This article argues that the [+distal] feature of demonstrative that is also present in complementizer that, and has not bleached away. In particular, we argue that complementizer that is referenti... Show moreThis article argues that the [+distal] feature of demonstrative that is also present in complementizer that, and has not bleached away. In particular, we argue that complementizer that is referential: it refers to an element in the Shared Discourse Space (an extension of the Common Ground) that can be seen as distal. This allows us to explain (i) that direct speech patterns with [−distal] (Sue said this/#that: “It is raining”) while indirect speech patterns with [+distal] (Sue said *this/that it is raining); (ii) the use of that in exclamatives (That bio industry is still allowed!); and (iii) that optional that is more frequently used when there is some sort of context between Speaker and Addressee. This last phenomenon has parallels in Romance complementizers derived from Latin quod, which can likewise be seen as [+distal]. We propose that [+distal] is a marker of Addressee involvement, which can account for all these phenomena, and can be extended to demonstrative uses of that. In exophoric contexts, [+distal] additionally marks actual distance. The interpretation of Addressee involvement and actual distance depends on context; we propose that it is derived from the interaction between the syntactic DP/CP domain and the pragmatic exophoric/endophoric distinction. Show less
The expression lip̄nē, literally "to the face of," is commonly translated as "before." In combination with the root ngp ("inflict/defeat"), this leads to awkward English translations; e.g., "Israel... Show moreThe expression lip̄nē, literally "to the face of," is commonly translated as "before." In combination with the root ngp ("inflict/defeat"), this leads to awkward English translations; e.g., "Israel was defeated before the Philistines" (1 Sam 4:2). What exactly is the role of the Philistines in this event? In recent years, some scholars have used grammaticalization theory to argue that lip̄nē in this context is an Agent marker: "Israel was defeated by the Philistines." However, this view is untenable in the face of arguments from narratology, syntactic-semantic restrictions, grammaticalization theory, and language typology. In present-day English, the near-literal translation "in the face of" is a better alternative: lip̄nē is a simple Locative prepositional expression, but the element "face" has the connotation that Israel is threatened by the Philistines. In other words, Israel is in the "realm of influence" of the Philistines. The actual Agent of ngp is Yahweh, who determines the result of battles, as can be seen in the active voice: "Yahweh defeated Benjamin in the face of Israel" (Judg 20:35). In fact, the meaning of the Hebrew expression is cross-linguistically common; the only problem is that the meaning of the English preposition "before" has shifted, so that the original translation came to be misunderstood. Show less
