---
title: "Ze lo kaχa ‘It’s Not Like That’ — Shor 2017"
description: "The paper looks at kaχa, the everyday manner demonstrative of colloquial Israeli Hebrew, roughly 'thus' or 'like this'."
authors: ["Leon Shor"]
year: 2017
venue: "Studia Orientalia Electronica 5"
source: "https://journal.fi/store/article/view/63143"
doi: "https://doi.org/10.23993/store.63143"
licence: "CC BY-NC-SA (journal licence per DOAJ; Studia Orientalia Electronica)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/shor-2017-ze-lo-kaa-like-that/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/shor-2017-ze-lo-kaa-like-that/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2017](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2017/page/4/) / Ze lo kaχa ‘It’s Not Like That’: The Functions of the discourse-deictic kaχa ‘thus’ in spoken Israeli Hebrew

# Ze lo kaχa ‘It’s Not Like That’: The Functions of the discourse-deictic kaχa ‘thus’ in spoken Israeli Hebrew

**Authors:** [Leon Shor](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/leon-shor/) · **Year:** 2017 · **Venue:** Studia Orientalia Electronica 5 · **Licence:** [CC BY-NC-SA (journal licence per DOAJ; Studia Orientalia Electronica)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.23993/store.63143) · [PDF](https://journal.fi/store/article/download/63143/27158) · [DOI https://doi.org/10.23993/store.63143](https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.23993/store.63143) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2767292038)

**Citations:** 1 citations (openalex-snapshot · 2026-10-14)

## Summary
The paper looks at kaχa, the everyday manner demonstrative of colloquial Israeli Hebrew, roughly 'thus' or 'like this'. Grammars, which mostly describe written Hebrew, have largely overlooked it. Its literal use, pointing at something visible in the situation, turns out to be uncommon in conversation. Far more often it points at stretches of talk. Using recordings from the Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew, Shor separates backward-pointing (retrospective) uses from forward-pointing (prospective) ones. For each he asks two questions: what kind of discourse segment kaχa picks up, and what action the whole utterance containing it performs.

The referent is usually an extended piece of talk, one utterance or several, carrying a claim, opinion or assessment. Backward uses mostly take a stance on that content, so the speaker signals agreement or disagreement with whoever said it. Forward uses announce a longer turn the speaker is about to deliver, which secures the floor and primes the listener.

The study matters because it shows that a small deictic word only makes sense together with the utterance around it and the interaction it serves.

## Key points
- Data come from the Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew. Transcripts mark minor and major prosodic boundaries, pauses and overlap.
- Israeli Hebrew has two manner demonstratives that differ by register: kaχa is informal and conversational, while kaχ is formal or literary.
- The syntactic breakdown (Table 2) covers 55 kaχa utterances:
  - **Retrospective (41):** 31 verbal clauses (76%) and 10 non-verbal clauses (24%).
  - **Prospective (14):** 7 verbal (50%), 5 non-verbal (36%) and 2 stand-alone (14%).
- Typical patterns:
  - Retrospective: gam ani kaχa 'I'm like that too', used to agree with what was just said.
  - Prospective: ze holeχ kaχa, glossed 'it goes like this', opens a longer account; in this case the account justifies a disagreement.
- Stand-alone prospective kaχa is prosodically and syntactically independent. The author reads it as a discourse marker that may be grammaticalizing out of real reference.

## Interesting ideas
- Following Webber, a demonstrative pointing at the same sentence can resolve to different kinds of object depending on its frame: a speech act ("that's a lie"), a proposition ("that's false") or an event ("when did that happen?"). — For Mova (frames): Coreference for "this/that/so" should pick the referent's type (act, proposition or event) from the predicate that governs the pronoun, rather than always linking to a noun phrase.
- A deictic form gets its function from the utterance it sits in, so the right unit of analysis is the whole host utterance, not the word alone. — For Mova (frames): Speech-act tagging can treat "I'm like that too" or "it's not like that" as a whole construction meaning agreement or disagreement with the previous speaker's stance.
- A forward-pointing demonstrative creates a placeholder referent that starts nearly empty and fills in as the following discourse unfolds. — For Mova (world): When the reader meets "It went like this:" or "Here's how", it can open a pending entity or event slot and bind the following sentences into it as its content.
- Pointing at a claim with a manner word ("thus", "that's how") rather than an object word frames the claim as one person's way of acting, which is subjective and therefore open to dispute. — For Mova (frames): A cue like "that's how he sees it" can lower the factual commitment of the referred claim in the text world, marking it as a stance rather than an established fact.
- Telling apart a referential use from a bleached, stand-alone discourse-marker use of the same word, partly by its syntactic independence, is a useful diagnostic. — For Mova (tree): The parser and its UD conversion rules can label prosodically or syntactically isolated "so/like this" as discourse rather than advmod, so later stages do not try to resolve a referent for it.

*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](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/linguistics/)

Topics: [Discourse analysis](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/discourse-analysis/) · [Hebrew & Aramaic](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/hebrew-aramaic/) · [Semitic languages](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/semitic-languages/)

## Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@inproceedings{shor2017ze,
  title = {{Ze lo kaχa ‘It’s Not Like That’: The Functions of the discourse-deictic kaχa ‘thus’ in spoken Israeli Hebrew}},
  author = {Shor, Leon},
  booktitle = {Studia Orientalia Electronica 5},
  year = {2017},
  doi = {10.23993/store.63143},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.23993/store.63143}
}
```

- [← previous Universal Joint Morph-Syntactic Processing: The Open University of Israel's Submission to The CoNLL 2017 Shared Task](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/ud-2017-more-universal-joint-morph-syntactic-processing/)
- [next → A Preliminary Study for Building an Arabic Corpus of Pair Questions-Texts from the Web: AQA-Webcorp](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bakari-2017-preliminary-study-building-arabic-corpus/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2017](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2017/page/4/)

## References

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

1. A uer , Peter 2009. Projection and Minimalistic Syntax in Interaction. Discourse Processes 46(2–3): 180–205. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A+uer+%2C+Peter+2009%2E+Projection+and+Minimalistic+Syntax+in+Interaction%2E+Discourse+Processes+46%282%E2%80%933%29%3A+180%E2%80%93205%2E)
2. A zar , Moshe 1995. Taxbir lešon ha-mišna [The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A+zar+%2C+Moshe+1995%2E+Taxbir+le%C5%A1on+ha%2Dmi%C5%A1na+%5BThe+Syntax+of+Mishnaic+Hebrew%5D%2E+Jerusalem%3A+The+Academy+of+the+Hebrew+Language%2E)
3. B olden , Galina B. & Jenny M andelbaum 2017. The Use of Conversational Co-remembering to Corroborate Contentious Claims. Discourse Studies 19(1): 3–29. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=B+olden+%2C+Galina+B%2E+%26+Jenny+M+andelbaum+2017%2E+The+Use+of+Conversational+Co%2Dremembering+to+Corroborate+Contentious+Claims%2E+Discourse+Studies+19%281%29%3A+3%E2%80%9329%2E)
4. B orochovsky B ar -A ba , Esther 2010. Ha-ˁivrit ha-meduberet: prakim be-mexkarah, be-taxbirah u-ve-darxey habaˁatah [Issues in colloquial Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=B+orochovsky+B+ar+%2DA+ba+%2C+Esther+2010%2E+Ha%2D%CB%81ivrit+ha%2Dmeduberet%3A+prakim+be%2Dmexkarah%2C+be%2Dtaxbirah+u%2Dve%2Ddarxey+haba%CB%81atah+%5BIssues+in+colloquial+Hebrew%5D%2E+Jerusalem%3A+Mossad+Bialik%2E)
5. B ruti , Silvia 2004. Cataphoric Complexity in Spoken English. In: K. A jmer & A.B. S tenström (eds), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora: 39–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=B+ruti+%2C+Silvia+2004%2E+Cataphoric+Complexity+in+Spoken+English%2E+In%3A+K%2E+A+jmer+%26+A%2EB%2E+S+tenstr%C3%B6m+%28eds%29%2C+Discourse+Patterns+in+Spoken+and+Written+Corpora%3A+39%E2%80%9363%2E+Amsterdam%3A+John+Benjamins%2E)
6. B uchstaller , Isabelle 2013. Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Oxford: Wiley. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=B+uchstaller+%2C+Isabelle+2013%2E+Quotatives%3A+New+trends+and+sociolinguistic+implications%2E+Oxford%3A+Wiley%2E)
7. C ornish , Francis 2011. ‘Strict’ Anadeixis, Discourse Deixis and Text Structuring. Language Sciences 33(5): 753–767. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=C+ornish+%2C+Francis+2011%2E+%E2%80%98Strict%E2%80%99+Anadeixis%2C+Discourse+Deixis+and+Text+Structuring%2E+Language+Sciences+33%285%29%3A+753%E2%80%93767%2E)
8. C ornish , Francis 2012. Micro-syntax, Macro-syntax, Foregrounding and Backgrounding in Discourse: When indexicals target discursively subsidiary information. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 26: 6–34. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=C+ornish+%2C+Francis+2012%2E+Micro%2Dsyntax%2C+Macro%2Dsyntax%2C+Foregrounding+and+Backgrounding+in+Discourse%3A+When+indexicals+target+discursively+subsidiary+information%2E+Belgian+Journal+of+Linguistics+26%3A+6%E2%80%9334%2E)
9. D eroey , Katrien L.B. 2015. Marking Importance in Lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics 36(1): 51–72. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=D+eroey+%2C+Katrien+L%2EB%2E+2015%2E+Marking+Importance+in+Lectures%3A+Interactive+and+textual+orientation%2E+Applied+Linguistics+36%281%29%3A+51%E2%80%9372%2E)
10. D iessel , Holger 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=D+iessel+%2C+Holger+1999%2E+Demonstratives%3A+Form%2C+function+and+grammaticalization%2E+Amsterdam%3A+John+Benjamins%2E)
11. D ori -H acohen , Gonen 2017. Creative Resonance and Misalignment Stance: Achieving distance in one Hebrew interaction. Functions of Language 24(1): 16–40. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=D+ori+%2DH+acohen+%2C+Gonen+2017%2E+Creative+Resonance+and+Misalignment+Stance%3A+Achieving+distance+in+one+Hebrew+interaction%2E+Functions+of+Language+24%281%29%3A+16%E2%80%9340%2E)
12. D u B ois , John W. 2007. The Stance Triangle. In: R. E nglebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=D+u+B+ois+%2C+John+W%2E+2007%2E+The+Stance+Triangle%2E+In%3A+R%2E+E+nglebretson+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Stancetaking+in+Discourse%3A+139%E2%80%93182%2E+Amsterdam%3A+John+Benjamins%2E)
13. E wing , Michael 2014. Pragmatic Uses of Demonstratives in Cirebon Javanese Conversation. In: A. J ukes (ed.), Deixis and Spatial Expressions in Languages of Indonesia (NUSA 56): 47–63. \<hdl.handle.net/10108/77645> F ox , Barbara 2008. Dynamics of Discourse. In: G. A ntos & K. K napp (eds), Handbook of Applied Linguistics, II: 255–284. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=E+wing+%2C+Michael+2014%2E+Pragmatic+Uses+of+Demonstratives+in+Cirebon+Javanese+Conversation%2E+In%3A+A%2E+J+ukes+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Deixis+and+Spatial+Expressions+in+Languages+of+Indonesia+%28NUSA+56%29%3A+47%E2%80%9363%2E+%3Chdl%2Ehandle%2Ene)
14. G ivón , Talmy 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=G+ivo%CC%81n+%2C+Talmy+2001%2E+Syntax%3A+An+Introduction%2C+II%2E+Amsterdam%3A+John+Benjamins%2E)
15. G linert , Lewis 1989. The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: CUP. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=G+linert+%2C+Lewis+1989%2E+The+Grammar+of+Modern+Hebrew%2E+Cambridge%3A+CUP%2E)
16. G onen , Einat, Zohar L ivnat & Noam A mir 2015. The Discourse Marker axshav (‘now’) in Spontaneous Spoken Hebrew: Discursive and prosodic features. Journal of Pragmatics 89: 69–84. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=G+onen+%2C+Einat%2C+Zohar+L+ivnat+%26+Noam+A+mir+2015%2E+The+Discourse+Marker+axshav+%28%E2%80%98now%E2%80%99%29+in+Spontaneous+Spoken+Hebrew%3A+Discursive+and+prosodic+features%2E+Journal+of+Pragmatics+89%3A+69%E2%80%9384%2E)
17. G oodwin , Charles 2002. Time in Action. Current Anthropology 43(S4): S19–S35. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=G+oodwin+%2C+Charles+2002%2E+Time+in+Action%2E+Current+Anthropology+43%28S4%29%3A+S19%E2%80%93S35%2E)
18. G üldemann , Tom 2008. Quotative Indexes in African Languages: A Synchronic and diachronic survey. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 34) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=G+%C3%BCldemann+%2C+Tom+2008%2E+Quotative+Indexes+in+African+Languages%3A+A+Synchronic+and+diachronic+survey%2E+%28Empirical+Approaches+to+Language+Typology+34%29+Berlin%3A+Mouton+de+Gruyter%2E)