{"title":"Old Forms, New Functions: Quadriliteral Root Patterns as Sources of Verbal Meaning","authors":"Vera Agranovsky","doi":"10.1353/hbr.2021.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This paper describes a process whereby morphological patterns that, in premodern Hebrew, were not associated with a particular semantic profile, or were only partly associated with such a profile, developed a particular meaning in Modern Hebrew. This process is exemplified by certain types of quadriliteral roots formed in the Hebrew verbal system.Of eight quadriliteral root patterns productive in Modern Hebrew, three developed meanings of their own: the pilpel pattern, which expresses a series of short, atomic events; the piʿlel pattern, which describes a reduced or attenuated event, and the šifʿel pattern, which conveys a restitutive or repetitive meaning, or increase on scale. The pilpel pattern became associated with its meaning already in Mishnaic Hebrew, and in Modern Hebrew the association became nearly exclusive, whereas the other two patterns developed their typical meanings only in Modern Hebrew itself.This research shows that a quadriliteral root-pattern develops a particular semantic profile only if it utilizes the derivational mechanism of direct rootexpansion in the verbal system without the mediation of another lexical item. Moreover, individual verbs coined in the pattern tend to be associated with that meaning if they are derived in this manner. Pilpel verbs can convey the pattern's typical meaning even if they are derived by onomatopoeia or with the mediation of noun, but only if the parent nominal form is biliteral.The research also traced the development of patterns' semantic profiles over time. It was found that this development was conspicuously influenced by the substrate and contact languages of Modern Hebrew, and that factors of reanalysis and analogy were also at play.","PeriodicalId":35110,"journal":{"name":"Hebrew Studies","volume":"19 1","pages":"311 - 342"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hebrew Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hbr.2021.0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract:This paper describes a process whereby morphological patterns that, in premodern Hebrew, were not associated with a particular semantic profile, or were only partly associated with such a profile, developed a particular meaning in Modern Hebrew. This process is exemplified by certain types of quadriliteral roots formed in the Hebrew verbal system.Of eight quadriliteral root patterns productive in Modern Hebrew, three developed meanings of their own: the pilpel pattern, which expresses a series of short, atomic events; the piʿlel pattern, which describes a reduced or attenuated event, and the šifʿel pattern, which conveys a restitutive or repetitive meaning, or increase on scale. The pilpel pattern became associated with its meaning already in Mishnaic Hebrew, and in Modern Hebrew the association became nearly exclusive, whereas the other two patterns developed their typical meanings only in Modern Hebrew itself.This research shows that a quadriliteral root-pattern develops a particular semantic profile only if it utilizes the derivational mechanism of direct rootexpansion in the verbal system without the mediation of another lexical item. Moreover, individual verbs coined in the pattern tend to be associated with that meaning if they are derived in this manner. Pilpel verbs can convey the pattern's typical meaning even if they are derived by onomatopoeia or with the mediation of noun, but only if the parent nominal form is biliteral.The research also traced the development of patterns' semantic profiles over time. It was found that this development was conspicuously influenced by the substrate and contact languages of Modern Hebrew, and that factors of reanalysis and analogy were also at play.