Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2026 / That’s what I need: A multimodal study of Hebrew ‘Reversed Pseudo-Clefts’

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

Summary

The paper examines a Hebrew structure built from ze 'this', ma 'what', the subordinator she- and a following clause, as in "that's what I need." Grammars usually label it a 'reversed pseudo-cleft': a copular matrix clause whose predicate is a nominalized clause. The authors use Interactional Linguistics and multimodal analysis of video, covering prosody, word choice, syntax, pragmatics and gesture. The Haifa Multimodal Corpus of Spoken Hebrew, a collection of casual talk among friends and family, supplied their data: 70 tokens located through manual searching.

They argue that ze ma she- behaves as a fixed chunk. It grew out of repeated discourse moves, and the data give no reason to treat it as an inverted pseudo-cleft. Most uses (71%) either frame earlier talk metalingually or back up a claim. Rarer uses include:

  • asking for clarification
  • stating general truths
  • disclaiming responsibility
  • returning to a topic

The summarizing function, said to dominate in English, appears only twice. The study suggests that functions attributed to a construction in one language should not be assumed for its counterpart in another. It also treats gesture and prosody as part of grammar.

Key points

  • Data: the Haifa Multimodal Corpus of Spoken Hebrew provides about 9 hours of video. This covers 16 informal interactions with 42 speakers, 2–6 participants each, recorded 2016–2019.
  • Tokens: 70 tokens were found by manual search. Only ma 'what' occurs as the question word, whereas English allows where, how and others. Nine tokens have an adverb or quantifier before ma ("exactly what", "all what").
  • Functions: seven are identified. Metalingual framing and claim-backing together make up 71%. Summative use occurs in only 2 tokens.
  • Gesture: the palm-up open hand (PUOH) gesture accompanies 56% of claim-backing uses and none of the other functions.
  • Prosody:
    • The demonstrative carries the primary stress in 44% of tokens, which contradicts the view that it is Given and therefore unstressed.
    • 26% of tokens have two primary stresses.
    • All clarification-seeking tokens end in rising intonation.
    • All disclaiming tokens stress the responsible agent.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Analyze a frequent multiword frame as one crystallized unit with its own job, rather than forcing a compositional embedded-clause analysis onto it. — For Mova (tree): Conversion and parsing could tag English "that's what + clause" as a construction-level unit. Downstream steps would then not read it as an ordinary copular predication.
  • I2. Classify a construction by the social action it performs, such as metalingually framing prior talk or backing a claim, instead of by its information-structure label alone. — For Mova (frames): The speech-act layer in prag could map "that's (exactly) what I'm saying" to an agreement or claim-support act rather than to a new assertion.
  • I3. Check functions borrowed from another language or from earlier literature against real usage counts; here the supposedly dominant summative use almost vanished. — For Mova (learn): Evaluation could include checks that test whether rules imported from grammar descriptions really hold on our own corpora, instead of trusting the prior label.
  • I4. Some frozen variants ("that's what there is", "that's what one does", "that's what it is") have hardened into stock phrases for stating general truths. — For Mova (world): Such idioms should yield generic or attitudinal statements, not concrete facts or states about entities in the text's world.
  • I5. The demonstrative often points back to a stretch of prior talk, and it is frequently stressed, so it is not always backgrounded old information. — For Mova (frames): Coreference could allow "that" in this frame to take a previous utterance or claim as its antecedent, not only a noun phrase entity.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.60923/issn.2785-0943/21325

@inproceedings{maschler2026that,
  title = {{That’s what I need: A multimodal study of Hebrew ‘Reversed Pseudo-Clefts’}},
  author = {Maschler, Yael and Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla},
  booktitle = {Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 5},
  year = {2026},
  doi = {10.60923/issn.2785-0943/21325},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.60923/issn.2785-0943/21325}
}

References

50 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Antaki, Charles & Ivan Leudar. 1990. Claim-backing and other explanatory genres in talk. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9. 279–292. find
  2. Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25. 7-36. find
  3. Auer, Peter. 2009. On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences, 31. 1-13. find
  4. Auer, Peter & Yael Maschler. 2013. Discourse or Grammar? VS patterns in spoken Hebrew and spoken German narratives. Language Sciences, 37. 147–181. find
  5. 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. find
  6. Ball, Catherine N. 1991. The historical development of the it-cleft. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Doctoral Dissertation. find
  7. Ben-Moshe, Yotam & Yael Maschler. 2024a. Hebrew clicks: From the periphery of language to the heart of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics, 229. 19–39. find
  8. 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 ↗
  9. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. find
  10. Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2025. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ [Computer software]. Version 6.4.47. ↗
  11. 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. find
  12. Calude, Andreea S. 2008. Demonstrative clefts and double cleft constructions in spontaneous spoken English. Studia Linguistica, 62(1). 78–118. find
  13. Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. find
  14. Collins, Peter C. 1991. Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English. London and New York: Routledge. find
  15. 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 ↗
  16. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margaret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  17. 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. find
  18. 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. ↗
  19. Du Bois, John W. 2014. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3). 359–410. find
  20. 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. find
  21. 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. find
  22. 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. find
  23. 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. find
  24. 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. find
  25. Geluykens, Ronald. 1988. Five types of clefting in English discourse. Linguistics, 26. 823– 841. find
  26. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. find
  27. Goodwin, Charles. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10). 1489-1522. find
  28. Goodwin, Charles. 2018. Co-Operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  29. 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. find
  30. Günthner, Susanne & Paul J. Hopper. 2010. Zeitlichkeit & sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudo-clefts im Englischen und Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 11. 1–28. find
  31. 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. find
  32. 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. find
  33. Hopper, Paul J. 2004. The openness of grammatical constructions. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 40(2). 153-175. find
  34. 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. find
  35. 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. find
  36. 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. find
  37. 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 33 rd –35 th Annual Meetings of the Haiim Rosén Israeli Linguistic Society 22]. 69–84. find
  38. Inbar, Anna. 2022. The raised index finger gesture in Hebrew multimodal interaction. Gesture, 21(2/3). 264–295. find
  39. 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. ↗
  40. Jespersen, Otto. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VII. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard. find
  41. Johansson, Stig. 2001. The German and Norwegian correspondences to the English construction type that’s what. Linguistics, 39(3). 583-605. find
  42. Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  43. 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 ↗
  44. Lambrecht, Knut. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39(3). 463–516. find
  45. Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sensemaking. Information Age Publishing. find
  46. 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 ↗
  47. 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. find
  48. 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. find
  49. 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. find
  50. 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: find

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/maschler-2026-thats-i-need-multimodal-study/