Abstract
This paper proposes a formal definition of reanalysis, while emphasizing the importance of the distinction between two different kinds of reanalysis: those in which the change is confined to the grammatical level, and those in which it is confined to the semantic level. After tracing the history of a negative counterfactual conditional marker in Hebrew and Aramaic which underwent both syntactic and semantic reanalyses, the paper assesses the concept of reanalysis with focus on the following questions: Is reanalysis a single, clearly-defined phenomenon, and if so, what is its nature? Is it merely a descriptive label for a certain observable state of affairs, or does it explain diachronic changes? Alternatively, perhaps it is a theoretical constraint, a theoretical requirement that linguistic change must be associated with specific environments where reanalysis can take place? A detailed analysis of the marker and its evolution yields the following broad hypothesis: Reanalysis of a linguistic form does not change the truth conditions of the proposition that contains it, regardless of whether the reanalysis is on the grammatical level or on the semantic level.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 34-50 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 9 Jun 2020 |
Keywords
- General Linguistics
- Semitics
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver