That’s what I need: A multimodal study of Hebrew ‘Reversed Pseudo-Clefts’

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60923/issn.2785-0943/21325

Keywords:

reversed pseudo-clefts; interactional linguistics; multimodality; Hebrew syntax; embodied syntax; fixed fragments.

Abstract

Employing Interactional Linguistic methodology and multimodal interactional analysis, we investigate the Hebrew [ze ma she- ‘this is what’ + clause] structure, known as a ‘reversed pseudo-cleft’. The corpus consists of 9 hours of video-recorded casual conversation among friends and relatives, manifesting 70 [ze ma she- + clause] tokens. Instead of the traditional grammatical analysis of this structure as consisting of a nominalized clause functioning as predicate, embedded within a matrix clause, we argue for an analysis of ze ma she- as a ‘fixed chunk’, a construction which has grammaticized from repetitive discourse actions to serve particular functions in interaction. Furthermore, we argue that there is no justification for viewing this structure as a ‘reversed’ form of a Hebrew pseudo-cleft. We support our claims with evidence from prosodic, lexico-semantic, syntactic, pragmatic, and embodied patterning of the [ze ma she-+ clause] tokens found in our corpus. We show that the structure functions in 71% of the instances for (1) framing prior talk metalingually or (2) claim-backing. Other, less frequent uses include (3) seeking clarification, (4) postulating some general truth, (5) disclaiming responsibility, and (6) getting back to a previous topic. Only two tokens throughout our data display (7) the summative function, claimed as by far the most common function for English reversed pseudo-clefts. Our study supports a view of grammar as a temporally-unfolding, tightly interwoven with embodied conduct, ever-evolving resource for carrying out social actions in the dialogical process of interaction. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Antaki, Charles & Ivan Leudar. 1990. Claim-backing and other explanatory genres in talk. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9. 279–292.

Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25. 7-36.

Auer, Peter. 2009. On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences, 31. 1-13.

Auer, Peter & Yael Maschler. 2013. Discourse or Grammar? VS patterns in spoken Hebrew and spoken German narratives.  Language Sciences, 37. 147–181.

Azar, Moshe. 1992. Likrat havanat mivne hamishpat hamemukad ba'ivrit bat yameynu [‘Towards an understanding of the structure of the focused sentence in contemporary Hebrew’]. In Ouzzi Ornan, Rina Ben Shachar & Gideon Touri (eds.), Ha'ivrit safa xaya [‘Hebrew - A Living Language’], 87–99. Haifa: University of Haifa Press.  

Ball, Catherine N. 1991. The historical development of the it-cleft. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Doctoral Dissertation.

Ben-Moshe, Yotam & Yael Maschler. 2024a. Hebrew clicks: From the periphery of language to the heart of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics, 229. 19–39.

Ben-Moshe, Yotam & Yael Maschler. 2024b. Requests for confirmation sequences in Hebrew. Open Linguistics, 10(1). 20240028. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2024-0028

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2025. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ [Computer software]. Version 6.4.47.

Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell.

Calude, Andreea S. 2008. Demonstrative clefts and double cleft constructions in spontaneous spoken English. Studia Linguistica, 62(1). 78–118. 

Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Collins, Peter C. 1991. Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English. London and New York: Routledge.

Cooperrider, Kensy, Natasha Abner & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2018. The palm-up puzzle: Meanings and origins of a widespread form in gesture and sign. Frontiers in Communication, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00023

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margaret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2014. Frequency, Forms and Functions of Cleft Constructions in Romance and Germanic: Contrastive, Corpus-Based Studies. Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 

Du Bois, John W. 2012. Representing Discourse. Unpublished manuscript, Linguistics Department, University of California at Santa Barbara (Fall 2012 version). https://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/research/santa-barbara-corpus.

Du Bois, John W. 2014. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3). 359–410.

Du Bois, John W., Susanna Cumming, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn & Pao­lino Danae. 1992. Discourse Transcription. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4. Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, Univer­sity of California, Santa Barbara.

Erdmann, Peter. 1986. A note on reverse wh-clefts in English. In Dieter Kastovsky & Aleksander Szwedek (eds.) Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: Vol 1: Linguistic Theory and Historical Linguistics. Vol 2: Descriptive, Contrastive, and Applied Linguistics. In Honour of Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of His Fiftieth Birthday, 851-858. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.  

Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence,14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Garassino, Davide. 2014. Reverse Pseudo-cleft sentences in Italian and English: A contrastive analysis. Tra romanistica e germanistica: lingua, testo, cognizione e cultura/Between Romance and Germanic: language, text, cognition and culture, 55-74.‏

Geluykens, Ronald. 1984. Focus phenomena in English: An empirical investigation into cleft and pseudo-cleft sentences. (Tech. Rep. No. 36). Antwerp: Universitaire Installing Antwerpen, Departement Germaanse. 

Geluykens, Ronald. 1988. Five types of clefting in English discourse. Linguistics, 26. 823–841. 

Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goodwin, Charles. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10). 1489-1522.   

Goodwin, Charles. 2018. Co-Operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Günthner, Susanne. 2011. Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. In Peter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 156-185. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.  

Günthner, Susanne & Paul J. Hopper. 2010. Zeitlichkeit & sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudo-clefts im Englischen und Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 11. 1–28.

Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. In Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis, & Hana Filip (eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 139-157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance? In Martin Pütz, Susanne Neimeier & René Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition, 109-129. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Hopper, Paul J. 2004. The openness of grammatical constructions. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 40(2). 153-175.

Hopper, Paul J. 2011. Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics.  In Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 22–44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 

Hopper, Paul J. 2020. Afterword. In Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan Lindström, & Leelo Keevallik (eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action, 331–338. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson.  2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Laury Ritva (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 99-123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Inbar, Anna. 2020. 'al tafkidey hareshimot basiax: nituax hamexvot hanilvot lereshimot basiax ha'ivri hadavur [‘On the functions of lists in discourse: The analysis of gestures coordinated with list constructions in spoken Israeli Hebrew’]. divrey haxug hayisre'eli levalshanut 22 [Proceedings of the 33rd–35th Annual Meetings of the Haiim Rosén Israeli Linguistic Society 22]. 69–84. 

Inbar, Anna. 2022. The raised index finger gesture in Hebrew multimodal interaction. Gesture, 21(2/3). 264–295.

Inbar, Anna & Yael Maschler. 2023. Shared knowledge as an account for disaffiliative moves: Hebrew ki ‘because’-clauses accompanied by the Palm-Up Open-Hand Gesture. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 56(2). 141-164, DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2023.2205302. 

Jespersen, Otto. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VII.  Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.

Johansson, Stig. 2001. The German and Norwegian correspondences to the English construction type that’s what. Linguistics, 39(3). 583-605.

Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Küttner, Uwe-A. 2020. Tying sequences together with the [That’s + Wh-Clause] format: On (Retro-) sequential junctures in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(2). 247–270.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1739422 

Lambrecht, Knut. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39(3). 463–516.

Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sensemaking. Information Age Publishing.

Marrese, Olivia H., Chase W. Raymond, Barbara A. Fox, Cecilia E. Ford & Megan Pielke. 2021. The grammar of obviousness: The Palm-Up gesture in argument sequences. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 663067.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.663067

Maschler, Yael. 2017. The emergence of Hebrew loydea/loydat (‘I dunno MASC/FEM’) from interaction: Blurring the boundaries between discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle. In Andrea Sansò & Chiara Fedriani (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives, 37–69. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Maschler, Yael & Stav Fishman. 2020. From multi-clausality to discourse markerhood: The Hebrew ma she- ‘what that’ construction in pseudo-cleft-like structures. Journal of Pragmatics, 159. 73–97. 

Maschler, Yael, Jan Lindström, & Elwys De Stefani. 2023. Pseudo-clefts: An interactional analysis across languages. In Elwys De Stefani, Jan Lindström & Yael Maschler (eds.), Pseudo-Clefts from a Comparative Pragmatic Typological Perspective. Special issue of Lingua, 291. Article 103538.

Maschler, Yael & Simona Pekarek Doehler. 2022. Pseudo-cleft-like structures in Hebrew and French conversation: The syntax-lexicon-body interface. Lingua 280. Article 103397.

Maschler, Yael, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan Lindström & Leelo Keevallik. (forthc.). The grammar-body     interface: A cross-linguistic analysis of pseudo-cleft-like constructions in Hebrew, French, Swedish and Estonian interaction.  

Maschler, Yael, Hilla Polak-Yitzhaki, Galith Aghion, Ophir Fofliger, Nikolaus Wildner, Yotam M. Ben Moshe, Rotem Lagil, Shira Saar, Anna Inbar & Yuval Geva. 2024. The Haifa Multimodal Corpus of Spoken Hebrew.

https://cris.haifa.ac.il/en/publications/the-haifa-multimodal-corpus-of-spoken-hebrew/

Mondada, Lorenza. 2006. Challenges of multimodality: Language and body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3). 336–366.

Mondada, Lorenza. 2019. Conventions for multimodal transcription. https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription. 

Müller, Cornelia. 2004. Forms and uses of the palm up open hand: A case of a gesture family? In Cornelia Müller & Roland Posner (eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures, 233–256. Berlin: Weidler.

Oberlander, Jon & Judy Delin. 1996. The function and interpretation of reverse wh-clefts in spoken Discourse. Language and Speech, 39(2-3). 185–227. 

Ozerov, Pavel. 2019. This is not an Interrogative: The prosody of “wh-questions” in Hebrew and the sources of their questioning and rhetorical interpretations. Language Sciences, 72. 13–35. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2018.12.004. 

Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2011. Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. In Laury Ritva & Suzuki Ryoko (eds.), Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 103-148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla. 2017. ben dibur le'asiya: hapo'al 'asa 'ufe'alim 'axerim basiax ha'ivri hadavur [‘Between Saying and Doing: The Verb 'asa (‘do’) and Other Verbs in Spoken Hebrew Discourse’]. Haifa: University of Haifa. Doctoral dissertation. 

Prince, Ellen. 1978. A comparison of WH-clefts and IT-clefts in English discourse. Language, 54. 883-906.

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959 [1913]. Course in General Linguistics.  Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, in collaboration with Albert Reidlinger. Translated from French by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided for place for the defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 95(5). 1295–1345.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8. 289–327.

Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin & Curtis LeBaron (eds.). 2011. Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2008. “All that he endeavoured to prove was …”: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual and dialogic contexts. Pre-publication version of paper published in Robin Cooper & Ruth Kempson (eds.) Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution, 143-177. London: Kings College Publications.

Weinert, Regina & Jim Miller. 1996. Cleft constructions in spoken language. Journal of Pragmatics, 25. 173–206. 

Yatsiv-Malibert, Ilil. 2009. le'ifyunam shel mivnim mevuka'im basafa hadvura [‘On cleft constructions in the spoken language’]. Balshanut 'ivrit [‘Hebrew Linguistics’] 62–63. 131–143.

Downloads

Published

2026-02-25

How to Cite

1.
Maschler Y, Polak-Yitzhaki H. That’s what I need: A multimodal study of Hebrew ‘Reversed Pseudo-Clefts’. LTC [Internet]. 2025 Jan. 1 [cited 2026 Feb. 27];5(2):123-60. Available from: https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/view/21325

Issue

Section

Research articles