Affiliation:
1. Linguistics Department , Tel Aviv University , Ramat Aviv , Israel
Abstract
Abstract
Copulative perception verbs such as English sound have received scant attention relative to other perception verbs, especially in non-European languages. In Hebrew, these verbs can take both adjectival and adverbial complements, a fact which sets Hebrew apart from previously studied languages, and which has heretofore been overlooked. This article investigates the usage of Hebrew copulative perception verbs with adverbial complements, with adjectival complements, and in impersonal constructions. A large-scale corpus study and a preference experiment reveal that each of these three constructions has a different interpretation. With adverbial complements, the verbs have an “attributary” meaning, attributing properties to perceptual impressions of objects. The complement slot in these cases is restricted to subjective multidimensional properties, which previous accounts of the attributary meaning fail to predict, motivating a novel analysis in terms of dimension selection. With adjectival complements, as well as in impersonal constructions, the verbs have a parenthetical meaning, taking and modifying a proposition argument. The two constructions are not equivalent, however. With adjectival complements, the verbs encode evidential but not epistemic information, and vice versa in impersonal constructions, reinforcing the need to maintain a distinction between the classes of evidentials and epistemic modals.
Funder
Israel Science Foundation
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference45 articles.
1. Albelda Marco, Marta & Marlies Jansegers. 2019. From visual perception to evidentiality: A functional empirical approach to se ve que in Spanish. Lingua 220. 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.01.005.
2. Alrenga, Peter. 2010. Comparisons of similarity and difference. In Patricia Cabredo Hofherr & Ora Matushansky (eds.), Adjectives: Formal analyses in syntax and semantics, 155–186. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
3. Anand, Pranav & Natasha Korotkova. 2018. Acquaintance content and obviation. In Uli Sauerland & Stephanie Solt (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 22, 55–72. Berlin: ZAS.
4. Asudeh, Ash. 2002. Richard III. In Mary Andronis, Erin Debenport, Anne Pycha & Keiko Yoshimura (eds.), Papers from the 38th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 31–46. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
5. Asudeh, Ash. 2004. Resumption as resource management. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.