default option, while the “plain” construction is considered as the “more marked” option.


11 Cf. Givón, 1990, I, p. 380; II, pp. 743‑744. 12 Cf. Mikkelsen, 2002

7Across many languages there is a dispute between the syntactic “default rules” du the language and the meaning et function de the ext. In mh and in numerous European languages the e‑np seems venir fluctuate between an S and an O. Furthermore, both synchronically and diachronically, auto ext exhibits inconsistency and instability in state of case marking, verb agreement, et in configurational language (prototypically English) in terms ns word‑order, et in a num of languages additionally in terms of pronominalization. Parce que le example, in English, like in mh, there is variability in commitment control—that in défaut English covenant is shown while in colloquial usage ce tends à be ignored.11 à la example, there room some difficulties versus there’s some difficulties. In colloquial English in presentational constructions, the e‑np pouvez feature in auto acc, nevertheless seulement un in human being pronominal, à la example, “There’s him, et there’s you et me” (Bolinger, 1977, p. 116). Variability and inconsistency may be encountered also in cognate languages. Compare, à la example, the difference in human being pronominal case‑marking of the e‑np in Danish versus Swedish.12


(1a) Dan. Der via kun hende.acc hjemme
(1b) Swed. Det var bara (*henne.acc) hon.nom hemma
  There was only sa at home.

8Presumably, a bare ext analysis is more frequently accessible with weak referents (non‑salient et non‑affected), while v definite nps ce lends itself to a presentational jaune locative reading, ont well ont various thetic‑eventive readings that space structured like auto ext or attracted into auto ext as a highly fertile schema.


13 Cf. Lambrecht, 1994, 2000.

9In exploring auto mh ext, auto informational structure13 et the speaker’s perspectival choice with respect to the setting of the event jaune state room equally taken into consideration.


10The henn questions addressed here are: the dentrate for the discrepancy tolerated between thé syntactic “default rules” of mh language and the meaning and function ns the ext construction and its type‑shifting instances (equivalent to there‑constructions in european languages); the “coercive force” de the ext; the construction‑specific status ns the e‑np et its patent behavioural and coding properties.14


11After having actually introduced the ext in mh et spelling the end the henchmen questions ns the current study, section 2 delineates the defining structural et discourse practical properties de the construction, with some to compare with thé semantically equivalents in diriger European languages. Taking the constructionist‑based approach, section 3 demonstrates thé “coercive force” of the ext and reveals that inconsistency in talked language. Section 4 constitutes the heart of the paper. Ce discusses thé properties de the ext from the typological perspective, information structure and perspectival structure, if proposing a an extensive explanation to auto overall form‑meaning of the construction. Section 5 concludes and summarizes thé main reprendre of auto paper.

2. The ext et ext‑poss build in present‑day Hebrew

2.1. The typological perspective


15 Gast & Haas, 2011.

12Before order out auto properties ns the mh ext, including auto ext‑poss ont its subtype, it is de nombreux to distinguish in between “thetic‑XV languages” and “thetic‑V1 languages.”15 The former (e.g., French, English et other germanic languages) require an expletive/proform (X) in initiale position (e.g., there is/are; es gibt; il y a), while thé later, namely languages of the “thetic‑V1” type, such oui Hebrew et Romance languages except French, aller not require auto occurrence of an expletive/proform to fulfill the s position.16


13Being a artificial inflectional langue Hebrew does no require the encoding of année overt, independent, s constituent that syntactically, though no pragmatically, is appositional à the s morpheme incorporated into thé finite verb form.17 par contrast, in analytic inflectional languages favor French, English and Germanic languages, a non‑referential s placeholder have to be codé to satisfy the verbal analytic de construction requirement. Consider the following instances from mh and Spanish, both representing “thetic‑V1” language (though, uneven Hebrew, Spanish habere exts never ever exhibit thé acc preposition a):18


(2a) haya ‘az gam "et ha‑milxam‑ot še‑yeš hayom
  be.pst.3sg then also acc def‑warf.pl that‑ext today
(2b) hubo3sg entonces también las guerrasf.pl que también ou hoy (S. Nemirovsky)

14Conversely, consider the following from colloquial mh vs. That is parallels in “thetic‑XV” languages choose German, Swedish et French, in i m sorry a identify np is infelicitous in “there‑construction”:

(3a) yarad "et ha‑me"a dollar me‑ha‑xešbon šeli !
  drop.pst3.m.sg acc def‑hundred dollar from‑def account mine
  (Those) hundred sombre were withdrawn from ma account !
(3b) Es wurde (?die/diese) hundert dollar von meinem Konto abgezogen !
(3c) Det avdrogs (?dessa) hundra dollars från mitt konto !
(3d) Il était dépouillé (?les/?ces) de cent dollars de mon compte!

19 Milsark, 1974; Keenan, 2003; Leonetti, 2008, a.o.

15The abovementioned examples sustain auto assumption that auto typological distinction between “thetic‑V1” et “thetic‑XV” language is fundamental, particularly when trying à account pour the alleged restriction conditions météorologiques the occurrence of definite nps in ext et other “there‑constructions,” which is recognized in auto literature oui the “Definiteness Effect.”19


2.2. Properties de the EXT construction in current Hebrew


16Let us now probe into the mh ext in stimulate to meilleur understand how the practical demands dispute with construction default rules of agreement control et case marking. Oui already checked out in (2), auto ext consists du a specialized ext predicator yeš (neg. "en) “there‑is” (is not),20 inflected in past et future time form in auto invariable, non‑referential 3m.sg ns the verb haya “be,” followed de the e‑np (by default in postposition). When thé e‑np wake up in the definite or pronominal form it is marked passant par the dom "et21 together ignoring agreement control. Parce que le example:


(4) Q. yeš "et ha‑pasta me‑"etmol?
    ext acc def‑pastaf.sg from‑yesterday?
    Is there (still) the pasta native yesterday?
  A. lo. "en. haya "ota "ad ha‑boker.
    no. neg.ext be.pst.3m.sg acc‑pro3f.sg until def‑morning
    No, there’s not. Cette was (there) until this morning

17That is, the grammaticalized pattern ns the mh ext is 22, where sø stands parce que le the invariable, non‑referential s incorporated into the verb form.


18To marque possession, Hebrew employs a restrictions equivalent venir the french être à, comprised du yeš (neg. "en) and auto possessor introduced de the datil clitic l‑ + the possessed marked par dom "et (if definite), for example: 

(5) yeš l‑i "et ha‑sefer šelxa ba‑bayit
  ext to‑me acc def‑book yoursm.sg in.def‑home
  I oui your book at home

19In auto marked word‑order, whereby the e‑np is thematized, acc "et particle is nonetheless inserted antérieur à the np, as in:

(6) rak "et ha‑ma"amar‑im be‑"anglit "od "en l‑i
  only acc def‑articlem.pl in‑English still neg.ext
  It is seulement un the article in English that je don’t have yet’.

20All auto more so, acc "et can optionally precede complementizer phrases, ont in:

(7) kše‑higa"‑nu kvar lo haya "et ma še‑ratsi‑nu
  when‑arrive.pst1pl already not pst3m.sg acc what that want pst1.pl
  When we arrived, there currently wasn’t noþeles left ns what we wanted

21Apparently, flagging the sole subject np by the acc is anomalous, ont the auto ext is available seul with monovalent predicators. In différent words, inasmuch as the e‑np go not role in the discourse ont the aspect whose referent the predication is about, or regarding which auto hearer’s knowledge is increased, over there is no dentrate for that is indexing conditions météorologiques the verb.


24 cible see on this controversial issue, Ziv, 1982a et 1982b.

22Regarding je vous demande pardon is known as the “Definitness Effect,” as already it was observed in (3), compared venir many du sae language mh seems venir be much more permissive in this respect.23 definite nps space not fully excluded from the construction, despite ostensibly they cannot be shown with strong quantified nouns, ont is the caisse with salient s entities.24 Consider the following utterance adduced indigenous a dialoguées in a medical clinic:


(8) yeš rak "et Sarah (ve‑gamar‑nu le‑hayom)
  ext only acc Sarah (and‑finish pst1pl for‑today)
  There is seul Sarah (left) (and nous are done for today).

23This utterance is no a explain about the particular human referent Sarah, rather ce provides a pièce of information about a instance that is believed à be unknown to thé hearer.25 In divers words, thé e‑np go not ont to it is in new, oui it is not thé speaker’s intent to present it oui a topic, but rather ont part du the new informations conveyed passant par the entire predication.


24The same is true pour pronominalization. While pronouns referring to auto e‑np are enabled in English and other german languages only on a limité scale, substantially when auto pronoun refers à a human referent, alongside optionally agreeing with the verb to be, mh is much much more permissive in this respect, as shown in the following:

(9) Q. "efo yeš "et ha‑sefer šelo?
    where ext acc def‑book his?
    Where can ns find his book?
  A. yeš "oto ba‑sifriya
    ext acc.pro3m.sg in.def‑library
    You can find cette in thé library

25A more hybrid alignment peut faire recur in spontaneous usage of mh, by which agreement between auto verb and the e‑np is obtained, if at thé same time acc "et is put in front du the e‑np (if definite), oui in:

(10) "aval hay‑u gam "et "ele še‑lo hiskim‑u "it‑a
  but be.pst3pl also acc those that‑not agree.pst3.pl with‑her
  But there were additionally those who did no agree with her

26Incongruent covenant between thé verb and the e‑np ont in (10) above, have the right to be accounted for oui attraction of agreement by a non‑s constituent, in our boîte the e‑np.26 that is, in together cases, auto NP attracts agreement even though ce does no behave oui a full‑fledged S. However, according to thé view being progressed here, this does not seem to change the reality that thé e-np is no understood ont an S, as also from the speaker’s perspectival choice is venir not foreground it is as the “primary figure.”


27It is below the place to remarque that in current talked Hebrew, variability and inconsistency, et in some boîte hesitation from auto part of the speaker, are commonly part of the encoding du the ext, and especially its “type‑shifting instances” who uttering is much less conventionalized in comparison to that ns the ext type‑construction. This truth seems venir prove that speakers en regardant the structuring de the ext ont pragmatically conditioned. Much more will it is in said on this later (cf. infra).


27 This restrictions is already attested in so late BH, e.g., EST. 3: 8.

28Another construction, common in mh, built likewise around verboid yeš, yet not inflected parce que le the future and past tenses, wake up in a complicated form with a tied pronoun in auto third human being that agrees with auto post‑positional e‑np, and thus closer to an O than venir an S,27 à la example:


(11) yeš‑nam šinuy‑im ba‑toxnit
  ext‑pro3m.pl changem.pl in.def‑program
  There are transforms in auto program’.

29This construction is puzzling ne sont pas less than auto ext type‑construction under discussion. Thé reason parce que le that is that auto e‑np is construed in thé indefinite form, while the bound pronoun, i m sorry is attached à yeš, is coreferential to the e‑np. All the much more so, in accordance with thé perspectival structure and the personally meaning de the in its entirety construction, in thé neg.ext "en “(there) is not,” the preference in current talked Hebrew is virtually exclusively pour third person. Thus, strikingly, in (12) below, a contradiction between tons person singular "ani, et third human singular in the neg.ext bound kind "enena (“is not‑pro3f.sg”) is created:

(12) tagid še‑"ani "ene‑na
  sayfut2sg.m that‑I neg.ext‑pro3f.sg
  Say (tell him/her) the I être not here.

30A special confinements emerged in mh in a tell-tale function. This context‑restricted construction in patterned in thé form du hayo haya + np “once there was an np” (lit. be was a np), i m sorry is comprised ns a “tautological infinitive” expression that intensifies the verb haya “be” (i.e., thé infinitive absolute de the verb is reduplicated passant par the inflected verb form) et followed by an e‑np, as in:

(13) hayo haya dayag "ani
  be be.pst3m.sg fisherman poor
  Once there to be a negative fisherman.

31However, unfortunately, these variants of the ext, briefly introduced, space beyond the scope du the current study.

3. Ext‑like constructions in colloquial mh
28 Croft, 2001; Fillmore, 1988; Goldberg, 1995; a.o. 31 Cf. Kuzar, 2012, pp. 103‑114, 117‑179.

32In heat with confinements Grammar, a construction is suspect here to be a form/meaning‑function complex.28 ce is additional assumed that thé formal meaning of a construction oui a totality can modify, and even override, auto composite denotation ns its specific instantiation. Hence, ont a highly fertile schema, the ext exerts the coercive force ns sentences that aller not have to assert survie or survie of possession in thé literal sense.29 the coercive forces of the type‑construction transforms the argument structure du the type‑shifting instances, causing a co‑composition du the lexical meaning of the verb et the whole structural meaning of the construction. Through metaphorical/structural expansion “being in a location” peut être be interpreted as “being in some state,” or “occurring in some spatiotemporal region;” de the same token, “being in someone’s possession” may extend to “being in auto speaker’s (or an observer’s) perceptual field.”30 In such type‑shifting instances there is an expansion ns the ext meaning ns the confinements to represent occurrence et disappearance, (in)sufficiency, commencement and termination du a situation, informative statements including impersonal passives, statements ns desired state of affairs, and more.31


33In current spoken Hebrew, thé expanded uses of the ext are construed from a similar perspective, centering on the event jaune state as a whole, and manifest a comparable putative mismatch between grammatical relations, structure positions, et case‑marking. Ont seen in auto following:

(14) niš"ar raq "et ha‑ "uga
  remain.pst3m.sg only acc def‑cakef.sg
  There’s seul the cake left.
(15) rašum kan "et kol ha‑prat‑im?
  writtenm.sg here acc all def‑detailm.pl?
  All the details room written down here?
(16) lo mofia l‑i "et h a‑ktovet šelo
  not appearm.sg l‑i to‑me acc def‑addressf.sg his
  I don’t check out his address’ parent address (it does no appear venir me).
(17) betax kore "et ha‑ta"ut ha‑zot le‑harbe
  surely happenm.sg acc def‑errorf.sg def‑thisf.sg to‑many
  For sure this happens to many (people).
(18) yatsa "et ze be‑miqre
  come.out.pst3m.sg acc it by‑accident
  It happened passant par accident.
(19) yeš ne mal‑im ba‑gina. male "otan be‑kol pina
  ext antf.pl in.def garden full(of) acc‑pro 3f.pl in‑every corner
  There room ants in the garden. They are everywhere/in every corner (lit. It is full of them) 
(20) magia l‑o "et ha‑matana ha‑zot
  arrive3m.sg to‑him acc def‑presentf.sg def‑thisf
  He deserves this present.

34And strikingly:

(21) ba‑sof nolad l‑a bat
  in.def‑end born3m.sg to‑her girl
  Eventually she had a girl.

35The atypical acc flagging de the single thematic participants is all‑pervasive in dental elicitation ns mh, particularly in anaphoric and deictic forms, alongside neutralization du agreement, parce que le example:

(22) haya "et ze gam ba‑bayit šelanu
  be.pst3m.sg acc this/it also in.def‑house ours
  It was additionally in our house.

36Turning now to auto analysis de the mh grammaticalized ext, I will elaborate conditions météorologiques factors beyond syntax that interact in the structuring and meaning and function de the ext.

4. Abordage

37Our analysis takes oui its starting mission the theory that auto hybrid alignment of the ext, crucially thé acc flagging ns the sole thematic np, is périmé to discourse useful considerations and not à any formal jaune semantic requirement. In other words, cette is affected par information de construction (the np is non‑topic) et perspectival structure.

38Clearly, insofar as the ext denotes an “instatiation” jaune state of affairs, fairly than an activity, there is no détratter for referring to any specific individual. Formally, this is shown up in mh par uttering thé verb in thé neutral, invariable 3m.sg form. Furthermore, passant par cancelling the canonical bipartite division of the sentence into subject/topic and predicate/comment, a problem is produced between auto formal demands ns agreement and case marking et the sensible demands.


39However, while auto “hybrid alignment” ns the ext type‑construction has more jaune less conventionalized in standard mh,32 inconsistency is most generally detected in spontaneous fabrication of ext‑like constructions. Intuitions about when to flag thé sole subject np de particle "et alongside override agreement vary greatly amongst speakers and depend on the register and type ns the property involved. Cette is significativement to souligner here the genuine habitent objects à faire not display screen in défaut mh such inconsistency.


34 Halevy, 2007, 2013: § 16.

40In countless languages case markers are employed no only à la formal reasons, marqué also parce que le semantic and pragmatic reasons. Furthermore, ce is not coincidental that languages vary as to what boîte they assign to grammatical relations in non‑canonical positions. I contend that thé reason why the e‑np in the incarcération under examination is flagged passant par the acc lies in auto fact that ce is thé default overtly coded boîte in Hebrew pour marking non‑s ingredient (as is probably true à la other nom‑acc languages wherein the amortissement is zero coded).33 toutes les personnes the much more so, in both classical and mh, particle "et is to work in various functions, not only as a dom, notably for deploying an intensive, or all‑inclusive et holistic effect.34 pour the sake du brevity, cette would suffice to citation the following instances from colloquial mh:


(23) halax‑nu "et kol Manhattan ba‑regel
  walk.pst1.pl acc all Manhattan by.def‑foot
  We go toutes les personnes Manhattan passant par foot.
(24) tsarax‑nu "et ha‑xayim šel‑ anu (www.nana10.co.il/)
  scream.pst1.pl acc def‑life ours
  We yelled choose mad’ (lit. Conditions météorologiques screamed ours lives).

41Given the observation above, I argue that auto e‑np the signifies the seul obligatory participant, albeit a non‑salient et non‑affected entity, is venir be regarded as a clause‑internal constituent. Respond to to the more usual view, predominantly regarding auto parallel incarcération in sae,35 i beg your pardon is biased passant par the position ns the e‑np in the linear ordering du the sentence, I contend that auto e‑np in auto mh restrictions is not an s that came to be an o. In fact, I argue that it is neither s nor o. I suggest thé following scenario: speakers de mh combine high degree du referentiality and individuation with usual properties du subjetcs, as such they feel that they need to explicitly marque this sole obligatory np that, against our expectations, is designating a non‑s constituent. In sum: the dentrer behind divesting the e‑np ns the status du agreement controller, alongside flagging it passant par the acc,36 derive from the need to emplacement its referent in the discourse in together a method that cette does not coincide with the non‑referential s integrated into thé verb form. Undoubtedly, this marking strategy is invoked passant par the typology of Hebrew ont a “thetic‑V1” language et by the fact that the s morpheme is ont a régner couched in thé verb form, contrary venir “thetic‑XV” language where ns must be codé separately, also when it qualifies ont a “dummy‑s.”


42As to thé structural position ns the e‑np, I am reluctant venir account for it in terms ns “subject inversion,” ont often subsumed about its parallel in europe languages. Such an account is not feasible parce que le mh parce que le the following reasons: svo is not a intenté word‑order in mh;37 Hebrew discerns grammatical functions passant par morphology (viz. Agreement, case/clitics) quite than positionally, through word‑order, as is typical in configurationally sae languages.


43In conclusion, while being morphosyntactically realized, auto ext is pragmatically determined. Follow me these lines, I suggest to regard the anomalous acc marking ns the e‑np ont a device for marking a pragmatic inverse.

5. Conclusion

44The category ns exts has been identified based on structural et functional, fairly than semantic, notions.

Voir plus: 'Femmes Africaines Bagarre De Filles Aux Usa, Bagarre Entre Femmes

45Being a very productive construction the ext contributes that is schematic meaning to a vast range ns sentence types that instantiate it, et go beyond thé meanings contributed par their components. Thé “coerced” sentences ns the mh restrictions include statements ns occurrence, subjective states, modal‑evaluative perspectives, oui well oui a subset de impersonal passive constructions involving verbs denoting undlion of information. However, conversely, in étendard mh the formal encoding de the ext is relatively conventionalized, this is not the caisse in oral spontaneous production, especially in uttering the “coerced” instances of auto ext wherein variability and inconsistency, depending to a large extent nous the speaker’s intuition, are frequently detected. The variability and inconsistency in auto alignment du the ext confinements suggest that cette is anchored in discourse and speakers’ perspectival selections rather than in grammar.

46It was argued that in dealing with auto atypical properties of the ext it is essential to pour analyse them in relation to auto semantic and pragmatic value de the construction, oui well ont in accordance with auto language‑specific grammaticalization path de the clause type oui a whole.

47I challenged auto view according to which thé e‑np is an s that ended up being an o. Instead, I proposed that, synchronically, cette is venir be treated oui a non‑argumental structure that attributes as an internal part de the “block predication.”

48As to thé puzzling flagging de the e‑np, ce was ascribed to thé function ns the acc in mh as the default overtly coded case, and, subsequently, auto default choice for identifying et distinguishing non‑s constituents, crucially when presented in auto definite form. From the discourse‑functional perspective, ce was suggested to regard the atypical acc flagging oui a device à la divesting thé non‑topical and backgrounded e‑np from auto non‑referential s included into the verb form. Ce was said that use this strategy parce que le marking a “pragmatic inverse” is instigated par the typology of Hebrew as a “thetic‑V1” language.

49Ultimately, ce can be posited that the “hybrid alignment” ns the ext corresponds to thé meaning et function of the construction and does not contradict it.


Bentley Delia, Ciconte Francesco Maria & Cruschina Silvio, 2015, Existentials and Locatives in romance Dialects du Italy, Oxford university Press, Oxford, 331 p.

Bolinger Dwight L., 1977, Meaning et Form, Longman (coll. English langue Series), London & New York, 212 p.

Borschev Vladimir & Partee Barbara H., 2002, “The Russian Genitive de Negation : Theme-Rheme structurellement or aspect Structure?” in Journal of Slavic Linguistics, no 1/2, vol. 10, pp. 105‑144.

Borschev Vladimir & Partee Barbara H., 2008, “Existential Sentences, BE, et the Genitive of Negation in Russian” in Comorovski Ileana & Heusinger Klaus von (eds.), Existence: Semantics et Syntax, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 147‑190.

Creissels Denis, 2009, “Uncommon Patterns ns Core ax Marking et Case Terminology” in Lingua, no 3, vol. 119, pp. 445‑459, DOI : 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.007.

Croft William, 2001, Radical restrictions Grammar: Syntactic concept in Typological Perspective, Oxford university Press, Oxford & New York, 416 p.

Faarlund Jan Terje, 1998, « L’actance dans esquive langues germaniques » in Feuillet Jack (dir.), Actance et Valence dans esquive langues du l’Europe, Mouton aux Gruyter, Berlin & New York, p. 789‑809.

Fillmore Charles, 1988, “The Mechanism of Construction” in Proceedings ns the Fourteenth Annual conférence of the Berkeley etymological Society, University ns Berkeley, Berkeley, pp. 35‑55.

Francez Itamar, 2007, Existential Propositions, Stanford University, Stanford, 151 p.

Francez Itamar, 2009, “Existentials, Predication, et Modification” in Linguistics et Philosophy, no 1, vol. 32, pp. 1‑50, DOI : 10.1007/s10988-009-9055-4.

Gast Volker & Haas Florian, 2011, “On the livré of subject Properties in Formulaic Presentationals de Germanic et Romance: A Diachronic-Typological Approach”, in Malchukov Andrej & Siewierska Anna (eds.), Impersonal Constructions: A cross linguistic perspective, john Benjamins publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 127‑166, DOI : 10.1075/slcs.124.05gas.

Givón Talmy, 2001, Syntax: année Introduction, vol. I, john Benjamins, Amsterdam, 500 p.

Goldberg Adele E., 1995, Constructions: A confinements Grammar technique to discuter Structure, University du Chicago Press, Chicago, 265 p.

Goldenberg Gideon, 1998, “On verbal Structure et the Hebrew Verb” in Goldenberg Gideon (ed.), Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings, Magness Press, Jerusalem, pp. 148‑196.

Goldenberg Gideon, 2006, “On grammar Agreement et Verb-Initial Sentences” in Borbone Pier Gorgio, Mengozzi Alessandro & Tosco Mauro (eds.), Loquentes linguis: Studi etymological e asian in onore tous Fabrizio A. Pennacchetti, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, pp. 329-335.

Goldenberg Gideon, 2013, Semitic Languages: Features, Structures, Relations, Processes, Oxford university Press, Oxford, 363 p.

Gundel Jeanette K., 1988, “Universals ns Topic-comment Structure” in Hammond Michael, Moravcsik Edith A. & Wirth Jessica (eds.), Studies in construction Typology, homme Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 209‑239, DOI : 10.1075/tsl.17.16gun.

Halevy Rivka, 2007, “Transitive verb With ne sont pas Accusative Alternation in Hebrew : Cross langue Comparison v English, German and Spanish” in Delbecque Nicole & Cornillie Bert (eds.), Trends in Linguistics—On Interpreting construction Schemas, from mouvement and Motion venir Transitivity et Causality, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin & New York, pp. 61‑102.

Halevy Rivka, 2013, “Syntax: modern Hebrew” in Khan Geoffrey (ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, Brill, Leiden, pp. 707‑723.

Haspelmath Martin, 1998, “How jeune is standard Average European?” in Language Sciences, no 3, vol. 20, pp. 271‑287, DOI : 10.1016/S0388-0001(98)00004-7.

Haspelmath Martin, 2006, “Against Markedness (and What venir Replace it With)” in Journal of Linguistics, no 1, vol. 42, pp. 25‑70.

Hazout Ilan, 2004, “The Syntax ns Existential Constructions” in Linguistic Inquiry, no 35/3, pp. 493-430.

Henkin Roni, 1994, “Yeš bête ’et ze ” in Balshanut Ivrit, no 38, pp. 41‑54.

Keenan Edward L., 2003, “The critical Effect : Semantics or Pragmatics ?” in Natural langue Semantics, no 2, vol. 11, pp. 187‑216, DOI : 10.1023/A:1024400425028.

Kuzar Ron, 2012, Sentence patterns in English and Hebrew, homme Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 254 p.

Lambrecht Knud, 1987, “Sentence Focus, information Structure, et the Thetic Categorical Distinction” in The annual Proceedings ns the Berkeley linguistics Society, vol. 13, pp. 366‑382, DOI : 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1800.

Lambrecht Knud, 2000, “When topics Behave like Objects: an Analysis ns the Merging of S and O in Sentence-Focus Constructions throughout Languages” in Studies in Language, no 3, vol. 24, pp. 611‑682, DOI : 10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam.

Langacker Ronald W., 1987, Foundations of cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford university Press, Stanford, 516 p.

Langacker Ronald W., 1993, “Universals du Construal” in The annual Proceedings du the Berkeley grammars Society, no 1, vol. 19, pp. 447‑463, DOI : 10.3765/bls.v19i1.1532.

Lauwers Peter & Willems Dominique, 2011, “Coercion: Definition and Challenges, current Approaches, et New Trends” in Linguistics, no 6, vol. 49, pp. 1219‑1235, DOI : 10.1515/ling.2011.034.

Lazard Gilbert, 1994, « L’actant H : sujet hay objet ? » in Bulletin aux la société de linguistique de Paris, no 1, vol. 89, p. 1‑28, DOI : 10.2143/BSL.89.1.2013024.

Leonetti Manuel, 2008, “Definiteness Effects and the Role ns the Coda in existential Constructions” in Müller Henrik Høeg & Klinge Alex (eds.), Essays conditions météorologiques Nominal Determination, john Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 131‑162.

Malchukov Andrej L. & Ogawa Akio, 2011, “Towards a Typology de Impersonal Constructions. A Semantic Map Approach” in Malchukov Andrej L. & Siewierska Anna (eds.), Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, john Benjamins posting Company, Amsterdam, pp. 19‑56, DOI : 10.1075/slcs.124.02mal.

McNally Louise, 2011, “Existential Sentences” in Maienborn Claudia, Heusinger Klaus von & Portner Paul (eds.), Semantics: an International Handbook ns Natural language Meaning, vol. 2, Mouton du Gruyter, Berlin & Boston, pp. 1829‑1848.

Mikkelsen Line, 2002, “Reanalyzing the Definiteness Effect: proof from Danish” in Working files in Scandinavian Syntax, no 65, pp. 11‑75.

Milsark Gary Lee, 1974, Existential sentence in English, Ph.D Thesis, MIT, Cambridge, 260 p.

Sasse Hans-Jürgen, 1987, “The Thetic/Categorical limites Revisited” in Linguistics, no 3, vol. 25, pp. 511‑580, DOI : 10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511.

Taube Moshe, 2015, “The usual Suspects: Slavic, Yiddish, et the accusation Existentials et Possessives in modern Hebrew” in Journal de Jewish Languages, no 1‑2, vol. 3, pp. 27‑37, DOI : 10.1163/22134638-12340035.

Traugott Elizabeth Closs, 2007, “The concept of Constructional Mismatch and Type‑Shifting from thé Perspective du Grammaticalization” in Cognitive Linguistics, no 4, vol. 18, pp. 523‑557, DOI : 10.1515/COG.2007.027.

Williams Edwin, 1984, “There-Insertion” in Linguistic Inquiry, no 1, vol. 15, pp. 131‑153.

Ziv Yael, 1982a, “Another look at at Definites in Existential” in Linguistics, no 18, pp. 73‑88.

Voir plus: Comment Supprimer Autre Sur Iphone ? Iphone : Comment Supprimer Le Stockage Autre

Ziv Yael, 1982b, “On soja Called Existentials: A Typological Problem” in Lingua, no 56, pp. 261‑281.