DIRECT AND INDIRECT SPEECH IN STRAIGHT-TALKING ISRAELI

Acta Linguistica Hungarica, Vol. 53 (4), pp. 467–481 (2006)
DOI: 10.1556/ALing.53.2006.4.5
DIRECT AND INDIRECT SPEECH
IN STRAIGHT-TALKING ISRAELI
GHIL‘AD ZUCKERMANN
The University of Queensland
St Lucia QLD 4072
Australia
gz208@cam.ac.uk
Abstract: Israeli is currently one of the official languages of the State of Israel. It is a
fusional synthetic language, with non-concatenative discontinuous morphemes realised
by vowel infixation. This typological paper demonstrates that there is a clear distinc-
tion in Israeli between direct and indirect speech. The indirect speech report, which
is a subset of complement clauses, is characterized by a shift in person, spatial and
temporal deixis. However, unlike in English, the verbs usually do not undergo a tense
shift. Israeli has various lexicalized direct speech reports. By and large, Israeli re-
ported speech constructions reflect Yiddish and Standard Average European patterns,
often enhancing a suitable pre-existent Hebrew construction.
Keywords: Hebrew, reported speech, Yiddish, lexical derivation, Congruence Principle
1. Introduction
1.1. General information
Israeli (Zuckermann 1999; 2006b, a.k.a. “Modern Hebrew”) is currently
one of the official languages — with Arabic and English — of the State
of Israel, established in 1948 on 20,770 km2 (0.22 of Hungary) in the
Middle East. It is spoken to varying degrees of fluency by its 7,026,000
citizens (as of May 2006) — as a mother tongue by most Jews (whose
total number exceeds 5.6 million), and as a second language by Muslims
1216–8076/$ 20.00 © 2006 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

---

468
ghil‘ad zuckermann
(Arabic-speakers), Christians (e.g., Russian- and Arabic-speakers), Druze
(Arabic-speakers) and others.
1.2. Grammatical profile
Israeli is a fusional synthetic language, with non-concatenative discontin-
uous morphemes realised by vowel infixation. Compare (1) and (2), both
formed from the root p.t..r., but fitted into two distinct verb-templates:
(1)(1) רטפנ
niftár
pass.away:3msg.past
‘(he) passed away’
(2)(2) ונרטופתה
hitputárnu
resign:1pl.past:“coercive”
‘We “resigned” (implying that we were encouraged to do so; had we not done so,
we would have been fired anyway).’
Israeli is a head-marking language. It is nominative-accusative at the
syntactic level and partially also at the morphological level. As opposed
to Biblical Hebrew — whose constituent order is VAO(E)/VS(E) — but
like Standard Average European and English, the usual constituent order
of Israeli is AVO(E)/SV(E). Thus, where there is no case marking, one
can resort to the constituent order.
The main clause in Israeli consists of (a) clause-initial peripheral
markers, e.g., discourse markers; (b) NP(s) or complement clause(s); (c) a
predicate — either verbal, copular or verbless; (d) clause-final peripheral
elements, e.g., discourse markers. The only obligatory element is the
predicate, e.g., higáti ‘arrive:1sg.past’.
Sentences (3), (4) and (5) are examples of a verbal, copular and
verbless clause, respectively:
(3)
(3) .חופת הלכא הדליה
[ha-yaldá]A [akhl-á]V
[tapúakh]O
[def-girl]A [eat:3past-fsg]V [apple]O
‘The girl ate an apple.’
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53, 2006

---

direct and indirect speech in straight-talking israeli
469
(4)
(4) .ילש תוחא איה תאזה הדליה
[ha-yaldá ha-zòt]CS
[hi]COP
[akhót shel-ì]CC
[def-girl def-prox.fsg]CS [cop:fsg]COP [sister gen-1sg]CC
‘This girl is my sister.’
(5)
(5) .המכח הדליה
[ha-yaldá]VCS [khakham-á]VCC
[def-girl]VCS [clever-f]VCC
‘The girl is clever.’
There are various types of subordinate clause, e.g., adverbial (denot-
ing comparison, time, place, condition, concession, reason, result, goal,
state), adjectival/relative, and nominal/ complement. By and large, these
follow the Standard Average European profile. Indirect speech report fits
into the overall system of complement clauses — see section 3.1.
2. Speech report constructions
2.1. The DSR/ISR distinction
Due to (inter alia) the lack of evidentials in the language, Israeli does not
possess any monoclausal speech report construction. It has a clear dis-
tinction between multiclausal direct speech report (henceforth, DSR) and
multiclausal indirect speech report (henceforth, ISR), the ISR generally
being more common than DSR.
Distinguishing features characterizing ISR:
(i) Shift in person deixis, e.g., 2 > 1
(ii) Shift in spatial and temporal deixis, e.g., ‘today’ > ‘that day’, also
spatial demonstratives, e.g., ‘this’ > ‘that’
(iii) Obligatory presence of a complementizer immediately before the
speech report, unless the speech report is of the ‘infinitive’ (iv) or
interrogative type (v)
(iv) In report of commands: imperative/future verb > “infinitive” (tense-
less verb, commonly referred to in Israeli grammar as “infinitive”,
thus, henceforth, inf)
(v) In report of questions: interrogative-less yes/no question > im (lit.
‘if’) or ha-ím (lit. ‘inter-if’) ‘whether’ immediately before the in-
direct question
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53, 2006

---

470
ghil‘ad zuckermann
Unlike in English, verbs do not undergo a tense shift. The future tense in
a speech act in the past does not become future-in-the-past in ISR (see
(16)); unlike English (cf. would), Israeli does not have a form of future-
in-the-past. Similarly, present tense in a speech act in the past usually
does not become past in ISR (see (9)).
Like in English, in indirect “wh-questions”, the interrogative remains
the same. Unlike in English, there is no change in constituent order (see
(15)–(16)).
Distinguishing features characterizing DSR:
(i) Special intonation contour, tending to be mimetic
(ii) Possible intonational break before the DSR
(iii) Possible absence of a reporting verb
(iv) Possible discontinuity of the DSR
(v) Possible use of a vocative particle
(vi) In writing: presence of quotation marks, as well as exclamation/
question mark
Sentences (6) and (7) demonstrate the shift in person deixis:
(6
( )
6 "! סכ ונל י "
א ו
: נל ר
ו מא ה
hem amr-ú
l-anù
[én
l-anù
késef]DSR
3mpl say:3past-pl dat-1pl [exis.cop:neg dat-1pl money]
‘They told us: “We have no money!”’
(7
( )
7) . סכ הל יא
ש ונל ורמא ה
hem amr-ú
l-anù
she-én
l-ahèm
késef ISR
3mpl say:3past-pl dat-1pl comp-exis.cop:neg dat-3mpl money
‘They told us that they had no money.’
Sentences (8) and (9) demonstrate the lack of tense shift in verbs:
(8
( )
8 ."הדילג הצור ינ "
א ה
: שחל ילט
Tali lakhash-á
[anì rotsá
glída]DSR
Tali whisper:3past-fsg [1sg want:fsg.pres ice.cream]
‘Tali whispered: “I want ice cream!”’
(9()9) ה
. דילג ה ו
צ ר איהש השחל ילט
Tali lakhash-á
she-hì
rotsá
glída ISR
Tali whisper:3past-fsg comp-3fsg want:fsg.pres ice.cream]
‘Tali whispered that she wanted ice cream.’
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53, 2006

---

direct and indirect speech in straight-talking israeli
471
Note that—in contrast to the English translation—the verb ‘want’ is in
the present tense in both sentences.
2.2. Exclamative and vocative DSR
Obviously, not every DSR is transformable into an ISR:
(1
( 0
1 )
0) " י
! יוו יו "
א ה
: חווצ איה ,היידוהי איהש טיירבלוא לדמל "ולי "
ג שכ
k-she-“gil-ú”
le-mádlen
ólbrayt
she-hí
yehudi-yá ISR
when-comp-“reveal”:past-3pl to-Madeleine Albright comp-3fsg Jewish-fsg
hi
tsavkh-á
[óy véy!]DSR
3fsg scream:3past-fsg [Oy vey]
‘When it was “revealed” to Madeleine Albright that she was Jewish, she screamed:
“Oy vey!” ’
ISR cannot convey the associations accompanying a DSR vocative par-
ticle:
(1
( 1
1 )
1 " ת
! יקינדונ א
י ,דנדנל יקיספ "
ת ה
: ילע קעצ אוה
hu
tsaák
al-èa:
3msg shout:3msg.past on-3fsg
[tafsík-i
le-nadnéd, ya
núdnik-it!]DSR
[stop:2fut/imp-fsg inf-bother voc:derog pest-fsg]
‘He shouted at her: “Stop bothering, ya pest!”’
The vocative particle ya (cf. archaic English O, as well as contempo-
rary colloquial (Antipodean) English ya, or y’, from you) is currently
derogatory in the sense that it only precedes derogatory NPs. This par-
ticle can be traced back to the vocative exclamatory Ara
Ar b
a ic
bic p
a
p r
a t
r i
t c
i l
c e
l [ya:]. Initially, Israeli
[ya:]. Initially, Israeli ya — just like in Arabic — was not derogatory —
see the Israeli songs ya mishlatí ‘O my fortified cliff’ and ya khabíbi ‘O
my dear’. However, native Israeli-speakers are aware of the Arabic ety-
mon and — perhaps due to the negative (e.g., terroristic) associations of
Arabic among Israelis—ya underwent semantic—or rather pragmatic—
narrowing: pejoration.
2.3. ISR complementizer
As shown in (7) and (9), ISR usually uses the common Israeli comple-
mentizer she [Se] ‘that’, which — just like English that — also acts as a
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53, 2006

---

472
ghil‘ad zuckermann
relativizer. She- ‘that’ can be traced back to the Hebrew complemen-
tizer she- ‘that’, which derives from the Hebrew relativizer she- ‘that’.
One etymological analysis is that she- is a shortened form of the Hebrew
relativizer ’asher ‘that’, which is related to Akkadian ‘ashru ‘place’ (cf.
Semitic *’athar).
Instead of using the she- complementizer, a more formal Israeli writer
could use the rare complementizer ki ‘that’, which derives from the He-
brew complementizer k¯ı ‘that’, from ki ‘because’. Consider the following
minimal pair:
(1
( 2
1 )
2 ע
. שפמ ח אוה יכ ריהצה שאנה
ha-neeshám
hitsír
ki
hu
khaf mi-pésha ISR
def-accused:msg declare:3msg.past comp 3msg clean from-crime
‘The accused declared that he was innocent.’
(1
( 3
1 )
3 ע
. שפמ ח אוה יכ הכוז שאנה
ha-neeshám
zuká
[ki
hu
khaf mi-pésha]CAUS
def-accused:msg acquit:3msg.past:pass [caus 3msg clean from-crime]
‘The accused was acquitted because he was innocent.’
Whereas in (12) ki introduces an ISR, in (13) it introduces a causal clause.
But such versatility can easily result in ambiguity:
(1
( 4
1 )
4 ה
. ז תא וריבסה רבכ יכ יל ו
רפיס אל ה
hen lo
sipr-ú
l-i
3fpl neg tell:3past-pl dat-1sg
ki
kvar
hisbír-u
et ze ISR/CAUS
comp/caus already explain:3past-pl acc prox.msg
‘They (f) did not tell me that it had already been explained.’
or ‘They (f) did not tell me (about it) because it had already been explained.’
Thus, ki is often avoided even by Israelis attempting to write in a high-
flown manner. As opposed to she-, I categorize ki as a prescriptive com-
plementizer tout court. That said, some French-speaking immigrants to
Israel use the complemetizer ki less rarely than other Israelis because of
the serendipitous phonetic similarity to the French complementizer que
‘that’ — cf. Zuckermann (2006b).
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53, 2006

---

direct and indirect speech in straight-talking israeli
473
2.4. Direct and indirect questions
Unlike in English, Israeli indirect questions demonstrate neither a shift in
verb tense nor a change in constituent order. Thus, besides the distinct
intonation, the only difference between (15) and (16) is the pronominal
suffix used with the genitive shel ‘of’ (i.e., the only shift is in person):
(1
( 5
1 )
5 "?ועיגי לש ירוהה ית "
מ ה
: תוא לאש אוה
hu
shaál
ot-à
3msg ask:3msg.past dat-3fsg
[matáy ha-hor-ím
shel-àkh yagí-u]DSR
[when def-parent-mpl gen-2fsg arrive:3fut-pl]
‘He asked her: “When will your parents arrive?”’
(1
( 6
1 )
6 .ועיגי הלש ירוהה יתמ התוא לאש אוה
hu
shaál
ot-à
3msg ask:3msg.past dat-3fsg
matáy ha-hor-ím
shel-à
yagí-u ISR
when def-parent-mpl gen-3fsg arrive:3fut-pl
‘He asked her when her parents would arrive.’
Thus, one may regard the indirect question as a semi-direct speech report.
Although Standard Average European (often via Yiddish) is un-
doubtedly an important source for Israeli reported speech, this indirect
question construction seems to have already existed in Hebrew too. Con-
sider, for example, Biblical Hebrew lo noda‘ mi hikkáhu ‘it be not known
who hath slain him ’ (Deuteronomy 21 : 1). Such multiple causation cor-
responds with the Congruence Principle: if a feature exists in more than
one contributor, it is more likely to persist in the target language (see
Zuckermann 2003).
2.5. Direct and indirect commands: infinitive ISR
ISR can lack a complementizer and instead begin with a tenseless verb,
commonly referred to as “infinitive”.
(1
( 7
1 )
7) " ת
! וקד עבש ות אכ ויהת" ה
: תר ה
ו תדקפמה
ha-mefakéd-et
hortá
[tiyú
kan tokh
shéva dak-ót]DSR
def-commander-fsg order:3fsg.past [be:2pl-fut/imp here within seven minute-pl]
‘The commander (f) ordered: “Be here within seven minutes!”’
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53, 2006

---

474
ghil‘ad zuckermann
(1
( 8
1 )
8 .תוקד עבש ות ש תויהל התרוה תדקפמה
ha-mefakéd-et
hortá
li-yót sham tokh
shéva dak-ót ISR
def-commander-fsg order:3fsg.past inf-be there within seven minute-pl
‘The commander (f) ordered to be back there within seven minutes.’
DSR has the capacity to be more nuanced than ISR. Thus, one ISR can
be parallel to several distinct DSRs. For example, (18) can be the ISR
not only of (17) but also of (19), which includes a semantic future perfect,
realised morphologically in colloquial Israeli by the past:
(1
( 9
1 )
9 "! אכ תייה תוקד עבש ות" ה
: תרוה תדקפמה
ha-mefakéd-et
hortá
[tokh
shéva dak-ót
haítem
kan]DSR
def-commander-fsg order:3fsg.past [within seven minute-pl be:2mpl.past here]
‘The commander (f) ordered: “Within seven minutes, you will have arrived back
here!”’
3. Syntactic role of speech report content
3.1. ISR versus complement clause
Israeli ISR conforms to complement clause structure. The following three
sentences, which constitute a continuum, demonstrate that ISR is a sub-
set of complementation:
(2
( 0
2 )
0 .הפי איהש עדוי ינא
anì yodéa
she-hì
yaf-á COMP
1sg know:msg.pres comp-3fsg beautiful-fsg
‘I know that she is beautiful.’
(21) .הפי איהש יתעמש
shamá-ti
she-hì
yaf-á COMP/ISR
hear:past-1sg comp-3fsg beautiful-fsg
‘I heard that she is beautiful.’ (a general hearsay, not referring to a specific speech
act) or ‘I heard that she was beautiful.’ (a specific speech act)
(22)) .הפי איהש הל יתרמא
amár-ti
l-a
she-hì
yaf-á ISR
say:past-1sg dat-3fsg comp-3fsg beautiful-fsg
‘I told her that she was beautiful.’
A speech report can be referred to en bloc using the proximal demonstra-
tive ze ‘this’. Thus, (23) could be a retort to (22):
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53, 2006

---

direct and indirect speech in straight-talking israeli
475
(2
( 3
2 )
3 ?תוניצרב הז תא תרמא התא
atá
amár-ta
et ze
bi-rtsinút?
2msg say:past-2msg acc prox.msg in-seriousness
‘Did you say that seriously?’
3.2. Reporting verbs
The reporting verb usually appears before the speech report, although in
literary style, it can follow the speech report either immediately or after
the A, i.e., either ‘Go away!’, said the child or ‘Go away!’, the child said,
the former being of a higher register.
The most common verb used in both DSRs and ISRs is the transi-
tive amár ‘say:3msg.past’. This verb has suppletive future and infinitive
forms: yagíd ‘say:3msg.fut’ and le-hagíd ‘inf-say’ respectively. That said,
the future and infinitive forms yomár and l-omár exist but, unlike in
Hebrew, they are not normally used in Israeli.
As previously seen, Israeli has a plethora of other reporting verbs
(see Table 1, overleaf).
Moreover, colloquial Israeli often employs asá, lit. ‘do:3msg.past’, as
a reporting verb:
(24)
" ואדב הז המ ינא ע
! טק ע '
מ צ" י
: ל השוע תאזה הלובהמה זא
" ת
! ובגל תוצצפ הזש רמוא ות ט
, רסל יאוב ?תמ ימ ?הרק המ המל" ה
: ל י
תישע זא
az ha-mahabúl-a ha-zòt
osá
l-i
so def-fool-fsg
def-prox.fsg do:fsgpres dat-1sg
[chmá
kèta,
anì má
ze
be-dàwn]DSR
[hear:2msgimp fragment 1sg what prox.msg in-down]
az asíti
l-a
[làma má
karà?
mí
met?,
so do:1sgpast dat-3fsg why what happen:3msg.past who die:3msg.past
bói
l-a-séret,
tom omér
come:2fsg.imp to-def-film Tom say:msg.pres
she-zé
ptsats-ót l-a-gab-ót ISR]DSR
comp-proxmsg bomb-fpl to-def-eyebrow-fpl ]
‘So that idiot (f) goes: “Listen, I’m really down”. So I was like: “What the hell?
What’s your deal? Come to the film, Tom says it’s wicked.” ’
Literally: ‘So this idiot (f) does to me: “Hear a fragment, I’m what in a down!”.
So I did to her: “Why, what happened? Who died? Come to the film, Tom says
that this is bombs to the eyebrows!”.’
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53, 2006

---

476
ghil‘ad zuckermann
Table 1
Classification of Reporting Verbs
Verb
Transitivity
Translation
Semantic Class
amár
tr
say
saying
sipér
tr
tell, recount (cf. safár ‘count’) saying
hodía
tr
announce, notify
saying
yidéa
tr (O=addressee) inform
saying
taán
tr
claim
saying
hitsír
tr
declare
saying
hikhríz
tr
proclaim
saying
tsaák
tr
shout
saying + speech manner
lakhásh
tr
whisper
saying + speech manner
milmél
tr
mutter
saying + speech manner
shar
amb
sing
saying + speech manner
gimgém
intr
stutter
saying + speech manner
tsavákh
tr
scream
saying + speech manner
tsarákh
tr
yell
saying + speech manner
zaák
tr
cry out
saying + speech manner
tsahál
intr
rejoice
saying + speech manner
yilél
intr
howl
saying + speech manner
yibév
intr
wail
saying + speech manner
tsikhkék intr
giggle
saying + speech manner
shaág
intr
roar
saying + speech manner
teér
tr
describe
proposition
hisbír
tr
explain
proposition
tsién
tr
mention
proposition
hizkír
tr
mention
proposition
heelíl
tr
allege
proposition
heíd
intr
testify
proposition
diveákh
tr
report
report
perét
tr
detail
report
hosíf
tr
add
report
hivtíakh tr
promise
promise
iyém
intr
threaten
promise
hizhír
tr (O=addressee) warn
promise
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53, 2006

---