This paper reassesses Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim’s provocative proposal for the periodization of Hebrew, forty years after his programmatic essay on the topic. It reconstructs his core methodological claim: that the decisive boundaries between “periods” should be drawn not only (or even primarily) by internal grammatical criteria, but by the changing ecology of spoken versus written Hebrew, specifically, by whether written Hebrew is anchored in a living vernacular or functions as a largely literary language. The discussion then traces how later scholarship has, in effect, absorbed this insight by sharpening a principled distinction between (i) the history of Hebrew as an idealized linguistic system and (ii) the history of Hebrew as attested in particular corpora, with special attention to heterogeneity, register stratification, and standardization across Biblical, Rabbinic, Medieval, and Modern contexts. The paper is framed as both a methodological intervention and an intellectual homage: it opens and closes with a personal-commemorative voice that situates the argument within a scholarly lineage and highlights Ben-Ḥayyim’s enduring impact on how we conceptualize Hebrew’s historical continuity and change.

The article reexamines the commonly accepted claim in linguistic research that there exists a grammatical category of reciprocity in Hebrew. According to this view, verbs in the hitpa'el (התפעל) stem are perceived as denoting symmetric and reciprocal situations in the world, and the reciprocity is attributed to this form. The article offers an alternative perspective, arguing that: 1) the verbs in question do not necessarily express reciprocity; 2) they are not derived from other verbs, and thus the existence of a unique grammatical category for reciprocity is not self-evident. Instead, it is suggested that the hitpa'el stem functions as a "strategy for expressing reciprocity." This means that while the form itself does not inherently convey reciprocity, it systematically appears in constructions that describe contexts involving symmetric relations. For example, the verb hitḥabeq ("hugged") describes an activity that may be reciprocal when occurring between two people, but this is not obligatory (e.g., hugging a pillow). Similarly, the verb hitmaser ("to pass") may involve reciprocal relations when referring to an interaction between people, but not when directed toward an inanimate object like a wall. Accordingly, when this verb is used to denote "passing between people" it is reciprocal, but the verb can also be used in a context that a child played catch with the wall, thus in other contexts it is not necessarily a symmetric verb. Another example is the verb hit’ahav ("fell in love"), which can describe a reciprocal relationship but does not necessarily require one. The article also proposes a new classification of four types of reciprocal verbs in Modern Hebrew and demonstrates correlations between their semantic features and the ways in which they express symmetric relations in the world.

 This chapter serves as both a retrospective account and a conceptual framework for the volume. It begins by presenting the goals and achievements of the research project “Diachrony and Formal Semantics: Universal Meaning Categories in Recurrent Patterns of Semantic Change”, which brought together scholars from historical linguistics and formal semantics. This project laid the groundwork for the current volume by exploring how semantic categories change over time, what motivates these changes, and whether recurrent cross-linguistic patterns reflect underlying universals.
In addition to summarizing the project, the chapter provides a broader  conceptual introduction to the volume as a whole. It outlines central questions that shape the emerging field of formal diachronic semantics: What are the phenomena that require explanation in studies of language change? How is historical change identified, particularly in the realm of meaning? And how are such changes explained - from formal reanalysis and discourse-based mechanisms to sociolinguistic and cognitive pressures?
The chapter offers a snapshot of the current state of the art while identifying
key challenges and unresolved questions. It also highlights emerging  methodologies, such as typological comparison, corpus analysis, and  experimental work, and considers how these approaches can shape future research on semantic change. In doing so, it sets the stage for the contributions in this volume, which collectively advance an integrated and theoretically grounded approach to language change.

This article examines the relationship between natural language and causal cognition and argues that linguistic structures both reflect and constrain the ways in which humans conceptualize and represent causation. It opens with a survey of foundational philosophical theories of causation, focusing on the tension between metaphysical accounts and judgment-based approaches. The discussion then turns to a range of linguistic phenomena - including causative constructions, conditional sentences, discourse coherence, aspectual interpretation, and argument structure - demonstrating how causal relations are systematically encoded across grammatical domains. Building on insights from linguistics, philosophy, and cognitive science, the article reviews recent developments of a semantic framework for modeling causal knowledge in language. Rather than assuming a uniform mapping between causal relations and their linguistic expressions, the framework accounts for systematic variation in how causality is selected, structured, and communicated. In doing so, it positions natural language as a key source of evidence for understanding the architecture of causal reasoning and its representation in human cognition.

Minimal sufficiency readings of exclusive modifiers (Just the thought of food makes me hungry) have resisted a comprehensive semantic analysis that accurately predicts their distribution.
In this paper we show that the distribution of minimal sufficiency readings is directly correlated with the interpretation of plural arguments and that the distributional facts reflect the connection between plural predication and scalarity: sufficiency readings are licensed precisely in contexts where ordering relations over alternatives are reversed. We develop a semantics for exclusives that is capable of generating either exclusive or sufficiency readings depending on the direction of scalarity.

This article proposes a novel ambiguist approach to negation, distinguishing
between two types: NEG₁ and NEG₂. NEG₁, functioning as a standard negator, operates within a narrow scope, negating predicates rather  than existential quantification, and introduces new negative information about  the topic of the clause. Semantically, NEG₁ is of type <<e,t>,<e,t>>: it takes a predicate as input and produces another predicate–the opposite of the first–as  output. This negation is inherently lexical, targeting a predicate or concept and resulting in a corresponding negative form. In contrast, NEG₂ is a marked negator capable of scoping above positive polarity items (PPIs), leading to a mandatory wide scope reading akin to explicit external negation. It signifies  the falsity of the root proposition and is classified as a truth function of type <t,t>, where it takes a proposition as input and generates the opposite truth value as output. The distinctions between these negators are formalized using dynamic semantics, which accounts for how information is updated and modified in discourse. This analysis also offers a novel explanation for the scopal interaction between some-PPIs and negation.
The article elucidates the distribution and distinct behaviors of NEG₁ and NEG₂.
By examining synchronic and diachronic data from diverse linguistic  phenomena, the study reveals consistent patterns in marked negation across  different languages. 
Four key observations support this approach: (1) contexts in English where  some-type PP Is can operate under negation, (2) the distribution of “light  negation” in German, (3) cross-linguistic instances of wide-scope negation, and (4) the origin and function of two negators in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and the Sicilian dialect of Mussomeli.
Finally, the paper explores the interplay between formal semantics and  historical linguistics, discussing the methodological insights derived from this study and highlighting the importance of historical linguistics in formal analyses of natural language semantics.

This paper develops a formal methodology for capturing and representing the semantics of causal expressions in natural languages. Focusing on two causative constructions—covert causatives (change-of-state verbs) and overt causatives (the verb cause)—it provides a proof of concept for analyzing the distinguished meanings of different causative constructions.
We adopt the formal framework of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze causality and integrate it into model-theoretic semantics for interpreting causal statements. In our approach, the selection of a cause within a particular construction depends on its inclusion in a sufficient set of conditions that bring about the effect, as well as on specific properties of the cause itself. To formalize this process, we introduce the concept of causative-construction selection (CC-selection), which captures how speakers select a causative construction that aligns with the relational structure between states of affairs. For each relevant condition within the sufficient set, CC-selection determines whether it can be encoded as the cause in a statement articulated
through a specific causative construction, thereby describing a particular state of affairs. We argue that CC-selection plays a central role in shaping the meaning of causal statements.
By leveraging the SEM framework, CC-selection effects can be formally explained through contrasts within the structure of a model. For instance, notions of sufficiency and necessity, which play a crucial role in these selections, are rigorously defined within SEM, allowing for a precise
account of CC-selection effects. This paper further illustrates how CC-selection accounts for contrastive inference patterns across constructions. By focusing on the two causative constructions central to our discussion, it resolves longstanding puzzles associated with change-of-state verbs.
The proposed framework establishes a foundation for the systematic study of causal language, bridging semantics and philosophy while providing tools to investigate the interplay between causative constructions and their associated causal meanings.

The chapter reports on the results of an experimental study that examined register variation in the writing of adult Russian Heritage speakers residing in Israel, specifically exploring such characteristics of formal writing as average sentence length, average word length, nominalizations, Latin origin vocabulary, and subordinate and coordinated clauses. The study compared the written production of the heritage speakers to that of Russian-dominant speakers residing in Israel. The findings indicate that, similarly to Russian-dominant speakers, heritage speakers of Russian distinguish between formal and informal written registers, but also exhibit some divergences. The authors then explored how reading practices and access to Russian language instruction in Israeli schools impacted the ability of heritage writers to employ the identified elements in formal writing. The chapter concludes with a discussion of possible pedagogical approaches to teaching register variation in the heritage language classroom.

This study delves into the intricate process of reanalysis, wherein linguistic expressions undergo grammatical or semantic changes, or sometimes both. The primary objective of this study is to explore the theoretical aspects surrounding historical changes of this nature. To facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the topic, we provide a formal description of reanalysis as an analytical tool. Our formal description allows for the differentiation of various change scenarios, enabling us to identify distinct types of shifts from one analysis to another. This approach not only focuses on what has been reanalyzed, be it the morphology, syntax or the semantics, but also emphasizes the interplay between all three linguistic modules (Form, Grammar, and Meaning) and their relationships. This holistic perspective enables a systematic examination of the significance of what remains constant at both points in time during the reanalysis process. The key insight arising from this analysis leads us to propose and substantiate the Early Semantic Stability Hypothesis. This hypothesis posits that the truth-conditional semantics of the original proposition remain unchanged throughout reanalysis, either in all contexts or in specific "bridging contexts" where the reanalysis occurs. To demonstrate these phenomena, we present a compelling test case, focusing on the development of the counterfactual conditional marker ʾilmale in Hebrew and Aramaic. Through a detailed examination of the syntactic and semantic reanalyses it underwent, we observe the emergence of unique semantic features. By adopting a formal semantic perspective, we address fundamental questions such as the level of ambiguity required for reanalysis to take place, the potential existence of universal constraints on reanalysis, and potential motivations driving these linguistic changes. This investigation provides valuable insights into the intricate mechanisms at play during reanalysis and contributes to the broader understanding of linguistic evolution and development.

This paper delves into the semantics of the reciprocal construction recognized in the literature as "verbal" or "lexical" reciprocals. A common assumption is that predicates of this construction inherently encode a symmetric meaning, often marked morphologically in many languages. This paper advocates for a crucial distinction between two types of predicates: rec-predicates (e.g., the Hebrew verb hitnašek 'kiss') - a class of predicates that do not inherently denote symmetry but carry an underspecified meaning, so that in specific defined contexts, they can induce a symmetric reading. In contrast, sym-predicates (e.g., the Hebrew attribute zehe 'be identical') - this class of predicates inherently encodes symmetric relations. Drawing upon Winter’s (2002) typology of verbs, it is posited that rec-predicates are dyadic, taking two atoms as their arguments, while sym-predicates are monadic, with a single argument denoting a set. The analysis in this paper adopts Bar-Asher Siegal’s (2020) methodology for identifying strategies expressing reciprocity and is substantiated with a survey of the various syntactic structures in which the relevant predicates manifest, along with their diverse interpretations. The paper critically examines previous analyses of these predicates, scrutinizing both empirical and theoretical challenges encountered by these analyses. With a specific focus on verbal strategies for expressing reciprocity in Hebrew, the study, informed by the shared characteristics identified in previous research, suggests that the conclusions drawn for Hebrew may be applicable to other languages as well.

 

Under progressive marking, telic predicates can describe events that fail to reach culmination. Prominent accounts of this so-called "imperfective paradox" tie the effect to the modal accessibility of culmination, intensionalizing the progressive operator so that it instantiates qualifying (culminated) eventualities across a set of alternatives to the evaluation world. This approach faces a number of empirical challenges, including the acceptability of progressives of unlikely or locally out-of-reach events. This paper proposes a new approach, on which telic progressives are instead sensitive to (mereological) structure inherited from an event type associated with telic predicate P. An event type constitutes a formal causal model (e.g., Pearl 2000) in which P's culmination condition C occurs as a dependent or caused variable.  The model provides a set of causal pathways for realizing C, each of which comprises a set of jointly sufficient causal conditions for C, and also establishes (sets of) conditions which preclude C. On this approach, the progress of an actual token P-eventuality can be measured with respect to the event type. A reference time situation s satisfies PROG(P) just in case it is a plausible cross-section of an incomplete causal pathway in P: s must verify some but not all the conditions in a causal pathway for C, and fail to verify a sufficient set of conditions for non-culmination.

This paper proposes a formal definition of reanalysis, while emphasizing the importance of the distinction between two different kinds of reanalysis: those in which the change is confined to the grammatical level, and those in which it is confined to the semantic level. After tracing the history of a negative counterfactual conditional marker in Hebrew and Aramaic which underwent both syntactic and semantic reanalyses, the paper assesses the concept of reanalysis with focus on the following questions: Is reanalysis a single, clearly-defined phenomenon, and if so, what is its nature? Is it merely a descriptive label for a certain observable state of affairs, or does it explain diachronic changes? Alternatively, perhaps it is a theoretical constraint, a theoretical requirement that linguistic change must be associated with specific environments where reanalysis can take place? A detailed analysis of the marker and its evolution yields the following broad hypothesis: Reanalysis of a linguistic form does not change the truth conditions of the proposition that contains it, regardless of whether the reanalysis is on the grammatical level or on the semantic level.

This paper deals with two presentative dative constructions in Modern Hebrew, characterizing them from two angles: as dative constructions and as presentative constructions. It demonstrates that this dual perspective allows to account for both the syntactic and the semantic differences between them.