Non-subject oriented existential, possessive and dative-experiencer constructions in Modern Hebrew – a cross-linguistic typological approach

References

Bally, Charles. 1926. L’expression des idées de sphère personnelle et la solidarité dans les langues indo-européennes. In F. Frankhauser & J. Jud (eds.), Festschrift Louis Gauchaz, 68–78. Aarau: Sauerländer.Search in Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard B. Jenset & Barbara McGillivray. 2012. Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian, and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3). 511–547. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.3.03bar.Search in Google Scholar

Baron, Irène & Michael Herslund. 2001. Semantics of the verb HAVE. In Irène Baron, Michael Herslund & Finn Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession (Typological Studies in Language), vol. 47, 85–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.47.06barSearch in Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile. 1966a. Les niveaux de l’analyse linguistique. In Problèmes de linguistique générale, vol. 1, 119–131. Paris: Gallimard.Search in Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile. 1966b. Structure des relations de personne dans le verbe. In Problèmes de linguistique générale, vol. 1, 225–236. Paris: Gallimard.Search in Google Scholar

Berman, Ruth A. 1982. Dative marking of the affectee role: Data from Modern Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review 6(1982). 35–59.Search in Google Scholar

Bhaskararao, Peri & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.). 2004. Non-nominative subjects (Typological Studies in Language), vol. 2, 60–61. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.60Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. On the scope of the referential hierarchy in the typology of grammatical relations. In Greville Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations. Papers in honor of Bernard Comrie, 191–210. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1075/tsl.81.09ontSearch in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0020Search in Google Scholar

Bogdan, Szymanek & Anna Bondaruk. 2007. Polish nominativeless constructions with dative Experiencers: Form, meaning and structure. Studies in Polish Linguistics 4. 61–99.Search in Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London & New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Borschev, Vladimir & Barbara Partee. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation: Theme-rheme structure or perspective structure? Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10. 105–144.Search in Google Scholar

Bossong, George. 1998. Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues d’Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 259–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110804485.259Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Eve. 1978. Locationals: Existential, locative, and possessive constructions. In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 4, 85–126. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Coffin Amir, Edna & Shmuel Bolozky. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511811081Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Creissels, Denis. 2008. Impersonal and related constructions: A typological approach. Series of lectures given at the University of Tartu (2–3 June 2008). Available at: http://www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-impers.constr.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Creissels, Denis. 2014. Existential predication in typological perspective. 46th annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (Split, 18–21 September 2013). Available at: http://www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-Exist.Pred.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Creissels, Denis. 2019. The encoding of experiencers in clauses denoting physiological states in Sub-Saharan languages. ALT 13 conference Pavia, 4–6 September 2019. Available at: http://deniscreissels.fr/Creissels-Exp.Subs.lang.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In James Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the lexicon, 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-1972-6_5Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar, syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803864Search in Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 2002. The universal basis of case. Logos and Language 1(2). 1–15.Search in Google Scholar

Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. https://doi.org/10.2307/415037.Search in Google Scholar

Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2006. Oblique subjects: A common germanic inheritance’. Language 81(4). 824–881.10.1353/lan.2005.0173Search in Google Scholar

Faarlund, Jan-Terje. 2001. From ancient Germanic to modern Germanic languages. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol. 2, 1706–1719. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110194265-058Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Stefanie & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2014. A and O as each other’s mirror image? Problems with markedness reversal. Linguistic Typology 18(1). 3–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2014-0002.Search in Google Scholar

Fedriani, Chiara & Eystein Dahl. 2012. The argument structure of experience: Experiential constructions in early Vedic, Homeric Greek and early Latin. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Michela Cennamo & Elly van Gelderen (eds.), Argument realization and change, special issue of The Transactions of Philological Society, vol. 110(3), 342–362. New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell.10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01313.xSearch in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1971. Some problems for case grammar. In Richard J. O’Brien (ed.), Report of the 22nd annual round table meeting on linguistics and language studies, 35–36. Washington: Georgetown Univ. Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1999. Inversion and constructional inheritance. In Gert Webelhuth, Jean-Pierre Koenig & Andreas Kathol (eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation, 113–128. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Francez, Itamar. 2007. Existential propositions. Stanford: Stanford University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Francez, Itamar. 2009. Existentials, predication, and modification. Linguistics and Philosophy 32. 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9055-4.Search in Google Scholar

Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68(3). 553–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/415794.Search in Google Scholar

Freeze, Ray. 2001. Existential constructions. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkerhard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol. 2, 941–953. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Gast, Volker & Florian Haas. 2011. On the distribution of subject properties in formulaic presentationals of Germanic and Romance: A diachronic-typological approach. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 127–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.124.05gasSearch in Google Scholar

Glinert, Lewis. 1989. The grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1998a. On verbal structure and the Hebrew verb. In Studies in semitic linguistics: Selected writings, 148–196. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1998b. Attribution in Semitic languages. In Studies in Semitic linguistics: Selected writings, 46–65. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldenberg, Gideon. 2006. On grammatical agreement and verb-initial sentences. In Pier-Giorgio Borbone, Alessandro Mengozzi & Mauro Tosco (eds.), Loquentes linguis: Linguistic and oriental studies in honour of Fabricio A. Pennacchietti, 329–335. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.Search in Google Scholar

Goldenberg, Gideon. 2013. Semitic languages: Features, structures, relations, processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 209–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.17.16gunSearch in Google Scholar

Gutièrrez-Bravo, Rodrigo. 2006. A reinterpretation of quirky subjects and related phenomena in Spanish. In Jean-Pierre Montreuil & Chiyo Nishida (eds.), New perspectives in Romance linguistics, 127–142. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.275.11gutSearch in Google Scholar

Hagège, Claude. 1990. The dialogic species – A linguistic contribution to the social sciences. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hale, Kenneth. 1982. On non-configurational structures. In László Marácz & Pieter Muysken (eds.), Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries, 293–300. Providence: Foris, Dordrecht.10.1515/9783110884883-016Search in Google Scholar

Halevy, Rivka. 1992. Free and bound adjectives in contemporary Hebrew. In Moshe Bar-Asher (ed.), Language studies V–VI (in Hebrew), 521–536. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.Search in Google Scholar

Halevy, Rivka. 2007. The subject co-referential l- pronoun in Hebrew. In Tali Bar & Eran Cohen (eds.), Studies in Semitic and general linguistics in honor of Gideon Goldenberg, 299–321. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Halevy, Rivka. 2013a. Syntax: Modern Hebrew. In Geoffrey Khan (ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew language and linguistics, vol. III, 707–722. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar

Halevy, Rivka. 2013b. Dative in Modern Hebrew. In Geoffrey Khan (ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew language and linguistics, vol. I, 659–663. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar

Halevy, Rivka. 2016. Non-canonical ‘existential-like’ constructions in colloquial Modern Hebrew. In Thierry Ruchot & Pascal Van Praet (eds.), Atypical predicate-argument relations, 27–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lis.33.02halSearch in Google Scholar

Halevy, Rivka. 2020a. The existential construction and its type-shifting instances in colloquial Modern Hebrew. In Tatiana Battineau (ed.), La predication existentielle dans les langues naturelles: valeurs et repérages, structures et modalities. Paris: Presses de l’INALCO.10.4000/books.pressesinalco.39023Search in Google Scholar

Halevy, Rivka. 2020b. Impersonal and pseudo-impersonal constructions. In Ruth A. Berman (ed.), Usage-based studies in Modern Hebrew – background, morpho-lexicon, and syntax, Ch. 16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.210.16halSearch in Google Scholar

Halevy, Rivka. 2022. What makes the dative-experiencer construction in Modern Hebrew different from its counterparts in European languages – A cognitive and typological account. Language Typology and Universals 75(3). 1–40.10.1515/stuf-2022-1057Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. External possession in a European areal perspective. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession (Typological Studies in Language 39), 109–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.39.09hasSearch in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert Dixon, Malcolm Ward & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, 53–83. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.46.04hasSearch in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2021. Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits. Linguistics 59(1). 123–174. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0252.Search in Google Scholar

Hazout, Ilan. 2004. The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 393–430. https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389041402616.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1997a. Cognitive foundation of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1997b. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511581908Search in Google Scholar

Huumo, Tuomas. 2003. Incremental existence: The world according to the Finnish existential sentence. Linguistics. 41(3). 461–493.10.1515/ling.2003.016Search in Google Scholar

Henkin, Roni. 1994. yeš gam et ze (EXIST also ACC this). Balshanut Ivrit 38. 41–54. (in Hebrew).Search in Google Scholar

Izre’el, Shlomo. 2018. Unipartite clauses: A view from Spoken Israeli Hebrew. In Mauro Tosco (ed.), Afroasiatic: Data and perspective, 235–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.339.13izrSearch in Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Search in Google Scholar

Kay, Paul & Charles W. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? Construction. Language 75(1). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/417472.Search in Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of subject. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 305–333. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L. 2003. The definiteness effect: Semantics or pragmatics? Natural Language Semantics 11(2). 187–216. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024400425028.10.1023/A:1024400425028Search in Google Scholar

Khan, Geoffrey. 1984. Object markers and agreement pronouns in Semitic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 47(3). 468–500. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0041977x00113709.Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 11. 315–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(00)00035-8.Search in Google Scholar

Koch, Peter. 2012. Location, existence, and possession: A constructional-typological exploration. Linguistics 50(3). 533–603. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0018.Search in Google Scholar

Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundation of Language 9(2). 153–185.Search in Google Scholar

Kuzar, Ron. 2012. Sentence patterns in English and Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.12Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Turner. 1989. More than cool reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Search in Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1995. The pragmatics of case: On the relationship between semantic, grammatical, and pragmatic roles in English and French. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Essays in semantics and pragmatics in honour of Charles J. Fillmore, 140–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.32.09lamSearch in Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24(3). 611–682. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam.Search in Google Scholar

Landau, Idan. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. In Linguistic inquiry monographs, vol. 56 Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/8387.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Roland W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive application. California: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Roland W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Roland W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lauwers, Peter & Dominique Willems. 2011. Coercion definition and challenges, current approaches and new trends. Linguistics 49(6). 1219–1235. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.034.Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert. 1994. L’actant H: sujet ou objet? Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 89(1). 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2143/bsl.89.1.2013024.Search in Google Scholar

Leonetti, Manuel. 2008. Definiteness effects and the role of the coda in existential constructions. In Alex Klinge & Hennk Hoeg-Müller (eds.), Essays on determination, 131–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.99.09leoSearch in Google Scholar

Lødrup, Helge. 1999. Linking and optimality in the Norwegian presentational focus construction. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 22. 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/03325860050179254.Search in Google Scholar

Lyons, John. 1967. A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3. 390–396.Search in Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Split intransitives, Experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (re-)establishing the connection. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment systems, 76–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0003Search in Google Scholar

McGregor, William. 2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120(7). 1610–1636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010.Search in Google Scholar

McNally, Louise. 1998. Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(4). 353–392. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005389330615.10.1023/A:1005389330615Search in Google Scholar

McNally, Louise. 2011. Existential sentences. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics – An international handbook of natural language meaning, 1829–1848. Berlin: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

McNally, Louise. 2016. Existential sentences cross linguistically. Annual Review of Linguistics 2. 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040837.Search in Google Scholar

Melis, Chantal & Marcela Flores. 2013. On the historical expansion of non-canonically marked “subjects” in Spanish. In Ilja A. Seržant & Leonid Kulikov (eds.), The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects, 163–184. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.140.08melSearch in Google Scholar

Michaelis, Laura. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15(1). 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001.Search in Google Scholar

Milsark, Garry. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Cambridge, MA: Garland Publishing Inc/MIT.Search in Google Scholar

Milsark, Garry. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities in the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3. 1–30.Search in Google Scholar

Netz, Hadar & Ron Kuzar. 2011. Word order and discourse functions in spoken Hebrew: A case study of possessive sentences. Studies in Language 35. 41–71. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.1.02net.Search in Google Scholar

Noonan, Michael. 2004. Subjectless clauses in Irish. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol. 2, 57–81. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.61.05nooSearch in Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara & Vladimir Borschev. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation: Theme-rheme structure of perspective structure? Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10. 105–144.Search in Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H. & Vladimir Borschev. 2004. The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: The nature and role of perspectival structure. In Kazuha Watanabe & Robert B. Young (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT), vol. 14, 212–234. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.10.3765/salt.v14i0.2908Search in Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara & Vladimir Borschev. 2007. Existential sentences, BE, and the genitive of negation in Russian. In Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax, 147–190. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-6197-4_6Search in Google Scholar

Platzack, Christer. 1983. Existential sentences in English, Swedish, German and Icelandic. In F. Karlsson (ed.), Paper from the seventh Scandinavian conference of linguistics, 80–100. Helsinki: Department of General Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Rosén, Haiim B. 1977. Contemporary Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110804836Search in Google Scholar

Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1996. Theticity. Arbeitspapiere, Neue Folge 27. Köln: Institut für Sprachenwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Search in Google Scholar

Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2006. Theticity. In Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds.), Eurotyp 8, Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe, 255–308. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110892222.255Search in Google Scholar

Schwarzwald, Ora R. 2001. Modern Hebrew. München: LINCOM Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Seržant, Ilja A. 2015. Dative experiencer constructions in Circum-Baltic isogloss. In Peter Arkadiev, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer (eds.), Contemporary approaches to Baltic linguistics, 325–348. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110343953-009Search in Google Scholar

Shlonsky, Ur. 2009. Hebrew as a partial null-subject language. Studia Linguistica 63(1). 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.01156.x.Search in Google Scholar

Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. Icelandic non-nominative subjects. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects (Typological Studies in Language 61), vol. 2, 137–159. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.61.09sigSearch in Google Scholar

Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199211654.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Stassen, Leon. 2013. Predicative possession. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures (WALS) online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Search in Google Scholar

Taube, Moshe. 2015. The usual suspects: Slavic, Yiddish, and the accusative existentials and possessives in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Jewish Languages 3(1–2). 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134638-12340035.Search in Google Scholar

Temme, Anne & Elizabeth Verhoeven. 2016. Verb class, case, and order: A cross linguistic experiment on non-nominative Experiencers. Linguistics 54(4). 769–813. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0018.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 355–387. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Vajda, Edward. 2004. Distinguishing between referential and grammatical function in morphological typology. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier, David Rood & Adam Hodges (eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories, 397–420. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.72.19vajSearch in Google Scholar

Veselinova, Ljuba. 2013. Negative existentials: A cross-linguistic study. Rivista di linguistic 25(1). 107–145.Search in Google Scholar

Ward, Gregory & Betty Birner. 1995. Definitenss and the English existential. Language 71. 722–742. https://doi.org/10.2307/415742.Search in Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1984. There-insertion. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 131–153.Search in Google Scholar

Ziv, Yael. 1976. On the reanalysis of grammatical terms in Hebrew possessive constructions. In Peter Cole (ed.), Studies in Modern Hebrew syntax and semantics, 153–181. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Search in Google Scholar

Ziv, Yael. 1982. Another look at definites in existentials. Linguistics 18. 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700007246.Search in Google Scholar

Ziv, Yael. 2013. Existential: Modern Hebrew. In Geoffrey Khan (ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew language and linguistics. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar