Abstract

This paper examines the distribution of Modern Hebrew semantic drifts across four diatheses (voices): transitives, unaccusatives (anticausatives), adjectival (stative) passives, and verbal (eventive) passives. A quantitative survey of dictionaries reveals a discrepancy between these diatheses: Only transitives, unaccusatives, and adjectival passives can give rise to unique semantic drifts, unshared with their related root counterparts, while verbal passives cannot. A corpus- based study shows that frequency is unable to account for this finding; nor can approaches demarcating a syntactic domain for special meanings. I propose that semantic drifts are stored as subentries of the entries from which they evolved, as long as the drift’s frequency remains smaller than or equal to that of the original entry. Once the drift’s frequency greatly surpasses that of the original entry, it is stored as an independent lexical entry. In light of that, I suggest that predicates giving rise to unique semantic drifts have to constitute lexical entries. It thus follows that transitives, unaccusatives, and adjectival passives are formed and listed in the lexicon, while verbal passives are not. Consequently, the lexicon is argued to function as an active (operational) component of the grammar, contra syntacticocentric approaches.

Highlights

  • Recent decades have witnessed an increasing interest in special meanings in the context of grammatical theory (e.g., Fillmore et al 1988; Jackendoff 1997; Horn 2003; Harley 2012; Vietri 2014; Schröder 2015; Horvath & Siloni 2017)

  • Horvath & Siloni (2009; 2019) and Fadlon et al (2018) report the results of quantitative surveys focusing on sets of Modern Hebrew and English phrasal idioms headed by four different diatheses: transitives, unaccusatives, adjectival passives, and verbal passives

  • They sample 60 predicates of each diathesis from verb dictionaries, and count the number of predicates giving rise to phrasal idioms unique to each of the diatheses. Their studies reveal no unique phrasal idioms that are headed by a verbal passive in both Hebrew and English; namely, all idioms headed by a verbal passive are shared by the transitive alternant

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Recent decades have witnessed an increasing interest in special (idiomatic) meanings in the context of grammatical theory (e.g., Fillmore et al 1988; Jackendoff 1997; Horn 2003; Harley 2012; Vietri 2014; Schröder 2015; Horvath & Siloni 2017). Horvath & Siloni (2009; 2019) and Fadlon et al (2018) report the results of quantitative surveys focusing on sets of Modern Hebrew and English phrasal idioms headed by four different diatheses: transitives, unaccusatives (anticausatives), adjectival (stative) passives, and verbal (eventive) passives.. Horvath & Siloni (2009; 2019) and Fadlon et al (2018) report the results of quantitative surveys focusing on sets of Modern Hebrew and English phrasal idioms headed by four different diatheses: transitives, unaccusatives (anticausatives), adjectival (stative) passives, and verbal (eventive) passives.1 Transitives, unaccusatives, and adjectival passives prove able to head idioms specific to them

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call