The classic model of conversation based on the Common Ground (CG), introduced by Karttunen (1974), Lewis (1979) and Stalnaker (1978), was shown to be insufficient for accounting for various conversational phenomena (inter alia Portner 2004, 2007, Farkas & Bruce 2009, Murray 2014). This paper further strengthens this line by analyzing a type of non-truth conditional non-core dative termed the Discursive Dative (DD) as a discourse management device (Krifka 2008, Repp 2013). The DD signals that the asserted proposition p constitutes an exception to a normative generalization believed by the speaker to be shared by the speech event participants. In order to capture the notion of exception we propose to divide the CG into two sets of worlds, those consistent with previous assertions and their presuppositions (CGA) and those consistent with generalizations (CGG). The DD signals a non-inclusion relation between the asserted proposition and the CGG. This enables us to distinguish between different types of mirativity effects, by drawing a distinction between adding a proposition p that was not previously in the speaker’s expectation-set (inter alia DeLancey 1997, 2001, Rett 2009, Peterson 2013, Rett & Murray 2013) and the present case of the DD, where p can very well be in the speaker’s expectation-set, but objectively expected that ~p.

This article critically scrutinizes the perceived view that the emergence of non-core dative constructions in Modern Hebrew is due to a Slavic-Yiddish influence. It studies the Biblical and Mishnaic sources, showing that these language strata contain highly similar constructions to the ones in Modern Hebrew. It additionally shows that paral-lel constructions existed in languages spoken in the Jewish communities at the time of the revival, revealing that this linguistic phenomenon is typologically widely attested. We therefore claim that this could be an example of an internalization of the old gram-mar in the new spoken language, enhanced by the fact that similar constructions are reflected in the non-Hebrew native languages of the revival era speakers. These speak-ers, at the same time, imported into their colloquial Hebrew a sub-type of non-core dative—the discursive dative—to which they could not have been exposed through the ancient written texts, since this type of dative construction occurs only in the spo-ken language.

This paper has a twofold goal: (i) In the context of negation in general to provide a clear conceptual distinction between internal and external negation, which is summarized as follows: Internal negation/ predicate denial: the negative statement is about the topic of the sentence. It provides new negative information about the topic of the clause. External negation: it is a statement about a statement; it provides information about the truth value of the root proposition, i.e., reverses it; (ii) In the context of the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (=JBA) to present an analysis according to which lāw is marked for external negation, while lā is the unmarked negator, which usually appears in internal negation. I propose that in various contexts lāw, which historically functioned as a complete clause, was reanalyzed as an independent negator and thus grammaticalized as an external negation. The support for this hypothesis comes from historical, syntactic, and functional evidence. Moreover, this paper demonstrates a connection between its two goals: although Jewish Babylonian Aramaic is a historic language, its data still provoke a discussion on negation in a more general way. The following claims have been stated among those who argue that with respect to negation the TL framework is more suitable for natural languages: (i) Standard negations represent predicate denials and (ii) Natural languages do not express external negations without subordination (it is not the case that/it is not true that…) Following our analyses for the data from JBA, it becomes clear that claim (2) is not true. Moreover, paying attention to the environments in which the lāw appears in JBA reveals contexts that should be classified as cases of external negation even when it is not marked syntactically, for the distinction which has been made between the two categories is a conceptual one and not a syntactic one. Accordingly, claim (i) is also not accurate, as in other languages, we do find standard negations in such contexts.

This article critically scrutinizes the perceived view that the emergence of non-core dative constructions in Modern Hebrew is due to a Slavic-Yiddish influence. It studies the Biblical and Mishnaic sources, showing that these language strata contain highly similar constructions to the ones in Modern Hebrew. It additionally shows that parallel constructions existed in languages spoken in the Jewish communities at the time of the revival, revealing that this linguistic phenomenon is typologically widely attested. We therefore claim that this could be an example of an internalization of the old grammar in the new spoken language, enhanced by the fact that similar constructions are reflected in the non-Hebrew native languages of the revival era speakers. These speakers, at the same time, imported into their colloquial Hebrew a sub-type of non-core dative—the discursive dative—to which they could not have been exposed through the ancient written texts, since this type of dative construction occurs only in the spoken language.

This essay focuses on various aspects of the np-strategies for expressing reciprocity in Modern Hebrew and inquires about their origin. It attempts to determine the exact type of relationship that exists between the contemporary constructions and their equivalents in older periods. It describes a situation in which Modern Hebrew added a new np-construction to express reciprocity, due to a calque of a construction existing in Indo-European languages. This is an interesting example of the way Modern Hebrew grows richer by incorporating external influence. The new construction did not replace the older one, an inheritance from Mishnaic Hebrew. Instead, it provided a means to distinguish between registers. Despite the semantic and the syntactic resemblance between the new and the old constructions, they remained independent, and they differ in their sociolinguistic distribution, grammatical properties, and semantic nuances.

This paper aims at tracing the origin of the emergence of a new tense in the history of Eastern Aramaic, the bases of which are the historical passive participle (qṭīl) with a conjugation that originated from a cliticization of a datival pronominal expression (lī). In many of the Eastern Neo Aramaic dialects the descendants of these forms exhibit features of an ergative system, in expressing the past tense. Studies often focus on the final stage of this process when the tense is established. The current paper, however, focuses on the previous stages of this diachronic process. Thus, it is about the origin of the use of the dative with the passive participle (the qṭīl lī construction) with a special interest in Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (=JBA). In the past scholars repeatedly argued that the use of the dative indicates that originally this was a “possessive-perfects”. In this paper I make the case that the qṭīl lī construction is definitely not a possessive one. Instead, I will argue, that this is a regular passive construction. Accordingly, the passive participle has the function of expressing the tense-aspect while the datival expression denotes the agent. In light of this, I propose that the use of the dative to denote the agent developed from its ability to mark a non argument experiencer. With certain verbs, particularly in passive constructions, it wasanalyzed as an argument-dative denoting the agent (in the sense of the subject of the active sentence). In this case we are dealing with a shift from a Non-Argument-Dative to an Argument-Dative. At the next stage, the requirement of anticipatory pronouns to agree with all definite arguments, laid the foundation for the new inflection in the Neo Eastern Aramaic dialects. Previous studies argued that the Aramaic development was a result of contact with Iranian languages. I point to a new parallelism between the development that occurred in the history of the Eastern Aramaic dialects and the development in some of the Iranian languages. I claim, however, that we are dealing with a case of “convergence” in the limited sense of the term, since languages in the same area, show similar developments through internal and external factors. The various discussions throughout the paper are of significance beyond the scope of the Aramaic construction for the following issues: 1) the cross-linguistic distribution of possessiveperfect constructions; 2) the origin of an ergative system; 3) the existence of a formal distinction between argument and adjunct; and 4) a presentation of a case of “convergence”. * This paper is a development of Bar-Asher (2008). I am grateful to Ariel Gutman for his translation of the original Hebrew into English. I dedicate this paper to the memory of Wolfhart Heinrichs, a great teacher and a wonderful person, with whom I discussed many parts of this paper. 

Among Semitic reciprocal constructions, a division is seen between two types: 1) two-unit constructions, with two components, each filling a different argument position of the verb, and 2) one-unit constructions, with an anaphora that co-refers with the subject (that must be plural) and occupies only the non-subject position required by the verb. The goal of this paper is to explain how these constructions developed, specifically: 1) how did the various types of two-unit constructions evolve? and 2) could diachronic chains be identified in order to explain the development of the one-unit constructions from the two-unit constructions? Previous work on question (1) focuses on the range of phrases that tend to develop into reciprocal markers. Such accounts, however, do not explain how these constructions developed the specific meanings they have. I argue that consideration of the semantics of these constructions is crucial for understanding their evolution. Instead of ‘reciprocal constructions’ it is better to see them as denoting ‘unspecified relations’. As for (2), various attempts have been made to explain such processes focusing on Indo-European languages, which do not capture the Semitic developments; therefore I propose an alternative hypothesis, according to which the one-unit constructions result from a reanalysis of the two-unit constructions.

This article focuses on the origin of the forms of various NP-strategies for expressing reciprocity in the Jewish dialects of North Eastern Neo-Aramaic (nena). The discussion concerning the origin of these forms is of special interest when considering their historical relationship with their regional ancestors from Late Aramaic (Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and Mandaic). This discussion is conducted in light of what has been previously discussed concerning similar constructions among the Semitic languages and cross-linguistically. This article also elaborates on the relationship between reciprocal constructions and sociative- comitative- collective expressions.

E.Y. Kutscher emphasized that the goal of the scholarship on Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (= JBA) is to reconstruct the historical language of the Jews speaking Aramaic in Babylonia in the first millennium ce. Given this task, the philologist must consider all forms and constructions that appear in the textual evidence of this dialect in order to determine what reflects the original language and what results from textual corruptions during the transmission of the texts. This methodology became the scholarly consensus for the academic study of JBA. However, no one who follows Kutscher’s methodological tradition ever provided clear criteria for recognizing what should be considered original JBA. Therefore, this paper tries to piece together the methodological assumptions behind this quest to identify the original language. However, when considering the sociolinguistic model of diglossia, and the various types of developments that could take place in the transmission of the texts it becomes clear that those criteria are not decisive, and that the same phenomena can be explained in various ways. Consequently it is proposed that: 1) We may have to be satisfied with the fact that it is not always possible to determine which phenomenon is original. Often it is only possible to raise the various options regarding each and every form; 2) It is not advisable to determine generally which one of the manuscripts provides the most reliable textual evidence for all the linguistic phenomena (the so-called “best manuscript”), as this may change in each case. Consequently, it is suggested, instead, to discuss phenomena rather than sources, and focus on internal relations between forms and structures.