24.07.2013 Views

Transitive verbs with non-accusative alternation in ... - Pluto Huji Ac Il

Transitive verbs with non-accusative alternation in ... - Pluto Huji Ac Il

Transitive verbs with non-accusative alternation in ... - Pluto Huji Ac Il

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

78<br />

Rivka Halevy<br />

3.3.1. Instantiation vs. genericity<br />

From a logico-semantic po<strong>in</strong>t of view, every situation is unique and<br />

unrepeatable. Therefore no sharp dist<strong>in</strong>ction can be drawn between the<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividual and the generic level. However, if we adopt a less <strong>in</strong>clusive view<br />

of the notions of <strong>in</strong>dividuality and actuality, we may differentiate between<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividually <strong>in</strong>stantiated events and generically conceived ones.<br />

Just like there can be assumed to be a correlation between <strong>in</strong>dividuation,<br />

i.e. specific <strong>in</strong>stantiation, and imperfectivity, I shall suggest that there is<br />

also a correlation between <strong>in</strong>dividuation and foreground<strong>in</strong>g, understood as<br />

“high” profil<strong>in</strong>g of the reference doma<strong>in</strong> of the O entity.<br />

The <strong>accusative</strong> frame is particularly suited for convey<strong>in</strong>g a typeread<strong>in</strong>g:<br />

<strong>in</strong> a perfectively construed event, the scope of the effect on the O<br />

easily rema<strong>in</strong>s unspecified. This is illustrated <strong>in</strong> (38) where the OM ‘et is<br />

normally used to depict a typical or generic action. It would be awkward to<br />

turn to be- ‘<strong>in</strong>’ to mark the contact between the A and the O, s<strong>in</strong>ce then a<br />

discrete k<strong>in</strong>d of reference would implicitly be recognized to be operative<br />

for the O entity.<br />

(38) gam ha-yom yeš ‘aday<strong>in</strong> horim še-makim {‘et/??be-}<br />

even today there-are still parents who-beat {OM/??<strong>in</strong>-}<br />

yaldeyhem<br />

the-children-of them<br />

‘Even today, there are still parents who beat their children’<br />

Conversely, s<strong>in</strong>ce the prepositional configuration <strong>in</strong>vokes a view from<br />

<strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong>, as an ongo<strong>in</strong>g process, it tends to denote only <strong>in</strong>dividual and<br />

specific events. A predicational relationship, <strong>in</strong> which the focus is on the<br />

genericity of the action, as <strong>in</strong> (38) above, is therefore semantically<br />

<strong>in</strong>compatible <strong>with</strong> the be- construction frame. In contrast, <strong>in</strong> (39) both<br />

constructions are available.<br />

(39) ha-šotrim še-to’adu be-video ve-zuku<br />

the-policemen who-were-documented <strong>in</strong>-video and-acquitted<br />

nir’u ke-še-hem makim {‘oto/bo} makot<br />

were-seen while-they were-beat<strong>in</strong>g {OM-him/<strong>in</strong>-him} blows<br />

retsax (the be- version is taken from Haaretz 29.2.02)<br />

murderous<br />

‘The policemen documented by video and acquitted were seen<br />

beat<strong>in</strong>g him murderously’

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!