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 provides an analysis of the Tense–Aspect–Mood system of Tannaitic Hebrew. Following an outline of the methodology in his choice of the corpus for this study,  the author sketches out his analysis with a focus on the theoretical motivations in its favor.