Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:47:59.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The case of an (S)VO language: Subjectless constructions in modern Hebrew

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Ruth A. Berman
Ruth A. Berman*
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modern Hebrew is examined as an instance of an (S)VO language—in that, like Russian (but unlike English or French), it has a wide range of sentence-types lacking an overt grammatical subject. These include (a) the semantically and structurally related classes of existential and possessive sentences; (b) impersonal sentences with 3pl. verbs which may function in place of agentless passives; (c) dative-marked experiential sentences with predicates such as ‘cold’ or ‘sad’; and (d) environmental comments about time, weather etc. Typological correlates of a language's tolerance for subjectless constructions are then suggested: thus Hebrew, while basically SVO, makes wide use of verb-initial constructions; the language is not ‘subject-dominant’, either structurally or pragmatically; and it tolerates numerous fronting operations. It is concluded that the class of constructions which may be subjectless across languages is not random, but predictable along the lines suggested for Hebrew.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , December 1980, pp. 759 - 776
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ben-Horin, Gad. 1976. Aspects of syntactic preposing in Modern Hebrew. In Cole, 193–208.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. 1978. Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: Universities Publishing Projects.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. 1979. Form and function: Impersonals, passives, and middles in Modern Hebrew. BLS 5. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A., and Grosu, Alexander. 1976. Aspects of the copula in Modern Hebrew. In Cole, 265–85.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. Ambient ‘it’ is meaningful too. Journal of Linguistics 9. 261–70.Google Scholar
Chayen, Moshe, and Dror, Zeev. 1976. Introduction to Hebrew transformational grammar. Tel Aviv: Universities Publishing Projects. [In Hebrew.].Google Scholar
Clark, Eve. 1970. Locationals: A study of the relations between ‘existential’, ‘locative’, and ‘possessive’ constructions. Working Papers in Language Universals, Stanford University, 3. 1–36.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter (ed.) 1976. Studies in Modern Hebrew syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, and Sadock, Jerrold (eds.) 1977. Grammatical relations. (Syntax and semantics, 8.) New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1977. In defense of spontaneous demotion: The impersonal passive. In Cole & Sadock, 47–58.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1977. The case for case reopened. In Cole & Sadock, 59–81.Google Scholar
Givon, Talmy. 1976. On the VS order in Israeli Hebrew: Pragmatics and typological change. In Cole, 153–182.Google Scholar
Givon, Talmy. 1977. The drift from VSO to SVO in Biblical Hebrew: The pragmatics of tense-aspect. Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. by Li, Charles N., 181–254. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Missing persons: On generic sentences in Finnish. CLS 9. 157–71.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1975. Some universals of passive in relational grammar. CLS 11. 340–57.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of subject. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 303–33. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. MS. Foregrounding and backgrounding: The case of the passive. To appear in A field guide to syntactic typology, ed. by Stephen Anderson et al.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1978. English: A characteristic SVO language. Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, ed. by Lehmann, W. P., 169–222. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 457–89. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1967. A note on possessive, locative, and existential sentences. Foundations of Language 3. 390–423.Google Scholar
Nakhimovsky, A. 1978. Organizations and documents in Russian syntax. CLS 14. 297–306.Google Scholar
Ornan, Uzzi. 1967. yixud constructions. Maalot 1:6.46–59. [In Hebrew.].Google Scholar
Ravid, Dorit. 1977. Aspects of constituent ordering in Modern Israeli Hebrew. Hebrew Computational Linguistics Bulletin 11. 1–45. [In Hebrew.].Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1977. Reference related and role related properties of subjects. In Cole & Sadock, 279–306.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan. 1973. Subjectless sentences and the notion of surface structure. CLS 9. 577–86.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan. 1975. On some factors that affect and effect word order. Word order and word order change, ed. by Li, Charles N., 197–268. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1978. Modern English from a typological point of view: The function of word order. Linguistische Berichte 54. 19–36.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael. 1976. On the reanalysis of grammatical terms in Hebrew possessive constructions. In Cole, 153–82.Google Scholar