Alternative Relations and Higher-Level Categories
-
Itai Kuperschmidt
Abstract
Alternative relations are one of the main relation types between states of affairs and disjunctions are the dedicated morphosyntactic constructions used for encoding them. The standard approach to disjunctions, which assumes two readings, Inclusive and Exclusive, has recently been challenged. A fundamental requirement, shared by the alternatives in all the readings they identified, is that they must be construable as members of a single higher-level category. This requirement also defines specifically one of the readings of disjunctions, or or constructions, HLC (the Higher-level category reading), in which the explicit disjuncts serve only as a means for constructing, often only ad-hoc, a higher-level concept. This concept, rather than the explicit alternatives, is actually the prominent concept profiled by the construction. The study presented here adopts the same bottom-up Usage-Based approach advocated by Ariel and Mauri, and examines the Hebrew or constructions of the Old Testament, given in the Masoretic Tiberian version. It focusses on the question of how those categories are constructed. The data was analyzed adopting a comparative linguistic and textual method, and taking into consideration different philological and diachronic aspects. It reveals that HLC (such as ‘any beast’ for ox or ass, Exodus 23, 4) is the most common reading in this corpus (108/319, 34%). Interestingly, the higher-level categories are extracted from disjuncts of various parts of speech and can be explicit, but in most cases they are inferred. Furthermore, we observe cases which almost equally profile both the single, higher-level category and the alternatives. The methodology adopted revealed some linguistic changes in progress, as well as inclinations of ancient biblical editors and jurists.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my advisors, Professor Mira Ariel and Professor Moshe Florentin, from Tel-Aviv University, for their invaluable support in guiding me in my study.
References
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D thesis, Linguistics, University of Massachusetts.Search in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. & Caterina Mauri. In press. Why Use Or? Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2015. Distinctnesses: The difference an or construction makes. Unpublished manuscript, Tel Aviv University.Search in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2016a. Higher-level category or constructions: When many is one. Studies in Pragmatics 17. 42–60.Search in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2016b. What’s a distinct or alternative? Journal of pragmatics 103. 1–14.10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.001Search in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira & Caterina Mauri. In preparation. Or’s core: An ‘alternative’ analysis. Tel Aviv University and Univerity of Bologna.Search in Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1983. Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition 11. 211–227.10.3758/BF03196968Search in Google Scholar
Brin, Gershon. 1982. The Uses of או (Or) in the Biblical Legal Texts. Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 5-6. Jerusalem: Mandel Institute for Jewish Studies. pp. 19–26. (Originally Hebrew)Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Francis, Samuel R Driver & Charles A Briggs. 1968. A Hebrew and English lexicon of the old testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press (BDB).Search in Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1968. Coordination: Its implications for the theory of general linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Search in Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Wallace L. Chafe, Charles Meyer, Sandra A. Thompson, Robert Englebretson & Nii Martey. 2000-2005. Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Parts 1-4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Search in Google Scholar
Fishbane, Michael. 1988. Biblical interpretation in ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198266995.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Gamut, L. T. F. 1991. Logic, language, and meaning, 1: Introduction to logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226791678.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Caterina Mauri. 2011. The grammaticalization of coordinating interclausal connectives. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 653–664. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0054Search in Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gvura, Avi. 2016. The need for the disjunction phrases in the legal contract. International Journal of Legal Discourse 1(2). 319–343.10.1515/ijld-2016-0012Search in Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Mimeo: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar
Hurford, James R. 1974. Exclusive or inclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language 11. 409–411.Search in Google Scholar
Joüon, Paul & Takamitsu Muraoka. 1996. A grammar of biblical Hebrew. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto biblico.Search in Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1973. Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 74. 57–74.10.1163/9789004252882_008Search in Google Scholar
Kompaoré, Anne G. 2007. The Qatal verb form and the conjunction או (Or) in the biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic languages 33. 33–53.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1971. If’s, and’s, and but’s about conjunction. In Charles J. Fillmore & D. Terence Langėndoen (eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics, 114–149. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lotan, Saul. 1990. An unpublished transcription of a businessman’s conversation with a few income tax clerks. (Originally Hebrew)Search in Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina. 2008a. Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110211498Search in Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina. 2008b. The irreality of alternatives: Towards a typology of disjunction. Studies in Language 32(1). 22–55.10.1075/sl.32.1.03mauSearch in Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina & Johan Van der Auwera. 2012. Connectives. To appear in In Katarzyna M Jaszczolt & Keith Allan (eds.), Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 347–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022453.021Search in Google Scholar
Paris, Scott G. 1973. Comprehension of language conncetives and propositional logic relationships. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 16. 278–291.10.1016/0022-0965(73)90167-7Search in Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2007. Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 483–526.10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.008Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Tal, Abraham & Moshe Florentin. 2010. The pentateuch – The samaritan version and the masoretic version. Tel Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press (Originally Hebrew).Search in Google Scholar
Tov, Emanuel. 2010. The textual criticism of the bible – An introduction. Jerusalem: Bialik institute (Originally Hebrew).Search in Google Scholar
Waltke, Bruce K & Michael P O’Connor. 1990. An introduction to biblical Hebrew syntax. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.Search in Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Thomas E. 2000. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8. 255–290.10.1023/A:1011255819284Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Linguistic strategies for ad hoc categorization: theoretical assessment and cross-linguistic variation
- The role of exemplification in the construction of categories: the case of Japanese
- Categorization via exemplification: evidence from Italian
- Ad hoc categorization in Russian and multifunctional general extenders
- Alternative Relations and Higher-Level Categories
- From ad hoc category to ad hoc categorization: The proceduralization of Argentinian Spanish tipo
- Exemplification and ad hoc categorization: The genre-construction in French
- Collective suffixes and ad hoc categories: from Latin -ālia to Italian -aglia
- The encoding of ad hoc categories in Sanskrit: A synchronic and diachronic analysis of “compounds” with ādi-
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Linguistic strategies for ad hoc categorization: theoretical assessment and cross-linguistic variation
- The role of exemplification in the construction of categories: the case of Japanese
- Categorization via exemplification: evidence from Italian
- Ad hoc categorization in Russian and multifunctional general extenders
- Alternative Relations and Higher-Level Categories
- From ad hoc category to ad hoc categorization: The proceduralization of Argentinian Spanish tipo
- Exemplification and ad hoc categorization: The genre-construction in French
- Collective suffixes and ad hoc categories: from Latin -ālia to Italian -aglia
- The encoding of ad hoc categories in Sanskrit: A synchronic and diachronic analysis of “compounds” with ādi-
