Journal Articles
Bar-Asher EA, Furstenberg Y. A Reexamination of a Talmudical Discussion ‘teqafo kohen’. Sinay . 2000;125 :48-80 . a_reexamination_of_a_talmudical_discuss.pdf
Conference Proceedings
Baglini R. Direct causation: A new approach to an old question. PLC U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics [Internet]. Submitted;26 :19-28. Publisher's VersionAbstract


Causative constructions come in lexical and periphrastic variants, exemplified in English by Sam killed Lee and Sam caused Lee to die. While use of the former, the lexical causative, entails the truth of the latter, an entailment in the other direction does not hold.  The source of this asymmetry is commonly ascribed to the lexical causative having an additional prerequisite of “direct causation", such that the causative relation holds between a contiguous cause and effect (Fodor 1970, Katz 1970).  However, this explanation encounters both empirical and theoretical problems (Nelleman & van der Koot  2012). To explain the source of the directness inferences (as well as other longstanding puzzles), we propose a formal analysis based on the framework of Structural Equation Models (SEMs) (Pearl 2000) which provides the necessary background for licensing causal inferences. Specifically, we provide a formalization of a 'sufficient set of conditions' within a model and demonstrate its role in the selectional parameters of causative descriptions. We argue that “causal sufficiency” is not a property of singular conditions, but rather sets of conditions, which are individually necessary but only sufficient when taken together (a view originally motivated in the philosophical literature by Mackie 1965). We further introduce the notion of a “completion event” of a sufficient set, which is critical to explain the particular inferential profile of lexical causatives.
Bar-Asher Siegal EA, Bassel N, Hagmayer Y. Causal selection – the linguistic take. Experiments in Linguistic Meaning. Forthcoming;1. elm_paper_final.pdf
Bar-Asher Siegal EA, Boneh N. Sufficient and Necessary Conditions for a Non-Unified Analysis of Causation. the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL). Forthcoming;36.Abstract


Given that causative linguistic constructions are divisible into three parts: i) a cause (c); ii) an effect (e); and iii) the dependency (D) between (c) and (e), in studying the nature of (D), one should examine whether a one, all-encompassing, causative meaning component underlying the diverse linguistic phenomena is a justifiable position, or rather different ones should be distinguished for the various causative constructions. Only recently several philosophers argued in favor of theories of causal pluralism, allowing the co-existence of different notions of causation; some cognitive studies also indicate that people have a pluralistic conception of causation, similarly it has been proposed that the semantic content of (D) is different in various constructions, tracing whether the main verb encodes a necessary or a sufficient condition. This paper expands on this latter line of thought by focusing on the types of dependencies encoded within three verbal constructions in Hebrew, considering crucially whether these dependencies are asserted and/or presupposed. It argues, therefore, in favor of a non-unified semantic analysis for (D) denoted by the three verbal causative constructions to be passed under review here: overt causatives, verbs of change of state and caused activity verbs. According to the current proposal: Overt causatives assert necessary conditions;  change of states causatives assert necessary conditions and presuppose potential sufficient conditions; and Caused activities only presuppose potential sufficient conditions.


Bar-Asher Siegal EA. Saussure as a Synthesis of the Grammarians and the Neogrammarians: A Study in Saussure’s Philosophy of Science through the Lens of a Historical Discussion. Proceedings of the conference: The Cours de Linguistique Générale revisited: 1916-2016. Forthcoming.
Bar-Asher Siegal EA. A formal approach to reanalysis: The case of a negative counterfactual marker. LSA. 2020;5 (2) :34-50.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.

Bar-Asher Siegal EA. The Semitic templates from the perspective of reciprocal predicates. Proceedings of the 10th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting. 2016 :16-30. the_semitic_templates_from_the_perspecti.pdf
Bar-Asher Siegal EA, Boneh N. Decomposing Affectedness: Truth-Conditional Non-core Datives in Modern Hebrew. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics [Internet]. 2015 :1-21. Publisher's Version
Bar-Asher Siegal EA, Boneh N. Non-core datives in Modern Hebrew. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics [Internet]. 2015 :22. Publisher's Version
Conference Papers
Bar-Asher Siegal EA. Towards a Reconsideration of the Tense-Aspect-Mood System of Tannaitic Hebrew, in Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew and Related Fields Proceedings of the Yale Symposium on Mishnaic Hebrew May 2014. New Haven-Jerusalem: The Hebrew Language Academy Press ; Forthcoming :59-91. towards_a_reconsideration_of_the_tense-a.pdf
Bar-Asher EA. The Origin and the Typology of the Pattern qtil li in Syriac and Babylonian Aramaic, in Sha’arey Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish Languages in Honor of Moshe Bar-Asher. Vol II. Jerusalem : Hebrew University ; 2008 :360-392. the_origin_and_the_typology_of_the_patt.pdf
Hebrew and Aramaic in the Middle Ages – Language Studies and Grammatical Thought
Bar-Asher Siegal E, Yaakov D. Hebrew and Aramaic in the Middle Ages – Language Studies and Grammatical Thought. Jerusalem: The Academy of Hebrew Language; 2020.
Linguistic and philological studies in Hebrew and Aramaic
Bar-Asher Siegal EA. Linguistic and philological studies in Hebrew and Aramaic. Jerusalem: The Academy of Hebrew Language; 2020.
Perspectives on Causation: Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 2017 Workshop
Bar-Asher Siegal EA, Boneh N. Perspectives on Causation: Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 2017 Workshop. Springer; 2020 pp. 484. Publisher's VersionAbstract


This book explores relationships and maps out intersections between discussions on causation in three scientific disciplines: linguistics, philosophy, and psychology. The book is organized in five thematic parts, investigating connections between philosophical and linguistic studies of causation; presenting novel methodologies for studying the representation of causation; tackling central issues in syntactic and semantic representation of causal relations; and introducing recent advances in philosophical thinking on causation.

Beyond its thematic organization, readers will find several recurring topics throughout this book, such as the attempt to reduce causality to other non-causal terms; causal pluralism vs. one all-encompassing account for causation; causal relations pertaining to the mental as opposed to the physical realm, and more.


This collection also lays the foundation for questioning whether it is possible to evaluate available philosophical approaches to causation against the variety of linguistic phenomena ranging across diverse lexical and grammatical items, such as bound morphemes, prepositions, connectives, and verbs. Above all, it lays the groundwork for considering whether the fruits of the psychological-cognitive study of the perception of causal relations may contribute to linguistic and philosophical studies, and whether insights from linguistics can benefit the other two disciplines.



The NP-strategy for expressing reciprocity: Typology, history, syntax and semantics, (Typological Studies in Language 127)
The NP-strategy for expressing reciprocity: Typology, history, syntax and semantics, (Typological Studies in Language 127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing House; 2020 pp. 283+indexes. Publisher's VersionAbstract

This book provides a comprehensive treatment of the syntax and semantics of a single linguistic phenomenon – the NP-strategy for expressing reciprocity – in synchronic, diachronic, and typological perspectives. It challenges the assumption common in the typological, syntactic, and semantic literature, namely that so-called reciprocal constructions encode symmetric relations. Instead, they are analyzed as constructions encoding unspecified relations. In effect, it provides a new proposal for the truth-conditional semantics of these constructions. More broadly, this book introduces new ways of bringing together historical linguistics and formal semantics, demonstrating how, on the one hand, the inclusion of historical data concerning the sources of reciprocal constructions enriches their synchronic analysis; and how, on the other hand, an analysis of the syntax and the semantics of these constructions serves as a key for understanding their historical origins.

Bar-Asher Siegal EA ed. Proceeding of 31st annual meeting of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics; 2017 pp. 152.
Bar-Asher Siegal EA, Koller A ed. Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew and Related Fields: Proceedings of the Yale Symposium on Mishnaic Hebrew, May 2014. New Haven-Jerusalem: The Hebrew Language Academy Press; 2017 pp. 422. studies_in_mishnaic_hebrew_and_related_f.pdf
Introduction to the Grammar of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
Bar-Asher Siegal EA. Introduction to the Grammar of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. 2nd ed. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag; 2016 pp. 388. introduction_to_the_grammar_of_jewish_ba.pdf
Bar-Asher Siegal EA. Introduction to the Grammar of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag; 2013 pp. 361. introduction_to_the_grammar_of_jewish_ba.pdf
Book Chapters
Bar-Asher Siegal EA. The Language of the Mishnah – Between Late Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. In: What's the Mishna. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press ; Forthcoming.Abstract

In discussing the history of the Hebrew language, a distinction must be made between its history as a linguistic system and the history of its written forms. The former assumes an idealized periodization of the language and distinguishes between Early Hebrew (EH) and Late Hebrew (LH). The latter bases the division on corpora, resulting in the traditional classification into Biblical Hebrew, Qumranic Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, with further sub-divisions such as early vs. late Biblical Hebrew, Early vs. Late Mishnaic Hebrew, Babylonian vs. Palestinian Talmudic Hebrew, etc. Although these two perspectives are fundamentally different, they are clearly interrelated: on the one hand, our knowledge about the history of the structure(s) of the language is based on data gathered from the Hebrew corpora and on the historical setting of these texts; on the other hand, the analysis of the linguistic information in the corpora is a de facto description of how the different linguistic systems were used in each corpus. This paper aims to examine the language of the Mishnah from these two perspectives and explore the conceptual distinction between the two categories with which it is associated, namely Late Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. I will outline what it means to provide a description of Late Hebrew as a linguistic system, and what it means to examine Mishnaic Hebrew as the language of a written corpus. Accordingly, this paper has a twofold goal: 1) to explain the difference between the two perspectives as relevant to the language of the Mishnah. 2) to demonstrate the advantages of keeping them separate.