The Pragmatics of Perception and Cognition in MT Jeremiah 1:1-6:30: A Cognitive Linguistics Approach (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft)

Elizabeth R. Hayes The Pragmatics of Perception and Cognition in MT Jeremiah 1:1-6:30

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Herausgegeben von John Barton · Reinhard G. Kratz Choon-Leong Seow · Markus Witte

Band 380

≥ Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Elizabeth R. Hayes

The Pragmatics of Perception and Cognition in MT Jeremiah 1:1-6:30 A Cognitive Linguistics Approach

≥ Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI 앪 to ensure permanence and durability.

ISBN 978-3-11-020229-8 ISSN 0934-2575

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hayes, Elizabeth R. (Elizabeth Russell), 1952The pragmatics of perseption and cognition in MT Jeremiah 1:1-6:30 : a cognitive linguistics approach / Elizabeth R. Hayes. p. cm. - (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ; Bd. 380) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-020229-8 (23 ⫻ 15,5 cm, clothbound : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O. T. Jeremiah I, 1-VI, 30 - Criticism, textual. 2. Bible. O. T. Jeremiah I, 1-VI, 30 - Language, style. 3. Bible. O. T. Jeremiah I, 1-VI, 30 - Grammar. 4. Cognitive grammar. I. Title. BS1525.52.H39 2008 2241.2066-dc22 2008026315

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. 쑔 Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin

Prefaceȱ ȱ Thisȱ volumeȱ beganȱ asȱ doctoralȱ thesis,ȱ writtenȱ atȱ Oxfordȱ University.ȱ Prof.ȱ H.G.M.ȱ Williamson,ȱ myȱ thesisȱ supervisor,ȱ providedȱ patientȱ enȬ couragement,ȱ wiseȱ counselȱ andȱ anȱ unsurpassedȱ eyeȱ forȱ detail.ȱ Hisȱ senseȱ ofȱ timingȱ isȱimpeccable,ȱandȱIȱhaveȱgrownȱtoȱrespectȱtheȱphraseȱ ‘...justȱoneȱorȱtwoȱlittleȱthings’.ȱIȱamȱmoreȱthanȱgratefulȱforȱhisȱgenerosiȬ tyȱandȱsupport.ȱ Theȱ Theologyȱ Facultyȱ inȱ Oxfordȱ offeredȱ manyȱ opportunitiesȱ forȱ academicȱ development.ȱ Professorȱ Johnȱ Bartonȱ fosteredȱ connectionsȱ throughȱtheȱOxfordȬBonnȱtheologicalȱexchangeȱandȱtheȱOxfordȬLeidenȱ exchange.ȱWritingȱpapersȱandȱattendingȱtheseȱeventsȱhaveȱbeenȱformaȬ tiveȱexperiences,ȱandȱtheȱfriendshipsȱthatȱhaveȱgrownȱinȱtheȱprocessȱareȱ priceless.ȱ Theȱ inputȱ ofȱ threeȱ otherȱ mentorsȱ hasȱ beenȱ important,ȱ asȱ well.ȱ Dr.ȱ Darrellȱ Hobson,ȱ professorȱ ofȱ OT,ȱ nurturedȱ aȱ loveȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ respectȱ forȱ academicȱ integrityȱ duringȱ myȱ undergraduateȱ yearsȱ atȱ Northwestȱ University,ȱ Kirkland,ȱ WA.ȱ Dr.ȱ Pamelaȱ Scaliseȱ andȱ Dr.ȱ Charlesȱ Scaliseȱ ofȱ Fullerȱ Seminaryȱ haveȱ beenȱ unceasinglyȱ supportive,ȱ andȱtheirȱtimeȱandȱattentionȱduringȱmyȱstudentȱandȱgraduateȱassistantȱ daysȱhasȱbeenȱhighlyȱprized.ȱ Presentingȱ aȱ firstȱ paperȱ atȱ theȱ Northwestȱ sectionȱ ofȱ theȱ Societyȱ ofȱ BiblicalȱLiteratureȱopenedȱtheȱdoorȱforȱthisȱresearchȱproject.ȱEhudȱbenȱ Zviȱprovidedȱgentleȱencouragement,ȱwhichȱȱhasȱfosteredȱbothȱacademicȱ progressȱ andȱ collegialȱ contacts,ȱ Theȱ SBLȱ Linguisticsȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ HeȬ brewȱsectionȱhasȱbeenȱaȱsourceȱofȱvaluableȱinformationȱforȱthisȱvolume.ȱ ParticularȱthanksȱgoȱtoȱCynthiaȱMiller,ȱwhoȱwasȱwillingȱtoȱengageȱinȱanȱ extendedȱeȬmailȱdialogue.ȱ SeveralȱlinguistsȱhaveȱtakenȱtimeȱtoȱanswerȱquestionsȱandȱshareȱinȬ formation.ȱ Amongȱ theseȱ are:ȱ Eepȱ Talstra,ȱ whoseȱ guidedȱ tourȱ throughȱ hisȱBHȱcomputationalȱlinguisticsȱprojectȱatȱFreeȱUniversity,ȱAmsterdamȱ addedȱ depthȱ toȱ thisȱ thesis,ȱ Ronȱ Langacker,ȱ fromȱ UCȱ Sanȱ Diego,ȱ whoȱ engagedȱ inȱ aȱ veryȱ helpfulȱ eȬmailȱ dialogueȱ regardingȱ cognitiveȱ gramȬ mar,ȱandȱGillesȱFauconnier,ȱwhoseȱworkȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱcognitiveȱscienceȱ providesȱsubstantialȱundergirdingȱforȱtheȱideasȱinȱthisȱvolume.ȱThanksȱ alsoȱtoȱEveȱSweetserȱforȱcritiquingȱtheȱearlierȱmanuscript.ȱFinally,ȱIȱamȱ mostȱgratefulȱtoȱDr.ȱDavidȱCramȱofȱJesusȱCollege,ȱOxford,ȱwhoȱreadȱanȱ earlyȱchapterȱdraftȱandȱofferedȱmanyȱhelpfulȱcomments.ȱ

VIȱ

Prefaceȱ

Specialȱ thanksȱ areȱ dueȱ toȱ Oxfordȱ friends,ȱ includingȱ Helenȱ Kraus,ȱ PatriciaȱTerrellȱandȱBetsyȱLivingstone.ȱIȱamȱgratefulȱtoȱlongȬtimeȱSeattleȱ friendȱCarrellȱQuinnȱandȱtoȱmyȱnewȱfriendȱLindaȱSwanberg,ȱwhoseȱsonȱ Shaneȱinspiresȱmeȱtoȱrunȱtheȱraceȱwithȱconfidence.ȱ IȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱthankȱtheȱeditorsȱofȱtheȱseriesȱBeihefteȱzurȱZeitschriftȱ fürȱdieȱalttestmentlicheȱWissenschaft,ȱProf.ȱJohnȱBarton,ȱProf.ȱReinhardȱG.ȱ Kratz,ȱProf.ȱChoonȬLeongȱSeowȱandȱProf.ȱMarkusȱWitte,ȱforȱacceptingȱ thisȱvolumeȱforȱpublication.ȱTheȱtransformationȱfromȱthesisȱtoȱvolumeȱ hasȱbeenȱanȱadventure,ȱindeed.ȱThankȱyouȱalsoȱtoȱAlbrechtȱDöhnertȱforȱ helpingȱthisȱvolumeȱtoȱfindȱaȱhomeȱatȱdeȱGruyter.ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ delightȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ theȱ effortsȱ ofȱ twoȱ excellentȱ friends,ȱ whoȱproofȬreadȱ theȱmanuscriptȱ andȱprovidedȱvaluableȱ comments:ȱ DiȬ anaȱ Atkinsonȱ andȱ Bethȱ ElnessȬHanson.ȱ Yourȱ kindnessȱ andȱ generosityȱ areȱtreasured,ȱindeed.ȱAȱspecialȱthankȱyouȱgoesȱtoȱRyanȱHayesȱforȱreȬ checkingȱtheȱfinalȱproofs.ȱAdditionally,ȱSabinaȱDabrowskiȱofȱdeȱGruyȬ terȱ hasȱprovidedȱtimelyȱadviceȱandȱencouragementȱduringȱtheȱ editingȱ process.ȱAllȱremainingȱinfelicitiesȱinȱtheȱtextȱareȱmineȱalone.ȱ Endlessȱ thanksȱ goȱ toȱ myȱ husband,ȱ Glenn,ȱ ourȱ children,ȱ Becky,ȱ JeȬ remy,ȱRyan,ȱRobin,ȱandȱtheirȱloves:ȱJay,ȱNarina,ȱandȱAaron.ȱTheirȱanticsȱ neverȱceaseȱtoȱamazeȱandȱtheirȱloveȱisȱtheȱlightȱofȱmyȱheart.ȱForȱallȱofȱ theirȱgoodnessȱandȱpatience,ȱIȱdedicateȱthisȱbookȱtoȱmyȱfamily.ȱ ȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ ȱ Prefaceȱ ȱ............................................................................................................ȱȱ Vȱ TableȱofȱContentsȱȱ.......................................................................................ȱȱ VIIȱ TableȱofȱFiguresȱ ȱ...........................................................................................ȱȱ XIȱ Abbreviationsȱ ȱ...........................................................................................ȱȱ XIIIȱ ClauseȱTagȱConventionsȱ ȱ..........................................................................ȱȱ XVȱ MentalȱSpacesȱConventionsȱ ȱ.................................................................ȱȱ XVIIȱ ȱ Chapterȱ1:ȱ TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ ȱ...........................ȱȱ 1ȱ 1.Aȱ Linguistic,ȱLiteraryȱandȱTechnologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱTextȱ ȱ..ȱȱ 4ȱ 1.A.1ȱ TheoreticalȱShift:ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyondȱ ȱ..........................ȱȱ 4ȱ 1.A.2ȱ MethodologicalȱShift:ȱComputersȱandȱBHȱTextȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 8ȱ 1.Bȱ TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ ȱ...............................................ȱȱ 11ȱ 1.B.1ȱ TheȱScopeȱofȱtheȱTaskȱ ȱ...............................................................ȱȱ 11ȱ 1.B.2ȱ Author,ȱTextȱandȱReaderȱ ȱ..........................................................ȱȱ 14ȱ 1.B.3ȱ TextȱasȱMaterialȱAnchorȱ ȱ...........................................................ȱȱ 20ȱ 1.B.4ȱ TextȱDynamics:ȱProblemsȱandȱPossibilitiesȱ ȱ..........................ȱȱ 27ȱ ȱ Chapterȱ2:ȱ TheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱȱ DynamicsȱApproachȱ ȱ...................................................................................ȱȱ 29ȱ 2.Aȱ TheoryȱandȱMethodȱ..............................................................................ȱȱ 29ȱ 2.A.1ȱ Author,ȱTextȱandȱReader:ȱAȱReȬconceptualisationȱ ȱ.............ȱȱ 30ȱ 2.A.2ȱ TheȱReadingȱProcessȱ ȱ................................................................ȱȱ 32ȱ 2.A.3ȱ ExplainingȱtheȱNetworkȱModelȱ ȱ..............................................ȱȱ 32ȱ 2.A.4ȱ ImageȱSchemataȱ ȱ........................................................................ȱȱ 35ȱ 2.Bȱ PropheticȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ ȱ.........................................................ȱȱ 37ȱ 2.B.1ȱ Viewpointȱ ȱ...................................................................................ȱȱ 37ȱ 2.B.2ȱ Deixisȱ ȱ...........................................................................................ȱȱ 39ȱ 2.B.3ȱ DeixisȱandȱBHȱ ȱ............................................................................ȱȱ 39ȱ 2.B.4ȱ PerspectiveȱandȱNonȬSpatialȱDomainsȱ ȱ..................................ȱȱ 41ȱ 2.Cȱ Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ ȱ.................................................................................ȱȱ 44ȱ 2C.1ȱ ClauseȱAnalysisȱ ȱ..........................................................................ȱȱ 44ȱ 2.C.2ȱ InformationȱStructureȱ ȱ...............................................................ȱȱ 53ȱ 2.C.3ȱ CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ ȱ...........................ȱȱ 59ȱ

VIIIȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ

2.C.4ȱ StructuringȱConceptualȱPackets:ȱSpeechȱFramesȱ ȱ................ȱȱ 64ȱ 2.Dȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ ȱ.................................ȱȱ 65ȱ ȱ Chapterȱ3:ȱ TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ....ȱ67ȱ 3.Aȱ GrammaticalȱTheories:ȱSyntaxȱandȱGrammaticalȱConstructionsȱ...ȱ68ȱ 3.A.1ȱ RoleȱandȱReferenceȱGrammarȱ .................................................ȱȱ 69ȱ 3.A.2ȱ CognitiveȱGrammarȱ ȱ.................................................................ȱȱ 70ȱ 3.A.3ȱ ConstructionȱGrammarȱ ȱ............................................................ȱȱ 73ȱ 3.Bȱ CognitiveȱApproachedȱtoȱBHȱTermsȱofȱPerceptionȱandȱȱ Cognitionȱ ȱ..............................................................................................ȱȱ 73ȱ 3.B.1ȱ RoleȱandȱReferenceȱGrammarȱ ȱ.................................................ȱȱ 74ȱ 3.B.2ȱ PrototypicalȱSituationsȱ ȱ.............................................................ȱȱ 76ȱ 3.B.3ȱ PerceptionȱandȱCognitionȱTermsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ........ȱȱ 77ȱ 3.Cȱ TheȱBHȱVerbȱInȱContextȱ ȱ.....................................................................ȱȱ 78ȱ 3.C.1ȱ Overviewȱ ȱ....................................................................................ȱȱ 79ȱ 3.C.2ȱ Terminologyȱ ȱ...............................................................................ȱȱ 79ȱ 3.C.3ȱ CategoriesȱandȱtheȱBHȱVerb:ȱTenseȱversusȱAspectȱ ȱ.............ȱȱ 82ȱ 3.C.4ȱ TheȱTDȱApproach:ȱMappingȱtheȱSyntaxȬSemanticsȱȱ ȱInterfaceȱ ȱ......................................................................................ȱȱ 83ȱ 3.Dȱ SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBHȱText:ȱCognitiveȱAdditionsȱ ȱ........................ȱȱ 91ȱ 3.D.1ȱ CognitiveȱMetaphorȱandȱTime:ȱTIMEȱISȱMOTIONȱ ȱ...................ȱȱ 92ȱ 3.D.2ȱ ExtendingȱAspectualȱBoundaries:ȱTIMEȱISȱSPACEȱ ..................ȱȱ 94ȱ 3.D.3ȱ BiblicalȱHebrew:ȱTIMEȱISȱSPACEȱ ȱ................................................ȱȱ 96ȱ 3.D.4ȱ InherentȱPropertiesȱofȱMatterȱandȱBHȱAspectȱ ȱ.....................ȱȱ 97ȱ 3.D.5ȱ InteractionȱofȱMatterȱandȱDiscourseȱStructureȱinȱBHȱ ȱ.........ȱȱ 99ȱ 3.Eȱ ReturningȱtoȱtheȱMargins:ȱTheȱBinyanȱSystemȱ ȱ............................ȱȱ 101ȱ 3.E.1ȱ TraditionalȱCategoriesȱ ȱ...................................................................ȱȱ 101ȱ 3.E.2ȱ CognitiveȱAdditions:ȱConceptualȱBlendingȱ ȱ...............................ȱȱ 102ȱ ȱ Chapterȱ4:ȱ CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ......................ȱȱ 109ȱ 4.Aȱ Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3:ȱEstablishingȱTextȬLevelȱPerspectiveȱ ȱ...............ȱȱ 111ȱ 4.A.1ȱ PerspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ ȱ.............................................ȱȱ 111ȱ 4.A.2ȱ TheȱContainmentȱSchemaȱ ȱ.....................................................ȱȱ 119ȱ 4.A.3ȱ ConceptualȱMetaphor:ȱTIMEȱISȱAȱCONTAINERȱ ȱ......................ȱȱ 121ȱ 4.Bȱ Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȬbuildingȱTermsȱ ȱ........................................ȱȱ 123ȱ 4.B.1ȱ PerspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3ȱ ȱ..............................................ȱȱ 123ȱ 4.B.2ȱ SpaceȬbuildersȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ ȱ.......................................ȱȱ 124ȱ 4.B.3ȱ ConceptualȱMetaphorȱandȱLiteraryȱMetaphorȱ ȱ...................ȱȱ 135ȱ

ȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ

IXȱ

Chapterȱ5:ȱ CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ ȱ......................ȱȱ 147ȱ 5.Aȱ Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.4:ȱSpeechȱDomainȱFourȱ ȱ.........................................ȱȱ 148ȱ 5.A.1ȱ Perspectiveȱ ȱ...............................................................................ȱȱ 148ȱ 5.A.2ȱ ConceptualȱScopingȱandȱAchievingȱHumanȱScaleȱ ȱ...........ȱȱ 150ȱ 5.Bȱ Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3:ȱTransitionȱtoȱComplexȱSpeakerȱ ȱ........................ȱȱ 154ȱ 5.B.1ȱ Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 156ȱ 5.B.2ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱ ȱ..........................................................ȱȱ 159ȱ 5.B.3ȱ ConceptualȱMetaphorȱ ȱ.............................................................ȱȱ 161ȱ 5.B.4ȱ LiteraryȱMetaphorȱandȱConceptualȱMetaphorȱ ȱ...................ȱȱ 162ȱ 5.B.5ȱ TheȱAddresseesȱandȱtheȱProblemȱofȱIdentityȱ ȱ.....................ȱȱ 166ȱ 5.Cȱ Jeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ ȱ..................................................ȱȱ 167ȱ 5.C.1ȱ ScopingȱFromȱHumanȱScaleȱ ȱ..................................................ȱȱ 167ȱ 5.C.2ȱ Counterfactualsȱ ȱ.......................................................................ȱȱ 169ȱ 5.Dȱ Jeremiahȱ2.10:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ ȱ.......................................................ȱȱ 173ȱ 5.D.1ȱ Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ ȱ...................ȱȱ 174ȱ 5.D.2ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱ ȱ..........................................................ȱȱ 175ȱ 5.Eȱ Jeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15:ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱMetaphorȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 175ȱ 5.E.1ȱ Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 177ȱ 5.E.2ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱ ȱ..........................................................ȱȱ 177ȱ 5.Fȱ Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11/12:ȱWhoȱisȱȈMeȈ?ȱ TheȱProblemȱofȱIdentityȱandȱȱ ȱ theȱAccessȱPrincipleȱ ȱ........................................................................ȱȱ 178ȱ 5.Gȱ Jeremiahȱ3.19Ȭ20:ȱSpaceȬbuildingȱinȱPoeticȱTextȱ ȱ..........................ȱȱ 182ȱ 5.G.1ȱ Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ ȱ...................ȱȱ 184ȱ 5.G.2ȱ VerbsȱofȱSpeakingȱandȱCognitiveȱExtensionȱ ȱ........................ȱ184ȱ ȱ Chapterȱ6:ȱ CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ......................ȱȱ 187ȱ 6.Aȱ Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31:ȱDiscursiveȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 188ȱ 6.A.1ȱ Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.2:ȱConditionalȱSpaceȱ ȱ....................................ȱȱ 190ȱ 6.A.2ȱ Jeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.18:ȱCentreȬPeripheryȱ ȱ..................................ȱȱ 194ȱ 6.A.3ȱ Jeremiahȱ4.23Ȭ4.26:ȱDeȬCreationȱ ȱ...........................................ȱȱ 200ȱ 6.Bȱ Jeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ ȱ.........ȱȱ 205ȱ 6.B.1ȱ Jeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.14:ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱCognitiveȱȱ Metaphorȱ ȱ....................................................................................ȱȱ 206ȱ 6.B.2ȱ Jeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ6.30:ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱCognitiveȱȱ Metaphorȱ ȱ....................................................................................ȱȱ 215ȱ 6.B.3ȱ TheȱContributionȱofȱFrames,ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱȱ ConceptualȱMetaphorȱ ȱ...............................................................ȱȱ 225ȱ ȱ

Xȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ

Chapterȱ7:ȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ...........................................................................ȱȱ 231ȱ ȱ Bibliographyȱ ȱ...............................................................................................ȱȱ 239ȱ ȱ IndexȱofȱBiblicalȱReferencesȱ ȱ....................................................................ȱȱ 253ȱ IndexȱofȱAuthorsȱ ȱ.......................................................................................ȱȱ 259ȱ IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ ȱ........................................................................................ȱȱ 263ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

TableȱofȱFiguresȱ ȱ Figureȱ1.1ȱ Langacker’sȱCanonicalȱViewingȱArrangementȱ ȱ...................ȱȱ15ȱ Figureȱ1.2ȱ Langacker’sȱViewingȱArrangementȱforȱSpeechȱSituationsȱ ȱ16ȱ Figureȱ1.3ȱ ReconceptualisationȱofȱtheȱRelationshipȱbetweenȱAuthor,ȱ TextȱandȱReaderȱ ȱ...................................................................................ȱȱ 17ȱ Figureȱ1.4ȱ ViewingȱArrangementȱBasedȱUponȱEmbodiedȱExperienceȱ19ȱ Figureȱ1.5ȱ ClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ3.6ȱ ȱ..........................................ȱȱ 24ȱ Figureȱ2.1ȱ Originator,ȱTextȱandȱReaderȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ ȱ.............ȱȱ 30ȱ Figureȱ2.2ȱ Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ ȱ........................................ȱȱ 48ȱ Figureȱ3.1ȱ IntransitiveȱConstructionȱBlendȱ ȱ.........................................ȱȱ 105ȱ Figureȱ3.2ȱ TransitiveȱCausedȱMotionȱBlendȱ ȱ........................................ȱȱ 106ȱ Figureȱ4.1ȱ PerspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ ȱ...........................................ȱȱ 111ȱ Figureȱ4.2ȱ ViewingȱArrangementȱN1ȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ ȱ.................ȱȱ 113ȱ Figureȱ4.3ȱ ClauseȱanalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ.....................................ȱȱ 114ȱ Figureȱ4.4ȱ CumulativeȱReferentialȱDensityȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ.........ȱȱ 116ȱ Figureȱ4.5ȱ ViewingȱArrangementȱN2ȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.2ȱ ȱ................ȱȱ 123ȱ Figureȱ4.6ȱ SpeechȱDomainsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.3ȱ ȱ..................................ȱȱ 127ȱ Figureȱ4.7ȱ SecondaryȱSpeechȱDomainsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.2ȱ ȱ..............ȱȱ 129ȱ Figureȱ4.8ȱ CumulativeȱReferentialȱDensityȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2ȱ ȱ.......ȱȱ 131ȱ Figureȱ4.9ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.19ȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 134ȱ Figureȱ4.10ȱ ClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱ ȱ...........................ȱȱ 139ȱ Figureȱ4.11ȱ ExplanationȱofȱClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱ ȱȱ 139ȱ Figureȱ4.12ȱ ClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.13Ȭ1.15ȱ ȱ...........................ȱȱ 140ȱ Figureȱ4.13ȱ ExplanationȱofȱClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.13Ȭ1.15ȱ ȱȱ 141ȱ Figureȱ5.1ȱ ViewingȱArrangementȱforȱJeremiahȱ2.2Ȭ3.25ȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 148ȱ Figureȱ5.2ȱ SummaryȱofȱViewingȱArrangementsȱinȱJeremiahȱȱ ȱ 1.1Ȭ3.25ȱ ȱ.................................................................................................ȱȱ 151ȱ Figureȱ5.3ȱ IconicityȱScaleȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ 153ȱ Figureȱ5.4ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3ȱClauseȱLayoutȱ ȱ...........................................ȱȱ 154ȱ Figureȱ5.5ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ ȱ........................................ȱȱ 155ȱ Figureȱ5.6ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3ȱ ȱ......................ȱȱ 161ȱ Figureȱ5.7ȱ Counterfactualȱ1:ȱUnfufilledȱPossibilityȱ ȱ............................ȱȱ 171ȱ Figureȱ5.8ȱ Counterfactualȱ2:ȱPossibilityȱBlendȱ ȱ....................................ȱȱ 172ȱ Figureȱ5.9ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.10ȱClauseȱLayoutȱ ȱ...............................................ȱȱ 173ȱ

XIIȱ

TableȱofȱFiguresȱ

Figureȱ5.10ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.10ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ............................................ȱȱ 174ȱ Figureȱ5.11ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15ȱClauseȱLayoutȱ .....................................ȱȱ 176ȱ Figureȱ5.12ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15ȱ ClauseȱAnalysisȱ ȱ.................................ȱȱ 176ȱ Figureȱ5.13ȱ Jeremiahȱ5.13ȱ TheȱProblemȱofȱIdentityȱinȱJeremiahȱȱ ȱ 3.6ȱ ȱ..........................................................................................................ȱȱ 180ȱ Figureȱ5.14ȱ SpaceȬbuildingȱinȱPoeticȱText:ȱClauseȱLayoutȱ ȱ................ȱȱ 183ȱ Figureȱ5.15ȱ SpaceȬbuildingȱinȱPoeticȱText:ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ ȱ.............ȱȱ 183ȱ Figureȱ6.1ȱ ViewingȱArrangementȱforȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31ȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 189ȱ Figureȱ6.2ȱ ViewingȱArrangementȱforȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 205ȱ Figureȱ6.3ȱ SummaryȱofȱImageȱSchemataȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ.........ȱȱ 226ȱ ȱ

Abbreviationsȱ ȱ ASTIȱ BHRGȱȱ BOȱ BZAWȱ CBQȱ CLȱ ETLȱ GKCȱ HTRȱ HCLȱ HSȱ ICCȱ JMȱ JAȱ JBLȱ JBLMSȱ JLȱ JNSLȱ JPȱ JSSȱ JTTLȱ OSȱ SBLȱ SLCSȱ VTȱ VTȱSupȱ WBCȱ ZAHȱ ZAWȱ ZPȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

AnnualȱofȱtheȱScandinavianȱTheologicalȱInstituteȱ BiblicalȱHebrewȱReferenceȱGrammarȱ ȱ BibliothecaȱOrientalisȱ ȱ BeihefteȱzurȱZeitschriftȱfürȱdieȱalttestamentlicheȱWissenschaftȱ CatholicȱBiblicalȱQuarterlyȱ CognitiveȱLinguisticsȱ ȱ EphemeridesȱTheologicaeȱLovaniensisȱ Gesenius’ȱHebrewȱGrammarȱȱ ȱ HarvardȱTheologicalȱReviewȱ ȱ HebrewȱComputationalȱLinguisticsȱ HebrewȱStudiesȱ InternationalȱCriticalȱCommentaryȱ GrammarȱofȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ ȱ JournalȱAsiatiqueȱ JournalȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱȱ JournalȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱMonographȱSeriesȱ JournalȱofȱLinguisticsȱ ȱ JournalȱofȱNorthwestȱSemiticȱLanguagesȱ JournalȱofȱPragmaticsȱ ȱ JournalȱofȱSemiticȱStudiesȱ JournalȱofȱTranslationȱandȱTextȱLinguisticsȱ ȱ OudtestamentischeȱStudiënȱ SocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ ȱ StudiesȱinȱLanguageȱCompanionȱSeriesȱ VetusȱTestamentumȱ VetusȱTestamentumȱSupplementȱSeriesȱ WordȱBiblicalȱCommentaryȱ ZeitschriftȱfürȱAlthebraistikȱ ZeitschriftȱfürȱdieȱAlttestamentlicheȱWissenschaftȱ ZeitschriftȱfürȱPhonetikȱ

ClauseȱTagȱConventionsȱ ȱ WayyiqtolȬSȱ wawȬconsecutiveȱimperfectȱwithȱexplicitȱsubjectȱ WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ wawȬconsecutiveȱimperfectȱwithoutȱexplicitȱsubjectȱ WȬQatalȱ wawȬconsecutiveȱperfectȱ Yiqtolȱ ȱ imperfectȱ Qatalȱ ȱ perfectȱ Impvȱ ȱ imperativeȱ Qotelȱ ȱ participleȱ(onlyȱtaggedȱwhenȱusedȱverbally)ȱ Qetolȱ ȱ infinitiveȱconstructȱ Qatolȱ ȱ infinitiveȱabsoluteȱ NmClȱ ȱ nominalȱclauseȱ PrepPȱ ȱ prepositionalȱphraseȱ Wȱ ȱ wawȱ Xȱ ȱ sentenceȱconstituentȱoccurringȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱverb,ȱotherȱ than:ȱ Sȱ subjectȱ Oȱ objectȱ ȱ Dueȱtoȱspaceȱconstraintsȱtheȱclauseȱtagȱcolumnȱonlyȱcontainsȱtagsȱforȱclauseȱ constituentsȱthatȱcontributeȱtoȱfocus.ȱConsequently,ȱclausesȱareȱtaggedȱforȱ verbalȱformsȱandȱforȱconstituentsȱthatȱoccurȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱverb.ȱ(Thereȱmayȱbeȱ occasionalȱexceptions.)ȱ ȱ

MentalȱSpacesȱConventionsȱ(MSC)ȱ ȱ Baseȱ Mȱ ȱ Cȱ

initialȱspaceȱinȱaȱmentalȱspacesȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱ genericȱmentalȱspace,ȱ(addedȱsuperscriptȱindicatesȱcharacter)ȱ Character’sȱPerspectiveȱ–ȱmarkedȱforȱprimaryȱcharactersȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ Pȱ

Nȱ

Qȱ

ȱ Dȱ

C1ȱ–ȱTheȱLORDȱ C2ȱ–ȱJeremiahȱȱ C3ȱ–ȱJerusalemȱȱ

Perceptionȱspace:ȱCharacter’sȱPerspectiveȱ (basedȱuponȱtermsȱofȱperceptionȱandȱcognition)ȱ ȱ Narrativeȱspaceȱorȱdomain:ȱNarrator’sȱRealityȱȱ (basedȱuponȱnarrativeȱtextȬtype;ȱnarrativeȱstartingȱfromȱwayyiqtol)ȱ ȱ N1:ȱanonymousȱnarratorȱȱ N2:ȱJeremiahȱasȱnarratorȱ N3:ȱJeremiahȱasȱnarratorȱofȱembeddedȱspaceȱthatȱincludesȱtheȱ ComplexȱSpeakerȱandȱJerusalemȱasȱinterlocutors.ȱ ȱ Quotationȱspaceȱorȱdomain:ȱCharacter’sȱRealityȱ (basedȱuponȱdiscursiveȱtextȬtype;ȱdirectȱspeechȱstartingȱfromȱquotaȬ tion)ȱ Discursiveȱspaceȱorȱdomain:ȱCharacter’sȱRealityȱ (basedȱuponȱdiscursiveȱtextȬtype;ȱstartingȱfromȱyiqtolȱinȱnarrativeȱ text)ȱ

ȱ Subspacesȱareȱgeneratedȱrecursively,ȱandȱincludeȱspacesȱopenedȱbyȱtermsȱ andȱ constructionsȱ fromȱ theȱ semanticȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ deixis,ȱ speechȱ andȱ perception,ȱ epistemicȱandȱdeonticȱmodality,ȱhypotheticals,ȱandȱinterrogatives,ȱamongȱothȬ ersȱ ȱ

1. TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ ȱ TheȱHatterȱopenedȱhisȱeyesȱonȱhearingȱthis;ȱbutȱallȱheȱsaidȱwasȱȱ “Whyȱisȱaȱravenȱlikeȱaȱwritingȱdesk?”ȱ ȱ ~ȱLewisȱCarroll1ȱ

ȱ Duringȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱtwentiethȱcentury,ȱbiblicalȱstudiesȱbeganȱ toȱwitnessȱtheȱriseȱandȱconfluenceȱofȱtwoȱelementsȱasȱseeminglyȱdispaȬ rateȱasȱCarroll’sȱravenȱandȱwritingȱdesk.ȱTheȱfirstȱhasȱbeenȱaȱmovementȱ awayȱ fromȱ diachronicallyȱ orientedȱ historicalȬcriticalȱ inquiriesȱ andȱ toȬ wardȱ synchronicallyȱ orientedȱ linguisticȱ andȱ literaryȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ biblicalȱtexts.2ȱTheȱsecondȱhasȱbeenȱtheȱrapidȱandȱpervasiveȱadvanceȱofȱ technology,ȱ specificallyȱ withinȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ computersȱ andȱ textȱ processing,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ contributedȱ toȱ formal,ȱ structuralȱ andȱ distribuȬ tionalȱ analysesȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ text.ȱ Whileȱ theseȱ movementsȱ areȱ artisticȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ scientificȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ areȱ theyȱ indeedȱ ravensȱ andȱ writingȱdesks?ȱȱ Atȱminimum,ȱtheseȱmovementsȱhaveȱpromptedȱfreshȱapproachesȱtoȱ biblicalȱtextȱandȱitsȱrelationshipsȱwithȱitsȱoriginatorsȱandȱreaders.3ȱTextȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

2ȱȱ

3ȱȱ

Originally,ȱnoȱanswerȱwasȱexpectedȱforȱthisȱriddle,ȱalthoughȱCarrollȱdidȱdeviseȱoneȱ asȱanȱafterthought.ȱLewisȱCarrollȱandȱHughȱHaughton,ȱAliceȇsȱAdventuresȱinȱWonderȬ land,ȱCentenaryȱed.,ȱPenguinȱClassicsȱ(London:ȱPenguin,ȱ1998),ȱ311,ȱn.ȱ314.ȱ Theȱbeginningsȱofȱthisȱ movementȱwereȱseenȱwithȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱNewȱCritiȬ cism,ȱoriginallyȱutilisedȱforȱtheȱstudyȱofȱEnglishȱliteraryȱtexts,ȱtoȱtheȱstudyȱofȱbiblicalȱ texts.ȱForȱaȱshortȱhistoryȱseeȱJ.ȱCherylȱExumȱandȱDavidȱJ.ȱA.ȱClines,ȱTheȱNewȱLiteraryȱ CriticismȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱBible,ȱJSOTȱSupȱ143ȱ(Sheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱ11Ȭ26.ȱForȱ applicationȱofȱtheȱliteraryȱapproachȱtoȱBHȱtextȱseeȱRobertȱAlterȱandȱFrankȱKermode,ȱ TheȱLiteraryȱGuideȱtoȱtheȱBibleȱ(Cambridge,ȱMass:ȱBelknapȱPressȱofȱHarvardȱUniversiȬ tyȱPress,ȱ1987);ȱAdeleȱBerlin,ȱPoeticsȱandȱInterpretationȱofȱBiblicalȱNarrative,ȱBibleȱandȱ LiteratureȱSeries,ȱ9ȱ(Sheffield:ȱAlmondȱPress,ȱ1983);ȱMeirȱSternberg,ȱTheȱPoeticsȱofȱBibȬ licalȱNarrative:ȱIdeologicalȱLiteratureȱandȱtheȱDramaȱofȱReading,ȱIndianaȱStudiesȱinȱBibliȬ calȱ Literatureȱ (Bloomington,ȱ Ind:ȱ Indianaȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1987).ȱ Forȱ theȱ interrelaȬ tionshipȱbetweenȱinterpretiveȱapproachesȱandȱtheologyȱseeȱJohnȱBarton,ȱReadingȱtheȱ OldȱTestament:ȱMethodȱinȱBiblicalȱStudyȱ(London:ȱDartonȱLongmanȱ&ȱTodd,ȱ1984);ȱS.ȱ E.ȱGillingham,ȱOneȱBible,ȱManyȱVoices:ȱDifferentȱApproachesȱtoȱBiblicalȱStudiesȱ(London:ȱ SPCK,ȱ1998);ȱRobertȱMorganȱandȱJohnȱBarton,ȱBiblicalȱInterpretationȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1988).ȱ TheȱdebateȱbetweenȱsynchronicȱandȱdiachronicȱapproachesȱtoȱtheȱtextȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱ BibleȱisȱexploredȱinȱJ.ȱC.ȱdeȱMoor,ȱed.,ȱSynchronicȱorȱDiachronic?ȱAȱDebateȱonȱMethodȱinȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ Exegesis,ȱ Oudtestamentischeȱ Studiënȱ 34ȱ (Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1995).ȱ Vanȱ derȱ WalȱproposesȱaȱsynchronicȱreadingȱofȱMTȱJeremiahȱinȱA.ȱJ.ȱO.ȱvanȱderȱWal,ȱ“Towardȱ

2ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

dynamicsȱ (TD)ȱ isȱ suchȱ anȱ approach.ȱ TDȱ isȱ aȱ cognitivelyȱ oriented,ȱ linȬ guisticsȬbasedȱapproachȱtoȱbiblicalȱtextȱthatȱisȱcharacterisedȱbyȱitsȱpanȬ chronicȱ andȱ integrativeȱ nature.4ȱ Asȱ such,ȱ thisȱ approachȱ seeksȱ toȱ comȬ bineȱ insightsȱ gainedȱ fromȱ analysesȱ ofȱ theȱ biblicalȱ textȱ atȱ theȱ syntactic,ȱ semanticȱandȱpragmaticȱlevelsȱwithȱinformationȱderivedȱfromȱhistoricalȱ andȱ culturalȱstudies,ȱfocusingȱuponȱ“blocksȱofȱmaterialȱthatȱ areȱlargerȱ thanȱtheȱsentence.”5ȱThisȱexplorationȱintoȱtheȱdynamicsȱofȱbiblicalȱtextȱ givesȱ specialȱ attentionȱ toȱ featuresȱ thatȱ contributeȱ toȱ textȱ segmentationȱ andȱtextualȱunity,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱtheȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱtheseȱfeaturesȱafȬ fectȱmeaningȱconstruction.6ȱȱ Theȱ termȱ dynamicsȱinȱ theȱ heuristicȱ termȱ TDȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱtextȱasȱaȱmeansȱofȱhumanȱcommunication,ȱwhichȱisȱanȱactive,ȱfluidȱ andȱdynamicȱprocess.ȱFromȱthisȱperspective,ȱtheȱtextȱisȱnotȱaȱmereȱarteȬ fact,ȱbutȱratherȱitȱactsȱasȱaȱfocalȱlinkȱbetweenȱ presentȬdayȱreadersȱ andȱ hearersȱandȱtheȱoriginatorsȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱWhileȱtheȱcontextsȱandȱculturesȱ ofȱ theȱ author/speakerȱ andȱ variousȱ groupsȱ ofȱ hearers/readersȱ areȱ seeȬ minglyȱquiteȱdisparateȱwhenȱanȱancientȱtextȱisȱinvolved,ȱtheȱcognitiveȱ processesȱ involvedȱ inȱ humanȱ communicationȱ provideȱ manyȱ pointsȱ ofȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ theȱ originatorȱ ofȱ theȱ ancientȱ textȱ andȱ itsȱ readers.ȱ Additionally,ȱtheȱhighȱincidenceȱofȱreportedȱspeechȱthatȱisȱattributedȱtoȱ charactersȱ withinȱ propheticȱ textȱ highlightsȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱ communicativeȱprocess.ȱToȱaȱcertainȱextent,ȱsuchȱpassagesȱyieldȱtoȱconȬ versationalȱ analysisȱ andȱ theȱ conceptsȱ thatȱ areȱ integralȱ toȱ speechȱ actȱ theory.ȱHowever,ȱspeechȱactȱtheoryȱaloneȱisȱinsufficientȱtoȱdealȱwithȱtheȱ narrativeȱportionsȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱTheȱTDȱapproachȱdrawsȱfromȱthreeȱcogȬ nitiveȱtheoriesȱinȱorderȱtoȱaccountȱforȱtheȱvarietyȱofȱinformationȱinȱtheȱ text:ȱ cognitiveȱscienceȱandȱcognitiveȱlinguisticsȱ provideȱ theȱtheoreticalȱ underpinnings,ȱandȱcognitiveȱgrammarȱenrichesȱtheȱfindingsȱofȱBiblicalȱ Hebrewȱgrammarians.ȱ Threeȱ presuppositionsȱ areȱ fundamentalȱ toȱ theȱ TDȱ approach.ȱ First,ȱ theȱtextȱisȱtheȱfocalȱpointȱofȱinquiry.ȱSecondly,ȱtheȱtextȱisȱtheȱproductȱofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

4ȱȱ

5ȱȱ 6ȱȱ

aȱSynchronicȱAnalysisȱofȱtheȱMasoreticȱTextȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱJeremiah,”ȱinȱReadingȱtheȱ BookȱofȱJeremiah:ȱAȱSearchȱforȱCoherence,ȱed.ȱMartinȱKesslerȱ(WinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenȬ brauns,ȱ2004),ȱ13Ȭ23.ȱ TheȱtermȱpanchronicȱisȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱaȱmethodȱthatȱisȱconsciousȱofȱbothȱtheȱdiachȬ ronicȱ andȱ synchronicȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ textȱ andȱ seeksȱ toȱ incorporateȱ historicalȱ inȬ sightsȱ withinȱ theȱ explorationȱ ofȱ aȱ text.ȱ Seeȱ Johnȱ A.ȱ Cook,ȱ “Theȱ Hebrewȱ Verb:ȱ Aȱ GrammaticalizationȱApproach,”ȱZAHȱ14ȱ(2001),ȱ117Ȭ144.ȱ Walterȱ Rayȱ Bodine,ȱ Discourseȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literature:ȱ Whatȱ Itȱ Isȱ andȱ Whatȱ Itȱ Offers,ȱSemeiaȱStudiesȱ(Atlanta:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ1.ȱȱ Meaningȱ constructionȱ isȱaȱprocessȱ thatȱwriterȱandȱreaderȱ share.ȱForȱ theȱwriter,ȱthisȱ occursȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱcreativeȱprocess,ȱwhileȱforȱtheȱreader,ȱmeaningȱconstructionȱisȱ cuedȱbyȱproductȱofȱtheȱcreativeȱprocess,ȱtheȱtext.ȱȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

3ȱ

aȱdynamicȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱlanguageȱusersȱandȱlanguage.ȱFinally,ȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ textȱ analysisȱ andȱ interpretationȱ involvesȱ aȱ similar,ȱ dyȬ namicȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ languageȱ usersȱ andȱ language.ȱ Theȱ text,ȱ then,ȱstandsȱasȱaȱfocalȱlinkȱbetweenȱtheȱlanguage,ȱcontextȱandȱcultureȱofȱ theȱtextȱproducer(s)ȱandȱtheȱlanguages,ȱcontextsȱandȱculturesȱofȱaȱwideȱ arrayȱ ofȱ textȱ consumers.7ȱ Thus,ȱ whileȱ thisȱ methodȱ isȱ notȱ intendedȱ toȱ solveȱhistoricalȬcriticalȱquandaries,ȱitȱdoesȱseekȱtoȱrelateȱtheȱtextȱbothȱtoȱ itsȱoriginalȱaudienceȱandȱtoȱitsȱmodernȱaudiencesȱasȱwell.ȱ Becauseȱtheseȱpresuppositionsȱareȱbroad,ȱtheȱcognitiveȱsciencesȱnoȬ tionȱ ofȱ conceptualȱblendingȱhasȱbeenȱchosenȱ asȱ theȱ integrativeȱ principleȱ behindȱaȱTDȱapproach.ȱConceptualȱblendingȱisȱaȱcognitiveȱmechanismȱ byȱ whichȱ conceptualȱ informationȱ fromȱ variousȱ inputȱ spacesȱ isȱ proȬ jectedȱ intoȱ aȱ spaceȱ thatȱ isȱ calledȱ theȱ blend.8ȱ Conceptualȱ blendingȱ isȱ atȱ theȱrootȱofȱaȱwideȱarrayȱofȱcognitiveȱprocesses,ȱandȱthus,ȱisȱavailableȱforȱ multipleȱaspectsȱofȱtextȱanalysisȱandȱintegration,ȱsuchȱasȱmappingȱtheȱ syntaxȬsemanticsȱinterface;ȱestablishingȱtextualȱboundariesȱandȱconnecȬ tions;ȱ incorporatingȱ extraȬtextualȱ knowledgeȱ withȱ textualȱinformation;ȱ andȱ providingȱ aȱ basisȱ forȱ understandingȱ metaphor.ȱ Additionally,ȱ inȬ sightsȱ fromȱ cognitiveȱ linguisticsȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ enrichȱ aȱ TDȱ approachȱwhenȱ usedȱtoȱreȬexamineȱgrammaticalȱcategoriesȱandȱtermiȬ nologyȱfromȱaȱcognitiveȱperspective.9ȱ However,ȱbeforeȱintroducingȱtheȱTDȱmethodȱandȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱJeȬ remiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ aȱ shortȱ accountingȱ ofȱ recentȱ linguistic,ȱ literaryȱ andȱ technologicalȱresearchȱisȱinȱorder.ȱThisȱwillȱbeȱfollowedȱbyȱanȱintroducȬ tionȱtoȱtheȱtheoryȱandȱmethodologyȱutilisedȱbyȱaȱTDȱapproach,ȱandȱbyȱ aȱ shortȱ discussionȱ regardingȱ theȱ strengthsȱ andȱ limitationsȱ ofȱ theȱ apȬ proach.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 7ȱȱ

8ȱȱ 9ȱȱ

Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ theȱ textȱ actsȱ asȱ aȱ materialȱ anchorȱ forȱ complexȱ projections.ȱ Gillesȱ FauconnierȱandȱMarkȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink:ȱConceptualȱBlendingȱandȱtheȱMindȇsȱ HiddenȱComplexitiesȱ(NewȱYork:ȱBasicȱBooks,ȱ2002),ȱ211.ȱȱ Asȱ Fauconnierȱ suggests,ȱ thereȱ mayȱ beȱ “manyȱ differentȱ andȱ sometimesȱ clashingȱ inputsȱintoȱaȱsingleȱblendedȱspace.”ȱIbid.,ȱ329.ȱȱ RonaldȱW.ȱLangacker,ȱFoundationsȱofȱCognitiveȱGrammarȱ(Bloomington,ȱInd:ȱIndianaȱ Universityȱ Linguisticsȱ Club,ȱ 1983);ȱ idem,ȱ Foundationsȱ ofȱ Cognitiveȱ Grammar,ȱ vol.ȱ 1ȱ (Stanford:ȱSUP,ȱ1987);ȱidem,ȱConcept,ȱImage,ȱandȱSymbol:ȱTheȱCognitiveȱBasisȱofȱGramȬ mar,ȱ2ndȱed.,ȱCognitiveȱLinguisticsȱResearch;ȱ1ȱ(Berlin:ȱMoutonȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2002).ȱȱ

4ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

A. Linguistic,ȱLiteraryȱandȱTechnologicalȱApproachesȱ toȱBHȱTextȱ Recentȱlinguistic,ȱliteraryȱandȱtechnologicalȱresearchȱdemonstratesȱsigȬ nificantȱ theoreticalȱ andȱ methodologicalȱ shifts.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ sectionsȱ detailȱtheȱcontributionsȱofȱseveralȱscholarsȱinȱeachȱofȱtheseȱareas.ȱ

1. TheoreticalȱShift:ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyondȱ ScholarsȱsuchȱasȱRobertȱLongacre,ȱPeterȱCotterell,ȱMaxȱTurner,ȱCynthiaȱ Miller,ȱ Kirkȱ LoweryȱandȱAdeleȱ Berlinȱ areȱ representativeȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱ haveȱexploredȱBHȱatȱlevelsȱaboveȱtheȱsentenceȱandȱwhoȱhaveȱincorpoȬ ratedȱ insightsȱ fromȱ otherȱ areasȱ ofȱ linguistics,ȱ suchȱ asȱ pragmatics,ȱ intoȱ theirȱdescriptionȱandȱanalysesȱofȱtexts.10ȱ RobertȱLongacre’sȱdiscourseȱanalysisȱapproachȱtoȱbiblicalȱtextȱwasȱ influencedȱbyȱF.ȱI.ȱAndersen,ȱwhoȱwasȱtheȱfirstȱtoȱbringȱtogetherȱPike’sȱ tagmemeȱ theoryȱ andȱ BHȱ text.11ȱ Beginningȱ withȱ theȱ assertionȱ thatȱ “…ȱ languageȱisȱlanguageȱonlyȱinȱcontext”,ȱLongacreȱclarifiesȱaȱprogrammeȱ forȱworkȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱdiscourseȱanalysisȱ(textȱlinguistics).12ȱHisȱlistȱofȱ tasksȱ requiringȱ aȱ discourseȱ analysisȱ approachȱ overȱ andȱ againstȱ aȱ senȬ tenceȱgrammarȱapproachȱincludesȱfeaturesȱsuchȱas,ȱ“…ȱdefinitivizationȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 10ȱȱ Berlin,ȱA.ȱBerlin,ȱPoetics;ȱAdeleȱBerlin,ȱTheȱDynamicsȱofȱBiblicalȱParallelismȱ(BloomingȬ ton,ȱInd:ȱIndianaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1985);ȱPeterȱCotterellȱandȱMaxȱTurner,ȱLinguisticsȱ andȱBiblicalȱInterpretationȱ(London:ȱSPCK,ȱ1989);ȱJeanȬMarcȱHeimerdinger,ȱTopic,ȱFoȬ cusȱ andȱ Foregroundȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Hebrewȱ Narratives,ȱ JSOTȱ Supȱ 295ȱ (Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ AcademicȱPress,ȱ1999);ȱRobertȱE.ȱLongacre,ȱJoseph:ȱAȱStoryȱofȱDivineȱProvidence:ȱAȱTextȱ Theoreticalȱ andȱ Textlinguisticȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Genesisȱ 37ȱ andȱ 39Ȭ48ȱ (Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ Ind:ȱ EiȬ senbrauns,ȱ 1989);ȱ Kirkȱ Lowery,ȱ “Theoreticalȱ Foundationsȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱ Discourseȱ Grammar,”ȱinȱDiscourseȱAnalysisȱofȱBiblicalȱLiterature:ȱWhatȱItȱIsȱandȱWhatȱItȱOffers,ȱed.ȱ Walterȱ Rayȱ Bodineȱ (Atlanta:ȱ Scholarȇsȱ Press,ȱ 1995),ȱ 103Ȭ130;ȱ Cynthiaȱ L.ȱ Miller,ȱ Theȱ Representationȱ ofȱ Speechȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Narrative:ȱ Aȱ Linguisticȱ Analysis,ȱ HSMȱ (WiȬ nonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ2003).ȱ 11ȱȱ Francisȱ I.ȱ Andersen,ȱ Theȱ Hebrewȱ Verblessȱ Clauseȱ inȱ theȱ Pentateuch,ȱ JBLMSȱ 14ȱ (NashȬ ville:ȱPublishedȱforȱtheȱSocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱbyȱAbingdonȱPress,ȱ1970).ȱBothȱ ofȱtheseȱscholarsȱfollowȱaȱfunctionalȱapproachȱtoȱBHȱtext,ȱasȱopposedȱtoȱaȱformalist,ȱ theoreticallyȱ motivatedȱ approachȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Chomskyan,ȱ generativeȱ approach.ȱ C.ȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merwe,ȱ “Someȱ Recentȱ Trendsȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Linguistics:ȱ Aȱ Fewȱ PointersȱTowardsȱaȱMoreȱComprehensiveȱModelȱofȱLanguageȱUse,”ȱHSȱ44ȱ(2003),ȱ7Ȭ 24ȱ(17).ȱȱ 12ȱȱ Robertȱ E.ȱ Longacre,ȱ Theȱ Grammarȱ ofȱ Discourse,ȱ Topicsȱ inȱ Languageȱ andȱ Linguisticsȱ (NewȱYork:ȱPlenum,ȱ1983).ȱ

ȱ

Linguistic,ȱLiteraryȱandȱTechnologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱTextȱ

5ȱ

andȱtheȱuseȱofȱdeictics;ȱverbȱtense,ȱaspect,ȱandȱmode;ȱwordȱorderȱpheȬ nomena;ȱsequenceȱsignalsȱandȱconjunctions.”13ȱ ThreeȱaspectsȱofȱLongacre’sȱworkȱareȱpertinentȱtoȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱ theȱ TDȱ approachȱ toȱ BH.ȱ First,ȱ Longacre’sȱ modelȱ functionsȱ atȱ theȱ disȬ courseȱlevel.14ȱSecondly,ȱLongacre’sȱmodelȱisȱhierarchicallyȱstructured.ȱ Theȱlargestȱunitȱisȱaȱmacrostructure.ȱTheȱmacrostructureȱmayȱbeȱmacroȬ segmentedȱandȱmicroȬsegmentedȱbyȱvariousȱtextȬinternalȱfeaturesȱsuchȱ asȱverbalȱ forms,ȱ orȱbyȱ thematicȱ content.ȱFinally,ȱtheȱ focusȱofȱhisȱworkȱ hasȱ beenȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ narrativeȱ discourse.ȱ Hisȱ descriptiveȱ modelȱ inȬ cludesȱdiscussionȱofȱtextȬtypeȱcategoriesȱsuchȱasȱnarrative,ȱprocedural,ȱ hortatoryȱ andȱ expository,ȱ withȱ theȱ laterȱ additionȱ ofȱ predictiveȬ proceduralȱandȱhortatoryȬjudicial.ȱTheȱlaterȱadditionsȱreflectȱhisȱdesireȱ toȱexploreȱaȱtextȬtypeȱotherȱthanȱnarrative.15ȱȱ PeterȱCotterellȱandȱMaxȱTurnerȱincorporateȱinsightsȱfromȱtheȱstudyȱ ofȱ linguisticsȱ toȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ interpretation.ȱ Theyȱ defineȱ theȱ termȱ discourseȱ asȱ “anyȱ coherentȱ stretchȱ ofȱ language.”16ȱ Coherenceȱ inȬ volvesȱ topicȱ continuity,ȱ grammaticalȱ structureȱ andȱ meaning.ȱ Cotterellȱ andȱ Turnerȱ claimȱ thatȱ understandingȱ discourseȱ asȱ aȱ communicationȱ eventȱnecessarilyȱinvolvesȱnotȱonlyȱsyntaxȱandȱsemanticsȱbutȱpragmatȬ icsȱasȱwell.ȱTheyȱpresentȱaȱsetȱofȱsixȱcomponentsȱthatȱareȱfeaturesȱofȱaȱ discourse:ȱ theȱ setȱ ofȱ descriptionsȱ referredȱ to;ȱ theȱ setȱ ofȱ propositionsȱ included;ȱtheȱsetȱofȱactualȱsentencesȱused;ȱtheȱsetȱofȱthematicȱnets;ȱtheȱ netȱ ofȱ timeȱ reference;ȱ andȱ theȱ referenceȬrelationȱ diagram.17ȱ Eachȱ ofȱ theseȱcategoriesȱisȱrelevantȱforȱtheȱTDȱapproach.18ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 13ȱȱ Bodineȱ notesȱ thatȱ theseȱ itemsȱ reflectȱ problemȱ areasȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ studies.ȱ Bodine,ȱ Discourseȱ Analysis,ȱ 11.ȱ Theȱ listȱ alsoȱ includesȱ pronominalisation;ȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ locativeȱ andȱ temporalȱ expressions;ȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ adverbialȱ clauses;ȱ variationsȱ inȱ reportedȱ speech;ȱandȱvariationȱinȱtheȱlengthȱofȱsyntacticalȱunits.ȱLongacre,ȱGrammar,ȱxv.ȱȱ 14ȱȱ Seeȱ Robertȱ E.ȱ Longacre,ȱ “Theȱ Paragraphȱ asȱ aȱ Grammaticalȱ Unit,”ȱ inȱ Syntaxȱ andȱ Semantics,ȱed.ȱTalmyȱGivonȱ(NewȱYork:ȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1979),ȱ115Ȭ134.ȱSeeȱalsoȱRoȬ bertȱ Deȱ Beaugrandeȱ andȱ Wolfgangȱ U.ȱ Dressler,ȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Textȱ Linguistics,ȱ Longmanȱ Linguisticsȱ Libraryȱ 26ȱ (London:ȱ Longman,ȱ 1981);ȱ Josephȱ Evansȱ Grimes,ȱ Theȱ Threadȱ ofȱ Discourse,ȱ Januaȱ Linguarum.ȱ Seriesȱ Minor;ȱ 207ȱ (Theȱ Hague:ȱ Mouton,ȱ 1975).ȱ 15ȱȱ RobertȱE.ȱLongacre,ȱ“BuildingȱforȱtheȱWorshipȱofȱGod:ȱExodusȱ25:1Ȭ30,”ȱinȱDiscourseȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literature:ȱWhatȱItȱIsȱandȱ WhatȱItȱOffers,ȱed.ȱ W.ȱ R.ȱ Bodine,ȱSemeiaȱ Studiesȱ(Atlanta:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ21Ȭ49.ȱ 16ȱȱ CotterellȱandȱTurner,ȱLinguistics,ȱ230.ȱ 17ȱȱ Cotterellȱ andȱ Turnerȱ areȱ quotingȱ fromȱ C.ȱ F.ȱ Rieser,ȱ “Onȱ theȱ Developmentȱ ofȱ Textȱ Grammar,”ȱinȱCurrentȱTrendsȱinȱTextȱLinguistics,ȱed.ȱWolfgangȱU.ȱDresslerȱ(Berlin:ȱdeȱ Gruyter,ȱ1978),ȱ13.ȱInȱturn,ȱRieserȱisȱquotingȱJ.ȱS.ȱPetofi,ȱ“StudiesȱinȱTextȱGrammar,”ȱ inȱStudiesȱinȱTextȱGrammar,ȱedsȱJ.ȱS.ȱPetofiȱandȱH.ȱRieserȱ(Dordrecht:ȱReidel,ȱ1973).ȱ 18ȱȱ Theȱ setȱ ofȱ descriptionsȱ intersectsȱ withȱ theȱ informationȱ structureȱ categoryȱ topic,ȱ theȱ setȱofȱpropositionsȱintersectsȱwithȱtheȱinformationȱstructureȱcategoryȱfocus,ȱtheȱsetȱofȱ actualȱ sentencesȱ representsȱ theȱpragmaticȱaspect,ȱtheȱ setȱofȱthematicȱ netsȱ correlatesȱ

6ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

Cotterellȱ andȱ Turnerȱ encourageȱ interpretersȱ toȱ moveȱ beyondȱ theȱ levelȱofȱtheȱsentenceȱandȱtheyȱcreateȱanȱunderstandingȱofȱtextȱthatȱisȱnotȱ genreȬlimited.ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ theyȱ stressȱ theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ incorporatingȱ pragmatics,ȱ orȱ languageȱ inȱ use,ȱ withȱ syntaxȱ andȱ semanticsȱ inȱ textualȱ processingȱandȱproposeȱaȱsetȱofȱfeaturesȱforȱassessingȱtextualȱcohesion.ȱȱ Theȱ workȱ ofȱ Adeleȱ Berlinȱ includesȱ detailedȱ studiesȱ ofȱ bothȱ narraȬ tiveȱandȱpoeticȱtexts.ȱAlthoughȱBerlinȱclaims,ȱ“Iȱamȱnotȱaȱlinguistȱnorȱaȱ discipleȱofȱlinguists,”19ȱherȱapproachȱtoȱbiblicalȱparallelismȱreflectsȱtheȱ understandingȱofȱoneȱwhoȱisȱcognisantȱofȱstructuralist,ȱpsycholinguisticȱ andȱtextȱlinguisticȱapproaches,ȱasȱwellȱasȱwithȱtheȱpoeticȱtheoryȱofȱRoȬ manȱJakobsonȱasȱwell.20ȱ Berlinȱ explainsȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ parallelismȱ byȱ elaboratingȱ uponȱJakobson’sȱstatement,ȱ“Theȱpoeticȱfunctionȱprojectsȱtheȱprincipleȱ ofȱequivalenceȱfromȱtheȱaxisȱofȱselectionȱintoȱtheȱaxisȱofȱcombination.“21ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ parallelismȱ movesȱ equivalenceȱ fromȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ theȱ selectionȱ (paradigmatic)ȱ toȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ theȱ createdȱ sentenceȱ (syntagȬ matic).22ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱparallelismȱatȱtheȱlineȱlevel,ȱthisȱtypeȱofȱrelationȬ shipȱ mayȱ beȱ discernedȱ atȱ levelsȱ smallerȱ thanȱ theȱ lineȱ (words,ȱ phrasesȱ andȱsounds),ȱandȱconversely,ȱmayȱbeȱdiscernedȱwithinȱlargerȱsegmentsȱ ofȱtheȱtext.23ȱWhenȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱparallelismȱisȱenlargedȱinȱthisȱ way,ȱnewȱpossibilitiesȱforȱgraspingȱtheȱtextȱarise.24ȱȱ Berlinȱmakesȱ aȱ secondȱ contributionȱtoȱtheȱ understandingȱ ofȱ paralȬ lelism,ȱwhichȱalsoȱhasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱconceptȱofȱpoeticȱfunction.ȱSinceȱ theȱdaysȱofȱBishopȱLowth,ȱthereȱhasȱbeenȱaȱtendencyȱtoȱassociateȱparalȬ lelismȱ withȱ poetry.25ȱ Berlinȱ exploresȱ Kugel’sȱ thesisȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

19ȱȱ 20ȱȱ

21ȱȱ 22ȱȱ 23ȱȱ

24ȱȱ 25ȱȱ

withȱtheȱconceptȱofȱsemanticȱdomainȱandȱtheȱnetȱofȱtimeȱreferenceȱcorrelatesȱwithȱtheȱ categoryȱ ofȱ temporalȱ deixis.ȱ Theȱ referenceȬrelationȱ diagramȱ isȱ aȱ speciesȱ ofȱ mentalȱ spacesȱmapping.ȱTheseȱissuesȱareȱintroducedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱchapter.ȱ Berlin,ȱDynamics,ȱix.ȱȱ RomanȱJakobson,ȱ“LinguisticsȱandȱPoetics,”ȱinȱStyleȱandȱLanguage,ȱed.ȱThomasȱAlbertȱ Sebeokȱ (Bloomington:ȱ 1960),ȱ 350Ȭ377;ȱ idem,ȱ “Poetryȱ ofȱ Grammarȱ andȱ Grammarȱ ofȱ Poetry,”ȱLinguaȱ21ȱ(1968),ȱ597Ȭ609.ȱ Jakobson,ȱ“LinguisticsȱandȱPoetics,”ȱ358.ȱȱ Berlin,ȱDynamics,ȱ7.ȱȱȱ Anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ repetitionȱ ofȱ theȱ roots N2Sȱ andȱ Oȱ asȱ anȱ inclusioȱ inȱ JereȬ miahȱ 3.21ȱ andȱ 3.25.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ occurrencesȱ areȱ inȱ differentȱ syntacticalȱ constructions,ȱ yetȱformȱanȱinterestingȱsetȱofȱbookendsȱforȱtheȱsection. Forȱexample,ȱseeȱvanȱderȱWal,ȱ“TowardȱaȱSynchronicȱAnalysisȱofȱtheȱMasoreticȱTextȱ ofȱtheȱBookȱofȱJeremiah.”ȱ However,ȱitȱisȱworthwhileȱtoȱrememberȱthatȱLowth’sȱobservationsȱregardingȱparalȬ lelismȱ areȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ hisȱ studyȱ ofȱ propheticȱ literature.ȱ Inȱ Lectureȱ 19,ȱ Lowthȱ states,ȱ“Inȱorderȱtheȱmoreȱclearlyȱtoȱevinceȱthisȱpoint,ȱIȱshallȱendeavourȱtoȱillustrateȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ parallelismȱ accordingȱ toȱ itsȱ differentȱ species,ȱ firstȱ byȱ examplesȱ takenȱ fromȱ thoseȱ booksȱ commonlyȱ allowedȱ toȱ beȱ poetical,ȱ andȱ afterwardsȱ byȱ corresponȬ dentȱexamplesȱtakenȱfromȱtheȱprophets.”ȱRobertȱLowth,ȱLecturesȱonȱtheȱSacredȱPoetryȱ

ȱ

Linguistic,ȱLiteraryȱandȱTechnologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱTextȱ

7ȱ

strictȱ bifurcationȱ betweenȱ proseȱ andȱ poetryȱ inȱ BH,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ aȱ contiȬ nuumȱ existsȱthatȱ movesȱ fromȱ proseȱtoȱ elevatedȱ style.26ȱ Sheȱ goesȱonȱ toȱ explainȱ thatȱ elevatedȱ styleȱ comprisesȱ bothȱ tersenessȱ andȱ parallelism,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ poetryȱ isȱ discernedȱ byȱ observingȱ textȱ forȱ theȱ predominanceȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱfactors.ȱForȱBerlin,ȱparallelismȱfunctionsȱasȱ theȱ“constructiveȱprincipleȱonȱwhichȱaȱpoemȱisȱbuilt.“27ȱBerlin’sȱinsightsȱ intoȱtheȱnatureȱofȱparallelismȱareȱhelpfulȱwhenȱapproachingȱpropheticȱ text,ȱwhichȱcontainsȱaȱvarietyȱofȱdifferentȱconstructiveȱprinciples.28ȱ Finally,ȱ Berlinȱ presentsȱ anȱ overviewȱ ofȱ scholarshipȱ thatȱ linksȱ linȬ guisticsȱ withȱ BHȱ parallelism.29ȱ Sheȱ notesȱ thatȱ syntacticȱ analysisȱ isȱ theȱ unifyingȱfactorȱforȱtheseȱstudies,ȱandȱthatȱthisȱanalysisȱmayȱtakeȱplaceȱ atȱeitherȱaȱsurfaceȱstructureȱorȱaȱdeepȱstructureȱlevel.30ȱBerlin’sȱexamiȬ nationȱ ofȱ parallelismȱ contributesȱ toȱ theȱ TDȱ approachȱ inȱ severalȱ ways.ȱ First,ȱsheȱopensȱtheȱdoorȱforȱtheȱdiscoveryȱofȱparallelismȱwithinȱunitsȱofȱ textȱbothȱsmallerȱandȱlargerȱthanȱtheȱsentence.ȱThisȱstretchesȱtheȱpossiȬ bilityȱ ofȱ discoveringȱ thematicȱ linksȱ withinȱ aȱ largeȱ spanȱ ofȱ textȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ parallelȱ structures.ȱ Second,ȱ sheȱ clarifiesȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ poeticȱfunctionȱbyȱincludingȱbothȱtersenessȱandȱparallelismȱandȱaddsȱtoȱ theseȱtheȱconceptȱofȱpredominanceȱasȱaȱdiagnosticȱcriterion.ȱFinally,ȱsheȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

26ȱȱ 27ȱȱ 28ȱȱ

29ȱȱ

30ȱȱ

ofȱ theȱ Hebrews,ȱ vol.ȱ 1ȱ (London:ȱ Routledge/Thoemmesȱ Press,ȱ 1995),ȱ 34.ȱ Watsonȱ isȱ equallyȱ comprehensiveȱ inȱ hisȱ approach.ȱ Seeȱ Wilfredȱ G.ȱ E.ȱ Watson,ȱ Classicalȱ Hebrewȱ Poetry:ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱItsȱTechniques,ȱ2ndȱed.,ȱJSOTȱSupȱ26ȱ(Sheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1986);ȱ idem,ȱTraditionalȱTechniquesȱinȱClassicalȱ HebrewȱVerse,ȱJSOTȱSupȱ170ȱ(Sheffield:ȱShefȬ fieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1994).ȱ Berlin,ȱDynamics,ȱ5.ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ6.ȱȱ Inȱaddition,ȱtheseȱinsightsȱareȱimportantȱtoȱtheȱJeremiahȱtext,ȱasȱtheyȱofferȱanȱoptionȱ toȱ theȱ strictȱ proseȬpoetryȱ bifurcationȱ withinȱ sourceȬcriticalȱ arguments,ȱ byȱ whichȱ someȱhaveȱsoughtȱtoȱisolateȱtheȱipsissimaȱverbaȱofȱJeremiah.ȱSeeȱ“PoetryȱandȱProse,”ȱ inȱJackȱR.ȱLundbom,ȱJeremiahȱ1Ȭ20,ȱTheȱAnchorȱBible,ȱvol.ȱ21A,ȱ(NewȱYork:ȱDoubleȬ day,ȱ 1999),ȱ 63Ȭ67.ȱ Forȱ furtherȱ discussion,ȱ seeȱ Williamȱ L.ȱ Holladay,ȱ “Prototypeȱ andȱ Copies:ȱAȱNewȱApproachȱtoȱtheȱPoetryȬProseȱProblemȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱJeremiah,”ȱJBLȱ 79,ȱ351Ȭ367.ȱForȱaȱtechnicalȱdiscussionȱregardingȱtheȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱproseȱandȱ poetryȱinȱBHȱseeȱJohannesȱCornelisȱdeȱMoorȱandȱWilfredȱG.ȱE.ȱWatson,ȱVerseȱinȱAnȬ cientȱnearȱEasternȱProse,ȱAlterȱOrientȱundȱAltesȱTestamentȱ(NeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱVerlagȱ ButzonȱundȱBercker,ȱ1993),ȱxȬxvii.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ regard,ȱ seeȱ Stephenȱ A.ȱ Geller,ȱ Parallelismȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Biblicalȱ Poetry,ȱ Harvardȱ SemiticȱMonographs,ȱNo.ȱ20ȱ(Missoula:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1979);ȱidem,ȱ“TheȱDynamicsȱ ofȱParallelȱVerse,”ȱHTRȱ75ȱ(1982),ȱ35Ȭ56;ȱidem,ȱ“ThroughȱWindowsȱandȱMirrorsȱintoȱ theȱHebrewȱBible:ȱHistory,ȱLiteratureȱandȱLanguageȱinȱtheȱStudyȱofȱText,”ȱinȱAȱSenseȱ ofȱ Textȱ (Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ Ind:ȱ Eisenbrauns,ȱ 1982),ȱ 3Ȭ40;ȱ Edwardȱ L.ȱ Greenstein,ȱ “Howȱ DoesȱParallelismȱMean?”ȱinȱAȱSenseȱofȱTextȱ(WinonaȱLake,ȱInd.:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1982),ȱ 41Ȭ70;ȱ Dennisȱ Pardee,ȱ Ugariticȱ andȱ Hebrewȱ Poeticȱ Parallelism:ȱ Aȱ Trialȱ Cutȱ (‘Ntȱ Iȱ andȱ Proverbsȱ 2),ȱ VTȱ Supȱ 39ȱ (Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1988);ȱ Dennisȱ Pardeeȱ andȱ S.ȱ Davidȱ Sperling,ȱ HandbookȱofȱAncientȱHebrewȱLetters:ȱAȱStudyȱEdition,ȱSourcesȱforȱBiblicalȱStudy;ȱNo.ȱ15ȱ (Chico,ȱCA:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1982).ȱȱ Berlin,ȱDynamics,ȱ19.ȱȱ

8ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

notesȱ thatȱ linguisticȱ studiesȱ ofȱ parallelismȱ haveȱ engagedȱ inȱ syntacticȱ studiesȱ atȱ bothȱ theȱ deepȱ andȱ surfaceȱ levelsȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Theseȱ pointsȱ allowȱ poetryȱ toȱ beȱ analysedȱ usingȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ criteriaȱ asȱ prose,ȱ whichȱ opensȱ theȱ wayȱ toȱ aȱ moreȱ unifiedȱ descriptionȱ andȱ analysisȱ ofȱ aȱ multiȬgenredȱtextȱsuchȱasȱJeremiah.ȱȱ Cynthiaȱ Millerȱ hasȱ undertakenȱ aȱ linguisticȱ analysisȱ ofȱ reportedȱ speechȱ inȱ BHȱ narrative.ȱ Herȱ primaryȱ focusȱ isȱ theȱ applicationȱ ofȱ theȱ theoryȱandȱmethodȱofȱmodernȱlinguisticsȱ“…toȱaȱdescriptionȱandȱanalȬ ysisȱ ofȱ theȱ variousȱ syntacticȱ devicesȱ forȱ reportingȱ speechȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ narrative.”ȱ Millerȱ thenȱ explainsȱ theȱ distributionȱ andȱ significȬ anceȱofȱtheseȱdevicesȱbyȱmakingȱreferenceȱtoȱtheirȱplaceȱ“…withinȱtheȱ enclosingȱ narrative.”31ȱ Thus,ȱ whileȱ notȱ usingȱ anȱ overtȱ textȱ linguisticsȱ approach,ȱ Millerȱ nonethelessȱ examinesȱ textȱ atȱ aȱ levelȱ beyondȱ theȱ senȬ tence.ȱȱ Millerȱ discussesȱ theȱ pragmaticsȱ involvedȱ whenȱ oneȱ contextȱ ofȱ speakingȱreportsȱanotherȱcontextȱofȱspeaking,ȱthusȱintroducingȱtheȱideaȱ thatȱ allȱ reportedȱ speechȱ isȱ metapragmatic.ȱ Thisȱ insightȱ isȱ particularlyȱ relevantȱtoȱpropheticȱtextȱsuchȱasȱJeremiah,ȱbecauseȱreportedȱspeechȱisȱ aȱprominentȱfeatureȱofȱtheseȱtexts.ȱȱ Finally,ȱaȱwordȱmustȱbeȱsaidȱregardingȱtheȱthoroughgoingȱnatureȱofȱ Miller’sȱ research.ȱ Inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ herȱ research,ȱ Millerȱ analysedȱ overȱ 4,500ȱtokensȱofȱreportedȱspeechȱinȱGenesisȬIIȱKings.32ȱHerȱworkȱdemonȬ stratesȱ aȱ tendencyȱ toȱ goȱ beyondȱ theȱ sentence,ȱ toȱ incorporateȱ insightsȱ notȱonlyȱfromȱsyntaxȱandȱsemantics,ȱbutȱfromȱpragmaticsȱasȱwell,ȱandȱ toȱ approachȱ theȱ interpretiveȱ taskȱ withȱ scientificȱ rigour.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ termȱ computerȱ isȱ conspicuouslyȱ absentȱ fromȱ Miller’sȱ descriptionȱ andȱ analysis.ȱ

2. MethodologicalȱShift:ȱComputersȱandȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱTextȱ DuringȱtheȱlastȱtwentyȬfiveȱyears,ȱtheȱcomputerȱhasȱtakenȱoverȱtheȱroleȱ ofȱ theȱ writingȱdeskȱforȱmanyȱscholars.ȱFromȱsimpleȱsearchingȱtoȱcomȬ plexȱlinguisticȱstudy,ȱtheȱcomputerȱopensȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱpossibilitiesȱ forȱstudyȱandȱanalysis.ȱEepȱTalstra,ȱC.H.ȱvanȱderȱMerwe,ȱJohnȱH.ȱSailȬ hamer,ȱ andȱ A.ȱ E.ȱ denȱ exterȱ Bloklandȱ areȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ ofȱ theȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ haveȱ madeȱ significantȱ contributionsȱ toȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ techȬ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 31ȱȱ Miller,ȱRepresentation,ȱ4.ȱȱ 32ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ19.ȱȱ

ȱ

Linguistic,ȱLiteraryȱandȱTechnologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱTextȱ

9ȱ

nologyȱ asȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ furtheringȱ linguisticȱ researchȱ intoȱ theȱ complexiȬ tiesȱofȱBH.33ȱȱ Inȱ hisȱ article,ȱ “Recentȱ Trendsȱ inȱ theȱ Linguisticȱ Descriptionȱ ofȱ Oldȱ Hebrew,”ȱvanȱderȱMerweȱprovidesȱaȱsurveyȱofȱthreeȱtrendsȱinȱtheȱfieldȱ ofȱlinguisticsȱandȱOldȱHebrewȱ(OH),ȱtheȱfirstȱofȱwhichȱisȱ“…theȱcompuȬ terizedȱ compilationȱ ofȱ taxonomiesȱ ofȱ linguisticȱ constructionsȱ –ȱ withȱ specialȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱlinguisticȱframeworksȱthatȱareȱusedȱ inȱtheȱdatabases.”34ȱHeȱthenȱgoesȱonȱtoȱprovideȱaȱsynopsisȱofȱtheȱworkȬ ingȱtheoriesȱofȱseveralȱscholars,ȱincludingȱW.ȱRichter,ȱW.ȱEckhardt,ȱW.ȱ Gross,ȱE.ȱTalstra,ȱL.ȱJ.ȱDeȱRegtȱandȱK.ȱLowery.ȱAsȱvanȱderȱMerweȱobȬ serves,ȱȱRichter’sȱworkȱhasȱbeenȱfoundationalȱinȱprovidingȱaȱtheoreticalȱ frameworkȱregardingȱmorphologyȱandȱsyntaxȱofȱOH,ȱwhileȱitȱhasȱbeenȱ theȱ taskȱ ofȱ theȱ othersȱ toȱ makeȱ useȱ ofȱ thatȱ frameworkȱ byȱ developingȱ computerȱ programmesȱ forȱ analysisȱ ofȱ OHȱ text.ȱ Heȱ thenȱ contrastsȱ TalȬ stra’sȱtheoryȱwithȱthatȱofȱLowery,ȱnotingȱthatȱTalstra’sȱtheoryȱinvolvesȱ aȱ“…strictȱsurfaceȱlevelȱstructuralistȱapproach,”ȱwhileȱLoweryȱadoptsȱaȱ functionalȱapproachȱthatȱallowsȱforȱtheȱintersectionȱofȱsyntax,ȱsemanticsȱ andȱpragmatics.35ȱȱ Inȱ practicalȱ terms,ȱ thisȱ contrastȱ isȱ significantȱ forȱ theȱ TDȱ approach.ȱ Onȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱTalstra’sȱclauseȱhierarchyȱnotationalȱsystemȱprovidesȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ systemȱ forȱ trackingȱ aȱ closeȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ surfaceȱ structureȱ ofȱ BHȱ texts,ȱ whichȱ isȱ beneficialȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ accountsȱ forȱ theȱ greatestȱ amountȱ ofȱ distributionalȱ data.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ Lowery’sȱ theoryȱalsoȱincludesȱtheȱfunctionalȱaspectsȱofȱsemanticsȱandȱpragmaticsȱ forȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱtext,ȱwhichȱmovesȱtheȱdiscussionȱtowardsȱlanguageȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 33ȱȱ A.ȱ T.ȱ denȱ exterȱ Blokland,ȱ Inȱ Searchȱ ofȱ Textȱ Syntax:ȱ Towardsȱ aȱ Syntacticȱ TextȬ SegmentationȱModelȱforȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ(Amsterdam:ȱVUȱPress,ȱ1995);ȱFerencȱPostma,ȱ E.ȱ Talstraȱ andȱ M.ȱ Vervenne,ȱ Exodus:ȱ Materialsȱ inȱ Automaticȱ Textȱ Processing,ȱ InstruȬ mentaȱBiblicaȱ1ȱ(Amsterdam:ȱVUȱBoekhandl,ȱ1983),ȱ19;ȱJohnȱSailhamer,ȱ“AȱDatabaseȱ Approachȱ toȱ theȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱ Narrative,”ȱ MAARAVȱ 5Ȭ6ȱ (1990),ȱ 319Ȭ335;ȱ E.ȱ Talstra,ȱ “Textȱ Grammarȱ andȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bibleȱ I:ȱ Elementsȱ ofȱ aȱ Theory,”ȱ BOȱ 35ȱ (1978),ȱ169Ȭ174;ȱidem,ȱ“TextȱGrammarȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱBibleȱII:ȱSyntaxȱandȱSemanȬ tics,”ȱ BOȱ 39ȱ (1982),ȱ 26Ȭ38;ȱ idem,ȱ “Towardȱ aȱ Distributionalȱ Definitionȱ ofȱ Clausesȱ inȱ BiblicalȱHebrew,”ȱETLȱ63ȱ(1987),ȱ95Ȭ105;ȱidem,ȱ“TextȱGrammarȱandȱBiblicalȱHebrew:ȱ Theȱ Viewpointȱ ofȱ Wolfgangȱ Schneider,”ȱ JTTLȱ 5ȱ (1992),ȱ 296Ȭ297;ȱ C.ȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merwe,ȱ“RecentȱTrendsȱinȱtheȱDescriptionȱofȱOldȱHebrew,”ȱJNSLȱ15ȱ(1989),ȱ217Ȭ241.ȱȱ Alsoȱ ofȱ interestȱ areȱ C.ȱ Hardmeierȱ andȱ E.ȱ Talstra,ȱ “Sprachgestaltȱ undȱ Sinngehalt:ȱ Wegeȱ zuȱ neuenȱ Instrumentenȱ derȱ Computergestützenȱ Textwahrnehmung,”ȱ ZAWȱ 101ȱ(1989),ȱ408Ȭ428;ȱEmmanuelȱTov,ȱ“ComputerȱAssistedȱResearchȱofȱtheȱGreekȱandȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,”ȱ inȱ Computerȱ Assistedȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Text,ȱ ed.ȱ E.ȱ Talstraȱ (Amsterdam:ȱVUȱPress,ȱ1989),ȱ87Ȭ118.ȱ 34ȱȱ vanȱderȱMerwe,ȱ“SomeȱRecentȱTrends,”ȱ217.ȱȱ 35ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ229.ȱȱ

10ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

asȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ humanȱ communication.36ȱ Becauseȱ ofȱ this,ȱ theȱ TDȱ apȬ proachȱ beginsȱ withȱ aȱ closeȱ trackingȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ byȱ aȱ notationalȱ systemȱ similarȱtoȱTalstra’sȱandȱincludesȱanȱanalysisȱofȱsemanticȱandȱpragmaticȱ aspectsȱofȱtheȱtextȱasȱwell.37ȱ Theȱworkȱ ofȱ A.ȱ F.ȱdenȱexterȱBloklandȱillustratesȱ bothȱ theȱ capabiliȬ tiesȱandȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱgeneratedȱbyȱaȱcomputationalȱanalysisȱofȱBHȱ text.ȱUtilisingȱaȱcomputerȱanalysis,ȱdenȱexterȱBloklandȱsetsȱforthȱaȱhieȬ rarchicalȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ Iȱ Kingsȱ 1ȱ andȱ 2.ȱ Hisȱ methodȱ isȱ aȱ bottomȬupȱ processingȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱinȱwhichȱheȱjoinsȱclausesȱinȱaȱmannerȱdeterminedȱ byȱ variousȱ surfaceȱ structureȱ characteristics,ȱ suchȱ asȱ verbȱ formsȱ andȱ referenceȱtracking.38ȱThisȱisȱanȱelevenȬstepȱprocess,ȱresultingȱinȱanȱeleȬ venȬstageȱ hierarchyȱ ofȱsegmentation.ȱ Heȱdemonstratesȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ possiȬ bleȱ toȱ turnȱ thisȱ analysisȱ onȱ itsȱ head,ȱ andȱ readingȱ theȱ resultsȱ fromȱ theȱ topȱ down,ȱ heȱ appliesȱ thisȱ reversibleȱ methodȱ toȱ aȱ comparisonȱ withȱ anȱ analysisȱbyȱLongacre.39ȱThisȱmethodȱisȱaȱthoroughȱsyntacticȱdescriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱatȱ hand,ȱandȱdenȱexterȱBlockland’sȱcompilationȱofȱfeatures,ȱ whichȱ tendȱ toȱ joinȱ unitsȱ ofȱ textȱ atȱ givenȱ levelsȱ inȱ theȱ hierarchy,ȱ bearsȱ attentionȱforȱaȱTDȱapproach.ȱ Computerȱ assistedȱ analysisȱprovidesȱaȱsignificantȱ toolȱ forȱsomeȱ ofȱ theȱanalyticalȱtasksȱrequiredȱbyȱaȱTDȱapproachȱtoȱBHȱpropheticȱtext.ȱItȱ isȱ particularlyȱ usefulȱ forȱ examiningȱ theȱ textȱ atȱ levelsȱ higherȱ thanȱ theȱ sentence,ȱ whileȱ givingȱ attentionȱ toȱ surfaceȱ levelȱ featuresȱ suchȱ asȱmorȬ phologyȱandȱsyntax.ȱ Aȱthoroughȱdescriptionȱ andȱanalysisȱ atȱthisȱlevelȱ providesȱtheȱbasisȱforȱexaminingȱsemanticȱfeatures,ȱwhichȱinȱturnȱplayȱ intoȱpragmaticȱfeatures,ȱsuchȱasȱpoeticȱfunction.ȱ TechnologyȱforȱtheȱmorphologicalȱanalysisȱofȱBHȱisȱwidelyȱavailaȬ ble.40ȱHowever,ȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱofȱclauseȱandȱsentenceȱlevelȱsyntacticȱ analysisȱrequireȱaȱsizeableȱdatabaseȱandȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱaccessȱandȱmaniȬ pulateȱ theȱ dataȱbyȱ meansȱofȱ programmingȱ languages.41ȱAtȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 36ȱȱ Thanksȱ areȱ dueȱ toȱ Kirkȱ Lowery,ȱ whoȱ providedȱ theȱ presentȱ authorȱ withȱ aȱ copyȱ ofȱ “Jonaȱ1ȱ–ȱClauseȱHierarchyȱAccordingȱtoȱEepȱTalstra”,ȱ(WerkgroepȱInformatica,ȱVrijeȱ Universiteit,ȱAmsterdam),ȱasȱwellȱasȱmanyȱhelpfulȱremarks.ȱ 37ȱȱ ThanksȱareȱdueȱtoȱEepȱTalstra,ȱwhoȱhasȱgenerouslyȱprovidedȱdatabaseȱinformation,ȱ andȱ aȱ personalȱ explanationȱ ofȱ theȱ computationalȱ linguisticsȱ projectȱ atȱ VU,ȱ AmsterȬ dam.ȱ 38ȱȱ Blokland,ȱSearch,ȱ152Ȭ154.ȱ 39ȱȱ Hisȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ Longacreȱ isȱ ratherȱ harsh,ȱ andȱ perhapsȱ unjustified,ȱ givenȱ theȱ differȬ encesȱinȱapproach.ȱIbid.,ȱ293.ȱ 40ȱȱ Forȱexample,ȱtheȱLogosȱLibraryȱSystemȱincludesȱaȱmorphologicallyȱtaggedȱversionȱofȱ theȱBibliaȱHebraica.ȱLogosȱLibraryȱSystemȱ(LogosȱResearchȱSystems,ȱInc.),ȱ1997.ȱȱOtherȱ widelyȱavailableȱprogrammesȱareȱBibleȱWorksȱandȱBibleȱWindows.ȱ 41ȱȱ Theȱ historyȱ ofȱ computingȱ andȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ computerȬassistedȱ analysisȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ textsȱ areȱ intertwined.ȱ Currentlyȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ performȱ manyȱ complexȱ functionsȱwithȱpersonalȱcomputers,ȱnetworksȱandȱtheȱInternet.ȱTheseȱareȱrecentȱdeȬ

ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

11ȱ

thisȱ writing,ȱ theȱ releaseȱ ofȱ theȱ Stuttgartȱ Electronicȱ Studyȱ Bibleȱ hasȱ exȬ pandedȱ theȱ horizonsȱ byȱ makingȱ word,ȱ phraseȱ andȱ clauseȱ informationȱ accessibleȱtoȱLibronixȱusers.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱcurrentȱsearchȱengineȱisȱunaȬ bleȱtoȱexploitȱallȱdata,ȱthisȱaȱsignificantȱstepȱforward.42ȱ

B. TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ Asȱ previouslyȱ mentioned,ȱ TDȱ isȱ aȱ cognitivelyȬoriented,ȱ linguisticsȬ basedȱ approachȱ toȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ text,ȱ whichȱ isȱ characterisedȱ byȱ itsȱ panchronicȱandȱintegrativeȱnature.ȱThreeȱpresuppositionsȱareȱbasicȱforȱ theȱ TDȱ approach:ȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ theȱ focalȱ pointȱ ofȱ inquiry;ȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ theȱ dynamicȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ languageȱ usersȱ andȱ lanȬ guage;ȱandȱtheȱreadingȱprocessȱinvolvesȱaȱsimilar,ȱdynamicȱrelationshipȱ betweenȱ languageȱ usersȱ andȱ language.ȱ Fromȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ perspective,ȱ theȱ textȱ standsȱ isȱ aȱ materialȱ anchorȱ betweenȱ theȱ textȱ producer(s)ȱ andȱ theȱtextȱconsumer(s).ȱȱ

1. TheȱScopeȱofȱtheȱTaskȱ Narrativeȱ textȱ hasȱ beenȱ theȱ primaryȱ fieldȱ ofȱ studyȱ forȱ theȱ topȬdownȱ discourseȱ analyst,ȱ theȱ bottomȬupȱ computationalȱ linguistȱ andȱ theȱ deȬ terminedȱ distributionalȱ analystȱ asȱ well.43ȱ Notably,ȱ propheticȱ literatureȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ velopments.ȱ Theȱ shiftȱ fromȱ largeȱ mainframeȱ computers,ȱ repleteȱ withȱ theirȱ massiveȱ airȬconditionedȱrooms,ȱtoȱdeskȱtopȱcomputersȱwithȱsimilarȱcapabilitiesȱisȱreflectedȱinȱ E.ȱTalstra,ȱComputerȱAssistedȱAnalysisȱofȱBiblicalȱTexts:ȱPapersȱReadȱ atȱtheȱWorkshopȱonȱ theȱ Occasionȱ ofȱ theȱ Tenthȱ Anniversaryȱ ofȱ theȱ Werkgroepȱ Informatica,ȱ Facultyȱ ofȱ Theology,ȱ Vrijeȱ Universiteit,ȱ Amsterdam,ȱ Novemberȱ 5Ȭ6,ȱ 1987,ȱ Applicatioȱ 7ȱ (Amsterdam:ȱ Freeȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1989).ȱProgressȱfromȱdeskȱtopȱtoȱInternetȱcapability,ȱincludingȱtheȱ decisionȱ toȱ utilizeȱ aȱ dataȱ baseȱ approachȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ anȱ SGML/HTMLȱ Webȱ compatibleȱ format,ȱ isȱ documentedȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ formationȱ ofȱ theȱ Databaseȱ Project,ȱseeȱJ.ȱHoftjitzer,ȱ“TheȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱDatabaseȱProject,”ȱinȱStudiesȱinȱAncientȱ HebrewȱSemanticsȱ(Louvain:ȱPeeters,ȱ1985),ȱ65Ȭ85.ȱȱȱ 42ȱȱ Talstraȱ states,ȱ “Ofȱ course,ȱ accessȱ toȱ theȱ optionsȱ availableȱ inȱ theȱ dataȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ realisedȱbyȱaȱsearchȱengineȱthatȱisȱableȱtoȱexploitȱinȱanȱeffectiveȱwayȱallȱtheȱtextualȱ featuresȱpresent.ȱCreatingȱaȱdatabaseȱisȱoneȱthing,ȱusingȱitȱisȱsomethingȱelse.”ȱE.ȱTalȬ stra,ȱ“TextȱSegmentationȱandȱLinguisticȱLevels,”ȱ(2003),ȱ1Ȭ40ȱ(34).ȱ 43ȱȱ Narrativeȱstudiesȱpredominateȱinȱrecentȱlinguisticȱresearch.ȱForȱexample,ȱseeȱRobertȱ D.ȱBergen,ȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱandȱDiscourseȱLinguisticsȱ(Dallas:ȱSummerȱInstituteȱofȱLinȬ guistics,ȱ1994);ȱWalterȱRayȱBodine,ȱLinguisticsȱandȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ(WinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱ Eisenbrauns,ȱ1992);ȱBodine,ȱDiscourseȱAnalysis;ȱCynthiaȱL.ȱMiller,ȱTheȱVerblessȱClauseȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Linguisticȱ Approaches,ȱ Linguisticȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Westȱ Semiticȱ (WinonaȱLake,ȱInd.:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1999).ȱAȱrecentȱadditionȱtoȱthisȱlistȱisȱSebastiaanȱJ.ȱ

12ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

isȱamongȱtheȱunploughedȱfieldsȱforȱeachȱofȱtheseȱapproaches.ȱTwoȱfeaȬ turesȱ ofȱ propheticȱ literatureȱ contributeȱ toȱ thisȱ situation:ȱ theȱ textȱ comȬ prisesȱ manyȱgenres,ȱ includingȱ prose,ȱ poetryȱ andȱ elevatedȱ speech;ȱ andȱ propheticȱ literatureȱ isȱ highlyȱ discursive:ȱ reportedȱ speechȱ andȱ directȱ addressȱareȱprominentȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱtext.44ȱThus,ȱdelimitingȱaȱcoherentȱ andȱ comprehensiveȱ frameȱ ofȱ referenceȱ forȱ theȱ linguisticȱ analysisȱ andȱ descriptionȱofȱpropheticȱtextsȱposesȱaȱsignificantȱchallenge.ȱ SomeȱrecentȱlinguisticȱstudiesȱofȱBHȱtextȱconcentrateȱonȱsingleȱgeȬ nres:ȱ discourseȱ analyticȱ approaches,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Longacre’s,ȱ proveȱ usefulȱ forȱtheȱdescriptionȱandȱanalysisȱofȱnarrativeȱtext;ȱtheȱstudiesȱofȱWatson,ȱ KugelȱandȱBerlinȱprovideȱinsightȱintoȱpoeticȱtextsȱandȱmetaphorȱstudiesȱ suchȱasȱDoyle’sȱassistȱinȱdiscerningȱabstractȱmeaning.ȱ 45ȱHowever,ȱlittleȱ hasȱbeenȱwrittenȱregardingȱaȱholisticȱanalysisȱofȱpropheticȱtext.ȱ46ȱAddiȬ tionally,ȱ weȱ lackȱ aȱ coherentȱ methodȱ forȱ integratingȱ researchȱ resultsȱ fromȱmultipleȱperspectives.ȱȱ Nonetheless,ȱ utilisingȱ anȱ integrativeȱ approachȱ toȱ textȱ analysisȱ isȱ important,ȱasȱtheȱresultsȱofȱanyȱsingleȱtheoryȱareȱboundȱbyȱitsȱstrengthsȱ andȱ weaknesses.47ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ twoȱ particularȱ problemsȱ ariseȱ whenȱ structuralȱapproachesȱareȱpairedȱwithȱpropheticȱtext.ȱTheȱfirstȱproblemȱ hasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱHebrewȱverbalȱsystem.ȱSomeȱstructuralȱapproachesȱ relyȱ heavilyȱ uponȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ verbalȱ formsȱ asȱ structuralȱ cues.ȱ Suchȱ reȬ lianceȱ uponȱ verbalȱ formsȱ isȱ insufficient,ȱ primarilyȱ becauseȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ consensusȱregardingȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱverbalȱsystemȱsinceȱtheȱBHȱtenseȱ versusȱaspectȱdebateȱ isȱongoing.48ȱAdditionally,ȱlittleȱhasȱbeenȱwrittenȱ regardingȱtheȱlinguisticȱroleȱofȱtheȱbinyanȱsystem,ȱwhichȱisȱcomplexȱandȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 44ȱȱ

45ȱȱ 46ȱȱ

47ȱȱ 48ȱȱ

Floor,ȱ“FromȱInformationȱStructure,ȱTopic,ȱandȱFocus,ȱtoȱThemeȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ Narrative.”ȱ(DLit,ȱUniversityȱofȱStellenbosch,ȱ2004).ȱ Althoughȱnarrativeȱstudiesȱpredominate,ȱaȱsmallȱnumberȱofȱBHȱpoetryȱstudiesȱhaveȱ beenȱundertakenȱfromȱaȱlinguisticsȱperspective.ȱSeeȱRandallȱButh,ȱ“TopicȱandȱFocusȱ inȱHebrewȱPoetry:ȱPsalmȱ51,”ȱinȱLanguageȱinȱContext:ȱEssaysȱforȱRobertȱE.ȱLongacre,ȱedsȱ Shinȱ Jaȱ Jooȱ Hwangȱ andȱ Williamȱ R.ȱ Merrifieldȱ (Arlington:ȱ Summerȱ Instituteȱ ofȱ LinȬ guisticsȱ andȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Texasȱ atȱ Arlington,ȱ 1992),ȱ 83Ȭ96.ȱ Forȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ prose,ȱpoetryȱandȱelevatedȱspeechȱinȱBH,ȱseeȱJamesȱL.ȱKugel,ȱTheȱIdeaȱofȱBiblicalȱPoeȬ try:ȱParallelismȱandȱItsȱHistoryȱ(NewȱHaven:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1981),ȱ77.ȱ BrianȱDoyle,ȱTheȱApocalypseȱofȱIsaiahȱMetaphoricallyȱSpeaking:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱtheȱUse,ȱFuncȬ tion,ȱandȱSignificanceȱofȱMetaphorsȱinȱIsaiahȱ24Ȭ27ȱ(Leuven:ȱPeeters,ȱ2000).ȱ However,ȱ seeȱ Martinȱ Kessler,ȱ Readingȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Jeremiah:ȱ Aȱ Searchȱ forȱ Coherenceȱ (WinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ2004);ȱErnstȱR.ȱWendland,ȱTheȱDiscourseȱAnalysisȱofȱ Hebrewȱ Propheticȱ Literature,ȱ Mellenȱ Biblicalȱ Pressȱ Series,ȱ vol.ȱ 40,ȱ (Lewiston,ȱ Newȱ York:ȱMellenȱBiblicalȱPress,ȱ1994).ȱ vanȱderȱMerwe,ȱ“SomeȱRecentȱTrends,”ȱ18.ȱȱ InroadsȱhaveȱbeenȱmadeȱintoȱtheȱHebrewȱverbalȱsystem.ȱSee,ȱforȱexample,ȱTalȱGoldȬ fajn,ȱ Wordȱ Orderȱ andȱ Timeȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Narrative,ȱ Oxfordȱ Theologicalȱ MonoȬ graphsȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱCook,ȱ“Grammaticalization.“ȱHowȬ ever,ȱtheȱissueȱisȱfarȱfromȱresolved.ȱȱ

ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

13ȱ

affectsȱ manyȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ meaningȱ construction.49ȱ Theȱ secondȱ problemȱ hasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱoneȱform/oneȱfunctionȱnotionȱbehindȱsomeȱstructuralȱ approaches,ȱwhichȱisȱlimitingȱforȱnarrativeȱtextȱandȱplacesȱundueȱconȬ straintsȱ uponȱ elevatedȱ speechȱ andȱ propheticȱ parallelism.ȱ Indeed,ȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱthatȱoneȱlinguisticȱformȱmightȱsignalȱseveralȱfunctions,ȱorȱmulȬ tipleȱlinguisticȱformsȱmightȱrepresentȱaȱsingleȱfunction.50ȱȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ taskȱ ofȱ delimitingȱ aȱ coherentȱ andȱ comprehensiveȱ apȬ proachȱtoȱBHȱpropheticȱtextȱisȱtwoȬfold:ȱfirst,ȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱestablishȱ suitableȱlinksȱbetweenȱtheȱlanguage,ȱcontextȱandȱculturesȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱ textȱproducersȱ andȱthoseȱ ofȱtheȱpresentȱtextȱconsumers;ȱsecondly,ȱitȱisȱ necessaryȱtoȱthoroughlyȱexploreȱallȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱtextȱitself.ȱSinceȱlanȬ guageȱuseȱisȱtheȱproductȱofȱhumanȱconceptualisation,ȱinsightsȱfromȱtheȱ areasȱofȱcognitiveȱscience,ȱcognitiveȱlinguisticsȱandȱcognitiveȱgrammarȱ haveȱ anȱ importantȱ placeȱ inȱ delimitingȱ aȱ coherentȱ andȱ comprehensiveȱ frameȱofȱreferenceȱforȱinterpretingȱBHȱtext.51ȱTheȱTDȱapproachȱincorpoȬ ratesȱ theseȱ ideasȱ inȱ twoȱ ways:ȱ first,ȱ byȱ elucidatingȱ theȱ reȬ conceptualisationȱ ofȱ theȱ interrelationshipȱ betweenȱ author,ȱ textȱ andȱ reader;ȱandȱsecondly,ȱinȱtheȱtextȱanalyticȱmethodȱitself.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 49ȱȱ See,ȱ however,ȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ Wolde,ȱ “Linguisticȱ Motivationȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ Exegesis,”ȱ inȱ NarrativeȱSyntaxȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱBible,ȱed.ȱE.ȱJ.ȱvanȱWolde,ȱBiblicalȱInterpretationȱSeȬ ries,ȱV.ȱ29ȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1997),ȱ21Ȭ50.ȱNiliȱMandelblit,ȱ“TheȱGrammaticalȱMarkingȱofȱ ConceptualȱIntegration:ȱFromȱSyntaxȱtoȱMorphology,”ȱCLȱ11ȱ(2000),ȱ197Ȭ241.ȱ 50ȱȱ Mandelblit,ȱ inȱ herȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ Modernȱ Hebrewȱ verbalȱ sysȬ tem,ȱ hasȱ observedȱ thatȱ theȱ syntacticȱ formȱ ofȱ theȱ sentenceȱ andȱ theȱ morphologicalȱ formȱ ofȱtheȱverbȱ(itsȱbinyan)ȱcombineȱinȱtwoȱ distinctȱways.ȱTwoȱ sentencesȱ withȱtheȱ sameȱ syntacticȱ forms,ȱ butȱ withȱ twoȱ differentȱ morphologicalȱ forms,ȱ willȱ haveȱ theȱ sameȱbasicȱeventȱstructureȱwithȱdifferentȱcrossȬspaceȱmappings,ȱwhileȱdifferentȱsynȬ tacticȱ formsȱ withȱ theȱ sameȱ morphologicalȱ formȱ willȱ exhibitȱ aȱ differentȱ eventȱ strucȬ ture,ȱbutȱwithȱtheȱsameȱcrossȬspaceȱmapping.ȱTheȱissueȱofȱcrossȬspaceȱmappingȱhasȱ toȱdoȱwithȱtheȱunderlyingȱmotionȱconstructionȱspecifiedȱbyȱtheȱbinyan.ȱForȱinstance,ȱ althoughȱsentencesȱwithȱniphalȱverbsȱhaveȱaȱsubject,ȱtheyȱareȱessentiallyȱagentless,ȱasȱ theȱoneȱperformingȱtheȱactionȱisȱnotȱencodedȱinȱtheȱverbȱform.ȱAȱsimilarȱsituationȱexȬ istsȱ withȱ imperativeȱ forms,ȱ inȱ whichȱ actionȱ isȱ requestedȱ byȱ aȱ nonȬsubjectȱ entityȱ whoseȱidentityȱmustȱbeȱcontextuallyȱassessed.ȱȱȱ 51ȱȱ Theȱ presentȱ authorȱ becameȱ awareȱ ofȱtheȱ cognitiveȱapproachesȱthroughȱ Martinȱ FolȬ lingstad’sȱ work.ȱ Coincidentally,ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merweȱ encounteredȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ S.S.A.ȱ Marmaridou,ȱwhoseȱresearchȱprogrammeȱhasȱmanyȱpointsȱofȱcontactȱwithȱtheȱtheoȬ reticalȱunderpinningsȱofȱthisȱeffortȱtoȱarticulateȱaȱtextȱdynamicȱapproachȱtoȱBHȱtext,ȱ includingȱtheȱviewȱofȱlanguageȱasȱdynamicȱratherȱthanȱstaticȱandȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱ embodiedȱ experienceȱ forȱ meaningȱ construction.ȱ Carlȱ Martinȱ Follingstad,ȱ “Deicticȱ ViewpointȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱText:ȱAȱSyntagmaticȱandȱParadigmaticȱAnalysisȱofȱtheȱ ParticleȱKi.”ȱ(DoctoralȱThesis,ȱVrijeȱUniversiteitȱteȱAmsterdamȱ2001,ȱSILȱInternationȬ al,ȱ2001);ȱSophiaȱ S.ȱ A.ȱ Marmaridou,ȱPragmaticȱ Meaningȱ andȱ Cognition,ȱ Pragmaticsȱ&ȱ Beyond;ȱNewȱSer.ȱ72ȱ(Amsterdam:ȱJ.ȱBenjaminsȱPublishing,ȱ2000).ȱ

14ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

2. Author,ȱTextȱandȱReaderȱ Likeȱ anyȱ text,ȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ staticȱ entity.ȱ Thisȱ perceptionȱisȱreinforcedȱbyȱtheȱlimitationsȱofȱBH,ȱwhichȱhasȱbeenȱpreȬ servedȱasȱaȱformallyȱarticulatedȱlanguageȱonlyȱforȱworship.ȱBecauseȱofȱ this,ȱthereȱareȱnoȱspeakersȱtoȱcreateȱfreshȱexamples.ȱTheȱdataȱavailableȱ forȱ formulatingȱ grammaticalȱ conclusionsȱ isȱ limitedȱ toȱ theȱ corpusȱ atȱ hand.ȱ Evenȱ so,ȱ theȱ textȱ itselfȱ isȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ realȱ languageȱ users,ȱ communicatingȱinȱrealȱcontextsȱandȱunderȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱrealȱculturalȱ influencesȱandȱconstraints.52ȱThereȱisȱaȱcommunicativeȱdynamismȱsurȬ roundingȱtheȱtext,ȱwhichȱisȱbestȱexploredȱbyȱincludingȱtheȱhumanȱeleȬ mentȱinȱtheȱinterpretationȱprocess.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ taskȱ involvedȱ inȱ delimitingȱ theȱ TDȱ approachȱ isȱ reȬ conceptualisingȱ theȱ relationshipȱ thatȱ holdsȱ betweenȱ theȱ authorȱ (fromȱ hereon,ȱ originator),ȱ theȱ textȱ andȱ theȱ reader.53ȱ Aȱ modelȱ fromȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ hasȱ beenȱ selectedȱ forȱ thisȱ task.ȱ Thisȱ model,ȱ describedȱ asȱ theȱ canonicalȱ viewingȱ arrangement,ȱ isȱ dependentȱ uponȱ knownȱ featuresȱ ofȱ perceptionȱandȱisȱrepresentedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱdiagram.54ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 52ȱȱ ThisȱisȱwhyȱitȱisȱnotȱsafeȱorȱprudentȱtoȱjettisonȱhistoricalȬcriticalȱstudy.ȱ 53ȱȱ Inȱthisȱanalysisȱtheȱtermȱoriginatorȱreplacesȱtheȱtermȱauthorȱandȱactsȱasȱaȱcoverȱtermȱ forȱtheȱgroupȱofȱpeopleȱwhoȱhaveȱcontributedȱtoȱtheȱfinalȱformȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱincludingȱ theȱoriginalȱauthorȱandȱanyȱsubsequentȱredactorsȱorȱeditors.ȱȱ 54ȱȱ Inȱtermsȱofȱcognitiveȱgrammar,ȱaȱviewingȱarrangementȱmayȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱcanoniȬ cal,ȱ inȱ whichȱ caseȱ theȱ viewerȱ isȱ distinctȱ fromȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ perception,ȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ perceptionȱ isȱ sharplyȱ delimited,ȱ andȱ theȱ viewer’sȱ attentionȱ isȱ directedȱ outward.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ viewingȱ arrangement,ȱ theȱ viewerȱ construesȱ theȱ perceivedȱ objectȱ withȱ “…maximalȱ objectivityȱ andȱ construesȱ himselfȱ withȱ maximalȱ subjectivity.”ȱ Ronaldȱ W.ȱ Langacker,ȱ “Deixisȱ andȱ Subjectivity,”ȱ inȱ Grounding:ȱ Theȱ Epistemicȱ Footingȱ ofȱ DeixisȱandȱReference,ȱed.ȱFrankȱBrisardȱ(Berlin:ȱMoutonȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2002),ȱ1Ȭ28ȱ(15).ȱ ȱ

ȱ

15ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ1.1ȱȱȱLangackerȇsȱCanonicalȱViewingȱArrangementȱȱ

Theȱcanonicalȱviewingȱarrangementȱisȱbasedȱuponȱvisualȱperception.ȱItȱ consistsȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱcomponents:ȱVȱrepresentsȱtheȱviewer;ȱtheȱboxȱ representsȱ theȱ visualȱ field;ȱ theȱ dashedȱ rectangleȱ indicatesȱ theȱ locusȱ ofȱ viewingȱ attention,ȱ whichȱ isȱ alsoȱ referredȱ toȱ asȱ theȱ onstageȱ region;ȱ PEȱ representsȱ theȱ perceivedȱ entity;ȱ andȱ theȱ dashedȱ arrowȱ representsȱ theȱ perceptualȱ relationshipȱ thatȱ holdsȱ betweenȱ theȱ perceivingȱ individualȱ andȱtheȱentityȱbeingȱperceived.ȱȱ Inȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱsubjectivity,ȱLangackerȱutilisesȱthisȱdiagramȱtoȱ explainȱ theȱ “…ȱ inherentȱ asymmetryȱ betweenȱ theȱ rolesȱ ofȱ subjectȱ andȱ objectȱofȱperception.”ȱWhenȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱviewerȱasȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱperȬ ceptionȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱtheȱperceivedȱ entityȱ asȱtheȱobjectȱ ofȱ perceptionȱareȱ maximallyȱ asymmetrical,ȱ theyȱ exhibitȱ theȱ followingȱ threeȱ characterisȬ tics:ȱVȱandȱPȱareȱwhollyȱdistinct;ȱPȱisȱsharplyȱdelimited;ȱandȱV’sȱattenȬ tionȱ isȱ directedȱ outward,ȱ soȱ thatȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ perceiveȱ himselfȱ inȱ anyȱ way.55ȱ Additionally,ȱ Langackerȱ notesȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ discussȱ abȬ stractȱconceptualisations,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱmeaningsȱofȱlinguisticȱexpressionsȱ withinȱaȱspeechȱsituationȱusingȱaȱsimilarȱdiagram.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 55ȱȱ Langacker,ȱ“DeixisȱandȱSubjectivity,“15.ȱ ȱ

16ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ1.2ȱȱȱLangackerȇsȱViewingȱArrangementȱforȱSpeechȱSituationsȱ

Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ conceptualisationȱ includesȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearer,ȱ theȱ groundȱ ofȱ theȱ speechȱ eventȱ andȱ theȱ sharedȱ conceptualisaȬ tionȱofȱtheȱcommunication.ȱThisȱsituationȱisȱrepresentedȱinȱtheȱdiagramȱ asȱfollows:ȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱhearerȱareȱtheȱrelevantȱconceptualisersȱ(corȬ respondingȱtoȱVȱinȱfigureȱ1).ȱTheȱinterrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱspeakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ isȱ representedȱ byȱ theȱ horizontalȱ dashedȱ lines.ȱ Theȱ speakerȱ andȱhearerȱareȱoffȱstageȱ–ȱtheyȱareȱmaximallyȱsubjective,ȱbutȱnonethelessȱ present.ȱ Theirȱ sharedȱ conceptualisation,ȱ C,ȱ isȱ onȱ stageȱ asȱ theȱ focusȱ ofȱ attention;ȱitȱisȱmaximallyȱobjective.ȱTheȱouterȱboxȱrepresentsȱtheȱoverallȱ scopeȱ ofȱ theȱ expression,ȱ andȱ theȱ innerȱ rectangleȱ representsȱ theȱ immeȬ diateȱscopeȱofȱtheȱexpression.56ȱThisȱdiagramȱrepresentsȱaȱprototypicalȱ speechȱ situation,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ haveȱ immediateȱ accessȱtoȱoneȱanotherȱandȱtoȱelementsȱwithinȱtheȱgroundȱofȱtheȱspeechȱ situation,ȱ suchȱ asȱ timeȱ andȱ space.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ theȱ deicticȱ centresȱ representedȱbyȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱtheȱhearerȱshareȱtheȱsameȱground.57ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 56ȱȱ Ronaldȱ W.ȱ Langacker,ȱ ”Context,ȱ Cognition,ȱ andȱ Semantics:ȱ Aȱ Unifiedȱ Dynamicȱ Approach,”ȱ inȱ Jobȱ 28:ȱ Cognitionȱ inȱ Context,ȱ ed.ȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ Woldeȱ (Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 2003),ȱ 179Ȭ230ȱ(183).ȱ 57ȱȱ Forȱ Langacker,ȱ theȱ termȱ groundȱ includesȱ theȱ speechȱ event,ȱ itsȱ participantsȱ andȱ itsȱ immediateȱcircumstances.ȱLangacker,ȱ“DeixisȱandȱSubjectivity,“ȱ7.ȱ

ȱ

17ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

Theȱ dottedȱ linesȱ thatȱ joinȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ toȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ perceptionȱrepresentȱsharedȱgaze.ȱInȱaȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱcommunicationȱsituaȬ tion,ȱsharedȱgazeȱisȱanȱimportantȱcommunicationȱcue.ȱBailensonȱstates:ȱ Asideȱfromȱverbalȱchannels,ȱnonȬverbalȱchannelsȱavailableȱduringȱfaceȬtoȬ faceȱ communicationȱ includeȱ gazeȱ fromȱ headȱ postureȱ andȱ eyeȱ direction,ȱ armȱ gestures,ȱ bodyȱ posture,ȱ andȱ facialȱ expressionsȱ (asȱ wellȱ asȱ nonȬverbalȱ aspectsȱofȱlanguageȱsuchȱasȱvariationsȱinȱintonationȱandȱvoiceȱquality).58ȱȱ

Textȱ levelȱ deicticȱ termsȱ areȱ oneȱ meansȱ availableȱ toȱ theȱ authorȱ forȱ enȬ couragingȱsharedȱgazeȱ(seeȱ2.B.2ȱbelow).ȱ FromȱaȱTDȱperspective,ȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱreconceptualiseȱtheȱrelationȬ shipȱbetweenȱtheȱtext,ȱtheȱoriginatorsȱofȱtheȱtextȱandȱtheȱreadersȱofȱtheȱ textȱusingȱanȱexpandedȱversionȱofȱtheȱpreviousȱdiagram.ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ1.3ȱȱȱReȬconceptualisationȱofȱtheȱRelationshipȱbetweenȱAuthor,ȱTextȱandȱReaderȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 58ȱȱ JeremyȱN.ȱBailenson,ȱAndrewȱC.ȱBeallȱandȱJimȱBlascovich,ȱGazeȱandȱTaskȱPerformanceȱ inȱSharedȱVirtualȱEnvironmentsȱȱ(2002,ȱaccessed);ȱavailableȱfromȱ http://www.stanford.edu/~bailenso/papers/VCA%20Gaze.pdf.ȱ

18ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

Inȱthisȱdiagram,ȱtheȱouterȱboxȱdelineatesȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱconceptualisaȬ tion.ȱ Thisȱ encompassesȱ theȱ followingȱ aspects:ȱ theȱ locusȱ ofȱ viewingȱ atȬ tention,ȱorȱtheȱonstageȱregion,ȱrepresentsȱtheȱtext;ȱCȱindicatesȱtheȱfocusȱ frame,ȱ orȱtheȱconceptualisationȱofȱtheȱportionȱofȱtextȱunderȱconsideraȬ tionȱatȱaȱgivenȱmoment;ȱOȱisȱaȱcoverȱtermȱforȱtheȱoriginalȱauthorȱandȱallȱ subsequentȱeditorialȱhands;ȱRȱisȱaȱcoverȱtermȱforȱallȱreaders;ȱGȱindicatesȱ theȱ groundȱ thatȱ holdsȱ forȱ theȱ relevantȱ conceptualiser.ȱ Onceȱ again,ȱ theȱ conceptualisersȱ areȱ offȱ stage.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ maximallyȱ subjectiveȱ butȱ present.ȱImportantly,ȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱsubjectivityȱwouldȱchangeȱifȱoneȱofȱ theȱ interlocutorsȱ wereȱ toȱ becomeȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ theȱ communicationȱ event.ȱ InȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱdiagramȱFigureȱ1.2,ȱwhichȱrepresentsȱaȱprototypiȬ calȱ speechȱ eventȱ withȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ sharingȱ aȱ commonȱ ground,ȱ theȱ diagramȱ inȱ Figureȱ 1.3ȱ highlightsȱ theȱ disjunctionȱthatȱ existsȱ forȱ theȱ originatorsȱandȱreadersȱofȱanȱancientȱtext.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱspeechȱeventȱ isȱnonȬprototypical,ȱwithȱtheȱcommunicationȱparticipantsȱseparatedȱbyȱ space,ȱtimeȱandȱculture.ȱInȱFigureȱ1.3,ȱtheȱdottedȱlinesȱaroundȱtheȱtermsȱ grammar,ȱ contextȱ andȱ cultureȱ reflectȱ theȱ partialȱ mannerȱ inȱ whichȱ theseȱ categoriesȱ establishȱ connectionsȱ betweenȱ theȱ textȱ originatorsȱ andȱ theȱ readers,ȱ thusȱ emphasisingȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ linguistic,ȱ historicalȱ andȱ culturalȱ studiesȱ forȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ ancientȱ text.ȱ Theȱ solidȱ lineȱ aroundȱ embodiedȱ experienceȱ highlightsȱ anȱ importantȱ analogicalȱ connecȬ tionȱ betweenȱ originatorȱ andȱ reader.59ȱ Thisȱ connectionȱ isȱ proposedȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ humansȱ possessȱ similarȱ neuralȱ networks,ȱ whichȱ mayȱ beȱ modelledȱ byȱ connectionistȱ networks,ȱ andȱ thatȱ suchȱ netȬ worksȱareȱcharacteristicȱofȱembodiedȱhumanȱexperience.60ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 59ȱȱ Althoughȱ thisȱ volumeȱ isȱ basedȱ uponȱ recentȱ researchȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ gramȬ marȱ andȱ linguistics,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ senseȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ reconceptualisationȱ presentedȱ inȱ Figureȱ1.3ȱprovidesȱaȱnewȱwineskinȱforȱtheȱoldȱwineȱofȱtheȱhistoricalȬcriticalȱmethod.ȱ Johnȱ Collinsȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ principleȱ ofȱ analogyȱ isȱ foundationalȱ forȱ theȱ historicalȬ criticalȱapproach,ȱstating,ȱ“Toȱunderstandȱtheȱancientȱcontextȱofȱaȱtextȱrequiresȱsomeȱ sympatheticȱanalogyȱbetweenȱancientȱandȱmodernȱsituations.ȱIndeed,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱasȬ sumptionsȱ ofȱ historicalȱ criticismȱ isȱ thatȱ textsȱ areȱ humanȱ productsȱ andȱ thatȱ humanȱ natureȱhasȱnotȱchangedȱbeyondȱrecognitionȱoverȱtheȱcenturies“.ȱThus,ȱbothȱtheȱemȬ phasisȱuponȱanalogyȱbasedȱuponȱhumanȱexperienceȱandȱtheȱmaintenanceȱofȱtheȱdisȬ tinctionȱ betweenȱ subjectivityȱ andȱ objectivityȱ expressedȱ inȱ theȱ reȬconceptualisationȱ renderȱ thisȱ volumeȱ moreȱ modernȱ thanȱ postȬmodern.ȱ Johnȱ J.ȱ Collins,ȱ Theȱ Bibleȱ afterȱ Babelȱ(GrandȱRapids,ȱMichigan:ȱEerdmans,ȱ2005),ȱ5.ȱ 60ȱȱ Marmaridouȱstates,ȱ“…connectionismȱviewsȱtheȱbrainȱasȱaȱnetworkȱcharacterisedȱbyȱ causalȱprocessesȱbyȱwhichȱunitsȱofȱintricateȱsystemsȱexciteȱandȱinhibitȱeachȱotherȱandȱ thusȱdynamicallyȱadaptȱtoȱtheirȱenvironments.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱmajorȱfeaturesȱthatȱhasȱatȬ tractedȱ cognitiveȱ scientistsȱ toȱ networkȱ modelsȱ isȱ that,ȱ beingȱ neurallyȱ inspired,ȱ theyȱ seemȱ moreȱ compatibleȱ thanȱ symbolicȱ modelsȱ withȱ whatȱ weȱ knowȱ ofȱ nervousȱ sysȬ tems.”ȱMarmaridou:ȱ48.ȱ

ȱ

19ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

TheȱdiagramȱinȱFigureȱ1.4ȱdemonstratesȱthatȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱinforȬ mationȱ generatedȱ byȱ theȱ embodiedȱ experienceȱ factorȱ isȱ effectiveȱ inȱ narȬ rowingȱtheȱgapȱbetweenȱtheȱperceptionȱofȱtheȱoriginatorȱandȱthatȱofȱtheȱ reader.61ȱȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ1.4ȱȱȱViewingȱArrangementȱBasedȱuponȱEmbodiedȱExperienceȱ

TheȱTDȱreȬconceptualisationȱdrawsȱattentionȱtoȱcognitiveȱprocessesȱthatȱ areȱinherentȱinȱtheȱembodiedȱhumanȱexperienceȱsharedȱbyȱtextȱoriginaȬ tor,ȱspeaker,ȱhearerȱandȱreaderȱalike.ȱItȱopensȱtheȱwayȱforȱincorporatingȱ prototypeȱstructures,ȱimageȱschematicȱstructures,ȱconceptualȱmetaphor,ȱ idealisedȱ cognitiveȱ modelsȱ andȱ Mentalȱ Spacesȱ Theoryȱ (MST)ȱ intoȱ theȱ interpretationȱofȱancientȱtext,ȱinȱsoȱfarȱasȱitȱmayȱbeȱdemonstratedȱthatȱ theseȱcategoriesȱhaveȱuniversalȱcharacteristics.ȱȱ Thisȱ reȬconceptualisationȱalsoȱpavesȱtheȱwayȱforȱaȱshiftȱinȱtheȱmeȬ taphorȱ thatȱ isȱ usedȱ toȱ describeȱ humanȱ communication.ȱ Typically,ȱ communicationȱisȱdescribedȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱconduitȱmetaphor,ȱaȱconcepȬ tualȱmetaphorȱ basedȱuponȱtheȱpathȱschema.62ȱInȱthisȱmodel,ȱwordsȱandȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 61ȱȱ ThisȱalsoȱholdsȱforȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱhearerȱinȱFigureȱ1.2.ȱTheyȱshareȱtheȱgroundȱofȱtheȱ speechȱeventȱandȱtheȱembodiedȱexperienceȱasȱwell.ȱ 62ȱȱ Markȱ Johnson,ȱ Theȱ Bodyȱ inȱ theȱ Mind:ȱ Theȱ Bodilyȱ Basisȱ ofȱ Meaning,ȱ Imagination,ȱ andȱ Reasonȱ(Chicago:ȱUCP,ȱ1987),ȱ26.ȱ

20ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

grammaticalȱstructuresȱareȱsaidȱtoȱcontainȱmeaning.ȱTheȱspeakerȱisȱsaidȱ toȱ packȱ andȱ sendȱ thisȱ informationȱ toȱ theȱ hearer,ȱ whoȱ thenȱ unpacksȱ theȱ meaning.ȱThisȱmodelȱisȱonlyȱpartiallyȱcompatibleȱwithȱtheȱprototypicalȱ speechȱ situationȱ inȱ Figureȱ 1.2,ȱ whereȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ shareȱ aȱ situationȱofȱspeakingȱinȱwhichȱtemporal,ȱspatialȱandȱculturalȱelementsȱ ofȱ theȱ situationȱareȱavailableȱtoȱbothȱparties.ȱSignificantly,ȱtheȱconduitȱ modelȱfailsȱtoȱaccountȱforȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱextraȬlinguisticȱinformation,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ temporal,ȱ spatialȱ andȱ culturalȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ situation,ȱ theȱ bodyȱ languageȱofȱtheȱ interlocutors,ȱ ȱ andȱ howȱ theseȱ conȬ tributeȱtoȱmeaningȱconstruction.ȱ Forȱ thisȱreason,ȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱreliesȱ uponȱaȱ networkȱ model.ȱ Inȱ thisȱmodel,ȱbothȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱtheȱhearer,ȱquaȱconceptualisers,ȱparticȬ ipateȱ inȱ theȱ constructionȱ ofȱ aȱ sharedȱ cognitiveȱ network.63ȱ Theȱ speakȬ er/authorȱhasȱinȱmindȱanȱeventȱthatȱheȱorȱsheȱwishesȱtoȱshareȱwithȱtheȱ hearer/reader.ȱ Theȱ speakerȱ selectsȱ wordsȱ andȱ grammaticalȱ construcȬ tionsȱ andȱ usesȱ theseȱ asȱ toolsȱ toȱ promptȱ theȱ hearerȱ toȱ open,ȱ structureȱ andȱ linkȱ mentalȱ spaces,ȱ formingȱ aȱ networkȱ ofȱ spacesȱ asȱ discourseȱ unȬ folds.ȱ Asȱ theȱ spokenȱ orȱ writtenȱ wordȱ isȱ encounteredȱ byȱ theȱ hearerȱ orȱ reader,ȱ linguisticȱ informationȱ isȱ blendedȱ withȱ bothȱ genericȱ (imageȱ schematic)ȱ andȱ specificȱ (temporal,ȱ spatialȱ andȱ cultural)ȱ backgroundȱ informationȱ inȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ meaningȱ construction.ȱ Thisȱ modelȱ isȱ compatibleȱwithȱFigureȱ1.3.ȱ TheȱsecondȱtaskȱinvolvedȱinȱdelimitingȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱisȱdesignȬ ingȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ textȱ analysisȱ thatȱ isȱ compatibleȱ withȱ theȱ reȬ conceptualisationȱ justȱ discussed.ȱ Theȱ theoryȱ andȱ methodȱ forȱ theȱ TDȱ textȱanalysisȱwillȱbeȱintroducedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱsection.ȱ

3. TextȱasȱaȱMaterialȱAnchorȱ TheȱsecondȱtaskȱinvolvedȱinȱdelimitingȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱisȱtoȱcreateȱaȱ comprehensiveȱtextȱanalysis.ȱAȱmodelȱfromȱcognitiveȱscienceȱhasȱbeenȱ selectedȱ forȱ thisȱ task.ȱ Fromȱaȱ cognitiveȱscienceȱ perspective,ȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ representsȱ aȱ materialȱ anchorȱ forȱ complexȱ projections.64ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱtheȱphysicallyȱavailableȱtextȱactsȱasȱanȱanchor,ȱorȱfocalȱlink,ȱforȱ conceptualȱ processing.65ȱForȱtheȱreader,ȱthisȱprocessingȱincludesȱcreatȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 63ȱȱ ThisȱmodelȱisȱbasedȱuponȱFauconnier’sȱMST.ȱ 64ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ202.ȱȱ 65ȱȱ Theȱ termȱ focalȱ linkȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ reȬconceptualisationȱ schemaȱ developedȱ byȱ theȱ presentȱauthorȱandȱisȱcompatibleȱwithȱtheȱdiagramsȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱsection.ȱFauconȬ nier’sȱmaterialȱanchorȱisȱusedȱinȱmuchȱtheȱsameȱway,ȱwithȱtheȱadvantageȱofȱincludingȱ actualȱphysicalȱpropertiesȱofȱtheȱentityȱinvolved.ȱȱ

ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

21ȱ

ingȱ adequateȱ linksȱ betweenȱ theȱ language,ȱ contextȱ andȱ cultureȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱproducersȱandȱthoseȱofȱtheȱpresentȬdayȱtextȱconsumers.ȱAȱdescripȬ tionȱofȱthisȱprocessȱbeginsȱwithȱtheȱanalysisȱandȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱsynȬ tax,ȱ semanticsȱ andȱ pragmaticsȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Understandingȱ theȱ text,ȱ orȱ materialȱanchor,ȱisȱtheȱfirstȱpriority.ȱ66ȱȱ Onceȱagain,ȱaȱ featureȱ ofȱcomputerisedȱinformationȱprocessingȱactsȱ asȱaȱsourceȱdomainȱforȱunderstandingȱtheȱTDȱapproach.67ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱitȱ isȱ theȱ layerȱ featureȱ thatȱ isȱ usedȱ inȱ manyȱ computerȱ applications,ȱ fromȱ textȱandȱimageȱmanagementȱtoȱmusicalȱarrangement,ȱarchitectureȱandȱ design.ȱTexts,ȱmusicalȱscoresȱandȱcathedralsȱareȱallȱexamplesȱofȱmateriȬ alȱanchorsȱforȱconceptualȱprocessing.ȱAȱmusicalȱscoreȱactsȱasȱaȱmaterialȱ anchorȱforȱtheȱcognitiveȱprocessingȱofȱmusic.ȱAȱcomposerȱusesȱaȱnotaȬ tionȱ systemȱ toȱ createȱ anȱ anchorȱ forȱ theȱ combinationsȱ ofȱ pitches,ȱ rhythmsȱandȱtonesȱthatȱheȱorȱsheȱimagines.ȱOtherȱmusiciansȱareȱableȱtoȱ followȱ theȱ combinationȱ ofȱ instructionsȱ thatȱ theȱ scoreȱ contains,ȱ givingȱ riseȱtoȱanȱactualȱperformanceȱofȱtheȱmusic.ȱTheȱscoreȱisȱnotȱtheȱmusic,ȱ butȱratherȱaȱhighlyȱcompressedȱrecordȱofȱcues,ȱaȱrecordȱwhichȱisȱcomȬ pressedȱbyȱtheȱcomposerȱandȱsubsequentlyȱdecompressedȱbyȱtheȱmusiȬ cian.ȱAȱcathedralȱisȱaȱmaterialȱanchorȱwhichȱrepresentsȱtheȱintersectionȱ betweenȱtheȱphysicalȱworldȱandȱtheȱdivine.ȱItȱisȱfirmlyȱsituatedȱspatialȬ ly,ȱasȱopposedȱtoȱtheȱephemeralȱdeity,ȱsoȱwhenȱindividualsȱtravelȱtoȱtheȱ cathedral,ȱtheyȱareȱapproachingȱaȱstationaryȱspotȱwhereȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱ theȱdeityȱisȱlocated.ȱToȱenterȱintoȱtheȱcathedralȱisȱtoȱencounterȱtheȱunȬ seen,ȱbutȱnowȱlocalisedȱdeity.68ȱȱȱȱ Composers,ȱ cathedralȱ architectsȱ andȱ authorsȱ createȱ materialȱ ancȬ hors,ȱwhileȱmusicians,ȱtheȱfaithfulȱandȱtextȱanalystsȱmakeȱuseȱofȱthem.ȱ Althoughȱcomposing,ȱ designingȱ andȱ authoringȱ doȱnotȱseemȱtoȱresemȬ bleȱ playingȱ symphonies,ȱ attendingȱ worshipȱ orȱ analysingȱ texts,ȱ allȱ ofȱ theseȱ activitiesȱ areȱ processedȱ viaȱ conceptualȱ blending.ȱ Theȱ composerȱ combinesȱnovelȱgroupingsȱofȱpitches,ȱrhythmsȱandȱtonesȱwithȱnotationsȱ inȱaȱscore;ȱtheȱarchitectȱcombinesȱimaginedȱspaceȱandȱmaterial;ȱandȱtheȱ authorȱcombinesȱnewȱconceptions,ȱsyntacticȱformsȱandȱmarksȱonȱaȱpageȱ (orȱtablet,ȱorȱscroll,ȱorȱpot,ȱorȱplinth).ȱTheȱmusicianȱcombinesȱnotationsȱ withȱ voiceȱ orȱ instrument,ȱ creatingȱ music.ȱ Theȱ faithfulȱ onesȱ moveȱ toȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 66ȱȱ ThisȱanalysisȱmovesȱinȱtheȱsameȱsynchronicȬdiachronicȱorderȱasȱproposedȱbyȱTalstraȱ inȱ hisȱ analysisȱ ofȱ Deuteronomyȱ 9ȱ andȱ 10.ȱ E.ȱ Talstra,ȱ “Deuteronomyȱ 9ȱ andȱ 10:ȱ SynȬ chronicȱ andȱ Diachronicȱ Observations,”ȱ inȱ Synchronicȱ orȱ Diachronic:ȱ Aȱ Debateȱ onȱ MeȬ thodȱinȱOldȱTestamentȱExegesis,ȱed.ȱJ.C.ȱdeȱMoorȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1995),ȱ187Ȭ210.ȱȱ 67ȱȱ Sourceȱandȱtargetȱdomainsȱareȱusedȱinȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱcognitiveȱmetaphor,ȱwhichȱ willȱbeȱtakenȱupȱinȱchapterȱ4.II.C.ȱSeeȱZoltanȱKövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroducȬ tionȱ (Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ Oxford:ȱ OUP,ȱ 2002);ȱ Georgeȱ Lakoffȱ andȱ Markȱ Johnson,ȱ MetaȬ phorsȱWeȱLiveȱByȱ(Chicago;ȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1980).ȱ 68ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ206.ȱȱ

22ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

wardȱ theȱ deity,ȱ conceptuallyȱ mergingȱ materialȱ spaceȱ withȱ nonȬspace.ȱ Theȱreader,ȱorȱtextȱanalyst,ȱencountersȱtheȱtextȱviaȱtheȱreadingȱprocess,ȱ creatingȱanȱelaborateȱconceptualȱstructureȱwhichȱreplicatesȱtheȱauthor’sȱ conceptionsȱonȱmanyȱpoints.ȱȱ Theȱ similaritiesȱ involvedȱ inȱ theseȱ seeminglyȱ disparateȱ conceptualȱ blendsȱ mayȱ beȱillustratedȱ byȱ examiningȱ theȱ computerȱ technologyȱthatȱ supportsȱtheȱcreativeȱprocess,ȱspecificallyȱtheȱlayeringȱfeatureȱthatȱisȱatȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ theȱ computerȱ programmesȱ usedȱ forȱ designȱ andȱ composiȬ tion.69ȱTheseȱprogrammesȱutiliseȱaȱseriesȱofȱlayersȱtoȱbuildȱupȱaȱunifiedȱ file,ȱbeȱitȱaȱthreeȱdimensionalȱdrawingȱorȱaȱcompleteȱmusicalȱscore.ȱTheȱ 21stȬcenturyȱ cathedralȱ architectȱ willȱ beginȱ byȱ creatingȱ aȱ layerȱ representingȱ theȱ mostȱ permanentȱ feature,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ floorȱ planȱ ofȱ aȱ building,ȱandȱthenȱaddȱsuccessiveȱlayersȱrepresentingȱbuiltȬinȱfeatures,ȱ largeȱ designȱ features,ȱ andȱ followȱ theseȱ withȱ layersȱ representingȱ theȱ placementȱ ofȱ lessȱ permanentȱ features,ȱ suchȱ asȱ furniture.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ layersȱmayȱ beȱcombinedȱandȱviewedȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱAtȱthisȱpoint,ȱwithȱaȱ threeȬaxisȱ programme,ȱ theȱ designerȱ isȱ ableȱ toȱ viewȱ theȱ virtualȱ spaceȱ dynamically:ȱtheȱcomputerȱwillȱallowȱaȱwalkȬthroughȱofȱtheȱimaginedȱ space.ȱ Althoughȱ thereȱ areȱ drawbacksȱ involvedȱ inȱ notȱ actuallyȱ beingȱ there,ȱ theȱ resultsȱ areȱ moreȱ vividȱ thanȱ traditionalȱ blueprints,ȱ allowingȱ forȱaȱcomprehensiveȱdecisionȬmakingȱprocessȱforȱtheȱproject.ȱLikewise,ȱ aȱcomposerȱorȱarrangerȱmightȱdigitallyȱmasterȱaȱmusicalȱscoreȱbyȱcreatȬ ingȱ separateȱ layersȱ forȱ eachȱ vocalȱ partȱ orȱ eachȱ instrument,ȱ whichȱ theȱ programmeȱ thenȱ combinesȱ toȱ formȱ aȱ unifiedȱ score.ȱ Aȱ synthesizerȱ isȱ ableȱtoȱplayȱtheȱscoreȱtoȱtheȱcomposer,ȱwhoȱisȱableȱtoȱmakeȱonȬlineȱadȬ justments.ȱ Onceȱagain,ȱthereȱareȱcertainȱdrawbacks.ȱAȱsynthesizerȱisȱaȱ disappointingȱ(compressed)ȱsubstituteȱforȱaȱliveȱorchestra.ȱWhileȱitȱcanȱ replicateȱtheȱpitchȱpatternsȱrepresentedȱbyȱtheȱmusicalȱscore,ȱaȱsyntheȬ sizerȱ isȱ unableȱ toȱ recreateȱ theȱ emergentȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ embodiedȱ expeȬ rience,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱliveȱperformance.ȱȱItȱisȱfarȱmoreȱsatisfyingȱtoȱparticȬ ipateȱinȱtheȱconcertȱhallȱevent,ȱwithȱskilledȱmusiciansȱplayingȱbeforeȱaȱ receptiveȱ audience.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ theȱ composerȱ orȱ arrangerȱ hasȱ aȱ toolȱ thatȱhelpsȱtheȱcreativeȱprocess.ȱAȱcompletedȱtextȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱaȱmusicalȱ scoreȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ representsȱ multipleȱ parametersȱ forȱ meaningȱ construcȬ tion,ȱsuchȱasȱsyntax,ȱsemanticsȱandȱpragmatics.ȱIfȱtheȱtextȱisȱviewedȱasȱaȱ compositeȱseriesȱofȱlayers,ȱtheȱtextȱanalystȱisȱableȱtoȱcreateȱaȱprincipledȱ analysisȱbyȱmappingȱoneȱsetȱofȱfeaturesȱatȱaȱtime,ȱthenȱ combiningȱtheȱ mappingsȱtoȱviewȱtheȱtextȱinȱaȱholistic,ȱdynamicȱmanner.70ȱByȱmovingȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 69ȱȱ Manyȱ thanksȱ areȱ dueȱ toȱ Rebeccaȱ Brownȱ ofȱ Rebeccaȱ Brownȱ Design,ȱ whoȱ graciouslyȱ explainedȱtheȱinnerȱworkingsȱofȱdesignȱprogrammes.ȱ 70ȱȱ Importantly,ȱthereȱisȱnotȱnecessarilyȱaȱoneȬtoȬoneȱcorrespondenceȱbetweenȱobservedȱ structuresȱatȱtheȱsyntactic,ȱsemanticȱandȱpragmaticȱlevels.ȱ

ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

23ȱ

inȱ aȱ mostȱ permanentȱ toȱ leastȱ permanentȱ direction,ȱ theȱ textȱ analystȱ isȱ ableȱtoȱaccountȱforȱtextȱfeaturesȱonȱaȱcontinuumȱfromȱtheȱmostȱconcreteȱ toȱtheȱleastȱconcrete,ȱthenȱtoȱ“hear”ȱtheȱlayersȱasȱaȱunifiedȱcomposition.ȱ Itȱ isȱ positedȱ thatȱ variousȱ textȱ featuresȱ functionȱ atȱ differentȱ levels,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ meaningȱ constructionȱ involvesȱ bothȱ theȱ layersȱ andȱ theȱwhole.ȱȱ Similarly,ȱ theȱ proposedȱ TDȱ processȱ isȱ integrative,ȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ comȬ prisesȱtheȱserialȱdescription,ȱanalysisȱandȱconceptualȱblendingȱofȱthreeȱ mainȱlayers:ȱsyntax,ȱsemanticsȱandȱpragmatics.71ȱSyntaxȱrepresentsȱtheȱ mostȱ concreteȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ text,ȱ whileȱ semanticsȱ isȱ slightlyȱ lessȱ conȬ crete,ȱbutȱavailable,ȱandȱpragmaticsȱisȱtheȱleastȱconcrete.72ȱTheȱanalysisȱ willȱ beȱ enhancedȱ byȱ theȱ reader’sȱ encyclopaedicȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ world,ȱ andȱ byȱ extraȬtextualȱ understandings,ȱ suchȱ asȱ thoseȱ developedȱ throughȱhistoricalȬcriticalȱandȱanthropologicalȱinquiries.ȱ TheȱTDȱprocedureȱconsistsȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱstages:ȱȱ 1.

Synchronicȱanalysis:ȱsyntaxȱandȱsemantics;ȱ

2.

informationȱstructure:ȱtopicȱandȱfocus;ȱ

3.

cognitiveȱstructuring:ȱtheȱnetworkȱmodelȱandȱmetaphor;ȱandȱ

4.

conceptualȱblending:ȱincorporatingȱextraȬtextualȱinformation.ȱ

Stageȱ 1ȱ isȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ mappingȱ ofȱ theȱ syntacticȱ featuresȱ ofȱ JereȬ miahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ andȱ anȱ accountingȱ ofȱ theȱ basicȱ formalȱ relationshipsȱ thatȱ holdȱ forȱ theseȱ features.ȱ Thisȱ stageȱ involvesȱ aȱ “bottomȬup”ȱ analysis,ȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ modelȱ utilisedȱ byȱ theȱ Werkgroupȱ Informatica,ȱ Vrijeȱ Universiteit,ȱtheȱNetherlands.ȱTheȱtextȱisȱpresentedȱinȱaȱclauseȱanalysisȱ format,ȱasȱinȱtheȱshortȱexampleȱbelow.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 71ȱȱ Curiously,ȱ thisȱ blendingȱ operationȱ occursȱ inȱ everydayȱ speech,ȱ althoughȱ nativeȱ speakersȱgenerallyȱareȱunawareȱofȱanythingȱexceptȱtheȱfinalȱcommunication.ȱTransȬ latingȱforȱnonȬnativeȱspeakersȱhighlightsȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱthatȱareȱ‘hidden’ȱinȱeveryȬ dayȱcommunication.ȱ 72ȱȱ Forȱ anȱ introductionȱ toȱ issuesȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ pragmatics,ȱ includingȱ deixisȱ andȱ speechȬactȱ theory,ȱ seeȱ D.ȱ A.ȱ Cruse,ȱ Pragmaticsȱ (Oxford:ȱ OUP,ȱ 2000);ȱ Jacobȱ L.ȱ Mey,ȱPragmatics:ȱAnȱIntroduction,ȱ2dȱed.ȱ(Oxford:ȱBlackwell,ȱ2001).ȱ

24ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

ClauseȱLayoutȱ

Jerȱ

^GNG0CJ8JŽȱInstrumentȱ>ȱExperiencerȱ>ȱRecipientȱ UndergoerȱHierarchy:ȱȱ Patient>ȱThemeȱ>ȱStimulusȱ>ȱExperiencerȱ>ȱRecipient/Source/Goal/Locationȱ

Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ assessment,ȱ theȱ prototypicalȱ actorȱ argumentȱ wouldȱ beȱ anȱ agentȱ (Johnȱ choppedȱ downȱ theȱ tree),ȱ andȱ ifȱ noȱ agentȱ isȱ present,ȱ theȱ actorȱargumentȱ wouldȱ beȱ anȱ instrumentȱ (Theȱ windȱ blewȱ downȱ theȱ tree).ȱ Likewise,ȱ ifȱ noȱ instrumentȱ isȱ present,ȱ theȱ actorȱ argumentȱwouldȱ beȱanȱexperiencerȱ (Johnȱsawȱtheȱ treeȱ blowȱ down)ȱandȱsoȱon.ȱNoteȱthatȱ experiencerȱ andȱ recipientȱ areȱ presentȱ inȱ bothȱ hierarchies.ȱ Theȱ roleȱ ofȱ experiencerȱisȱlessȱthanȱprototypicalȱinȱbothȱhierarchies,ȱindicatingȱthatȱ sentencesȱ whichȱ includeȱ experiencerȱ verbsȱ areȱ lessȱ prototypicalȱ thanȱ sentencesȱthatȱcontainȱcommunicationȱverbs,ȱsuchȱasȱtoȱsayȱorȱtoȱspeak.ȱ Thisȱleadsȱtoȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱlinguisticȱexpressionȱofȱprototypicalityȱ inȱsituations/propositions.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 23ȱȱ Asȱ thisȱ exampleȱ demonstrates,ȱ wordȱ orderȱ aloneȱ inȱ insufficientȱ forȱ determiningȱ focus:ȱ bothȱ ofȱ theseȱ sentencesȱ areȱ SVO,ȱ yetȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ perceivedȱ differenceȱ inȱ conȬ strual.ȱ

76ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

2.

PrototypicalȱSituationsȱ

Inȱaȱprototypicalȱsituation,ȱtheȱsubjectȱargumentȱappearsȱasȱtheȱagent,ȱorȱ theȱdoerȱofȱanȱaction,ȱwhileȱtheȱobjectȱargumentȱappearsȱasȱtheȱpatient,ȱ orȱtheȱreceiverȱofȱtheȱaction.ȱTheseȱprototypicalȱrolesȱareȱcolouredȱbyȱtheȱ verbȬspecificȱsemanticȱroleȱofȱaȱgivenȱlexeme,ȱwhichȱisȱevaluatedȱbyȱtheȱ prototypicalityȱscalesȱmentionedȱabove.ȱȱ Asȱ demonstratedȱ above,ȱ theȱ hierarchicalȱ positionsȱ ofȱ theȱ verbȬ specificȱ semanticȱ rolesȱ ofȱ theȱ subjectȱ andȱ objectȱ argumentsȱareȱ imporȬ tantȱ forȱ establishingȱ prototypicality.ȱ However,ȱ establishingȱ prototypiȬ calityȱoccursȱonȱotherȱlevelsȱasȱwell.ȱPremperȱnotesȱthatȱsituationsȱexhiȬ bitȱ bothȱ internalȱ relationalityȱ betweenȱ entitiesȱ andȱ dynamicityȱ asȱ oneȱ entityȱactsȱuponȱanother.ȱThus,ȱprototypicalityȱisȱevaluatedȱbothȱbyȱtheȱ animacyȱ hierarchyȱ andȱ byȱ theȱ degreeȱ ofȱ dynamicityȱ inȱ aȱ givenȱ situaȬ tion.ȱTheȱanimacyȱhierarchyȱisȱaȱscaleȱinȱwhichȱSpeechȱActȱParticipantȱ1ȱ (SAPȱ1)ȱappearsȱatȱtheȱtopȱandȱmassȱnouns,ȱsuchȱasȱrockȱorȱsalt,ȱappearȱ atȱtheȱbottom,ȱasȱfollows:ȱȱ AnimacyȱHierarchyȱ SAPȱ1ȱ>ȱSAPȱ2ȱ>ȱSAPȱ3ȱ>ȱPNȱ>ȱhumanȱ>ȱanimateȱ>ȱinanimateȱ>ȱmass.24ȱȱ

Asȱ mentionedȱ above,ȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ aȱ sentenceȱ isȱ mostȱ likelyȱ toȱ beȱ seȬ lectedȱfromȱtheȱtopȱofȱtheȱanimacyȱhierarchy.ȱ Inȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱlinguisticȱexpressionȱofȱsituations,ȱPremperȱ illustratesȱ thisȱsituationȱusingȱseveralȱexamplesȱ fromȱvariousȱ scholars.ȱ Heȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱsentence,ȱTheȱfarmerȱkilledȱtheȱduckling,ȱisȱdynamicȱandȱ thatȱ itȱ containsȱ twoȱ animateȱ entities,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ whichȱ causesȱ aȱ dramaticȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱother.ȱThisȱisȱfollowedȱ byȱtheȱsentence,ȱTheȱducksȱateȱ theȱ oldȱ bread,ȱ whichȱ containsȱ aȱ nonȬhuman,ȱ animateȱ entityȱ andȱ anȱ inaniȬ mateȱaffectedȱentity.ȱTheȱsentenceȱManȱisȱjustȱisȱstatic,ȱprovidingȱinforȬ mationȱregardingȱaȱpermanentȱpropertyȱofȱaȱsingleȱentity.25ȱTheȱexamȬ plesȱ highlightȱ theȱ twoȬfoldȱ natureȱ ofȱ prototypicality,ȱ whichȱ isȱ determinedȱbothȱbyȱtheȱpositionȱofȱtheȱrespectiveȱentitiesȱonȱtheȱanimaȬ cyȱscaleȱandȱbyȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱdynamicityȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱsituation.ȱȱ Inȱotherȱwords,ȱtheȱprimaryȱspeakerȱinȱaȱdialogueȱisȱtheȱmostȱlikelyȱ candidateȱforȱsubject,ȱwhereasȱaȱmassȱnounȱsuchȱasȱsaltȱisȱleastȱlikelyȱtoȱ appearȱasȱsubjectȱ(andȱ moreȱ likelyȱtoȱappearȱasȱanȱobject).ȱ Theȱ reasonȱ thatȱtheȱexampleȱsentencesȱJohnȱateȱtheȱdogȱbiscuitȱandȱTheȱdogȱbiscuitȱwasȱ eatenȱbyȱJohnȱareȱnotȱequallyȱprototypicalȱisȱnowȱclear.ȱWhileȱtheȱentitiesȱ maintainȱ identicalȱ semanticȱ macroȬrolesȱ andȱ theȱ verbsȱ carryȱ aȱ similarȱ degreeȱ ofȱ dynamicity,ȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ theȱ entitiesȱ onȱ theȱ animacyȱ hieȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ 25ȱȱ Premper,ȱ“UniversalsȱofȱtheȱLinguisticȱRepresentationȱofȱSituations,”ȱ489.ȱ

ȱ

CognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱTermsȱofȱPerceptionȱandȱCognitionȱ

77ȱ

rarchyȱcontributesȱtoȱdissimilarȱprototypicality.ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱexample,ȱtheȱ animateȱsubjectȱ isȱhigherȱonȱ theȱ animacyȱscaleȱthanȱtheȱinanimateȱobȬ ject,ȱ whichȱ indicatesȱ aȱ higherȱ degreeȱ ofȱ prototypicalityȱ thanȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ example,ȱ whichȱ containsȱ anȱ inanimateȱ subjectȱ andȱ anȱ aniȬ mateȱ objectȱ ofȱ theȱ preposition.ȱ Thus,ȱ althoughȱ theȱ sentencesȱ areȱ idenȬ ticalȱwithȱregardȱtoȱwordȱorder,ȱtheȱpassiveȱconstructionȱinȱtheȱsecondȱ sentenceȱinducesȱaȱlessȬprototypicalȱconstrualȱthanȱtheȱactiveȱconstrucȬ tionȱ inȱ theȱ first.ȱ Prototypicalityȱ andȱ theȱ animacyȱ hierarchyȱ areȱ imporȬ tantȱ forȱ understandingȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ whereȱ grammaticalȱ subjectsȱ occurȱ atȱ dissimilarȱ pointsȱ onȱ theȱ animacyȱ hierarchy,ȱ resultingȱ inȱ lessȱ thanȱprototypicalȱsituationsȱthroughoutȱtheȱsection.ȱ Itȱ isȱ nowȱ possibleȱ toȱ makeȱ someȱ generalȱ observationsȱ regardingȱ prototypicalityȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ situationsȱ ofȱ perception,ȱ cognitionȱ andȱ communication.ȱ First,ȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ termsȱ areȱ groupedȱ withinȱtheȱthematicȱrelationshipȱofȱexperiencerȱandȱareȱlessȱthanȱprotoȬ typicalȱinȱtwoȱways:ȱtheȱsubjectȱargumentȱisȱanȱexperiencerȱratherȱthatȱ anȱ agentȱ andȱ theseȱ verbsȱ tendȱ toȱ takeȱ complementȱ clausesȱ asȱ objectȱ arguments,ȱ soȱ aȱ secondȱ situationȱ mightȱ beȱ embeddedȱ withinȱ theȱ first.ȱ Second,ȱ communicationȱ termsȱ occurȱ withȱ theȱ thematicȱ relationshipȱ ofȱ agent,ȱ whichȱ isȱ highlyȱ prototypical.ȱ However,ȱ communicationȱ verbsȱ alsoȱ tendȱ toȱ takeȱ complementȱ clausesȱ orȱ evenȱ wholeȱ paragraphsȱ asȱ objectȱandȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱdynamicityȱisȱlessȱthanȱthatȱofȱanȱactiveȱvoice,ȱ transitiveȱverbȱsuchȱasȱ“throw”.ȱMillerȱhasȱdemonstratedȱthatȱcommuȬ nicationȱ verbsȱ alsoȱ differȱ inȱ degreeȱ ofȱ prototypicalityȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ markednessȱ ofȱ theȱ grammaticalȱ constructionsȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ occur.26ȱ Doubtless,ȱ thisȱ isȱ alsoȱ theȱ caseȱ forȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ verbsȱ asȱ well.ȱ Furtherȱ research,ȱ usingȱ Miller’sȱ stringentȱ analyticalȱ process,ȱ isȱ surelyȱinȱorder.ȱ

3.ȱPerceptionȱandȱCognitionȱTermsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ Termsȱ ofȱ communication,ȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ aboundȱ inȱ MTȱ JeȬ remiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ thusȱ grammaticalȱ subjectsȱ fromȱ theȱ highȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ animacyȱhierarchyȱareȱprevalentȱinȱthisȱsection.ȱTheȱgeneralityȱthatȱtheȱ subjectȱofȱaȱsentenceȱisȱmostȱlikelyȱtoȱcomeȱfromȱtheȱtopȱofȱtheȱanimacyȱ hierarchyȱ isȱ bornȱ outȱ inȱ Jeremiah’sȱ reportȱ ofȱ theȱ interactionȱ betweenȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ himselfȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ chapterȱ 1.ȱ Throughoutȱ thisȱ report,ȱ Yahwehȱ isȱ SAPȱ 1ȱandȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱSAPȱ2,ȱtheseȱbeingȱ theȱtwoȱ highestȬ rankingȱpositionsȱonȱtheȱhierarchy.ȱTheȱproperȱnounsȱIsraelȱandȱJudahȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 26ȱȱ Miller,ȱRepresentation.ȱ

78ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

alsoȱ occur,ȱ againȱ inȱ aȱ highȬrankingȱ slotȱ onȱ theȱ hierarchy.ȱ Termsȱ ofȱ communication,ȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ showȱ aȱ strongȱ tendencyȱ toȱ takeȱcomplementȱclausesȱasȱobjects,ȱthusȱcreatingȱsentencesȱthatȱexpressȱ moreȱ thanȱ oneȱ situation/proposition.ȱ Theȱ embeddingȱ ofȱ oneȱ situationȱ withinȱanotherȱisȱaȱprimeȱreasonȱthatȱthisȱgroupȱofȱverbsȱactȱasȱspaceȬ builders.ȱTheseȱcharacteristicsȱcontributeȱtoȱestablishingȱtheȱprototypiȬ calityȱofȱaȱgivenȱsituation,ȱwhichȱmanifestsȱitselfȱinȱaȱgrammaticalȱconȬ struction.ȱ

C. TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ TheȱsyntaxȱportionȱofȱtheȱTDȱclauseȱlevelȱanalysisȱfollowsȱanȱascendant,ȱ recursiveȱmodel,ȱoriginallyȱdevelopedȱbyȱtheȱWIVUȱ(seeȱchapterȱ2.C.1).ȱȱ Theȱ verbȱ isȱ centralȱ toȱ thisȱ analysis.ȱ Initially,ȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ dividedȱ intoȱ clauseȬlevelȱ units,ȱ asȱ oneȱ clauseȱ comprisesȱ oneȱ predication.ȱ Aȱ clauseȱ mayȱbeȱeitherȱverbalȱorȱnominal.ȱAtȱminimum,ȱaȱverbalȱclauseȱconsistsȱ ofȱaȱverbalȱformȱ(inflectedȱorȱparticipial)ȱplusȱaȱsubjectȱ(eitherȱimplicitȱ orȱexplicit).ȱAȱnominalȱclauseȱconsistsȱofȱaȱsubjectȱplusȱpredicate.ȱ Theȱselectionȱofȱaȱclauseȱlevelȱanalysisȱisȱsignificantȱonȱthreeȱcounts.ȱ First,ȱaȱgivenȱclauseȱisȱtheȱlinguisticȱrepresentationȱofȱaȱparticularȱsituaȬ tion.ȱ Basedȱ uponȱ theȱ centreȬperipheryȱ imageȱ schema,ȱ theȱ wholenessȱ presentedȱ byȱ suchȱ linguisticȱ representationsȱ subsumesȱ bothȱ centralȱ elementsȱandȱperipheralȱelements.ȱTheȱverbȱitselfȱisȱtheȱcentralȱelementȱ becauseȱ theȱ verbalȱ formȱ controlsȱ theȱ occurrenceȱ ofȱ otherȱ elements.ȱ Premperȱdescribesȱthisȱasȱtheȱinherentȱrelationalityȱofȱtheȱverb.27ȱInȱotherȱ words,ȱtheȱinherentȱrelationality,ȱorȱtransitivity,ȱofȱtheȱverbȱestablishesȱ theȱnumberȱofȱargumentsȱthatȱmayȱbeȱincludedȱinȱaȱgivenȱpredication.28ȱ Second,ȱ Binnickȱ notesȱ thatȱ tenseȱ andȱ aspectȱ areȱ sentenceȬlevelȱ semanȬ ticsȱ categories.29ȱ Person/gender/numberȱ informationȱ associatedȱ withȱ aȱ givenȱ verbȱ helpsȱ toȱ establishȱ participantȱ referenceȱ forȱ variousȱ arguȬ mentsȱthatȱareȱrelationallyȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱverb.ȱFinally,ȱdynamiciȬ ty,ȱvoiceȱandȱtransitivityȱrepresentȱtheȱinternalȱstructureȱofȱtheȱverb.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 27ȱȱ Premper,ȱ“UniversalsȱofȱtheȱLinguisticȱRepresentationȱofȱSituations,”ȱ480.ȱ 28ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ490.ȱ 29ȱȱ Robertȱ I.ȱ Binnick,ȱ Timeȱ andȱ theȱ Verb:ȱ Aȱ Guideȱ toȱ Tenseȱ andȱ Aspectȱ (Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ Oxford:ȱOUP,ȱ1991),ȱ456.ȱTenseȱandȱaspectȱareȱalsoȱdiscourseȱlevelȱphenomenon.ȱSeeȱ PaulȱHopper,ȱ“AspectȱandȱForegroundingȱinȱDiscourse,”ȱinȱSyntaxȱandȱSemanticsȱ12:ȱ DiscourseȱandȱSyntax,ȱed.ȱT.ȱGivonȱ(NewȱYork:ȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1979),ȱ213Ȭ241ȱ(216);ȱ Stephenȱ Wallace,ȱ “Figureȱ andȱ Ground:ȱ Theȱ Interrelationshipȱ ofȱ Linguisticȱ CategoȬ ries,”ȱinȱTenseȬAspect:ȱBetweenȱSemanticsȱandȱPragmatics,ȱed.ȱPaulȱJ.ȱHopperȱ(AmsterȬ dam:ȱJohnȱBenjamins,ȱ1982).ȱ

ȱ

TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ

79ȱ

1. Overviewȱ Providingȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ analysisȱ andȱ solutionȱ toȱ theȱ problemsȱ ofȱ theȱBHȱverbalȱsystemȱisȱnotȱtheȱgoalȱofȱthisȱvolume,ȱasȱitȱwouldȱbeȱpreȬ sumptuous,ȱindeed,ȱtoȱproposeȱaȱradicalȱnewȱsolutionȱtoȱtheȱproblemsȱ ofȱtheȱ“enigmatic”ȱBHȱverbalȱsystem.30ȱNonetheless,ȱitȱisȱinevitableȱthatȱ anyȱ approachȱ thatȱ takesȱ seriouslyȱ theȱ interrelationshipsȱ betweenȱ theȱ syntax,ȱsemanticsȱandȱpragmaticsȱofȱtheȱtextȱatȱhandȱmustȱaccountȱforȱ theȱmorphologicalȱandȱsemanticȱinformationȱincludedȱinȱtheȱBHȱverbalȱ forms,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱinterrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱverbalȱformsȱandȱtheȱ informationȱindicatedȱbyȱotherȱlexicalȱelementsȱinȱaȱgivenȱpredication.ȱ Therefore,ȱ whetherȱ theȱ stateȱ ofȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ BHȱ verbȱ isȱ aȱ quagmire,ȱanȱenigmaȱorȱsimplyȱaȱbafflingȱpuzzle,ȱitȱisȱvitalȱtoȱarriveȱatȱaȱ workingȱhypothesisȱthatȱwillȱmoveȱtheȱTDȱanalysisȱandȱdescriptionȱofȱ propheticȱtextȱforward.ȱ Theȱfollowingȱsectionȱcontainsȱdefinitionsȱforȱtheȱrelevantȱlinguisticȱ terms.ȱAȱshortȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱtense/aspectȱdebateȱfollows.ȱFinally,ȱsomeȱ cognitiveȱ linguisticȱ additionsȱ areȱ presented.ȱ Theseȱ includeȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ metaphorȱ toȱ describeȱ verbalȱ aspectȱ andȱ anȱ introductionȱ ofȱ conceptualȱblendingȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱbinyanȱsystem.ȱȱ

2. Terminologyȱ Becauseȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱtense,ȱaspectȱandȱmoodȱisȱimportantȱforȱunȬ derstandingȱtheȱHebrewȱverbalȱsystem,ȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱreviewȱtheȱuseȱ ofȱ theseȱ termsȱ bothȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ linguisticȱ discussionsȱ andȱ inȱ BHȱ studies.31ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 30ȱȱ Forȱ aȱ reviewȱ ofȱ majorȱ historicalȱ trends,ȱ seeȱ Leslieȱ McFall,ȱ Theȱ Enigmaȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ VerbalȱSystem:ȱSolutionsȱfromȱEwaldȱtoȱtheȱPresentȱDay,ȱHistoricȱTextsȱandȱInterpretersȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Scholarship;ȱ 2ȱ (Sheffieldȱ Southȱ Yorkshire:ȱ Almondȱ Press,ȱ 1982);ȱTryggveȱ N.ȱD.ȱMettinger,ȱ“TheȱHebrewȱVerbȱSystem:ȱAȱSurveyȱ ofȱRecentȱResearch,ȈȱASTIȱ9ȱ (1974),ȱ 64Ȭ84.ȱ Specificȱ studiesȱ includeȱ C.ȱ Brockelmann,ȱ ȇDieȱ ȈTemporaȈȱ desȱ Semitischenȇ,ȱ ZPȱ 3ȱ (1951),ȱ 10Ȭ154;ȱ Diethelmȱ Michel,ȱ Temporaȱ undȱ Satzstellungȱ inȱ Denȱ Psalmen,ȱAbhandlungenȱzurȱEvangelischenȱTheologieȱ(Bonn:ȱH.ȱBouvier,ȱ1960).ȱ 31ȱȱ Binnickȱ hasȱ createdȱ aȱ significantȱ resourceȱ forȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ theȱ verb.ȱ Seeȱ Robertȱ I.ȱ Binnick,ȱProjectȱonȱAnnotatedȱBibliographyȱofȱContemporaryȱResearchȱinȱTense,ȱGrammatiȬ calȱ Aspect,ȱ Aktionsart,ȱ andȱ Relatedȱ Areas.ȱ (2002,ȱ accessed);ȱ availableȱ fromȱ http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~binnick/TENSE.ȱȱ

80ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

a.

Tenseȱ

Tenseȱ isȱ definedȱ asȱ “…ȱ aȱ deicticȱ deviceȱ byȱ whichȱ aȱ situationȱ isȱ evaȬ luatedȱ asȱ before,ȱ overlappingȱ with,ȱ orȱ afterȱ aȱ temporalȱ position.”32ȱ ComrieȱnotesȱthatȱthreeȱtenseȱcategoriesȱoccurȱcrossȬlinguistically.ȱFirst,ȱ absoluteȱtense,ȱwhichȱisȱ“…ȱaȱtenseȱthatȱrefersȱtoȱtimeȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱ momentȱofȱutterance.”ȱSecondly,ȱrelativeȱtense,ȱwhichȱisȱ“…ȱaȱtenseȱthatȱ refersȱtoȱaȱtimeȱinȱrelationȱtoȱaȱcontextuallyȱdeterminedȱreferenceȱpoint,ȱ regardlessȱofȱtheȱlatter’sȱtemporalȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱmomentȱofȱutterance.”ȱ Finally,ȱabsoluteȬrelativeȱtense,ȱwhichȱisȱ“…ȱaȱtenseȱthatȱrefersȱtoȱtimeȱinȱ relationȱ toȱ aȱ temporalȱ referenceȱ point,ȱ thatȱ inȱ turnȱ isȱ referredȱ toȱ inȱ aȱ relationȱ atȱ theȱ momentȱ ofȱ utterance.”33ȱ Somewhatȱ moreȱ helpfulȱ isȱ theȱ followingȱdefinitionȱbyȱBhat,ȱwhoȱarguesȱforȱaȱcontrastȱbetweenȱdeicticȱ tenseȱandȱnonȬdeicticȱtense.ȱHeȱstates:ȱȱ Weȱmayȱuseȱtheȱtermsȱ‘deictic’ȱandȱ‘nondeictic’ȱinȱorderȱtoȱdifferentiateȱbeȬ tweenȱ (i)ȱ tensesȱwhichȱ haveȱ theȱ utteranceȱ timeȱ asȱ theȱ referenceȱ pointȱ andȱ (ii)ȱtheȱonesȱthatȱhaveȱsomeȱotherȱeventȱasȱtheȱreferenceȱpoint,ȱrespectively.ȱ Traditionallyȱ theseȱ areȱ calledȱ ‘absolute’ȱ andȱ ‘relative’ȱ tenses…butȱ theȱ difȬ ferenceȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱdoesȱnotȱdependȱuponȱoneȱofȱthemȱbeingȱrelativeȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ nonȬrelativeȱ (orȱ absolute);ȱ bothȱ areȱ relativeȱ toȱ aȱ referenceȱ point;ȱtheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱisȱonlyȱthatȱtheȱformerȱusesȱaȱdeicticȱ eventȱ(anȱeventȱthatȱisȱconnectedȱwithȱtheȱspeechȱact)ȱasȱtheȱreferenceȱpointȱ whereasȱtheȱlatterȱuseȱsomeȱotherȱeventȱforȱthatȱpurpose.34ȱȱ

Thus,ȱtheȱcrucialȱdifferenceȱisȱnotȱrelativeȱtenseȱasȱopposedȱtoȱabsoluteȱ tense,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ theȱ specificȱ referenceȱ pointȱ involved:ȱ isȱ theȱ referenceȱ pointȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱspeechȱactȱitself,ȱorȱisȱitȱassociatedȱwithȱsomeȱ otherȱevent?ȱWhileȱmanyȱscholarsȱagreeȱthatȱBHȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱtenseȱinȱ aȱstrictȱsense,ȱaȱrelativeȱtenseȱmodelȱthatȱusesȱcontextȱinducedȱreferenceȱ pointsȱforȱdeterminingȱtheȱtemporalȱ orderingȱofȱstatesȱandȱ eventsȱisȱaȱ possibleȱ optionȱ forȱ describingȱ tenseȱ inȱ BH.ȱ However,ȱ aȱ relativeȱ tenseȱ theoryȱdoesȱnotȱaccountȱforȱallȱofȱtheȱdetailsȱpresentȱinȱtheȱbinyanȱsysȬ tem.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 32ȱȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ123.ȱ 33ȱȱ Bernardȱ Comrie,ȱ Tense,ȱ Cambridgeȱ Textbooksȱ inȱ Linguisticsȱ (Cambridge:ȱ CUP,ȱ 1985),ȱ36.ȱ 34ȱȱ D.ȱN.ȱBhat,ȱTheȱProminenceȱofȱTense,ȱAspect,ȱandȱMoodȱ(Amsterdam:ȱJohnȱBenjamins,ȱ 1999),ȱ14.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ

81ȱ

b. Aspectȱ Theȱ linguisticȱ assessmentȱ ofȱ aspectȱ takesȱ placeȱ underȱ twoȱ headings:ȱ viewpointȱ aspectȱ andȱ situationȱ aspect,ȱ orȱ aktionsart.35ȱ Viewpointȱ aspectȱ isȱ concernedȱ withȱ theȱ variousȱ viewpointsȱ ofȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ aȱ situation,ȱ andȱsituationȱaspectȱdescribesȱtheȱuniversalȱdistinctionsȱbetweenȱsituaȬ tionȱtypes,ȱsuchȱasȱstates,ȱactivities,ȱaccomplishmentsȱandȱachievements.36ȱInȱ theȱcaseȱofȱviewpointȱaspect,ȱthereȱisȱanȱoppositionȱbetweenȱimperfectiveȱ aspectȱandȱperfectiveȱaspect.ȱRegardingȱthisȱdistinction,ȱBhatȱstates:ȱ …Theȱmostȱimportantȱaspectualȱdistinctionȱthatȱoccursȱinȱtheȱgrammarsȱofȱ naturalȱ languagesȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ betweenȱ perfectiveȱ andȱ imperfective.ȱ Itȱ priȬ marilyȱindicatesȱtwoȱdifferentȱwaysȱofȱviewingȱorȱdescribingȱaȱgivenȱevent.ȱ PerfectiveȱprovidesȱtheȱviewȱofȱanȱeventȱasȱaȱwholeȱfromȱtheȱoutsideȱwheȬ reasȱimperfectiveȱprovidesȱtheȱviewȱfromȱtheȱinside.ȱTheȱformerȱisȱunconȬ cernedȱ withȱ internalȱ temporalȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ eventȱ whereasȱ theȱ latterȱ isȱ cruciallyȱ concernedȱ withȱ suchȱ aȱ structure.ȱ Theȱ formerȱ viewsȱ theȱ situationȱ asȱbounded,ȱandȱformingȱaȱunifiedȱentityȱwhereasȱtheȱlatterȱviewsȱitȱasȱonȬ goingȱorȱhabitual.37ȱ

BHȱscholarsȱofȱtheȱaspectualȱschool,ȱincludingȱCook,ȱwhoȱviewsȱBHȱasȱ anȱaspectȱprominentȱlanguage,ȱareȱinȱagreementȱwithȱBhat’sȱconclusionȱ thatȱtheȱprimaryȱoppositionȱbetweenȱperfectiveȱandȱimperfectiveȱisȱtheȱ mostȱimportantȱaspectualȱdistinctionȱinȱBH.ȱHowever,ȱitȱisȱnotȱtheȱonlyȱ distinction.ȱAsȱWaltkeȱandȱO’Connorȱobserve,ȱtheȱcentralȱroleȱofȱprediȬ cationȱ inȱ BHȱ isȱ sharedȱ betweenȱ theȱ verbalȱ formsȱ (perfectȱ –ȱ imperfect)ȱ andȱ theȱ verbalȱ stems,ȱ orȱ binyanim,ȱ (i.e.ȱ qal,ȱ pielȱ andȱ hiphil).ȱ Theȱ verbalȱ formsȱ contributeȱ viewpointȱ aspectȱ informationȱ regardingȱ theȱ contourȱ ofȱtheȱsituationȱinȱtimeȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱform,ȱwhileȱtheȱbinyanȱsystemȱ contributesȱaktionsartȱinformation,ȱregardingȱtheȱkindȱofȱsituationȱindiȬ catedȱbyȱtheȱverb.ȱBecauseȱtheȱbinyanȱsystemȱisȱaȱrichȱsourceȱofȱmorphoȬ logicallyȱmarkedȱaspectualȱinformation,ȱitȱisȱsomewhatȱsurprisingȱthatȱ discussionsȱ ofȱ theȱ BHȱ verbȱ oftenȱ downplayȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ biȬ nyanim.ȱTheȱaspectualȱsubclassesȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱBHȱbinyanȱsystemȱareȱ discussedȱinȱchapterȱ5,ȱsectionȱA,ȱbelow.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 35ȱȱ Seeȱ Carlȱ Bache,ȱ “Aspectȱ andȱ Aktionsart:ȱ Towardsȱ aȱ Semanticȱ Distinction,”ȱ JLȱ 18ȱ (1982),ȱ57Ȭ72.ȱ 36ȱȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ124.ȱ 37ȱȱ Bhat,ȱTheȱProminenceȱofȱTense,ȱAspect,ȱandȱMood,ȱ46.ȱ

82ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

3. CategoriesȱandȱtheȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱVerb:ȱTenseȱversusȱAspectȱ TenseȱorȱAspect?ȱTheȱdebateȱisȱongoing,ȱwithȱscholarsȱarguingȱthatȱtheȱ BHȱ verbalȱ systemȱ isȱ aȱ tenseȱ system,ȱ counteredȱ byȱ otherȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ argueȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ anȱ aspectȱ system.ȱ Hendelȱ notesȱ thatȱ bothȱ tenseȱ aloneȱ andȱ aspectȱ aloneȱ theoreticalȱ modelsȱ workȱ passablyȱ wellȱ andȱ haveȱ exȬ istedȱ sideȱ byȱ sideȱ forȱ overȱ aȱ century.38ȱ Theȱ aspectualȱ theoryȱ hasȱ flouȬ rishedȱsinceȱtheȱGermanȱscholarȱHeinrichȱEwaldȱproducedȱhisȱSyntaxȱofȱ theȱHebrewȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱinȱ1835/1870.ȱTheȱworkȱofȱBritȬ ishȱscholarȱS.R.ȱDriverȱfollowed.ȱDriverȱwroteȱhisȱTreatiseȱonȱtheȱUseȱofȱ theȱ Tensesȱ inȱ 1874/1892.39ȱ Modernȱ scholarsȱ continueȱ toȱ discussȱ theȱ BHȱ verbȱutilisingȱtheȱparadigmaticȱperfectȬimperfectȱaspectualȱdistinction,ȱ whichȱEwaldȱdescribedȱasȱcompletedȱandȱincompleted,ȱandȱDriverȱtermedȱ asȱcompleteȱandȱnascent.40ȱAlthoughȱlinguistsȱuseȱtheȱtermsȱperfectiveȱandȱ imperfectiveȱtoȱdescribeȱtheseȱprimaryȱaspectualȱcategories,ȱ theȱ distincȬ tionȱ isȱ effectivelyȱ theȱ same.ȱ Theȱ perfect/perfectiveȱ BHȱ verbȱ formȱ deȬ scribesȱ aȱ completedȱ actionȱ orȱ stateȱ whileȱ theȱ imperfect/imperfectiveȱ formȱdescribesȱanȱongoingȱactionȱorȱstate.ȱȱ ScholarsȱinterestedȱinȱanalysingȱBHȱtextȱfromȱaȱdiscourseȱperspecȬ tive,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Longacreȱ andȱ Niccacci,ȱ tendȱ toȱ utiliseȱ verbalȱ formsȱ asȱ structuralȱ markers,ȱ orȱ signalsȱ thatȱ indicateȱ aȱ particularȱ typeȱ ofȱ disȬ course.41ȱThisȱcreatesȱtwoȱdifficulties.ȱFirst,ȱasȱCookȱnotes,ȱtheȱargumentȱ forȱcategorisingȱtextȬtypesȱbasedȱuponȱverbalȱformsȱisȱinherentlyȱcircuȬ lar:ȱ oneȱ mustȱ decideȱ whichȱ discourseȱ typeȱ isȱ presentȱ inȱ aȱ textȱ beforeȱ decidingȱwhichȱverbalȱformsȱareȱcharacteristicȱofȱtheȱtype.42ȱHowever,ȱitȱ isȱ worthȱ mentioningȱ thatȱ Longacre’sȱ textȬtypesȱ areȱ descriptiveȱ ratherȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 38ȱȱ Ronaldȱ S.ȱ Hendel,ȱ “Inȱ theȱ Marginsȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Verbalȱ System:ȱ Situation,ȱ Tense,ȱ Aspect,ȱMood,”ȱZAHȱ9ȱ(1996),ȱ152.ȱ 39ȱȱ J.ȱA.ȱEmerton,ȱ“SamuelȱRollesȱDriver,ȱ1846Ȭ1914,”ȱinȱAȱCenturyȱofȱBritishȱOrientalistsȱ 1902Ȭ2001,ȱed.ȱC.ȱE.ȱBosworthȱ(Oxford:ȱOUP,ȱ2001),ȱ130.ȱ 40ȱȱ S.ȱ R.ȱ Driverȱ andȱ W.ȱ Randallȱ Garr,ȱ Aȱ Treatiseȱ onȱ theȱ Useȱ ofȱ theȱ Tensesȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ SomeȱOtherȱSyntacticalȱQuestionsȱ(GrandȱRapids,ȱMich.:ȱWilliamȱB.ȱEerdmans,ȱ1998),ȱ xxxix;ȱEmerton,ȱȇSamuelȱRollesȱDriver,ȱ1846Ȭ1914ȇ,ȱ131;ȱHeinrichȱEwald,ȱSyntaxȱofȱtheȱ Hebrewȱ Languageȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testament,ȱ trans.ȱ Jamesȱ Kennedyȱ (Edinburgh:ȱ Tȱ andȱ Tȱ Clark,ȱ1881;ȱreprint,ȱGeorgiasȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱ2.ȱ 41ȱȱ Alvieroȱ Niccacci,ȱ “Essentialȱ Hebrewȱ Syntax,”ȱ inȱ Narrativeȱ andȱ Comment,ȱ ed.ȱ Eepȱ Talstraȱ (Amsterdam:ȱ Societasȱ Hebraicaȱ Amstelodamensis,ȱ 1995),ȱ 111Ȭ125;ȱ Alvieroȱ NiccacciȱandȱW.ȱG.ȱE.ȱWatson,ȱTheȱSyntaxȱofȱtheȱVerbȱinȱClassicalȱHebrewȱProse,ȱJSOTȱ Supȱ86ȱ(Sheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1990).ȱ 42ȱȱ Cookȱ isȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ termȱ textȬtypeȱ asȱ usedȱ byȱ Longacre,ȱ whoȱ distinguishesȱ beȬ tweenȱtheȱsetsȱofȱverbalȱformsȱusedȱinȱhortatoryȱtext,ȱnarrativeȱtext,ȱandȱsoȱon.ȱThisȱ volumeȱusesȱtheȱtermȱtextȬtypeȱdifferently,ȱasȱtheȱtermȱisȱusedȱtoȱcategoriseȱstretchesȱ ofȱ textȱ basedȱ onȱ Schneider’sȱ differentiationȱ betweenȱ narrativeȱ andȱ discursiveȱ text.ȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ117.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ

83ȱ

thanȱprescriptive.ȱThisȱisȱalsoȱtheȱcaseȱwithȱSchneider’sȱdistinctionȱbeȬ tweenȱ narrativeȱ andȱ discursiveȱ text.ȱ Hebrewȱ scholarsȱ inȱ generalȱ apȬ proachȱ theȱ verbȱ formsȱ fromȱ aȱ discourseȱ perspectiveȱ whenȱ discussingȱ theȱ wawȬconversiveȱ theory,ȱ asȱ thisȱ theoryȱ movesȱ theȱ discussionȱ toȱ theȱ relationshipȱbetweenȱmultipleȱpredications.43ȱȱ ȱȱSecondly,ȱtheȱperfectiveȬimperfectiveȱinflectionȱ ofȱverbalȱformsȱisȱ notȱsufficientȱforȱestablishingȱtheȱstructureȱofȱaȱtext,ȱnorȱdoesȱthisȱdisȬ tinctionȱexhaustȱtheȱquantitiesȱofȱmorphologicallyȱmarkedȱinformationȱ availableȱ inȱ theȱ verbalȱ forms.ȱ Thisȱ volumeȱ arguesȱ thatȱ conceptuallyȱ blendedȱsyntacticȱandȱsemanticȱinformation,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱspaceȱbuildingȱ termsȱ describedȱ inȱ MST,ȱ provesȱ toȱ beȱ moreȱ usefulȱ inȱ determiningȱ boundariesȱ andȱ connectionsȱ inȱ aȱ text.ȱ Informationȱ Structureȱ findingsȱ areȱ alsoȱ significant.ȱ Primarilyȱ aȱ sentenceȱ levelȱ phenomenon,ȱ informaȬ tionȱstructureȱisȱtheȱproductȱofȱtheȱinterrelationshipȱbetweenȱtopicȱandȱ focusȱ informationȱ inȱ aȱ givenȱ predication.ȱ Atȱ theȱ discourseȱ level,ȱ thisȱ sentenceȱlevelȱinformationȱcombinesȱwithȱotherȱtextȱlevelȱfeatures,ȱsuchȱ asȱtextȬdeicticȱparticlesȱandȱanaphoricȱtermsȱtoȱindicateȱcognitiveȱstrucȬ turingȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱTheȱverbalȱformsȱareȱcrucial,ȱyetȱnotȱtheȱonlyȱdeterȬ minativeȱfactorȱforȱtextualȱstructuring.ȱ

4. TheȱTDȱApproach:ȱMappingȱtheȱSyntaxȬSemanticsȱInterfaceȱ Asȱpreviouslyȱexplained,ȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱbeginsȱwithȱaȱsyntacticȱanalȬ ysisȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱTheȱsyntacticȱanalysisȱprovidesȱaȱblueprintȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱ whichȱ isȱ thenȱ realisedȱviaȱconceptualȱ blendingȱofȱinformationȱ derivedȱ fromȱ semanticȱ andȱ pragmaticȱ textȱ analyses.ȱ Nowhereȱ isȱ thisȱ multiȬ stagedȱanalyticalȱapproachȱmoreȱimportantȱthanȱwhenȱdealingȱwithȱtheȱ BiblicalȱHebrewȱverbalȱformsȱandȱtheirȱroleȱinȱBHȱtext.ȱ TheȱTDȱapproachȱsharesȱTalstra’sȱinterestȱinȱexhaustingȱtheȱsyntacȬ ticȱinformationȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱBHȱtextȱbeforeȱproceedingȱwithȱfurtherȱ analysis.ȱ However,ȱ evenȱ inȱ theȱ syntaxȱ drivenȱ WIVUȱ databaseȱ andȱ itsȱ realisationȱinȱtheȱSESBȱformat,ȱsemanticȱinformationȱisȱincludedȱatȱtheȱ distributionalȱlevel.ȱTwoȱsemanticȱfieldsȱareȱmarked:ȱverbsȱofȱspeakingȱ andȱ formsȱ ofȱ theȱ verbȱ J[J.ȱ Followingȱ Schneider,ȱ Talstraȱ utilisesȱ verbsȱ fromȱtheȱsemanticȱfieldȱofȱspeakingȱtoȱdifferentiateȱbetweenȱnarrative,ȱ discursiveȱandȱquotedȱlevelsȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 43ȱȱ Inȱherȱreviewȱ ofȱGoldfajn,ȱZewiȱstatesȱ“…ȱverbalȱformsȱandȱdiscourseȱfunctionsȱgoȱ togetherȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱtoȱcreateȱtheȱcompleteȱpatternȱofȱtheȱverbalȱsentenceȱinȬ volvingȱcertainȱverbalȱformsȱandȱaȱcertainȱwordȱorderȱincapableȱofȱbeingȱseparated.ȱ Thus,ȱdiscourseȱfactorsȱdoȱplayȱanȱimportantȱroleȱinȱtheȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱverbalȱsysȬ tem.”ȱTamarȱZewi,ȱ“ReviewȱofȱWordȱOrderȱandȱTime,ȱbyȱTalȱGoldfajn,”ȱJSSȱ46.ȱ

84ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

Semanticȱ informationȱ isȱ alsoȱ importantȱ forȱ Informationȱ Structureȱ analyses,ȱ asȱ indicatedȱ byȱ Lambrecht’sȱ foundationalȱ statement:ȱ “Theȱ focusȱ ofȱ aȱ propositionȱ isȱ thatȱ semanticȱ elementȱ (orȱ elements)ȱ whoseȱ presenceȱ makesȱ theȱ propositionȱ intoȱ anȱ assertion,ȱ i.e.ȱ intoȱ aȱ potentialȱ pieceȱ ofȱ information.”44ȱ Theȱ roleȱ ofȱ semanticsȱ inȱ determiningȱ spaceȱ buildingȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱinȱMSTȱisȱillustratedȱbyȱtheȱexamplesȱ inȱchapterȱ4,ȱsectionȱB.2,ȱwhereȱspaceȬbuildersȱareȱindicatedȱbyȱsemanȬ ticȱdomainȱinformation.ȱ SeveralȱrecentȱstudiesȱutiliseȱbothȱmorphologicalȱandȱsemanticȱcatȬ egoriesȱforȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱBHȱverb.45ȱCook’sȱgrammaticalisationȱ approach,ȱwhichȱomitsȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱbinyanȱsystem,ȱdoesȱincludeȱaȱ strongȱ semanticȱ component.46ȱ Hendel’sȱ studyȱ ofȱ theȱ “margins”ȱ ofȱ theȱ verbalȱ systemȱ includesȱ discussionȱ aboutȱ theȱ binyanȱ systemȱ andȱ introȬ ducesȱtheȱcategoriesȱofȱsituationȱandȱmoodȱasȱwell.ȱTheȱfollowingȱsecȬ tionȱ presentsȱ findingsȱ fromȱ Cook’sȱ approachȱ andȱ Hendel’sȱ lexicalizaȬ tionȱ andȱ grammaticalisationȱ study.ȱ Theseȱ studiesȱ helpȱ toȱ clarifyȱ theȱ categoriesȱutilisedȱbyȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱBHȱverb.ȱȱ a. Cook:ȱTheȱGrammaticalisationȱApproachȱ InȱTheȱHebrewȱVerb:ȱAȱGrammaticalizationȱApproach,ȱCookȱaddressesȱtwoȱ issuesȱ thatȱ alsoȱ motivateȱ theȱ TDȱ approach:ȱ theȱ asymmetricalȱ relationȬ shipȱ betweenȱformȱandȱmeaningȱandȱtheȱproblemȱofȱlanguageȱchangeȱ overȱtime.ȱTheȱasymmetryȱbetweenȱformȱandȱmeaning,ȱwhereȱaȱparticȬ ularȱformȱmayȱrepresentȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱfunctionȱandȱwhereȱaȱparticularȱ functionȱmightȱbeȱfulfilledȱbyȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱform,ȱisȱaddressedȱinȱtheȱ discussionȱofȱspaceȱbuildingȱtermsȱ(seeȱchapterȱ4.II.B).ȱTheȱsecondȱissueȱ isȱquiteȱimportantȱforȱsynchronicȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱTDȱapproach,ȱbecauseȱ theȱ realitiesȱofȱlanguageȱchangeȱoverȱtimeȱimpingeȱuponȱaȱsynchronicȱ readingȱ atȱ theȱ lexicalȱ andȱ syntacticȱ levels.ȱ Sinceȱ Cook’sȱ approachȱ isȱ effectiveȱinȱaddressingȱbothȱofȱtheseȱquestions,ȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱadoptsȱ andȱelaboratesȱuponȱhisȱdiscoveries.ȱAȱbriefȱsummaryȱofȱtheȱgrammatiȬ calisationȱapproachȱisȱinȱorder.ȱ Cookȱ notesȱ thatȱ linguistsȱ employȱ theȱ termȱ grammaticalisationȱ inȱ twoȱdifferentȱways:ȱitȱdescribesȱbothȱgrammaticalisationȱphenomenaȱandȱ grammaticalisationȱ theory.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Cook,ȱ grammaticalisationȱ pheȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 44ȱȱ Lambrecht,ȱInformationȱStructure,ȱ336.ȱ 45ȱȱ BillȱT.ȱArnoldȱandȱJohnȱH.ȱChoi,ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntaxȱ(Cambridge:ȱCUP,ȱ 2003);ȱGaliaȱHatav,ȱTheȱSemanticsȱofȱAspectȱandȱModality:ȱEvidenceȱfromȱEnglishȱandȱBibȬ licalȱ Hebrew,ȱ SLCS,ȱ vol.ȱ 34ȱ (Amsterdam:ȱ Johnȱ Benjamins,ȱ 1997);ȱ Waltkeȱ andȱ OȇConȬ nor,ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax.ȱ 46ȱȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ121.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ

85ȱ

nomenaȱareȱ“…changesȱthatȱresultȱinȱincreasedȱgrammaticalityȱofȱitemsȱ –ȱ eitherȱ lexicalȱ >ȱ grammaticalȱ orȱ grammaticalȱ >ȱ moreȱ grammatical’,ȱ whileȱ grammaticalisationȱ theoryȱ “…refersȱ toȱ claimsȱ madeȱ aboutȱ gramȬ maticalisationȱ phenomenon,ȱ suchȱ asȱ unidirectionality.”47ȱ Sinceȱ certainȱ linguistsȱ viewȱ grammaticalisationȱ theoryȱ asȱ derivative,ȱ Cookȱ utilisesȱ theȱtermȱgrammaticalisationȱapproachȱforȱhisȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱdescriptionȱ ofȱchangesȱinȱtheȱBHȱverbalȱsystemȱoverȱtime.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ discussionȱ ofȱ formȬmeaningȱ asymmetry,ȱ Cookȱ employsȱ twoȱ grammaticalisationȱ principles:ȱ First,ȱ heȱ notes,ȱ “…theȱ grammaticalisaȬ tionȱ processȱ isȱ cyclical.”48ȱ Languageȱ changeȱ occursȱ asȱ aȱ multiȬlayeredȱ processȱinȱwhichȱnewȱlayersȱemergeȱandȱmayȱinteractȱwithȱolderȱlayersȱ stillȱ inȱ existence.49ȱ Heȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ layeringȱ effectȱ combinesȱ withȱ aȱ secondȱprinciple,ȱtheȱpersistenceȱofȱmeaning,ȱwhichȱdescribesȱtheȱtendenȬ cyȱ forȱ tracesȱ ofȱ theȱ originalȱ meaningȱ toȱ remainȱ asȱ longȱ asȱ theȱ formȱ isȱ grammaticallyȱviable.ȱȱȱ Finally,ȱregardingȱtheȱproblemȱofȱlanguageȱchangeȱoverȱtime,ȱCookȱ notes,ȱ “…universalȱ pathsȱ existȱ withinȱ broadȱ semanticȱ domainsȱ alongȱ whichȱ relevantȱ formsȱ develop.”50ȱ Theseȱ universalȱ pathsȱ areȱ reflectedȱ crossȬlinguisticallyȱandȱareȱunidirectional;ȱifȱaȱformȱexhibitsȱchange,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ revertȱ toȱ aȱ formerȱ stage,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ willȱ stayȱ theȱ sameȱ orȱ progressȱtoȱtheȱnextȱstageȱofȱchange.51ȱTheseȱcharacteristicsȱofȱlanguageȱ changeȱ constrainȱ possibilities,ȱ thusȱ theȱ grammaticalisationȱ processȱ isȱ notȱhaphazard.52ȱȱ Cookȱpositsȱgrammaticalisationȱpathsȱforȱtheȱwayyiqtol,ȱqatal,ȱyiqtol,ȱ participle,ȱ imperativeȱandȱjussiveȱforms.ȱTheȱ(purported)ȱoriginȱofȱ theȱ wayyiqtolȱ formȱ wasȱ theȱ pronounȱ +ȱ *q(u)tulȱ (infinitive).ȱ Inȱ PreȬBH,ȱ theȱ formȱmovedȱfromȱresultativeȱ>ȱperfectȱaspectȱ>ȱperfectiveȱaspect.ȱInȱBHȱ theȱformȱrepresentsȱpastȱtense.ȱTheȱoriginȱofȱtheȱqatalȱformȱwasȱ*qatilȱ+ȱ pronoun.ȱThisȱformȱmovedȱfromȱresultativeȱ>ȱperfectȱaspect.ȱInȱBH,ȱtheȱ formȱrepresentsȱperfectiveȱaspect.ȱTheȱoriginȱofȱtheȱyiqtolȱformȱwasȱtheȱ pronounȱ +ȱ *q(u)tulȱ (infinitive)ȱ +ȱ locativeȱ u.ȱ Inȱ PreȬBHȱ theȱ formȱ representedȱprogressiveȱaspect,ȱwhileȱinȱBHȱtheȱformȱrepresentsȱimperȬ fectiveȱaspect.ȱTheȱoriginȱofȱtheȱparticipleȱwasȱtheȱ*q(u)tulȱformȱandȱtheȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 47ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ119.ȱ 48ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ120.ȱ 49ȱȱ RegardingȱtheȱprocessȱofȱlanguageȱchangeȱinȱBH,ȱseeȱJ.ȱA.ȱNaudé,ȱ“TheȱTransitionsȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew,”ȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Chronologyȱ andȱ Typology,ȱ ed.ȱ Ianȱ Young,ȱJSOTȱSupȱ(Sheffield:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ2003).ȱ 50ȱȱ Cook,ȱȇGrammaticalizationȇ,ȱ121.ȱ 51ȱȱ Forȱaȱcompleteȱtheoreticalȱdiscussion,ȱseeȱJoanȱL.ȱBybee,ȱRevereȱPerkinsȱandȱWilliamȱ Pagliuca,ȱTheȱEvolutionȱofȱGrammar:ȱTense,ȱAspect,ȱandȱModalityȱinȱtheȱLanguagesȱofȱtheȱ Worldȱ(Chicago:ȱUCP,ȱ1994),ȱ1Ȭ26.ȱ 52ȱȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ121.ȱ

86ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

formȱindicatesȱprogressiveȱaspectȱinȱbothȱPreȬBHȱandȱBH.ȱTheȱoriginȱofȱ theȱ imperativeȱ wasȱ *q(u)tulȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ jussiveȱ wasȱ pronounȱ +ȱ *q(u)tulȱ(imperative),ȱbothȱofȱwhichȱindicatedȱdeonticȱmodalityȱinȱPreȬ BHȱ andȱ BH.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ analysis,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ basicȱ meaningȱ disȬ cernibleȱforȱeachȱformȱandȱthereȱisȱaȱcertainȱamountȱofȱsemanticȱoverȬ lapȱ betweenȱ formsȱ asȱ well.ȱ Someȱ secondaryȱ meaningsȱ mightȱ persistȱ fromȱearlierȱstagesȱinȱtheȱgrammaticalisationȱprocess.ȱMeaningsȱthatȱdoȱ notȱshareȱanyȱofȱtheȱsemanticȱparametersȱofȱtheȱbasicȱmeaningȱareȱtheȱ resultȱofȱ“contextȱinducedȱreinterpretations.”53ȱCookȱnotesȱthatȱthereȱisȱ anȱobviousȱdiscourseȱpragmaticȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱqatalȱandȱwayyiqtolȱ forms,ȱinȱthatȱwayyiqtolȱformsȱexpressȱforegroundedȱnarrativeȱevents.54ȱ Itȱ isȱ significantȱ forȱ theȱ TDȱ approachȱ thatȱ Cookȱ concludesȱ thatȱ HeȬ brewȱisȱanȱaspectȱprominentȱlanguage.ȱAtȱtheȱtimeȱofȱBH,ȱtheȱwayyiqtolȱ formȱfunctionedȱasȱtheȱnarrativeȱtenseȱverb,ȱindicatingȱsequential,ȱpastȱ timeȱaction.ȱQatalȱformsȱdevelopedȱalongȱtheȱsameȱgrammaticalisationȱ path.ȱ Theyȱ indicateȱ perfectiveȱ aspect.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ theȱ yiqtolȱ andȱ participleȱformsȱdevelopedȱalongȱaȱgrammaticalisationȱpathȱfromȱproȬ gressiveȱ toȱ imperfect,ȱ resultingȱ inȱ formsȱ thatȱ expressedȱ imperfectiveȱ action.ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ imperfectiveȱ actionȱ exhibitsȱ aȱ past:ȱ nonȬpastȱ opposiȬ tion.55ȱȱ Thisȱ analysisȱ isȱ compellingȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ accountsȱ forȱ bothȱ diachronicȱ changeȱandȱtheȱsynchronicȱnatureȱofȱtheȱformsȱasȱtheyȱappearȱinȱtheȱBHȱ text.ȱInȱanalysingȱandȱdescribingȱtheȱinformationȱstructureȱofȱtheȱJereȬ miahȱtext,ȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱwillȱdrawȱuponȱCook’sȱconclusionsȱregardȬ ingȱBHȱverbalȱformsȱasȱfollows.ȱTheȱmainȱuseȱofȱeachȱofȱtheȱformsȱisȱinȱ boldȱtypeȱandȱselectedȱsubsidiaryȱusesȱareȱinȱnormalȱtype.56ȱȱ wayyiqtolȱ

pastȱtense,ȱnarrativeȱverb:ȱsimpleȱpast;ȱcounterfactualȱȱ

qatalȱ

perfectiveȱaspect:ȱperfect;ȱimmediateȱfuture;ȱperformativeȱ

yiqtolȱ

imperfectiveȱaspect:ȱgeneralȱfuture;ȱfutureȱinȱpast;ȱdirectiveȱȱ

Participleȱ

progressiveȱaspect:ȱexpectedȱfuture;ȱpresent/pastȱprogressiveȱ

Imperativeȱ deonticȱmodality:ȱdirective;ȱvolitiveȱ Jussiveȱ

deonticȱmodality:ȱdirective;ȱvolitiveȱ

Cook’sȱapproachȱdoesȱnotȱaddressȱtheȱbinyanȱsystem,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱmainȱ meansȱofȱestablishingȱtransitivityȱandȱasȱaȱresultȱisȱquiteȱimportantȱforȱ determiningȱtheȱrelationsȱthatȱ holdȱbetweenȱ topicalȱentitiesȱ inȱaȱgivenȱ predication.ȱ However,ȱ Hendelȱ doesȱ makeȱ someȱ veryȱ helpfulȱ prelimiȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 53ȱȱ 54ȱȱ 55ȱȱ 56ȱȱ

Ibid.,ȱ122.ȱ ThisȱanalysisȱisȱinȱaccordȱwithȱthatȱofȱSchneiderȱandȱadoptedȱbyȱTalstra.ȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ137.ȱ Forȱtheȱcompleteȱrangeȱofȱuses,ȱseeȱIbid.,ȱ136.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ

87ȱ

naryȱ observationsȱthatȱ includeȱ bothȱtheȱsemanticsȱ ofȱ theȱ BHȱ verbȱ andȱ theȱinfluenceȱofȱtheȱbinyanȱsystemȱasȱwell.ȱȱ b. Hendel:ȱLexicalizationȱandȱtheȱBinyanimȱ HendelȱexaminesȱtheȱmarginsȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱverbalȱsystem,ȱasȱ“…ȱitȱisȱ oftenȱ inȱ theȱ domainȱ ofȱ marginalȱ phenomenaȱ thatȱ theȱ rightȱ –ȱ orȱ moreȱ analyticallyȱ preciseȱ–ȱdistinctionsȱcanȱbeȱmade.”57ȱInȱ doingȱso,ȱHendelȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ accurateȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ verbalȱ formsȱ isȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ bothȱ morphologicalȱ formȱ andȱ semanticȱ function.58ȱ Hendelȱ sidestepsȱ theȱ tense/aspectȱ debateȱ byȱ advocatingȱ forȱ aȱ relativeȱ tenseȱ modelȱthatȱinteractsȱwithȱtheȱcategoriesȱofȱsituation,ȱaspectȱandȱmood.59ȱ Heȱstates:ȱ Theȱ systemȱ ofȱ relativeȱ tense,ȱ asȱ withȱ anyȱ tenseȱ system,ȱ involvesȱ theȱ relaȬ tionshipsȱ amongȱ threeȱ temporalȱ points:ȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ speaker,ȱ orȱ speechȬactȱ (S),ȱtheȱeventȱ(E),ȱandȱtheȱreferenceȱpointȱ(R)…Inȱanȱabsoluteȱtenseȱsystem,ȱ theȱreferenceȱpointȱisȱalwaysȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱspeakerȱorȱspeechȬactȱ(R=S).ȱInȱ aȱrelativeȱtenseȱsystem,ȱRȱmayȱorȱmayȱnotȱcoincideȱwithȱS.ȱRȱmayȱbeȱpastȱtoȱ theȱspeakerȱ(R<S),ȱitȱmayȱbeȱsimultaneousȱ(R=S),ȱorȱitȱmayȱbeȱfutureȱ(R>S).ȱ Asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ thisȱ nonȬidentityȱ ofȱ Rȱ andȱ Sȱ inȱ aȱ relativeȱ tenseȱ system,ȱ theȱ eventȱ(E)ȱmayȱbeȱinȱaȱdifferentȱtemporalȱrelationshipȱtoȱRȱandȱS.ȱȱ

Inȱthisȱdefinition,ȱtheȱtermȱrelativeȱtenseȱ correlatesȱwithȱBhat’sȱdescripȬ tionȱ ofȱ nonȬdeicticȱ tense.ȱ Importantly,ȱ thisȱ definitionȱ ofȱ relativeȱ tenseȱ holdsȱatȱtheȱlevelȱofȱtheȱsingleȱpredication;ȱnoȱexplicitȱclaimsȱareȱmadeȱ forȱ discourseȱ levelȱ sequencingȱ ofȱ multipleȱ predications.60ȱ Establishingȱ discourseȬlevelȱ temporalȱ referenceȱ inȱ propheticȱ literatureȱ wouldȱ presentȱdifficultiesȱforȱanȱabsoluteȱtenseȱmodel,ȱbecauseȱtheȱtimeȱframeȱ ofȱtheȱtext,ȱtheȱmetaȬlinguisticȱ“speechȬact,”ȱisȱinȱcompetitionȱwithȱemȬ beddedȱtimeȱframes.ȱItȱmayȱbeȱpossibleȱthatȱaȱrelativeȱtenseȱtheoryȱtakȬ enȱtoȱtheȱdiscourseȱlevelȱwouldȱofferȱadditionalȱoptionsȱforȱtheȱanalysisȱ ofȱsuchȱaȱtext,ȱwhichȱopensȱaȱdoorȱforȱfurtherȱresearch.ȱ HendelȱthenȱaddressesȱthreeȱsignificantȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱBHȱverb,ȱallȱ ofȱ whichȱ areȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ binyanȱ system:ȱ situation;ȱ transitivity;ȱ andȱvoice.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 57ȱȱ Ronaldȱ S.ȱ Hendel,ȱ “Inȱ theȱ Marginsȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Verbalȱ System:ȱ Situation,ȱ Tense,ȱ Aspect,ȱMood,”ȱZAHȱ9ȱ(1996),ȱ152.ȱ 58ȱȱ ThisȱisȱalsoȱtheȱcaseȱforȱTalstra,ȱforȱwhomȱestablishingȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱsyntaxȱisȱaȱmainȱ goal.ȱ Heȱ stillȱ findsȱ itȱ necessaryȱ toȱ includeȱ notationȱ ofȱ verbsȱ fromȱ theȱ semanticȱ doȬ mainȱofȱdirectȱspeechȱinȱtheȱsyntaxȱorientedȱWIVUȱdatabase.ȱȱ 59ȱȱ Hendel’sȱ relativeȱ tenseȱ modelȱ followsȱ thatȱ ofȱ Reichenbachȱ withȱ modificationsȱ byȱ BernardȱComrieȱ(Comrieȱ1985;ȱBinnickȱ1991:ȱ109Ȭ116).ȱ 60ȱȱ Goldfajnȱ hasȱ developedȱ theȱ relativeȱ tenseȱ modelȱ forȱ theȱ discourseȱ levelȱ analysisȱ ofȱ narrativeȱ textȱ withȱ goodȱ results.ȱ Goldfajn,ȱ Wordȱ Orderȱ andȱ Timeȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Narrative.ȱ

88ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

Situationȱ Theȱintroductionȱofȱtheȱlinguisticȱcategoryȱsituationȱintoȱtheȱdiscussionȱ ofȱ theȱ BHȱ verbȱ isȱ quiteȱ helpful.61ȱ Premper,ȱ speakingȱ ofȱ situationȱ asȱ aȱ linguisticȱcategoryȱstates,ȱ“Inȱtypicalȱsituationsȱsomethingȱisȱhappeningȱ andȱ oneȱ orȱ moreȱ entitiesȱ areȱ involved.ȱ Thusȱ aȱ situationȱ isȱ somethingȱ whichȱisȱinternallyȱrelational,ȱimplyingȱatȱleastȱtwoȱentitiesȱ(inȱaȱwiderȱ sense).”62ȱSituationsȱmayȱbeȱmoreȱorȱlessȱtypical,ȱbasedȱuponȱtheȱdegreeȱ ofȱdynamicityȱinvolvedȱandȱuponȱtheȱtypesȱofȱentitiesȱinvolved.63ȱȱForȱ Hendel,ȱtheȱtermȱsituationȱrefersȱtoȱ“…theȱinherentȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱcirȬ cumstanceȱsignifiedȱbyȱtheȱverb.”64ȱHeȱnotesȱthatȱdynamicityȱisȱmorphoȬ logicallyȱ markedȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Qal,ȱ whereȱ theȱ dynamicȱ versusȱ staticȱ oppositionȱisȱmostȱclearlyȱobserved.ȱSomeȱscholarsȱperceiveȱdynamicityȱ asȱ aȱ gradualȱ concept,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ anȱ opposition.ȱ Consequently,ȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱtoȱdevelopȱaȱscaleȱfromȱmoreȱstaticȱtoȱmoreȱdynamicȱactions.65ȱ Theseȱ additionalȱ gradationsȱ areȱ foundȱ atȱ theȱ lexicalȱ levelȱ forȱ theȱ BHȱ verb.ȱ Exploringȱ situationȱ asȱ aȱ linguisticȱ categoryȱ hasȱ implicationsȱ forȱ theȱ informationȱ structureȱ componentȱ ofȱ theȱ TDȱ analysis,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ semanticȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ aȱ dynamic,ȱ orȱ fientiveȱ verb,ȱ andȱ aȱ stativeȱ verbȱmayȱbeȱsignificant.66ȱȱȱ Transitivityȱ Theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ situationȱ inȱ Qalȱ andȱ situationȱ inȱ theȱ deȬ rivedȱ conjugations,ȱ i.e.ȱ theȱ stativeȱQalȱandȱ theȱ factitiveȱPiel;ȱ asȱwellȱasȱ theȱdynamicȱQalȱandȱtheȱcausativeȱHiphil,ȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱissueȱofȱtranȬ sitivity.ȱ Theȱ contrastsȱ foundȱ betweenȱ transitiveȱ andȱ intransitiveȱ conȬ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 61ȱȱ Seeȱ F.ȱ W.ȱ DobbsȬAllsop,ȱ “Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Stativesȱ andȱ Situationȱ Aspect,”ȱ JSSȱ XLVȱ (2000),ȱ21Ȭ52.ȱ 62ȱȱ Premper,ȱ“UniversalsȱofȱtheȱLinguisticȱRepresentationȱofȱSituations,”ȱ478.ȱ 63ȱȱ Comrieȱ describesȱ dynamicity,ȱ orȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ statesȱ andȱ processes,ȱ asȱ folȬ lows:ȱ “Statesȱ areȱ static,ȱ i.e.ȱ continueȱ asȱ beforeȱ unlessȱ changed,ȱ whereasȱ eventsȱ andȱ processesȱareȱdynamic,ȱi.e.ȱrequireȱaȱcontinualȱinputȱofȱenergyȱifȱtheyȱareȱnotȱtoȱcomeȱ toȱanȱend.”ȱBernardȱComrie,ȱAspect:ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱStudyȱofȱVerbalȱAspectȱandȱ Relatedȱ Problems,ȱ Cambridgeȱ Textbooksȱ inȱ Linguisticsȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ UniȬ versityȱPress,ȱ1976),ȱ13.ȱSeeȱalsoȱBinnick,ȱTimeȱandȱtheȱVerb:ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱTenseȱandȱAsȬ pect,ȱ170Ȭ197.ȱ 64ȱȱ Hendel,ȱ “Inȱ theȱ Marginsȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Verbalȱ System:ȱ Situation,ȱ Tense,ȱ Aspect,ȱ Mood,”ȱ154.ȱ 65ȱȱ Premper,ȱ“UniversalsȱofȱtheȱLinguisticȱRepresentationȱofȱSituations,”ȱ495.ȱ 66ȱȱ Inȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱtermȱ dynamic,ȱ theȱtermȱ fientiveȱisȱusedȱ forȱverbsȱ thatȱ describeȱacȬ tion,ȱmotionȱorȱchangeȱofȱstate,ȱsinceȱtheȱtermȱactiveȱisȱusedȱtoȱdenoteȱvoiceȱ(Arnoldȱ 2003:ȱ38).ȱ

ȱ

89ȱ

TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ

structionsȱinȱQalȱandȱthoseȱinȱtheȱderivedȱconjugationsȱareȱalsoȱsignifiȬ cant.67ȱHendelȱsummarisesȱasȱfollows:ȱ Qalȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱPielȱ

ȱ

Hiphilȱ

x

Stative>ȱ ȱ

ȱ

factitive>ȱ

intransitiveȱ

x

Dynamic/intransitive>ȱ

frequentative>ȱ

causative/singlyȱtransitiveȱȱ

x

Dynamic/transitive>ȱ tiveȱ

resultative>ȱ

causative/doublyȱ transiȬ

Theȱ choiceȱ ofȱ aȱ verbalȱ formȱ willȱ affectȱ theȱ numberȱ ofȱ argumentsȱ inȱ aȱ givenȱpredication.ȱEvaluationȱofȱtheȱverbalȱformsȱfromȱtheȱperspectiveȱ ofȱ quantitativeȱ valenceȱ providesȱ theȱ followingȱ information:ȱ aȱ stativeȱ verbȱrequiresȱoneȱargument:ȱTheȱboyȱisȱyoung.ȱAȱdynamic,ȱintransitiveȱ verbȱalsoȱrequiresȱoneȱargument:ȱTheȱboyȱfell.ȱAȱdynamic,ȱsinglyȱtransiȬ tiveȱ verbȱ requiresȱ twoȱ arguments:ȱ Theȱ boyȱ kickedȱ theȱ ball.ȱ Aȱ doublyȱ transitiveȱ verbȱ requiresȱ threeȱ arguments:ȱ Theȱ boyȱ gaveȱ Maryȱ theȱ ball.68ȱ Forȱthisȱreason,ȱtheȱnumberȱandȱidentityȱofȱtopicalȱentitiesȱinȱaȱBHȱpreȬ dicationȱwillȱinteractȱwithȱtheȱnumberȱandȱtypeȱofȱargumentsȱrequiredȱ byȱ aȱ particularȱ verbalȱ form.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ aȱ Qalȱ stativeȱ formȱ requiresȱ oneȱ argument,ȱ asȱ doesȱ aȱ Qalȱ intransitiveȱ form.ȱ Aȱ Qalȱ transitiveȱ formȱ requiresȱ twoȱ arguments.ȱ Aȱ dynamic,ȱ singlyȱ transitiveȱ Hiphilȱ formȱ reȬ quiresȱ twoȱ arguments,ȱ andȱ aȱ dynamic,ȱ doublyȱ transitiveȱ Hiphilȱ formȱ requiresȱthree.ȱȱ Thisȱ summaryȱ hasȱ implicationsȱ forȱ sentenceȬlevelȱ Informationȱ Structureȱ analysis,ȱ becauseȱ aȱ particularȱ conjugationȱ willȱ constrainȱ theȱ relationshipȱthatȱholdsȱbetweenȱaȱverbȱandȱitsȱarguments.ȱForȱInformaȬ tionȱStructureȱanalysis,ȱargument(s)ȱmayȱfunctionȱasȱtopicalȱentities,ȱsoȱ theȱuseȱofȱaȱparticularȱverbalȱformȱwillȱaffectȱtrackingȱofȱsuchȱentities.ȱ Voiceȱ Theȱ secondȱ issueȱ isȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ situationȱ inȱ theȱ Qalȱ andȱ theȱsemanticsȱofȱvoice,ȱorȱdiathesis.ȱForȱexample,ȱtheȱniphalȱ“…effectsȱaȱ changeȱofȱvoiceȱandȱsituationȱforȱdynamic/transitiveȱverbs.”69ȱThisȱmayȱ beȱsummarisedȱasȱfollows:ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 67ȱȱ Theȱmostȱrecentȱelaborationȱ ofȱthisȱmaterialȱisȱ ArnoldȱandȱChoi,ȱ AȱGuideȱtoȱBiblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Syntax,ȱ 193.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ Expandedȱ Stemȱ Chart,ȱ Arnoldȱ andȱ Choi,ȱ Aȱ Guideȱ toȱ BiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax,ȱ194.ȱ 68ȱȱ Quantitativeȱvalenceȱisȱaȱwidelyȱacceptedȱmeansȱofȱevaluatingȱtransitivity.ȱAȱsecondȱ meansȱofȱevaluatingȱtransitivityȱisȱtheȱsemanticȱdecompositionȱofȱverbs,ȱwhichȱmayȱbeȱ doneȱ byȱ analysingȱ theȱ internalȱ timeȱ structure,ȱ orȱ inherentȱ aspectualȱ propertiesȱ ofȱ theȱ verbalȱform,ȱi.e.ȱdynamicityȱ–ȱwhichȱresultsȱinȱtheȱdynamicȬstativeȱopposition.ȱPremȬ per,ȱ“UniversalsȱofȱtheȱLinguisticȱRepresentationȱofȱSituations,”ȱ495.ȱ 69ȱȱ Hendel,ȱ “Inȱ theȱ Marginsȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Verbalȱ System:ȱ Situation,ȱ Tense,ȱ Aspect,ȱ Mood,”ȱ157.ȱ

90ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

Qalȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Dynamic/transitiveȱ Niphalȱ Reflexive/transitiveȱ Orȱmiddle/intransitiveȱ Orȱpassive/intransitiveȱ Resultative/stativeȱ

TheȱniphalȱsignalsȱanȱintransitiveȱconstructionȱandȱtheȱformȱisȱundersȬ pecifiedȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱcausalȱforce,ȱsourceȱofȱenergyȱorȱagent.70ȱTheȱ niphalȱ formȱ givesȱ riseȱ toȱ oneȱ mappingȱ configuration,ȱ butȱ atȱ leastȱ twoȱ typesȱ ofȱ pragmatic,ȱ contextȬinducedȱ elaboration.ȱ Inȱ theȱ firstȱ elaboraȬ tion,ȱtheȱcausalȱforceȱisȱassociatedȱwithȱanȱexternalȱagent.ȱThisȱisȱaȱpasȬ sive,ȱ agentȬorientedȱ understanding.71ȱ Oftenȱ theȱ agentȱ isȱ encodedȱ asȱ aȱ prepositionalȱ phrase,ȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ sentenceȱ Theȱ ballȱ wasȱ thrownȱ byȱ Harry.ȱ Harryȱ causedȱ theȱ motionȱ ofȱ theȱ ball.ȱ Inȱ theȱ secondȱ elaboration,ȱ theȱ causalȱforceȱhasȱsomethingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱinternalȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱ theme.ȱThisȱcontributesȱtoȱaȱmiddle,ȱorȱnonȱagentȬoriented,ȱunderstandȬ ing.72ȱ Theȱ sentence:ȱ Theȱballȱrolledȱfromȱtheȱ tableȱandȱbouncedȱ onȱ theȱfloorȱ illustratesȱthis.ȱTheȱballȱisȱnoȱlongerȱonȱtheȱtable,ȱbutȱwhetherȱtheȱballȱ wasȱ pushedȱ offȱ byȱ Harry,ȱ orȱ wasȱ setȱ inȱ motionȱ byȱ aȱ breezeȱ fromȱ theȱ window,ȱorȱbyȱvibrationsȱfromȱtheȱstreetȬrepairersȱbelow,ȱisȱnotȱspeciȬ fied.ȱ ThisȱmarginalȱissueȱmightȱhaveȱsignificantȱconsequencesȱforȱexegeȬ sis,ȱ asȱ Keithȱ Grünebergȱ demonstratesȱ inȱ hisȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ Genesisȱ 12.3.ȱGrünebergȱdifferentiatesȱbetweenȱthreeȱpossibleȱtranslationsȱofȱtheȱ niphalȱ ?TDȱ inȱ Genesisȱ 12.3,ȱ offeringȱ optionsȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ passiveȱ beȱ blessed;ȱ theȱ middleȱ findȱ blessing;ȱ andȱ theȱ reflexiveȱ blessȱ themselves.ȱ Theȱ passiveȱoption,ȱbeȱblessed,ȱaccordsȱwithȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱexplicitȱagentȱ inȱtheȱprepositionalȱphraseȱbyȱyou,ȱandȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱbestȱchoice.73ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 70ȱȱ 71ȱȱ 72ȱȱ 73ȱȱ

Mandelblit,ȱ“GrammaticalȱMarking,”ȱ229.ȱ WaltkeȱandȱOȇConnor,ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax,ȱ383.ȱ Mandelblit,ȱ“GrammaticalȱMarking,”ȱ229.ȱ Grünebergȱproposesȱthatȱmiddleȱniphalsȱcomeȱfromȱrootsȱderivedȱfromȱseveralȱ semanticȱdomains,ȱsuchȱasȱactionȱforȱone’sȱownȱbenefit,ȱreciprocalȱactivities,ȱgroomȬ ing,ȱselfȬmovement,ȱseparation,ȱperformativeȱspeechȱandȱsoȱon.ȱHeȱincludesȱtheȱrootȱ ]ZN,ȱtoȱfightȱinȱtheȱcategoryȱofȱreciprocalȱactivity,ȱthusȱhavingȱaȱ“middle”ȱnuance.ȱ SoȱtheȱEnglishȱclauseȱtheyȱfoughtȱmightȱappearȱinȱHebrewȱasȱanȱintransitiveȱconstrucȬ tionȱwithȱaȱniphalȱverbȱform.ȱKeithȱGrüneberg,ȱAbraham,ȱBlessingȱandȱtheȱNations:ȱAȱ PhilologicalȱandȱExegeticalȱStudyȱofȱGenesisȱ12:3ȱinȱItsȱNarrativeȱContextȱ(Berlin:ȱWalterȱ deȱGruyter,ȱ2003).

ȱ

SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBHȱTexts:ȱCognitiveȱAdditionsȱ

91ȱ

Again,ȱ theseȱ categoryȱ shiftsȱ willȱ affectȱ theȱ topicalȱ entitiesȱ (arguȬ ments)ȱ involvedȱ inȱ aȱ text,ȱ potentiallyȱ alteringȱ theȱ relationshipsȱ estabȬ lishedȱviaȱfunctionalȱrolesȱinȱaȱgivenȱdiscourse.ȱForȱexample,ȱtheȱarguȬ mentȱinȱtheȱ positionȱofȱgrammaticalȱsubjectȱoftenȱholdsȱtheȱfunctionalȱ roleȱofȱagent,ȱorȱ“…theȱinstigatorȱofȱtheȱaction”ȱinȱaȱgivenȱpredication.ȱ Likewise,ȱtheȱargumentȱinȱtheȱpositionȱofȱgrammaticalȱdirectȱobjectȱwillȱ oftenȱ holdȱ theȱ functionalȱ roleȱ ofȱ patient,ȱ whoȱ isȱ “…theȱ entityȱ underȬ goingȱtheȱeffectȱofȱtheȱaction”ȱinȱaȱgivenȱpredication.ȱ74ȱTheȱroleȱofȱagentȱ isȱoftenȱencodedȱasȱtheȱgrammaticalȱsubject,ȱwhereasȱtheȱroleȱofȱpatientȱ isȱ oftenȱ encodedȱ asȱ theȱ grammaticalȱ indirectȱ object,ȱmakingȱ theȱ entityȱ inȱtheȱroleȱofȱagentȱmoreȱsalientȱthanȱtheȱentityȱinȱtheȱroleȱofȱpatientȱ .75ȱ Duringȱ theȱ readingȱ process,ȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ agentȱandȱ thatȱofȱpatientȱ mightȱ shiftȱbetweenȱentitiesȱasȱdiscourseȱprogresses.ȱAlternatively,ȱoneȱentityȱ mightȱretainȱtheȱroleȱofȱsubject,ȱtheȱotherȱofȱobjectȱoverȱseveralȱpredicaȬ tions.ȱȱ TheȱlatterȱsituationȱoccursȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ1.10,ȱinȱwhichȱbothȱJereȬ miahȱandȱYahwehȱareȱactiveȱdiscourseȱtopicalȱentities.ȱJeremiahȱreportsȱ theȱinterchange,ȱbutȱYahwehȱoccursȱasȱtheȱsubject,ȱorȱagent,ȱinȱmanyȱofȱ theȱfollowingȱclauses,ȱwhileȱJeremiahȱisȱrepresentedȱasȱtheȱdirectȱobject,ȱ orȱpatient,ȱinȱtheȱsameȱclausesȱ(seeȱJeremiahȱ1.4a;ȱ1.5a,ȱb,ȱd,ȱe;ȱ1.7a,ȱd,ȱf;ȱ 1.9a,ȱb,ȱc,ȱd;ȱ1.10b).ȱȱClearly,ȱwhileȱthisȱsectionȱincludesȱbothȱdiscourseȱ topicalȱ entitiesȱ inȱ nearlyȱequalȱproportions,ȱYahwehȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱ moreȱactiveȱofȱtheȱtwo.ȱHeȱisȱtheȱinitiatorȱofȱmostȱofȱtheȱactionȱandȱJeȬ remiahȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱlessȱactiveȱinterlocutorȱasȱheȱisȱtheȱrecipientȱofȱ muchȱofȱtheȱaction.ȱ

D. SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱText:ȱȱȱȱȱȱ CognitiveȱAdditionsȱ Asȱ previouslyȱ noted,ȱ oneȱ difficultyȱ withȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ verbalȱ systemȱ isȱ determiningȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ variousȱ verbalȱ formsȱ inȱ theȱ mappingȱ ofȱ temȬ poralȱ information.ȱ 76ȱ Thisȱ difficultyȱ arisesȱ forȱ twoȱ reasons.ȱ First,ȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 74ȱȱ Finchȱ describesȱ theseȱ asȱ thetaȱ roles.ȱ Geoffreyȱ Finch,ȱ Linguisticȱ Termsȱ andȱ Conceptsȱ (Basingstoke:ȱPalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2000),ȱ120.ȱ 75ȱȱ Theȱreverseȱisȱalsoȱtheȱcase.ȱPremperȱstates,ȱ“Thereȱisȱaȱuniversalȱtendencyȱsuchȱthatȱ theȱlessȱ‘salient’ȱorȱanimated,ȱorȱindividuatedȱaȱparticipantȱis,ȱtheȱlessȱlikelyȱitȱisȱtoȱbeȱ codedȱ asȱ subject.”ȱ Premper,ȱ “Universalsȱ ofȱ theȱ Linguisticȱ Representationȱ ofȱ SituaȬ tions,”ȱ489.ȱ 76ȱȱ Amongȱ others,ȱ Waltkeȱ andȱ O’Connorȱ note,ȱ “Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ hasȱ noȱ tensesȱ inȱ theȱ strictȱ sense:ȱ itȱ usesȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ otherȱ meansȱ toȱ expressȱ timeȱ relations.”ȱ Waltkeȱ andȱ OȇConnor,ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax,ȱ347.ȱ

92ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

HebrewȱverbȱisȱnotȱtheȱprimaryȱsourceȱofȱtemporalȱinformationȱinȱBHȱ text,ȱwhereȱtemporalȱadverbs,ȱsuchȱasȱ ]TD,ȱbefore,ȱand[TZ ,ȱafter,ȱandȱ constructionsȱ suchȱ asȱ ?NOJYJ[ [[O[D,inȱ theȱ daysȱ ofȱ Kingȱ Josiahȱ (JereȬ miahȱ 3.6),ȱ contributeȱ toȱ timeȱ reference.77ȱ Second,ȱ theȱ verbȱ containsȱ farȱ moreȱ informationȱ thanȱ simpleȱ timeȱ reference.ȱ Theȱ verbȱ indicatesȱ theȱ typeȱ ofȱ activityȱ representedȱ byȱ aȱ particularȱ lexicalȱ choice.ȱ Itȱ alsoȱ proȬ videsȱinformationȱ regardingȱitsȱadjunctsȱ(subjectȱandȱ object)ȱ andȱtheirȱ functionalȱrolesȱinȱtheȱsentence.78ȱȱ

1. CognitiveȱMetaphorȱandȱTime:ȱTIMEȱISȱMOTIONȱ ȱSomeȱ freshȱ insightȱ intoȱ theȱ expressionȱ ofȱ timeȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ isȱ gainedȱwhenȱtheȱissueȱisȱexaminedȱfromȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱtheȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ MOTIONȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ becauseȱ thisȱ metaphorȱ underliesȱ muchȱ discussionȱ ofȱ thisȱ widelyȱ debatedȱ subject.ȱ Asȱ discussedȱ inȱ chapterȱ 5,ȱ sectionȱ B.4,ȱ aȱ conceptualȱmetaphorȱ isȱnotȱ inȱ itselfȱ aȱ literaryȱ metaphor,ȱ althoughȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ hasȱ aȱ roleȱ inȱ establishingȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ literaryȱ metaphor.ȱ Rather,ȱ aȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ isȱ anȱ experientiallyȱ derivedȱ cognitiveȱ construction.ȱ Theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ motionȱ isȱ experiential:ȱ humansȱexperienceȱaȱwideȱvarietyȱofȱmotion,ȱsuchȱasȱwalking,ȱrunning,ȱ carryingȱ andȱbeingȱ carried.ȱSimilarly,ȱ humansȱregularlyȱobserveȱ otherȱ kindsȱofȱmotion,ȱsuchȱasȱflowingȱrivers,ȱflyingȱbirdsȱandȱtheȱshiftingȱofȱ heavenlyȱ bodies.ȱ Thisȱ commonȱ experienceȱ makesȱ theȱ sourceȱ domain,ȱ MOTION,ȱ availableȱ forȱ understandingȱ theȱ targetȱ domain,ȱ TIME,ȱ inȱ theȱ conceptualȱmetaphorȱ TIMEȱISȱMOTION.ȱTheȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱ TIMEȱISȱ MOTIONȱisȱaȱstructuralȱmetaphor.79ȱTheȱsourceȱdomain,ȱMOTION,ȱisȱaȱrichȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 77ȱȱ Otherȱ featuresȱ thatȱ mapȱ temporalȱ relationsȱ areȱ expressionsȱ headedȱ byȱ nouns,ȱ adȬ verbs,ȱadjectivesȱandȱprepositions.ȱSeeȱC.ȱH.ȱJ.ȱvanȱderȱMerwe,ȱ“ReconsideringȱBibliȬ calȱHebrewȱTemporalȱExpressions,”ȱZAHȱ10ȱ(1997),ȱ42Ȭ59.ȱ 78ȱȱ CategoriesȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱBHȱverbȱinclude:ȱperson,ȱnumberȱandȱ gender;ȱtense;ȱmodality;ȱvoice;ȱaspect,ȱi.e.ȱperfectiveȬimperfective;ȱandȱaspectȱ(aktionȬ sart),ȱi.e.ȱvoice,ȱfientivityȬtransitivityȱandȱcausation.ȱWaltkeȱandȱOȇConnor,ȱAnȱIntroducȬ tionȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax,ȱ344.ȱ 79ȱȱ Conceptualȱmetaphorsȱperformȱthreeȱbasicȱfunctions.ȱStructuralȱmetaphorsȱincludeȱ “…ȱaȱsourceȱthatȱisȱaȱrichȱsourceȱofȱknowledgeȱforȱtheȱtarget.”ȱAȱstructuralȱmetaphorȱ “…ȱenablesȱspeakersȱtoȱunderstandȱtargetȱAȱbyȱmeansȱofȱtheȱstructureȱofȱsourceȱ B,”(i.e.ȱtimeȱisȱmotion).ȱOntologicalȱmetaphorsȱ“…ȱprovideȱlessȱconceptualȱstructureȱ thanȱaȱstructuralȱmetaphor,”ȱwhileȱ“…ȱgivingȱontologicalȱstatusȱtoȱgeneralȱcategoȬ riesȱofȱabstractȱconcepts”ȱ(i.e.ȱsocietyȱisȱaȱperson).ȱOrientationalȱmetaphorsȱprovideȱ evenȱlessȱconceptualȱstructureȱwhileȱ“…ȱmakingȱaȱsetȱofȱtargetȱconceptsȱcoherentȱinȱ ourȱconceptualȱsystem,ȱbasedȱuponȱcoordinatesȱestablishedȱbyȱbasicȱhumanȱspatialȱ orientation”ȱ(i.e.ȱmoreȱisȱup).ȱKövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ33Ȭ35.ȱ

ȱ

SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBHȱTexts:ȱCognitiveȱAdditionsȱ

93ȱ

sourceȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ forȱ understandingȱ theȱ targetȱ domain,ȱ TIME.ȱ LinȬ guisticȱ expressionsȱ suchȱ asȱ timeȱ flowsȱ by,ȱ timeȱ flies,ȱ timesȱ change;ȱ heȱ isȱ runningȱoutȱofȱtime,ȱtheȱdaysȱaheadȱwillȱbeȱchallengingȱareȱaȱfewȱexamplesȱ ofȱthisȱstructuralȱmetaphor.ȱTheȱsourceȱdomain,ȱ MOTION,ȱalsoȱgivesȱriseȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱ amountȱ ofȱ confusion,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ motionȱ inherentȱ inȱ thisȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ mayȱ beȱ construedȱ inȱ twoȱ quiteȱ differentȱ ways.ȱ Theȱfirstȱwayȱofȱconstruingȱtheȱ TIMEȱISȱMOTIONȱmetaphorȱisȱtimeȱpassingȱ isȱ theȱ motionȱ ofȱ anȱ object.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ construalȱ theȱ observerȱ isȱ fixed,ȱ whileȱ timeȱ isȱ anȱ objectȱ movingȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ theȱ observer.ȱ Linguisticȱ exȬ pressionsȱsuchȱasȱtimeȱflowsȱby,ȱtimeȱfliesȱandȱtimesȱchangeȱareȱovertȱexȬ amplesȱofȱthisȱconstrual.ȱTheȱsecondȱwayȱofȱconstruingȱtheȱ TIMEȱISȱMOȬ TIONȱmetaphorȱisȱtimeȱpassingȱisȱanȱobserverȇsȱmotionȱoverȱaȱlandscape.ȱInȱ thisȱcase,ȱtimeȱisȱfixedȱandȱtheȱobserverȱisȱmovingȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtime.ȱ Linguisticȱexpressionsȱsuchȱasȱheȱisȱrunningȱoutȱofȱtimeȱandȱtheȱdaysȱaheadȱ willȱbeȱ challengingȱareȱ examplesȱ ofȱ theȱ second.ȱ Lakoffȱ andȱ Johnsonȱ seeȱ theȱtwoȱoptionsȱasȱreversalsȱofȱtheȱfigureȬgroundȱconfiguration,ȱasȱtwoȱ relatedȱ ideas.ȱ Talmyȱ listsȱ theȱ followingȱ featuresȱ thatȱ characteriseȱ theȱ figureȱandȱgroundȱopposition:ȱ Figureȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Groundȱ

locationȱlessȱknownȱ ȱ

ȱ

locationȱmoreȱknownȱ

smallerȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

largerȱ

moreȱmobileȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

moreȱstationaryȱ

structurallyȱsimplerȱ ȱ

ȱ

structurallyȱmoreȱcomplexȱ

moreȱsalientȱ ȱ

ȱ

moreȱbackgroundedȱ

ȱ

earlierȱonȱscene;ȱinȱmemory80ȱ

ȱ

moreȱrecentlyȱinȱawarenessȱ

Thisȱinformationȱinformsȱtheȱconstrualȱofȱtheȱ TIMEȱISȱMOTIONȱmetaphorȱ inȱtheȱfollowingȱways:ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱconstrual,ȱtimeȱpassingȱisȱtheȱmotionȱofȱ anȱobject,ȱtimeȱisȱmovingȱtowardȱaȱfixedȱobserver.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱfixedȱ observerȱ isȱ theȱ ground:ȱ hisȱlocationȱ isȱmoreȱknown,ȱ heȱ isȱmoreȱ statioȬ naryȱ andȱ isȱ backgrounded.ȱ Timeȱ isȱ theȱ figure.ȱ Theȱ locationȱ ofȱ timeȱ isȱ lessȱ known,ȱ itȱ isȱ moreȱ mobile,ȱ itȱ isȱstructurallyȱ simplerȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ moreȱ salient.ȱInȱthisȱconstrual,ȱtimeȱisȱinȱfocus.ȱȱInȱtheȱsecondȱconstrual,ȱtimeȱ passingȱ isȱ anȱ observerȇsȱ motionȱ overȱ aȱ landscape,ȱ timeȱ isȱ theȱ ground:ȱ itsȱ locationȱ isȱ known,ȱ itȱ isȱ moreȱ stationaryȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ backgrounded.ȱ Theȱ observerȱ isȱ theȱ figure.ȱ Hisȱ locationȱ isȱ lessȱ known,ȱ heȱ isȱ smaller,ȱ moreȱ mobile,ȱstructurallyȱsimplerȱandȱmoreȱsalient.ȱTheȱobserverȱisȱinȱfocus.ȱ Forȱ bothȱ ofȱ theseȱ understandings,ȱ timeȱ isȱ movingȱ inȱ aȱ linear,ȱ oneȬ dimensionalȱmanner.ȱTheȱmetaphorsȱmakeȱfullȱuseȱofȱtheȱhumanȱcogniȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 80ȱȱ

CroftȱandȱCruse,ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics,ȱ42.ȱ

94ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

tiveȱabilityȱtoȱmanipulateȱabstractȱstructureȱinȱmentalȱspace.81ȱBecauseȱ theȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtimeȱandȱtheȱobserverȱisȱrelational,ȱratherȱthanȱ absolute,ȱ theseȱ metaphoricalȱ understandingsȱ areȱ compatibleȱ withȱ theȱ relativeȱtenseȱviewȱofȱtheȱBHȱverb.ȱTheyȱareȱalsoȱcompatibleȱwithȱmapȬ pingȱ temporalȱ orderingȱ alongȱ aȱ timeȱlineȱ basedȱ uponȱ alternativeȱ temȬ poralȱ indicators,ȱ suchȱ asȱ adverbsȱandȱ temporalȱ constructions.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ reason,ȱitȱisȱimportantȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱobserverȱinȱorderȱ toȱ mapȱ theȱ temporalȱ contoursȱ ofȱ aȱtext.ȱInȱ termsȱofȱMST,ȱ thisȱwillȱ deȬ termineȱwhichȱspaceȱisȱtheȱviewpointȱspace.ȱInȱtermsȱofȱcognitiveȱgramȬ mar,ȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ observerȱ willȱ interactȱ withȱ theȱ viewingȱ arȬ rangement:ȱ inȱ firstȱ andȱ secondȱ personȱ speech,ȱ theȱ readerȱ isȱ broughtȱ intoȱ theȱ situation,ȱ perhapsȱ identifyingȱ withȱ theȱ observer,ȱ whereasȱ inȱ thirdȱ personȱ narration,ȱ theȱ readerȱ willȱ mostȱ likelyȱ viewȱ theȱ situationȱ fromȱ afar.ȱ Itȱ isȱ thenȱ importantȱ toȱ observeȱ theȱmannerȱ inȱ whichȱverbalȱ forms,ȱ inȱ combinationȱ withȱ otherȱ linguisticȱ cues,ȱ areȱ usedȱ toȱ construeȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ time:ȱ Isȱ timeȱ movingȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ theȱ observerȱ (viewȬ pointȱspace),ȱorȱisȱtheȱobserverȱ(viewpointȱspace)ȱmovingȱwithȱrespectȱ toȱ time?ȱ Whatȱ linguisticȱ cuesȱ allowȱ theȱ readerȱ toȱ trackȱ timeȱ fromȱ theȱ observerȇsȱperspectiveȱ(viewpointȱspace)ȱinȱeitherȱconstrual?ȱAreȱtheseȱ cuesȱtheȱsameȱorȱdifferentȱinȱeachȱcase?ȱȱ

2. ExtendingȱAspectualȱBoundaries:ȱTIMEȱISȱSPACEȱ Asȱdiscussedȱinȱchapterȱ4,ȱsectionȱA.3,ȱtheȱcognitiveȱmetaphorȱTIMEȱISȱAȱ CONTAINERȱ structuresȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3.ȱTheȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ Aȱ CONTAINERȱ metaȬ

phorȱisȱaȱsubsetȱofȱtheȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱTIMEȱISȱSPACEȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱ metaphoricalȱ associationȱ ofȱ timeȱ withȱ matter,ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ aȱ container.ȱ Forȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱ theȱ seriesȱ ofȱ temporalȱ referencesȱ atȱ 1.2b,ȱ YJ[ [[O[D;ȱ 1.2d,ȱ YMNONJPJTNDȱandȱatȱ1.3a,ȱ ][S[YJ[[O[D,ȱindiȬ cateȱtheȱextentȱofȱtheȱcontainer’sȱmetaphoricȱboundaries.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 81ȱȱ JohnsonȱnotesȱthatȱLakoff’sȱimageȱschemaȱtransformationsȱareȱ“…moreȱgeneralȱandȱ abstractȱthatȱparticularȱmentalȱimages.”ȱFourȱimageȱschemaȱtransformationsȱareȱreȬ levantȱtoȱthisȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱBHȱverb.ȱPathȬfocusȱtoȱendȬpointȱfocusȱisȱtheȱtransforȬ mationȱ byȱ whichȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ forȱ oneȱ toȱ follow,ȱ inȱ theȱ imagination,ȱ theȱ pathȱ ofȱ aȱ movingȱ object,ȱ thenȱ toȱ focusȱ uponȱ theȱ pointȱ whereȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ rest.ȱ Multiplexȱ toȱ massȱisȱtheȱtransformationȱbyȱwhichȱoneȱisȱableȱtoȱimagineȱaȱgroupȱofȱseveralȱobject,ȱ thenȱmoveȱawayȱ(inȱtheȱmind)ȱuntilȱtheȱclusterȱturnsȱintoȱaȱsingleȱhomogenousȱmass,ȱ thenȱ toȱ moveȱ backȱ untilȱ theȱ massȱ turnsȱ intoȱ aȱ cluster.ȱ Followingȱ aȱ trajectoryȱ isȱ theȱ transformationȱbyȱwhichȱoneȱisȱableȱmentallyȱtoȱtraceȱtheȱpathȱtraversedȱbyȱaȱcontiȬ nuouslyȱ movingȱ object,ȱ andȱ superimpositionȱ isȱ theȱtransformationȱ byȱ whichȱ oneȱ isȱ ableȱtoȱmanipulateȱabstractȱstructureȱinȱmentalȱspace.ȱJohnson,ȱTheȱBodyȱinȱtheȱMind:ȱ TheȱBodilyȱBasisȱofȱMeaning,ȱImagination,ȱandȱReason,ȱ24Ȭ25.ȱȱ

ȱ

SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBHȱTexts:ȱCognitiveȱAdditionsȱ

95ȱ

Theȱ timeȱ isȱ aȱ containerȱ metaphorȱ isȱ anȱ orientationalȱ metaphor.ȱ Orientationalȱ metaphorsȱ areȱ cognitiveȱ metaphorsȱ thatȱ provideȱ lessȱ conceptualȱstructureȱthanȱdoȱstructuralȱmetaphors,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱtimeȱisȱ motionȱmetaphorȱmentionedȱabove.ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱtheȱ metaphoricalȱ containerȱ setsȱ theȱ majorȱ parametersȱ forȱ locatingȱ theȱ eventsȱinȱ timeȱ andȱspace,ȱbutȱ theȱ containerȱitselfȱ isȱ relativelyȱ unstrucȬ tured.ȱȱ However,ȱ theȱ metaphorȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱ isȱ aȱ structuralȱ metaphorȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ source,ȱ SPACE,ȱ enablesȱ speakersȱ toȱ underȬ standȱ theȱ target,ȱ TIME.ȱ Whileȱ spaceȱ mightȱ seemȱ evenȱ lessȱ structuredȱ thanȱ theȱ aforementionedȱ container,ȱ thisȱ isȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ theȱ case.ȱ Inȱ herȱstudyȱonȱSlavicȱaspect,ȱJandaȱnotes:ȱ Spaceȱisȱoccupiedȱbyȱmatter.ȱIfȱspaceȱconsistedȱmerelyȱofȱemptyȱdimension,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ provideȱ littleȱ (ifȱany)ȱ structureȱ forȱmetaphoricalȱ imagination.ȱ InȬ deed,ȱ spatialȱ metaphorsȱ almostȱ invariablyȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ parametersȱ ofȱ maȬ terialȱobjectsȱofȱvariousȱsorts.ȱAspectȱrefersȱveryȱspecificallyȱtoȱtheȱphysicalȱ formsȱofȱmatterȱandȱmapsȱthisȱparameterȱtoȱtheȱdomainȱofȱspace.82ȱ

InȱorderȱtoȱaccountȱforȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱofȱSlavicȱaspect,ȱJandaȱproposesȱ “…ȱ aȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱ universalȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱ metaphor,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ SITUATIONSȱ AREȱ MATERIALȱ ENTITIESȱ and,ȱ moreȱ specifically,ȱ PERȬ FECTIVEȱ ISȱ Aȱ DISCRETEȱ SOLIDȱ OBJECTȱ versusȱ IMPERFECTIVEȱ ISȱ Aȱ FLUIDȱ SUBȬ STANCE.”83ȱ Inȱ thisȱ assessment,ȱ perfectiveȱ situationsȱ areȱ objectsȱ thatȱ ocȬ cupyȱ timeȱ asȱ discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ occupyȱ space,ȱ whileȱ imperfectiveȱ situationsȱ areȱ objectsȱ thatȱ occupyȱ timeȱ asȱ fluidȱ substancesȱ occupyȱ space.ȱ Jandaȱ dividesȱ theȱ propertiesȱ ofȱ matterȱ intoȱ threeȱ groups:ȱ inheȬ rentȱproperties,ȱinteractionalȱpropertiesȱandȱhumanȱinteractionalȱpropȬ erties.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ scheme,ȱ inherentȱ properties,ȱ suchȱ asȱ edges,ȱ shapeȱ andȱ integrity,ȱcorrespondȱtoȱinherentȱsituationȱaspect.ȱInteractionalȱproperȬ ties,ȱ suchȱ asȱ dynamismȱ andȱ salience,ȱ correspondȱ toȱ discourseȱ phenoȬ menaȱ ofȱ aspect.ȱ Humanȱ properties,ȱ suchȱ asȱ graspingȱ andȱ impact,ȱ corȬ respondȱ toȱ pragmaticȱ phenomenaȱ ofȱ aspect.ȱ Inherentȱ propertiesȱ areȱ defaultȱmotivators,ȱwhileȱtheȱinteractionalȱpropertiesȱ“…canȱbeȱusedȱtoȱ motivateȱsubjectiveȱconstrual.”84ȱȱ Janda’sȱassessmentȱofȱSlavicȱaspectȱisȱexperientialist.ȱSheȱnotes,ȱ“…ȱ theȱ humanȱ bodyȱ isȱ theȱ instrumentȱ throughȱ whichȱ (theȱ above)ȱ properȬ tiesȱareȱexploredȱandȱitȱalsoȱplaysȱaȱroleȱonȱtheȱlocationȱofȱsituationsȱinȱ time.”ȱ Regardingȱ herȱ Russianȱ examples,ȱ Jandaȱ states,ȱ “…ȱ theȱ solidȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 82ȱȱ LauraȱA.ȱJanda,ȱ“AȱMetaphorȱinȱSearchȱofȱaȱSourceȱDomain,”ȱCLȱ15ȱ(2004),ȱ485.ȱ 83ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ471.ȱ 84ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ

96ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

bodyȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱobserverȱhelpsȱtoȱdisambiguateȱtheȱtense.”85ȱ Asȱinȱ theȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ MOTIONȱ examplesȱ discussedȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ section,ȱ theȱ presenceȱofȱtheȱhumanȱobserverȱinȱtheȱtimelineȱhasȱanȱeffectȱuponȱtemȬ poralȱconstrual,ȱinȱthatȱtheȱobserverȱbecomesȱtheȱdeicticȱcentreȱforȱtheȱ construalȱ ofȱ theȱ situation.86ȱ Additionally,ȱ Marmaridouȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ TIMEȱASȱAȱMOVINGȱOBJECTȱmetaphorȱgivesȱtimeȱ“…ȱaȱfrontȬbackȱorientaȬ tionȱ facingȱ theȱ directionȱ ofȱ motion.ȱ Inȱ theseȱ termsȱ theȱ futureȱ isȱ facingȱ towardȱusȱwhileȱitȱisȱmovingȱtowardȱus…whenȱtimeȱisȱconstructedȱasȱaȱ movingȱobject,ȱitȱisȱalsoȱmovingȱtowardȱorȱawayȱfromȱtheȱspeaker.ȱFuȬ ture,ȱ present,ȱ pastȱ areȱ calculatedȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ speakȬ er/observer.”87ȱȱAdditionally,ȱ“…ȱtheȱtenseȱdistinctionȱresultsȱformȱtheȱ factȱ thatȱ twoȱ solidȱ objectsȱ (theȱ humanȱ bodyȱ ofȱ theȱ observerȱ andȱ theȱ discreteȱ solidȱ ofȱ theȱperfectiveȱsituation)ȱ cannotȱ occupyȱ theȱ sameȱ spotȱ onȱ theȱ timeline.ȱ Aȱ solidȱ objectȱ (theȱ humanȱ bodyȱ ofȱ theȱ observer)ȱ can,ȱ however,ȱbeȱenvelopedȱinȱaȱfluidȱsubstanceȱ(theȱimperfectiveȱsituation),ȱ permittingȱtheȱtwoȱtoȱcoȬexistȱatȱtheȱsameȱmoment.”88ȱȱ

3. BiblicalȱHebrew:ȱTIMEȱISȱSPACEȱ ExaminingȱtheȱHebrewȱverbalȱsystemȱviaȱtheȱcognitiveȱmetaphorȱ TIMEȱ ISȱSPACEȱprovidesȱinsightȱintoȱtheȱcognitiveȱconstrualȱinherentȱinȱeachȱofȱ

theȱverbalȱformsȱandȱintoȱdiscourseȬconditionedȱcognitiveȱconstrualȱasȱ well.ȱAȱsynthesisȱofȱJanda’sȱmetphoricalȱdescriptionȱofȱ PERFECTIVEȱ ISȱ Aȱ DISCRETEȱ SOLIDȱ OBJECTȱ versusȱ IMPERFECTIVEȱ ISȱ Aȱ FLUIDȱ SUBSTANCEȱ withȱ Cook’sȱfindingsȱregardingȱtheȱaspectȱprominentȱnatureȱofȱBHȱmakesȱitȱ isȱpossibleȱtoȱexploreȱtheȱimplicationsȱofȱtheȱcognitiveȱmetaphorȱ TIMEȱISȱ SPACE.ȱȱ Cookȱhasȱobservedȱthatȱbothȱtheȱwayyiqtolȱ(pastȱtenseȱform)ȱandȱtheȱ qatalȱ(perfectiveȱaspectȱform)ȱdevelopedȱalongȱtheȱresultativeȱ>ȱperfectȱ>ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 85ȱȱ Atȱanyȱgivenȱpointȱinȱaȱdiscourse,ȱtheȱobserverȱhasȱaȱplaceȱinȱtheȱcanonicalȱviewingȱ arrangementȱ forȱ aȱ givenȱ predication,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ observerȱ isȱ notȱ physicallyȱ presentȱinȱtheȱevent.ȱIbid.,ȱ490.ȱ 86ȱȱ Fromȱanȱexperientialistȱperspective,ȱMarmaridouȱproposesȱthatȱdeixisȱisȱanȱIdealizedȱ Cognitiveȱ Model,ȱ anȱ ICM,ȱ andȱ thatȱ thisȱ ICMȱ “…givesȱ riseȱ toȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ theȱ CENTREȱvs.ȱPERIPHERYȱimageȱschema.”ȱAdditionally,ȱsheȱstates,ȱ“…theȱproposedȱconȬ strualȱofȱtheȱICMȱofȱdeixisȱstructuresȱallȱcategoriesȱofȱdeixis.ȱInȱthisȱanalysis,ȱpersonȱ andȱplaceȱdeixisȱmutuallyȱcoȬevolve,ȱwhereasȱsocialȱdeixisȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱmetaphorȬ icalȱunderstandingȱofȱsocialȱspaceȱasȱphysicalȱspace,ȱtimeȱdeixisȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱmeȬ taphoricalȱunderstandingȱofȱtimeȱasȱspace,ȱandȱdiscourseȱdeixisȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱmeȬ taphoricalȱ understandingȱ ofȱ discourseȱ asȱ time,ȱ andȱ timeȱ asȱ space.”ȱ Marmaridou,ȱ PragmaticȱMeaningȱandȱCognition,ȱ97.ȱ 87ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ102.ȱ 88ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ491.ȱ

ȱ

SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBHȱTexts:ȱCognitiveȱAdditionsȱ

97ȱ

perfectiveȱ>ȱsimpleȱpastȱgrammaticalisationȱpath,ȱwhileȱtheȱyiqtolȱ(imperȬ fectiveȱaspectȱform)ȱandȱtheȱparticipleȱ(progressiveȱaspectȱform)ȱdevelȬ opedȱalongȱtheȱprogressiveȱ>ȱimperfectiveȱgrammaticalisationȱpath.ȱWhenȱ approachedȱaccordingȱtoȱJanda’sȱcategories,ȱtheȱfirstȱsetȱofȱformsȱindiȬ catesȱsituationsȱthatȱoccupyȱtimeȱasȱdiscreteȱsolidȱobjectsȱoccupyȱspace,ȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ setȱ ofȱ formsȱ indicatesȱ situationsȱ thatȱ occupyȱ timeȱ asȱ fluidȱsubstancesȱoccupyȱspace.ȱȱ

4. InherentȱPropertiesȱofȱMatterȱandȱBHȱAspect:ȱSentenceȱLevelȱ Thisȱ sectionȱpresentsȱthreeȱcharacteristicsȱ regardingȱinherentȱaspectȱinȱ BHȱ verbalȱ forms.ȱ Theseȱ characteristicsȱ dealȱ withȱ individualȱ forms,ȱ soȱ theyȱ concernȱ sentenceȱ levelȱ predications.ȱ (Forȱ discourseȱ levelȱ characteristics,ȱseeȱsectionȱD.5,ȱbelow.)89ȱȱ 1.

Edges:ȱ Discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ haveȱ edges,ȱ thusȱ perfectiveȱ situationsȱ (wayyiqtol,ȱ qatal)ȱ exhibitȱ boundedness.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ fluidȱ subȬ stancesȱhaveȱnoȱinherentȱedges,ȱsoȱimperfectiveȱsituationsȱ(yiqtol,ȱparȬ ticiple)ȱ tendȱ toȱ exhibitȱ unboundednessȱ andȱ aȱ lackȱ ofȱ referenceȱ toȱ beȬ ginningȱandȱend.90ȱȱ

2.

Homogeneityȱvs.ȱHeterogeneity:ȱAȱdiscreteȱsolidȱobjectȱhasȱintegrityȱasȱaȱ whole,ȱ soȱ perfectiveȱ situationsȱ (wayyiqtol,ȱ qatal)ȱ mayȱ beȱ characterisedȱ asȱ single,ȱ oneȬtimeȱ accomplishmentsȱ andȱ achievements,ȱ exhibitingȱ wholeness,ȱ definitenessȱ andȱ totality.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ fluidȱ subȬ stancesȱ tendȱ toȱbeȱ uniform,ȱ continuousȱandȱ divisible,ȱ soȱimperfectiveȱ situationsȱ(yiqtol,ȱparticiple)ȱmayȱbeȱcharacterisedȱasȱongoingȱactivitiesȱ andȱ statesȱ thatȱ haveȱ temporalȱ stabilityȱ andȱ sometimesȱ exhibitȱ indefiȬ niteness.ȱ

3.

Penetrability:ȱ Aȱ discreteȱ solidȱ objectȱ isȱ impenetrableȱ andȱ onlyȱ expeȬ riencedȱfromȱtheȱexterior,ȱsoȱperfectiveȱsituationsȱ(wayyiqtol,ȱqatal)ȱareȱ perceivedȱfromȱtheȱoutside.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱtheȱobserverȱcanȱreach,ȱ seeȱ orȱ beȱ insideȱ aȱ fluidȱ substance,ȱ soȱ imperfectiveȱ situationsȱ (yiqtol,ȱ participle)ȱmayȱbeȱviewedȱfromȱtheȱinside.ȱ

Theȱ aboveȱ characteristicsȱcorrelateȱ withȱ Bhat’sȱ definition,ȱhighlightingȱ theȱ conceptualȱ natureȱ ofȱ aspectȱ asȱ aȱ linguisticȱ category.ȱ Toȱ reiterate,ȱ Bhatȱstates:ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 89ȱȱ Theȱ relevantȱ characteristicsȱ areȱ renumberedȱ fromȱ Janda’sȱ alphabeticalȱ list,ȱ whereȱ theyȱoccurȱasȱA,ȱCȱandȱF.ȱJanda,ȱ“AȱMetaphorȱinȱSearchȱofȱaȱSourceȱDomain.”ȱ 90ȱȱ Theȱparticipleȱisȱincludedȱwithȱtheȱyiqtolȱinȱtheȱimperfectiveȱcategoryȱbecause,ȱaccordȬ ingȱtoȱBinnick,ȱ“Perfectiveȱandȱimperfectiveȱareȱuniversallyȱacceptedȱasȱaspects;ȱtheȱ progressiveȱ isȱ widelyȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ theȱ imperfect”ȱ (Binnick:ȱ 2001,ȱ 563).ȱ

98ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

…perfectiveȱ providesȱ theȱ viewȱ ofȱ anȱ eventȱ asȱ aȱ wholeȱ fromȱ theȱ outsideȱ whereasȱimperfectiveȱprovidesȱtheȱviewȱfromȱtheȱinsideȱ(seeȱpointȱ2,ȱabove).ȱ Theȱ formerȱ isȱ unconcernedȱ withȱ internalȱ temporalȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ eventȱ whereasȱtheȱlatterȱisȱcruciallyȱconcernedȱwithȱsuchȱaȱstructureȱ(seeȱpointȱ3,ȱ above).ȱ Theȱ formerȱ viewsȱ theȱ situationȱ asȱ boundedȱ andȱ formingȱ aȱ unifiedȱ entityȱ whereasȱ theȱ latterȱ viewsȱ itȱ asȱ onȬgoingȱ orȱ habitualȱ (seeȱ pointȱ 1,ȱ above).91ȱ

TheȱthreeȱcharacteristicsȱalsoȱhaveȱpointsȱinȱcommonȱwithȱCook’sȱscopeȱ andȱdistanceȱmetaphor.ȱHeȱusesȱtheȱideaȱofȱaȱcameraȱtoȱexplainȱthatȱaȱ perfectiveȱ formȱ (qatal)ȱ indicatesȱ theȱ entireȱ intervalȱ ofȱ aȱ situation,ȱ asȱ viewedȱfromȱaȱdistance.ȱAȱperfectȱformȱ(wayyiqtol)ȱprovidesȱaȱresultantȱ viewȱofȱsituation,ȱwhileȱpresumingȱaȱpriorȱeventȱnucleus.ȱAnȱimperfecȬ tiveȱ formȱ (yiqtol)ȱ providesȱ aȱ closeȬupȱ viewȱ withoutȱ endpointsȱ andȱ aȱ progressiveȱ formȱ (participle)ȱ indicatesȱ anȱ agentȱ inȱ theȱ midstȱ ofȱ aȱ situaȬ tionȱ atȱ referenceȱ time.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ theseȱ characteristicsȱ doȱ notȱ requireȱ theȱ distanceȱ factorȱ employedȱ byȱ Cook.ȱ Aȱ situationȱ describedȱ usingȱ aȱ yiqtolȱ formȱ mayȱ beȱ perceivedȱ asȱ eitherȱ closeȱ upȱ orȱ farȱ awayȱ fromȱtheȱperceiver;ȱ beingȱ fluid,ȱitȱsimplyȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱ endpoints.ȱSiȬ milarly,ȱaȱsituationȱdescribedȱusingȱaȱqatalȱformȱmayȱalsoȱbeȱperceivedȱ asȱeitherȱcloseȱupȱorȱfarȱawayȱfromȱtheȱperceiver;ȱbeingȱsolid,ȱitȱsimplyȱ isȱaȱboundedȱwhole.ȱȱ Fourȱ additionalȱ propertiesȱ relateȱ toȱ sentenceȱ levelȱ verbalȱ forms.ȱ Theseȱareȱshape,ȱcountability,ȱstreamabilityȱandȱconvertibility.92ȱ 1.

Shape:ȱAȱdiscreteȱsolidȱobjectȱcanȱhaveȱvariousȱshapesȱandȱcanȱbeȱperȬ ceivedȱasȱthinȱstableȱslices,ȱsoȱperfectiveȱsituationsȱ(wayyiqtol,ȱqatal)ȱcanȱ haveȱvariousȱdurations.ȱTheyȱmayȱalsoȱbeȱpunctiliar.ȱFluidȱsubstancesȱ doȱnotȱexhibitȱshape,ȱalthoughȱtheyȱdoȱhaveȱthickness,ȱsoȱimperfectiveȱ situationsȱ(yiqtol,ȱparticiple)ȱmustȱhaveȱsomeȱdurationȱandȱcanȱextendȱ indefinitely.ȱ

2.

Countability:ȱ Discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ areȱ countable,ȱ whileȱ fluidȱ subȬ stancesȱ areȱ uncountableȱ massesȱ thatȱ canȱ fillȱaȱ space,ȱ soȱ imperfectivesȱ (yiqtol,ȱ participle)ȱ occurȱ withȱ indefiniteȱ timeȱ reference,ȱ orȱ withȱ referȬ encesȱthatȱformȱboundaries.ȱ

3.

Streamability:ȱ Discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ doȱ notȱ stream,ȱ fluidȱ substancesȱ stream.ȱȱ

4.

Convertibility:ȱ Discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ canȱ convertȱ toȱ substancesȱ whenȱ manyȱareȱviewedȱfromȱaȱdistance,ȱwhileȱfluidȱsubstancesȱcanȱbeȱconȬ vertedȱintoȱsolids.ȱȱ

TheȱfirstȱtwoȱofȱtheseȱfourȱcategoriesȱshowȱsomeȱpromiseȱforȱBHȱverbalȱ aspect,ȱ whileȱ theȱ secondȱ twoȱ areȱ notȱ availableȱ forȱ BHȱ asȱ theyȱ areȱ forȱ Slavicȱaspect.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 91ȱȱ Bhat,ȱTheȱProminenceȱofȱTense,ȱAspect,ȱandȱMood,ȱ46.ȱ 92ȱȱ Janda,ȱ“AȱMetaphorȱinȱSearchȱofȱaȱSourceȱDomain.”ȱ

ȱ

SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBHȱTexts:ȱCognitiveȱAdditionsȱ

5.

99ȱ

InteractionȱofȱMatterȱandȱDiscourseȱStructureȱinȱBHȱ

Theȱ aforementionedȱ inherentȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱ matterȱ areȱ associatedȱ withȱindividualȱforms,ȱwhileȱtheȱfollowingȱfourȱcategoriesȱgiveȱinsightȱ intoȱtheȱinteractionȱofȱmatterȱwithȱdiscourseȱstructure.ȱTheseȱcategoriesȱ functionȱwhenȱtwoȱorȱmoreȱpredicationsȱcombineȱatȱtheȱdiscourseȱlevel.ȱ Atȱ thisȱ point,ȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ wawȱ becomesȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ discussion.ȱ Talstraȱhasȱobservedȱthatȱclausesȱtendȱtoȱformȱhierarchiesȱ basedȱuponȱ variousȱsetsȱofȱclauseȱconnections.ȱDiscourseȱapproaches,ȱsuchȱasȱthoseȱ ofȱLongacreȱandȱNiccacci,ȱalsoȱutiliseȱsomeȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱcharacteriȬ sations.ȱȱ Fourȱ characteristicsȱ interactȱ metaphoricallyȱ withȱ discourseȱ strucȬ ture.ȱTheseȱareȱcompatibility,ȱdynamicity,ȱsalienceȱandȱcontiguity.ȱȱ 1.

Compatibility:ȱDiscreteȱsolidȱobjectsȱcannotȱshareȱspaceȱwithȱotherȱsolȬ ids.ȱThisȱresultsȱinȱsequencingȱofȱperfectivesȱ(wayyiqtol,ȱqatal)ȱwithȱeachȱ otherȱ andȱ withȱ theȱ humanȱ observerȱ (aȱ solid)ȱ inȱ theȱ presentȱ moment.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ fluidȱ substancesȱ canȱ shareȱ spaceȱ withȱ bothȱ subȬ stancesȱ andȱ solids,ȱ soȱ imperfectiveȱ situationsȱ (yiqtol,ȱ participle)ȱ oftenȱ demonstrateȱsimultaneityȱwithȱeachȱother,ȱwithȱtheȱhumanȱobserverȱinȱ theȱpresentȱmomentȱ(particularlyȱparticiples).ȱȱ

Thisȱ featureȱ contributesȱ toȱ Schneider’sȱ bifurcationȱ betweenȱ theȱ solidȱ wayyiqtolȱ forms,ȱ whichȱ predominateȱ inȱ narrativeȱ speech,ȱ andȱ liquidȱ yiqtolȱforms,ȱwhichȱpredominateȱinȱdiscursiveȱspeech.ȱTheȱimperfectiveȱ situationȱenvelopsȱtheȱsolidȱbodyȱofȱtheȱobserver.ȱThusȱfirstȱandȱsecondȱ personȱ speechȱ situationsȱ thatȱ featureȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱutiliseȱmanyȱyiqtolȱforms,ȱwhileȱthirdȱpersonȱnarrationȱdistancesȱ theȱobserverȱandȱutilisesȱmanyȱwayyiqtolȱforms.ȱȱ 2.

Dynamicity:ȱDiscreteȱsolidȱobjectsȱcanȱprovideȱaȱfirmȱpathȱofȱsteppingȱ stones,ȱsoȱperfectivesȱ(wayyiqtol,ȱqatal)ȱareȱdynamicȱandȱmoveȱtheȱnarrȬ ativeȱalong,ȱwhileȱimperfectivesȱ(yiqtol,ȱparticiple)ȱareȱessentiallyȱstaticȱ andȱencourageȱdwellingȱonȱcharacteristicsȱandȱsetting.ȱ

Thisȱ featureȱ accordsȱ withȱ Goldfajn’sȱ relativeȱ timeȱ theory.ȱ Sheȱ states,ȱ “Bothȱ weȬqatalȱ andȱ wayyiqtolȱ verbȱ formsȱ seemȱ toȱ haveȱ theȱ temporalȱ functionȱofȱcontinuity,ȱthatȱis,ȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱadvancingȱtheȱRȱtimesȱinȱ theȱBHȱtext…ȱThereȱisȱaȱcloseȱcorrespondenceȱbetweenȱtheȱspecificȱlocaȬ tionȱ functionȱ andȱ theȱ evidentȱ bounded,ȱ telicȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ situationsȱ describedȱbyȱtheseȱtwoȱverbȱforms.”93ȱ 3.

Salience:ȱ Discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ areȱ perceptuallyȱ salient,ȱ soȱ perfectivesȱ (wayyiqtol,ȱ qatal)ȱ canȱ actȱ asȱ figureȱ orȱ foregroundȱ inȱ narration.ȱ Fluidȱ substancesȱ areȱ perceptuallyȱ diffuseȱ masses,ȱ soȱ imperfectivesȱ (yiqtol,ȱ participle)ȱmightȱactȱasȱground,ȱorȱbackground,ȱinȱnarration.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 93ȱGoldfajn,ȱWordȱOrderȱandȱTimeȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱNarrative,ȱ140.ȱ

100ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

Thisȱ discussionȱ ofȱ salienceȱ isȱ insufficientȱ onȱ twoȱ counts.ȱ First,ȱ asȱ wasȱ observedȱ inȱ theȱ metaphorsȱ forȱ time,ȱ theȱ foregroundȬbackgroundȱ disȬ tinctionȱmayȱexperienceȱaȱreversal.ȱItȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱSchneider’sȱoppoȬ sitionȱ betweenȱ wayyiqtolȱ andȱ yiqtol,ȱ inȱnarrativeȱ andȱ discursiveȱ speechȱ respectively,ȱ reflectsȱ suchȱ aȱ reversal.ȱ Thus,ȱ ifȱ perfectiveȱ formsȱ wereȱ foreȬgroundedȱinȱnarrative,ȱtheyȱwouldȱbeȱbackgroundedȱinȱdiscursiveȱ speech.ȱ Itȱ wouldȱ follow,ȱ then,ȱ thatȱ ifȱ theȱ imperfectivesȱ wereȱ backȬ groundedȱinȱnarrativeȱspeech,ȱtheyȱwouldȱbeȱforeȬgroundedȱinȱdiscurȬ siveȱspeech.ȱThisȱisȱ(slightly)ȱplausible,ȱbutȱsimplistic.ȱSecond,ȱsalienceȱ asȱanȱinformationȱstructureȱcategoryȱisȱaffectedȱnotȱbyȱtheȱverbalȱformȱ alone,ȱ butȱ byȱ theȱ amalgamationȱ ofȱ theȱ specificȱ verbalȱ formȱ andȱ theȱ wordȱorderȱinȱaȱgivenȱclause.ȱTheȱcomplexitiesȱthatȱdevelopȱdueȱtoȱtheȱ interactionȱbetweenȱverbalȱformsȱandȱtheȱbinyanimȱwillȱfollow.ȱ 4.

Contiguity:ȱ Discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ canȱ serveȱ asȱ barriers,ȱ whileȱ fluidȱ substancesȱ canȱ beȱ boundedȱ byȱ solidsȱ orȱ mixedȱ withȱ otherȱ substancesȱ (notȱapplicableȱforȱBH).ȱȱ

Whileȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ aspectȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ doesȱ notȱ solveȱ theȱ problemsȱ ofȱ theȱ BHȱ verbalȱ system,ȱitȱdoesȱprovideȱsomeȱnewȱvocabularyȱforȱdiscussingȱtheȱverbalȱ formsȱatȱbothȱtheȱsentenceȱandȱdiscourseȱlevels.ȱ Threeȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱmatterȱ(edges;ȱ homogeneityȱ versusȱ heteroȬ geneity;ȱ andȱ penetrability)ȱ areȱ alreadyȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ definitionȱ ofȱ aspectȱandȱareȱapplicableȱtoȱBHȱpredications.ȱTwoȱadditionalȱqualitiesȱ (shapeȱ andȱ countability)ȱ showȱ someȱ promiseȱ andȱ suggestȱ anȱ areaȱ ofȱ furtherȱ research.ȱ Discourseȱ levelȱ discussionȱ ofȱ aspectȱ fromȱ theȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ demonstratesȱ aȱ mixedȱ result.ȱ BHȱ scholarsȱ discussȱ theȱ categoriesȱ ofȱ compatibility,ȱ dynamicityȱ andȱ salienceȱ inȱ aȱ limitedȱ way.ȱ Compatibilityȱ andȱ dynamicityȱ haveȱ provenȱ toȱ beȱ usefulȱ categoriesȱ forȱ discussingȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ verbȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ discourse.ȱ Thisȱ metaphorȱ doesȱ notȱ sufficientlyȱ describeȱ saliency,ȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ foregroundȬbackgroundȱdistinction.ȱ Theȱ primaryȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ perfectiveȱ andȱ imperfectiveȱ aspecȬ tualȱcategoriesȱisȱsyntaxȱbasedȱandȱtheȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱconceptualȱmetaȬ phorȱ providesȱ aȱ richȱ setȱ ofȱ conceptsȱ forȱ understandingȱ theȱ temporalȱ contoursȱ ofȱ theȱ verbalȱ formsȱ inȱ BHȱ sentencesȱ andȱ discourse.ȱ Thisȱ disȬ tinctionȱ providesȱ aȱ certainȱ amountȱ ofȱ structuralȱ information,ȱ butȱ doesȱ notȱ takeȱ intoȱ accountȱ theȱ entireȱ rangeȱ ofȱ informationȱ indicatedȱ byȱ theȱ verbalȱ formsȱ inȱ aȱ particularȱ communicationȱ event,ȱ whereȱ eachȱ verbalȱ formȱisȱmarkedȱforȱviewpointȱaspectȱ(perfective,ȱimperfective,ȱprogresȬ sive),ȱforȱparticipantȱreferenceȱ(person/gender/number)ȱandȱforȱfeaturesȱ thatȱdelineateȱsituationȱaspectȱ(dynamicity,ȱvoice,ȱtransitivityȱandȱcauȬ

ȱ

ReturningȱtoȱtheȱMargins:ȱTheȱBinyanȱSystemȱ

101ȱ

sality).ȱSituationȱaspectȱisȱaȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱbinyanȱsystem,ȱthusȱitȱisȱtimeȱ toȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱmargins.ȱ

E. ReturningȱtoȱtheȱMargins:ȱTheȱBinyanȱSystemȱ TDȱisȱaȱcognitivelyȱbasedȱapproachȱtoȱtext,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱauthor/speakerȱ andȱ theȱ readerȱ areȱ engagedȱ inȱ aȱ cooperative,ȱ constructiveȱ process.ȱ Inȱ hisȱdiscussionȱofȱcentralityȱandȱpredication,ȱPremperȱproposesȱthatȱtheȱ decisionȱasȱtoȱwhatȱisȱcentralȱinȱaȱgivenȱpredicationȱdependsȱuponȱtheȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ speaker.ȱ Theȱ speakerȱ decidesȱ uponȱ whatȱ heȱ orȱ sheȱ mayȱleaveȱoutȱwhenȱexpressingȱaȱsituationȱ(valence);ȱwhatȱperspectiveȱ orȱorientationȱheȱorȱsheȱgivesȱtoȱtheȱexpressionȱofȱtheȱsituationȱ(pointȱofȱ view);ȱtheȱoptionȱofȱinducingȱvalenceȱchangeȱbyȱshiftingȱvoice;ȱandȱtheȱ choiceȱ ofȱ selectingȱ aȱ predicate.94ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ aȱ givenȱ predicationȱ isȱ aȱ partialȱ representationȱ ofȱ aȱ givenȱ situation,ȱ andȱ theȱ speaker’sȱ choicesȱ provideȱ theȱ hearer/readerȱ withȱ informationȱ forȱ reconstructingȱ theȱ reȬ presentation.ȱȱ BHȱverbsȱareȱhighlyȱmarkedȱandȱtheȱchoiceȱofȱaȱparticularȱBHȱverȬ balȱ formȱ contributesȱ threeȱ importantȱ typesȱ ofȱ information:ȱ viewpointȱ aspectȱ (perfective,ȱ imperfective,ȱ progressive),ȱ participantȱ referenceȱ (perȬ son/gender/number)ȱ andȱ situationȱ aspectȱ (dynamicity,ȱ voice,ȱ transitivityȱ andȱ causality).ȱ Traditionalȱ categoriesȱ areȱ reviewedȱ belowȱ andȱ theȱ folȬ lowingȱ sectionȱ willȱ introduceȱ conceptualȱ integrationȱ asȱ aȱ productiveȱ meansȱforȱelaboratingȱuponȱtheȱlinguisticȱcategoriesȱofȱsituation,ȱtransiȬ tivityȱandȱvoiceȱ(seeȱsectionȱ5.2,ȱbelow).ȱȱ

1. TraditionalȱCategoriesȱ ArnoldȱandȱChoi,ȱcitingȱWaltkeȱandȱO’ConnorȱandȱassistedȱbyȱLawsonȱ Stone,ȱhaveȱproducedȱanȱexpandedȱstemȱchart,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱusefulȱstartȬ ingȱ placeȱ forȱ discussingȱ theȱ binyanȱ system.95ȱ Theȱ contentsȱ ofȱ theȱ chartȱ appearȱonȱtwoȱaxes:ȱtheȱaxisȱofȱvoice,ȱpresentedȱvertically;ȱandȱtheȱaxisȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 94ȱȱ Premper,ȱ“UniversalsȱofȱtheȱLinguisticȱRepresentationȱofȱSituations,”ȱ480.ȱ 95ȱȱ ArnoldȱandȱChoi,ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax,ȱ194.ȱRecentȱtechnicalȱstudiesȱ inȱ theȱareaȱofȱtheȱBHȱbinyanȱsystemȱincludeȱErnstȱJenni,ȱDasȱHebräischeȱPiȇel:ȱSyntaktischȬ Semasiologischeȱ Untersuchungȱ Einerȱ Verbalformȱ Imȱ Altenȱ Testamentȱ (Zürich:ȱ EVZȬ Verlag,ȱ1968);ȱP.ȱA.ȱSiebsma,ȱTheȱFunctionȱofȱtheȱNiphȇalȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ(Assen,ȱNL:ȱ VanȱGorcum,ȱ1991);ȱArianȱJ.ȱC.ȱVerheij,ȱBits,ȱBytes,ȱandȱBinyanim:ȱAȱQuantitativeȱStudyȱ ofȱ Verbalȱ Lexemeȱ Formationsȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,ȱ Orientaliaȱ Lovaniensiaȱ Analecta;ȱ 93ȱ (Leuven:ȱPeeters;ȱDepartementȱOosterseȱStudies,ȱ2000).ȱ

102ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

ofȱ causation,ȱ presentedȱ horizontally.ȱ Theȱ axisȱ ofȱ voiceȱ comprisesȱ threeȱ mainȱsections:ȱactive,ȱpassiveȱandȱmiddle.ȱTheȱactiveȱvoiceȱcomprisesȱtheȱ stativeȱ andȱ fientiveȱ (dynamic).ȱ Fientiveȱ comprisesȱ intransitiveȱ andȱ transitive.ȱ Theȱ axisȱ ofȱ causationȱ alsoȱ comprisesȱ threeȱ sections:ȱ noȱ causaȬ tionȱ (qal,ȱ niphal);ȱ bringsȱ aboutȱ aȱ stateȱ (piel,ȱ pual,ȱ hithpael);ȱ andȱ causesȱ anȱ actionȱ(hiphil,ȱhophalȱandȱhishtaphal).ȱȱ Withinȱtheȱaxisȱofȱcausation,ȱtheȱfirstȱsection,ȱnoȱcausation,ȱhasȱthreeȱ divisions.ȱ Qalȱ isȱ theȱ activeȱ voiceȱ andȱ niphalȱ isȱ bothȱ theȱ passiveȱ voiceȱ andȱtheȱmiddleȱvoice.ȱTheȱmiddleȱvoiceȱdividesȱintoȱmiddleȱandȱreflexȬ iveȬreciprocal.ȱ Theȱsecondȱsection,ȱbringsȱaboutȱ aȱ state,ȱhasȱ divisionsȱ inȱ theȱ activeȱ voiceȱ betweenȱ factitiveȱ (1ȱ makesȱ 2ȱ beȱ X)ȱ andȱ resultativeȱ (1ȱ makesȱ 2ȱ beȱ XȬed),ȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ transitiveȱ constructions.ȱ Pualȱ isȱ theȱpassiveȱvoice.ȱHithpael,ȱtheȱmiddleȱvoice,ȱisȱreflexiveȬreciprocal.ȱTheȱ thirdȱsection,ȱcausesȱanȱaction,ȱisȱmostȱcomplex.ȱStativeȱhiphilȱformsȱmayȱ beȱtwoȬplaceȱingressiveȱ(1ȱmakesȱ2ȱbecomeȱX),ȱorȱoneȬplaceȱinternalȱ(1ȱ makesȱ selfȱ do/becomeȱ X).ȱ Fientive,ȱ intransitiveȱ constructionsȱ areȱ twoȬ placeȱ causativeȱ (1ȱ makesȱ 2ȱ doȱ X).ȱ Fientiveȱ transitiveȱ constructionsȱ areȱ threeȬplaceȱcausativeȱ(1ȱmakesȱ2ȱdoȱXȱtoȱ3).ȱHophalȱisȱtheȱpassiveȱvoice.ȱ Eachȱ ofȱ theseȱ categoriesȱ representsȱ aȱ basicȱ clauseȱ structureȱ construcȬ tion,ȱ soȱ eachȱ formȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱaȱ certainȱ typeȱ ofȱ eventȱ structure.ȱ Thisȱcontributesȱtoȱtheȱconceptualȱblendingȱprocessȱasȱdescribedȱinȱtheȱ followingȱsection.ȱ

2. CognitiveȱAdditions:ȱConceptualȱBlendingȱ TheȱprecedingȱsectionsȱofȱthisȱchapterȱhaveȱestablishedȱthreeȱpresuppoȬ sitionsȱregardingȱclauseȱlevelȱpredications:ȱ x

Oneȱpredicationȱdesignatesȱoneȱsituation.ȱ

x

Aȱpredicationȱincludesȱbothȱtheȱverbȱandȱassociatedȱentities.ȱ

x

Theȱverbȱisȱcentral,ȱasȱitȱcontrolsȱtheȱnumberȱofȱentitiesȱinvolved.ȱ

Theseȱ presuppositionsȱ formȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ theȱ followingȱ discussion,ȱ whichȱ examinesȱNiliȱ Mandelblit’sȱworkȱonȱtheȱModernȱ Hebrewȱ (MH)ȱ verbalȱsystemȱandȱitsȱimplicationsȱforȱBH.ȱInȱherȱarticleȱ“TheȱGrammatiȬ calȱMarkingȱofȱConceptualȱIntegration”,ȱNiliȱMandelblitȱoffersȱaȱprincipledȱ methodologyȱ forȱ describingȱ theȱ conceptualȱ integrationȱ process.ȱ Thisȱ processȱoccursȱasȱaȱspeakerȱselectsȱtheȱelementsȱofȱaȱconceptualisationȱ thatȱheȱorȱsheȱwishesȱtoȱarticulateȱandȱmapsȱtheseȱontoȱanȱappropriateȱ linguisticȱconstruction.ȱMandelblit’sȱinsightsȱareȱparticularlyȱusefulȱforȱ trackingȱ BHȱ verbalȱ formsȱfromȱaȱ cognitiveȱ perspective.ȱ Herȱ argumentȱ isȱasȱfollows:ȱ

ȱ

ReturningȱtoȱtheȱMargins:ȱTheȱBinyanȱSystemȱ

103ȱ

x

Languagesȱpossessȱbasicȱclauseȱstructureȱconstructions.ȱ

x

Eachȱ constructionȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱ aȱ genericȱ conceptualȱ eventȱ schema.ȱ

x

TheseȱconstructionsȱserveȱasȱintegratingȱframesȱforȱexpressingȱsitȬ uations.ȱ

x

Speakersȱ projectȱ partialȱ informationȱ fromȱ anȱ initialȱ (conceptual)ȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ situationȱ ontoȱ anȱ integrationȱ construction,ȱ therebyȱhighlightingȱsomeȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱeventȱoverȱothers.ȱ

x

Theȱ binyanimȱ provideȱ aȱ grammaticalȱ formalismȱ toȱ markȱ concepȬ tualȱintegrationȱoperations.ȱDifferentȱgrammaticalȱmeaningsȱassoȬ ciatedȱwithȱdifferentȱbinyanim,ȱsuchȱasȱcausative,ȱpassive,ȱmiddleȱ orȱreflexiveȱareȱproducedȱdirectlyȱbyȱtheȱprojectionȱschemes.96ȱ

Theȱ TDȱ clauseȱ analysisȱ allowsȱ accessȱ toȱ clauseȱ levelȱ informationȱ fromȱ MTȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ whichȱ mayȱ beȱ approachedȱ fromȱ theȱ sameȱ conȬ ceptualȱ integrationȱ perspective.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Mandelblit’sȱ argument,ȱ eachȱ clauseȱ representsȱ aȱ novelȱ conceivedȱ eventȱ mappedȱ ontoȱ aȱ basicȱ syntacticȱstructureȱandȱitsȱgenericȱeventȱschema.ȱTheȱauthor/speakerȱhasȱ projectedȱ partialȱ informationȱ fromȱ novelȱ conceptualȱ eventsȱ onȱ toȱ anȱ appropriateȱ construction,ȱ suchȱ asȱ causative,ȱ passive,ȱ middleȱ orȱ reflexȬ ive,ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ assistȱ theȱ readerȱ inȱ reconstructingȱ theȱ originalȱ novelȱ conceivedȱ event.ȱ Significantly,ȱ theȱ syntaxȱ andȱ morphologyȱ ofȱ aȱ givenȱ clauseȱ constructionȱ “…formallyȱ marksȱ theȱ speaker’sȱ subjectiveȱ conȬ strualȱofȱtheȱcommunicatedȱevent.”97ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 96ȱȱ Mandelblit,ȱ“GrammaticalȱMarking,”ȱ197.ȱ 97ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ233.ȱ

104ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

MappingȱConceptualȱIntegrationȱofȱBHȱBinyanimȱ Althoughȱ Mandelblitȱ utilizesȱ biȬscopeȱ blendingȱ diagramsȱ toȱ mapȱ theȱ variablesȱofȱtheȱMHȱclauseȱconstructions,ȱthisȱmethodȱisȱusefulȱforȱsortȬ ingȱandȱmappingȱtheȱvariablesȱofȱtheȱBHȱbinyanimȱasȱwell.98ȱAȱblendingȱ configurationȱconsistsȱofȱtwoȱinputȱspacesȱandȱaȱspaceȱrepresentingȱtheȱ blend.ȱForȱtheȱspeaker,ȱallȱthreeȱspacesȱareȱactiveȱwhenȱaȱgivenȱclauseȱisȱ articulated.ȱ Aȱ clauseȱ inȱ writtenȱ textȱ representsȱ theȱ blendedȱ space,ȱ whichȱactsȱasȱaȱsetȱofȱinstructionsȱthatȱallowȱtheȱreaderȱtoȱrecreateȱtheȱ conceivedȱevent.99ȱTheȱconceptualȱintegrationȱoperationȱforȱrepresentaȬ tionsȱofȱtheȱBHȱclauseȱisȱsimilar.ȱInputȱ1ȱcontainsȱelementsȱofȱtheȱconȬ ceivedȱsituation.ȱInputȱ2ȱcontainsȱtheȱintegratingȱsyntacticȱconstruction.ȱ ElementsȱundergoȱcrossȬspaceȱmapping,ȱwithȱcommonȱelementsȱoccurȬ ringȱinȱtheȱblendedȱspace.ȱȱ TheȱfollowingȱschematicȱdiagramȱrepresentsȱaȱBHȱintransitiveȱconȬ struction.ȱInputȱ1ȱcontainsȱelementsȱofȱtheȱconceptualisation;ȱtheȱsingleȱ starȱrepresentsȱtheȱNP,ȱorȱsubject,ȱwhileȱtheȱdoubleȱstarsȱrepresentȱtheȱ verb.ȱ Emptyȱ boxesȱ representȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ situationȱ thatȱ areȱ notȱ linȬ guisticallyȱcodedȱbutȱareȱpartȱofȱtheȱconceptualisation.ȱȱInputȱ2ȱcontainsȱ theȱelementsȱofȱanȱintransitiveȱconstruction,ȱinȱtheȱtypicalȱwordȱorder:ȱ Verbȱ andȱ Nounȱ Phrase.ȱ CrossȬspaceȱ mappingȱ connectsȱ theȱ singleȱ starȱ withȱtheȱNPȱandȱtheȱdoubleȱstarsȱwithȱV,ȱtheȱverb.ȱTheȱblendedȱspaceȱ mapsȱtheȱelementsȱofȱtheȱconceivedȱeventȱontoȱtheȱintransitiveȱsyntacticȱ structure:ȱVȱ–ȱNP,ȱresultingȱinȱtheȱlinguisticȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱsituaȬ tion.ȱȱ Mandelblitȱ observes,ȱ “…sinceȱ theȱ conceptualȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ conȬ ceivedȱeventȱtoȱbeȱblendedȱisȱtypicallyȱricherȱ(hasȱmoreȱpredicatesȱandȱ argumentsȱthanȱtheȱtargetȱconstruction),ȱthereȱareȱaȱprioriȱaȱlargeȱnumȬ berȱ ofȱ possibleȱ blends,ȱ dependingȱ onȱ whichȱ crossȬspaceȱ mappingȱ isȱ selected.”100ȱ Theȱ schematicȱ diagramȱ presentedȱ belowȱ mapsȱ anȱ autoȬ nomousȱpredicateȱandȱaȱsingleȱargument,ȱsuchȱasȱJackȱateȱquickly.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 98ȱȱ Forȱ aȱ conciseȱ explanationȱ ofȱ theȱdiagrammingȱ methodȱ proposedȱ inȱ thisȱ sectionȱ seeȱ G.ȱ Fauconnierȱ andȱ Markȱ Turner,ȱ “Blendingȱ asȱ aȱ Centralȱ Processȱ ofȱ Grammar,”ȱ inȱ ConceptualȱStructure,ȱDiscourseȱandȱLanguage,ȱed.ȱAdeleȱE.ȱGoldbergȱ(Stanford:ȱCSLI,ȱ 1996),ȱ113Ȭ129.ȱ 99ȱȱ Mandelblit’sȱ diagrammingȱ methodȱ isȱ illuminatingȱ forȱ languageȱ learners,ȱ asȱ itȱ isoȬ latesȱfeaturesȱthatȱtheȱverbalȱformsȱmayȱobscure,ȱ suchȱasȱtheȱmissingȱagentȱinȱaȱniȬ phalȱclause.ȱ 100ȱȱ Mandelblit,ȱ“GrammaticalȱMarking,”ȱ206.ȱ

ȱ

ReturningȱtoȱtheȱMargins:ȱTheȱBinyanȱSystemȱ

105ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ3.1ȱȱȱIntransitiveȱConstructionȱBlendȱ

TheȱdiagramȱbelowȱpresentsȱBHȱconstituentȱorderȱforȱaȱcausedȱmotion,ȱ hiphilȱconstruction.ȱȱ

106ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

Jeremiahȱ 1.10,ȱ VYMNOOJNY][YIJNJ\J]Y[J?[VFSRJ ,ȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱaȱNP’ȱmightȱappearȱasȱanȱobjectȱsuffixȱinȱsuchȱaȱclause.101ȱ ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ3.2ȱȱȱTransitiveȱCausedȱMotionȱBlendȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 101ȱȱ Thisȱ exampleȱ isȱ notȱ strictlyȱ aȱ causedȱ motionȱ construction,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ constructionȱ involvesȱaȱperformativeȱspeechȱactȱthatȱchangesȱJeremiah’sȱstatus.ȱȱ

ȱ

ReturningȱtoȱtheȱMargins:ȱTheȱBinyanȱSystemȱ

107ȱ

TheȱcausalȱeventȱsequenceȱisȱillustratedȱbyȱtheȱEnglishȱsentenceȱRachelȱ sneezedȱ theȱ napkinȱ offȱ theȱ table.ȱ Thisȱ sentenceȱ containsȱ threeȱ principleȱ semanticȱ predicates.ȱ Rachel’sȱ sneezeȱ isȱ theȱ causingȱ predicate,ȱ theȱ napkin’sȱmotionȱoffȱtheȱtableȱisȱtheȱeffectedȱmotionȱpredicateȱandȱtheȱcausȬ alȱ linkȱ isȱ theȱ impliedȱ predicate.102ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ integratingȱ constructionȱ (NP1,ȱV,ȱ NP2ȱPP)ȱ containsȱonlyȱoneȱverbalȱslotȱtoȱexpressȱtheȱsemanticȱ predication,ȱ theȱ speakerȱ mustȱ chooseȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ predicatesȱ fromȱ theȱ causalȱ eventȱ sequenceȱ toȱ mapȱ ontoȱ theȱ verbalȱ slotȱ ofȱ theȱ integratingȱ construction.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱitȱisȱtheȱcausingȱpredicate.ȱInȱaȱsentenceȱsuchȱ asȱ Sheȱ trottedȱ theȱ horseȱ intoȱ theȱ stable,ȱ theȱ effectedȱ motionȱ predicateȱ isȱ mappedȱ ontoȱ theȱ integratingȱ construction.ȱ Finally,ȱ thereȱ areȱ certainȱ verbsȱsuchȱasȱthrew,ȱinȱaȱsentenceȱsuchȱasȱSheȱthrewȱhayȱtoȱtheȱhorse,ȱthatȱ integrateȱtheȱthreeȱpredicates,ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱlexicalȱsemanticsȱofȱtheȱverb.ȱ Thus,ȱwhileȱtheȱsyntacticȱconstructionsȱareȱtheȱsameȱforȱallȱthreeȱofȱtheȱ exampleȱsentences,ȱtheȱunderlyingȱcrossȬspaceȱmappingȱisȱdifferentȱforȱ each.ȱMandelblitȱhasȱisolatedȱthreeȱtypesȱofȱpredicateȱmapping:ȱ x

Theȱcausingȱpredicateȱwithinȱaȱcausalȱevent;ȱ

x

theȱeffectedȱpredicateȱwithinȱanȱeffectedȱevent;ȱȱandȱ

x

theȱautonomousȱpredicate.ȱ

Additionally,ȱthereȱareȱthreeȱtypesȱofȱparticipantȱmapping:ȱ x

Theȱcausalȱagentȱwithinȱaȱcausalȱeventȱȱ(activeȱvoice);ȱ

x

theȱaffectedȱentityȱwithinȱaȱcausalȱeventȱ(passiveȱvoice);ȱandȱ

x

theȱautonomousȱentityȱ(middleȱvoice).ȱ

WhileȱitȱisȱnotȱpracticalȱtoȱmapȱeachȱindividualȱclauseȱinȱMTȱJeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱcreatingȱconceptualȱintegrationȱdiagramsȱforȱselectedȱexamplesȱ wouldȱillustrateȱsomeȱofȱtheȱ“hidden”ȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱBHȱpredications,ȱ suchȱ asȱ whichȱ ofȱ theȱ threeȱ predicatesȱ isȱ mappedȱ byȱ aȱ transitiveȱ form,ȱ andȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ theȱ “absent”ȱ agentȱ inȱ theȱ passiveȱ voiceȱ forms.ȱ Thisȱ wouldȱbeȱanȱeffectiveȱteachingȱtoolȱandȱisȱanȱareaȱforȱfurtherȱresearchȱ andȱdocumentation.ȱ ȱ Conclusionȱ ThisȱinitialȱforayȱintoȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱcognitiveȱgrammarȱandȱlinguisȬ ticsȱ toȱ BHȱ contributesȱ towardȱ understandingȱ BHȱ propheticȱ text.ȱ First,ȱ grammatically,ȱRRGȱprovidesȱadditionalȱmetalanguageȱforȱbridgingȱtheȱ gapȱ betweenȱ traditionalȱ grammaticalȱ descriptionȱ andȱ theȱ freshȱ termiȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 102ȱMandelblit,ȱ“GrammaticalȱMarking,”ȱ202.ȱ

108ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

nologyȱemployedȱ inȱcognitiveȱgrammar.ȱBecauseȱhumanȱperceptionȱisȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ cognitiveȱ grammar,ȱ CGȱ bringsȱ greaterȱ understandingȱ toȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ perspectiveȱ inȱ BHȱ grammar.ȱ Second,ȱ theȱ presentationȱ ofȱ situationsȱ asȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ prototypicalȱ assistsȱ inȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ speechȱ framesȱ thatȱ includeȱ bothȱ humanȱ andȱ divineȱ characters.ȱ Third,ȱ theȱBHȱverbȱhasȱaȱcentralȱroleȱinȱaȱgivenȱsituation.ȱThereȱisȱsignificantȱ debateȱregardingȱwhetherȱtheȱverbȱindicatesȱtenseȱorȱaspect,ȱhowever.ȱ Theȱ TDȱ approachȱ followsȱ Cook’sȱ assessmentȱ thatȱ theȱ verbȱ isȱ aspectȱ prominent.ȱ Fourth,ȱ cognitiveȱ additionsȱ toȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ BHȱ gramȬ mar,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ MOTIONȱ andȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱ conceptualȱ metaȬ phorsȱ provideȱ additionalȱ metalanguageȱ forȱ discussingȱ thisȱ complexȱ issue.ȱ Fifth,ȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱ theoryȱ isȱ aȱ valuableȱ toolȱ forȱ theȱ deȬ scriptionȱ ofȱ BHȱ situationsȱ atȱ theȱ sentenceȱ level.ȱ Cognitiveȱ approachesȱ haveȱmuchȱtoȱofferȱforȱtheȱBHȱtextȱanalystȱandȱinterpreter.ȱ ȱ

4. CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ Dreams,ȱbooks,ȱareȱeachȱaȱworld;ȱ booksȱweȱknow,ȱareȱaȱsubstantialȱworld,ȱbothȱpureȱandȱgood.ȱ ȱ ~ȱWilliamȱWordsworthȱ ȱ AsȱdescribedȱinȱChapterȱ1,ȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱutilisesȱaȱnetworkȱmodelȱtoȱ describeȱ theȱ interactionȱ betweenȱ theȱ author/originatorȱ ofȱ aȱ text,ȱ theȱ writtenȱ textȱ andȱ theȱ reader/hearerȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Theȱ dynamicȱ mappingsȱ proposedȱbyȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱareȱmappingsȱofȱcognitiveȱactivityȱonȱtheȱ partȱofȱtheȱoriginatorȱandȱtheȱreaderȱalike.ȱTheȱmappingȱprocessȱtakesȱ placeȱatȱtheȱcognitiveȱlevel,ȱlevelȱC.ȱ1ȱInȱthisȱvolume,ȱsuchȱmappingsȱareȱ representedȱ byȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ figures,ȱ eachȱ utilisingȱ nestedȱ Chineseȱ boxȱ diagramsȱ toȱ modelȱ theȱ emergentȱ cognitiveȱ network.ȱ Cognitiveȱ conȬ structionȱ involvesȱ opening,ȱ structuringȱ andȱ linkingȱ mentalȱ spaces.ȱ SpaceȬbuildersȱareȱgrammaticalȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱthatȱsetȱupȱnewȱ spaces,ȱ andȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ networkȱ isȱ extendedȱ asȱ theȱ newȱ spacesȱ areȱ structuredȱ andȱ linked.ȱ Informationȱ structure,ȱ framesȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ modelsȱ structureȱ mentalȱ spaces.2ȱ Asȱ discussedȱ inȱ Chapterȱ 2,ȱ informaȬ tionȱstructureȱisȱanȱintegralȱpartȱofȱtheȱTDȱclauseȱanalysis.ȱPerspective,ȱ theȱspaceȬbuildingȱandȱstructuringȱdeviceȱthatȱencompassesȱviewpoint,ȱ deixisȱ andȱ subjectivityȬobjectivityȱ isȱ foundationalȱ forȱ understandingȱ propheticȱtext.ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱexhibitsȱthreeȱmajorȱbreaks,ȱbasedȱuponȱtextȬlevelȱ shiftsȱinȱtextȬtype:3ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

2ȱȱ 3ȱȱ

Accordingȱ toȱ Fauconnier,ȱ constructionsȱ atȱ levelȱ Cȱ areȱ distinctȱ fromȱ theȱ languageȱ structureȱ(theyȱmayȱbeȱimagistic),ȱalthoughȱtheyȱrelateȱlanguageȱstructureȱtoȱtheȱrealȱ world.ȱ Additionally,ȱ suchȱ constructionsȱ areȱpartial,ȱ inȱ thatȱtheyȱareȱ notȱ representaȬ tionsȱ ofȱ modelsȱ ofȱ theȱ world,ȱ orȱ representationsȱ ofȱ possibleȱ worlds.ȱ Rather,ȱ suchȱ structuresȱ areȱ highlyȱ schematicȱ andȱ areȱ subjectȱ toȱ furtherȱ elaboration.ȱ Fauconnier,ȱ Mappings,ȱ36.ȱ Forȱanȱextendedȱlistȱofȱlinguisticȱconstrualȱoperationsȱthatȱincludesȱtheȱworkȱofȱbothȱ LangackerȱandȱLeonardȱTalmy,ȱseeȱCroftȱandȱCruse,ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics,ȱ46.ȱȱ Discernedȱ byȱ VUȱ databaseȱ information,ȱ whichȱ reflectsȱ Schneider’sȱ categoriesȱ meȬ diatedȱbyȱTalstra.ȱ

110ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

A. Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭȱ3.25;ȱȱ

B.

C.

1.

Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.1:ȱNȱwithȱembeddedȱQȱandȱP;ȱ

2.

Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.25:ȱQȱatȱ3.1Ȭ3.5;ȱNȱwithȱembeddedȱQȱandȱPȱ3.6Ȭ3.25;ȱ

Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭȱ4.31;ȱ 1.

Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.9:ȱDȱwithȱembeddedȱQ;ȱȱ

2.

Jeremiahȱ4.10:ȱȱNȱwithȱembeddedȱQ;ȱ

3.

Jeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.31:ȱNȱwithȱembeddedȱD;ȱandȱ

Jeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱQ.ȱ

ȱ SectionȱAȱisȱlargelyȱnarrative,ȱwithȱembeddedȱquotationȱandȱperceptionȱ spaces.ȱ Sectionȱ Bȱ isȱ mainlyȱ discursive,ȱ withȱ embeddedȱ quotationȱ andȱ narrativeȱspaces.ȱSectionȱCȱcomprisesȱquotationȱwithȱembeddedȱquotaȬ tionȱspaces.ȱChapterȱ4ȱinȱthisȱvolumeȱcoversȱexamplesȱfromȱsectionȱA.1,ȱ Chapterȱ5ȱcoversȱexamplesȱfromȱsectionȱA.2,ȱandȱChapterȱ6ȱcoversȱexȬ amplesȱfromȱsectionsȱBȱandȱC.ȱ Thisȱ chapterȱ containsȱ anȱ analysisȱ andȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ aȱ perceptibleȱ cognitiveȱ networkȱ inȱ sectionȱ A.1,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ2.1.ȱ Thisȱ analysisȱ andȱ descriptionȱwillȱfollowȱtheȱpatternȱsetȱinȱChapterȱ2,ȱwhereȱtheȱnetworkȱ modelȱisȱexplainedȱusingȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱasȱaȱsampleȱtext.ȱAsȱinȱthatȱ analysis,ȱ observationsȱ willȱ beȱ madeȱ regardingȱ theȱ syntax,ȱ semanticsȱ andȱpragmaticsȱofȱeachȱsectionȱofȱtextȱ(seeȱsectionsȱA.1ȱandȱB.1,ȱbelow).ȱ Anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ structuringȱ inȱ theȱ textȱ follows,ȱ withȱ specialȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ linguisticȱ construalȱ operationȱ ofȱ perspectiveȱ (seeȱ secȬ tionsȱ A.2ȱ andȱ A.3,ȱ below).ȱ Theȱ examinationȱ ofȱ perspectiveȬinducingȱ spaceȱ buildingȱ termsȱ fromȱ theȱ semanticȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ deixis,ȱ communicaȬ tion,ȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ isȱ anȱ importantȱ aspectȱ ofȱ thisȱ processȱ (seeȱ sectionȱ B.2,ȱ below).ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ interfaceȱ betweenȱ conceptualȱ meȬ taphorȱ andȱ literaryȱ metaphorȱ willȱ beȱ examinedȱ (seeȱ sectionȱ 4B.3,ȱ beȬ low).ȱ ȱ

ȱ

111ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3:ȱEstablishingȱTextȬLevelȱPerspectiveȱ

A. Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3:ȱEstablishingȱTextȬLevelȱPerspectiveȱ 1.

PerspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ

Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ3ȱ hasȱ beenȱ describedȱ asȱ aȱ prologue,ȱ aȱ superscriptionȱ andȱ aȱ rubric.4ȱ Eachȱofȱtheseȱ termsȱ reflectsȱtheȱ introductoryȱnatureȱofȱ theȱ maȬ terial.ȱTheȱtermsȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱthisȱsectionȱareȱalsoȱindicativeȱofȱtheȱ perspectiveȬinducingȱnatureȱofȱtheȱtextȱasȱpresentedȱinȱFigureȱ1,ȱbelow.ȱ Atȱ thisȱ pointȱ inȱ theȱ analysis,ȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ originator,ȱ textȱ andȱreaderȱisȱasȱfollows:ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ4.1ȱȱȱPerspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ

Figureȱ4.1ȱpresentsȱtheȱscopeȱofȱconceptualisationȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3.ȱ TheȱtextȱisȱinȱtheȱonȬstage,ȱobjectiveȱposition.ȱTheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱviewȬ er,ȱ V,ȱ isȱ determinedȱ byȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ consistsȱ ofȱ thirdȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 4ȱȱ

Carrollȱisȱamongȱthoseȱwhoȱdescribeȱthisȱsectionȱasȱaȱprologue,ȱwhileȱMcKaneȱusesȱ theȱ termȱ superscription,ȱ andȱ Meierȱ utilisesȱ theȱ termȱ rubric.ȱ Robertȱ P.ȱ Carroll,ȱ JereȬ miah:ȱ Aȱ Commentary,ȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ Libraryȱ (Philadelphia:ȱ Westminster,ȱ 1986),ȱ 89;ȱ Williamȱ McKane,ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ andȱ Exegeticalȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ Jeremiah,ȱ 2ȱ vols.,ȱ InternaȬ tionalȱCriticalȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱHolyȱScripturesȱofȱtheȱOldȱandȱNewȱTestamentsȱ (Edinburgh:ȱ T.ȱ &ȱ T.ȱ Clark,ȱ 1986),ȱ 1;ȱ Samuelȱ A.ȱ Meier,ȱ Speakingȱ ofȱ Speaking:ȱ Markingȱ DirectȱDiscourseȱinȱtheȱHebrewȱBible,ȱVTȱSupȱ46ȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1992),ȱ21.ȱ

112ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

personȱnarrationȱorȱindirectȱspeechȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱnarrativeȱsentences.ȱ5ȱ Theȱspeaker/narratorȱandȱhearer/readerȱcorrespondȱtoȱVȱinȱtheȱcanoniȬ calȱ viewingȱ arrangement.ȱ Thisȱ simplifiedȱ representationȱ conflatesȱ theȱ sharedȱ gazeȱ ofȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearer,ȱ whichȱ appearsȱ asȱ aȱ singleȱ dashedȱ line.ȱ Asȱ viewers,ȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ areȱ whollyȱ distinctȱ fromȱtheȱobjectȱofȱperception,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱtext.ȱTheȱobjectȱofȱperceptionȱ isȱ sharplyȱ delineatedȱ andȱ “perceivedȱ withȱ fullȱ acuity.”6ȱ Thus,ȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱ theȱ narratorȱ andȱ theȱ readerȱ shareȱ theȱ Vȱ posiȬ tion,ȱandȱtheȱtextȱisȱclearlyȱperceived.7ȱThisȱconfigurationȱofȱcommuniȬ cationȱparticipantsȱandȱtextȱhasȱbeenȱtaggedȱN1.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 5ȱȱ

6ȱȱ 7ȱȱ

Vanȱ Woldeȱ observesȱ thatȱ aȱ narratorȱ mayȱ speakȱ directlyȱ orȱ indirectlyȱ toȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ audience.ȱTwoȱtypesȱofȱsentencesȱresult:ȱdirectȱspeechȱtakesȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱcommenȬ taryȱ sentence,ȱ whereasȱ indirectȱ speechȱ takesȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ aȱ narrativeȱ sentence.ȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱWolde,ȱRuthȱandȱNaomiȱ(London:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱ146.ȱ Langacker,ȱ“DeixisȱandȱSubjectivity,”ȱ15.ȱ Atȱ firstȱ glance,ȱ theȱ TDȱ diagramsȱ resembleȱ Kamp’sȱ cognitivelyȱ oriented,ȱ worldȬ buildingȱdiagram.ȱKampȱpresentsȱaȱdiagramȱofȱtheȱnestedȱworldsȱinȱtheȱbookȱofȱJob.ȱ TheȱOuterȱWorldȱrepresentsȱtheȱrealityȱofȱtheȱreader.ȱWithinȱthis,ȱtheȱdiscourseȱworldȱ representsȱtheȱcontextȱofȱcommunication,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱnarrativeȱworldȱrepresentsȱtheȱ BookȱofȱJob,ȱandȱtheȱembeddedȱdiscourseȱworldȱrepresentsȱJobȱ28,ȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱKamp’sȱ article.ȱKampȱnotesȱthatȱthreeȱtypesȱofȱsubȬworldsȱmightȱbeȱfoundȱwithinȱtheȱembedȬ dedȱdiscourseȱworld.ȱTheseȱareȱbasedȱuponȱbelief,ȱprobabilityȱandȱtemporalȱalteration,ȱ whichȱareȱallȱfeaturesȱthatȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱrecognisesȱasȱspaceȬbuilders.ȱHowever,ȱ Kamp’sȱ worldsȱ areȱ somewhatȱ lessȱ fluidȱ thanȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ spacesȱ proposedȱ byȱ theȱ TDȱapproach,ȱandȱKamp’sȱaccountȱofȱtheȱlinguisticȱspecificsȱthatȱopenȱandȱstructureȱ spacesȱisȱsomewhatȱlimited.ȱKampȱbasesȱhisȱanalysisȱuponȱtheȱworkȱofȱPaulȱWerth.ȱ Werth,ȱinȱturn,ȱbasesȱhisȱworldȬbuildingȱanalysisȱuponȱFauconnier’sȱspaceȬbuildingȱ terms.ȱHowever,ȱWerthȱpopulatesȱhisȱconceptualȱworldsȱbyȱmeansȱofȱPossibleȱWorldsȱ philosophyȱ asȱ understoodȱ byȱ Saulȱ Kripkeȱ andȱ Davidȱ Lewis.ȱ Theȱ TDȱ approachȱ avoidsȱ aȱ closeȱ associationȱ withȱ thisȱ philosophyȱ forȱ twoȱ reasons.ȱ First,ȱ Fauconnierȱ himselfȱ dissociatesȱ hisȱ MSTȱ properȱ fromȱ Possibleȱ Worldsȱ philosophy.ȱ Secondly,ȱ beȬ causeȱ ofȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ MST.ȱ Thisȱ theoryȱ proposesȱ thatȱ humanȱ conceptualisationȱ isȱ similarȱ forȱ aȱ rangeȱ ofȱ communicationȱ processes.ȱ Thus,ȱ Possibleȱ Worldsȱ philosophyȱ mayȱbeȱsaidȱtoȱrepresentȱaȱspecificȱinstantiationȱofȱmentalȱspacesȱconstructionȱthatȱisȱ exceptionallyȱ detailedȱ andȱ operatesȱ withoutȱ explicitȱ referenceȱ toȱ framesȱ andȱ cogniȬ tiveȱmodels.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱbecauseȱmentalȱspacesȱandȱconceptualȱblendingȱareȱ featuresȱofȱhumanȱcommunicationȱthatȱoperateȱonȱmanyȱlevels,ȱtheȱTDȱanalysisȱisȱalȬ soȱaȱspecificȱinstantiationȱofȱtheseȱconceptualȱtheoriesȱbutȱincludesȱexplicitȱreferenceȱ toȱspaceȱstructuringȱfeatures,ȱspecificallyȱwithȱregardȱtoȱframesȱandȱcognitiveȱmodȬ els.ȱSeeȱAlbertȱKamp,ȱ“WorldȱBuildingȱinȱJobȱ28,”ȱinȱJobȱ28:ȱCognitionȱinȱContext,ȱed.ȱ EllenȱVanȱWoldeȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003),ȱ309;ȱWerth,ȱ“HowȱtoȱBuildȱaȱWorldȱ(inȱaȱLotȱ LessȱThanȱSixȱDays,ȱUsingȱOnlyȱWhatȇsȱinȱYourȱHead),”ȱ53.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3:ȱEstablishingȱTextȬLevelȱPerspectiveȱ

113ȱ

Figureȱ4.2ȱȱȱViewingȱArrangementȱN1ȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ

Fromȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ perspective,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ presentsȱ theȱ groundȱ ofȱ theȱ textȬlevelȱ communicationȱ event.8ȱ Inȱ termsȱ ofȱ MST,ȱ thisȱ sectionȱrepresentsȱtheȱbaseȬspace,ȱtheȱspaceȱfromȱwhichȱfurtherȱcognitiveȱ constructionȱ occurs.ȱ Theȱ immediateȱ circumstancesȱ ofȱ theȱ communicaȬ tionȱeventȱareȱindicatedȱbyȱaȱseriesȱofȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱindicatȬ ingȱatemporalȱrelations.ȱSchweizerȱusesȱtheȱtermȱRelationswörterȱtoȱdeȬ scribeȱ theȱ trajectorȱ termsȱ forȱ thisȱ setȱ ofȱ atemporalȱ relationsȱ (seeȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ definitionsȱ inȱ chapterȱ 3,ȱ sectionȱ A.2).ȱ Heȱ includesȱ prepositionsȱ andȱ theȱ relativeȱ particleȱ withinȱ thisȱ groupȱ ofȱ BHȱ terms.9ȱ Theȱatemporalȱrelationshipsȱindicatedȱbyȱtheseȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱ delineateȱsocial,ȱlocativeȱandȱtemporalȱcoordinatesȱforȱestablishingȱtheȱ baseȬspaceȱ inȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ networkȱ thatȱ extendsȱ throughoutȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ MTȱJeremiah.ȱInȱtheȱfollowingȱclauseȱanalysisȱdiagram,ȱboxesȱsurroundȱ theȱrelationalȱterms.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 8ȱȱ

9ȱȱ

Forȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ howȱ deicticȱ expressionsȱ invokeȱ alternateȱ groundsȱ inȱ speechȱ situationsȱseeȱJoȱRubba,ȱ“AlternateȱGroundsȱinȱtheȱInterpretationȱofȱDeicticȱExpresȬ sions,”ȱinȱSpaces,ȱWorlds,ȱandȱGrammar,ȱedsȱG.ȱFauconnierȱandȱE.ȱSweetserȱ(Chicago:ȱ UCP,ȱ1996),ȱ227Ȭ261.ȱ Schweizer,ȱ Metaphorischeȱ Grammatik:ȱ Wegeȱ zurȱ Integrationȱ vonȱ Grammatikȱ undȱ TextinterpretationȱinȱderȱExegese,ȱ236Ȭ237.ȱ

114ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

][oP$JQ.CJ_KO8JŽȱ

theȱloveȱrelationshipȱ

theȱjourneyȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

eventsȱinȱtheȱrelationshipȱ

theȱdistanceȱcoveredȱ ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

theȱprogressȱmadeȱ

theȱobstaclesȱencounteredȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

difficultiesȱexperiencedȱ

decisionsȱaboutȱdirectionȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

choicesȱaboutȱwhatȱtoȱdoȱ

theȱdestinationȱofȱtheȱjourneyȱ ȱ

>ȱ

goalȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.2dȬgȱincludesȱtheȱloversȱasȱtravellersȱandȱtheȱinitialȱstageȱofȱ travelȱinȱtheȱwildernessȱasȱtheȱjourney,ȱwhichȱmayȱalludeȱtoȱtheȱExodusȱ period.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱmentionȱofȱeventsȱinȱtheȱrelationship,ȱprogress,ȱdifȬ ficulties,ȱchoicesȱorȱgoal;ȱonlyȱtheȱfirstȱflushȱofȱmarriedȱlove.ȱHowever,ȱ theȱ journeyȱ metaphorȱ isȱ wellȱ entrenchedȱ asȱ frameȱ knowledge,ȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ pathȱ schema.ȱ Theȱ pathȱ schemaȱ involvesȱ physicalȱ orȱ metaȬ phoricalȱmovementȱfromȱplaceȱtoȱplaceȱandȱnormallyȱcomprisesȱaȱstartȬ ingȱpoint,ȱaȱgoalȱandȱintermediateȱpoints.29ȱThus,ȱaȱmentionȱofȱaȱsingleȱ partȱofȱtheȱjourneyȱwillȱactivateȱtheȱentireȱframe.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱinitialȱ phaseȱ ofȱ theȱ journeyȱ isȱ inȱ view,ȱ settingȱ upȱ anȱ expectationȱ thatȱ theȱ reȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 28ȱȱ Kövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ6Ȭ7.ȱ 29ȱȱ Johnson,ȱ Theȱ Bodyȱ inȱ theȱ Mind:ȱ Theȱ Bodilyȱ Basisȱ ofȱ Meaning,ȱ Imagination,ȱ andȱ Reason,ȱ 115.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3:ȱTransitionȱtoȱComplexȱSpeakerȱ

165ȱ

mainderȱofȱtheȱjourneyȱisȱtoȱfollow.ȱTheȱjourneyȱfromȱEgyptȱtoȱCanaanȱ isȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱpathȱschemaȱthatȱrecursȱwhenȱrecountingȱtheȱ eventsȱinȱtheȱlifeȱofȱtheȱnation,ȱIsrael.ȱThisȱisȱoftenȱpairedȱwithȱtheȱideaȱ thatȱ beingȱ inȱ orȱ outȱ ofȱ Canaanȱ isȱ aȱ measureȱ ofȱ God’sȱ approvalȱ ofȱ hisȱ people,ȱwhichȱisȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱcontainmentȱschema.ȱTheseȱtwoȱ schemataȱactȱasȱcovertȱunifyingȱdevices,ȱbothȱinȱtheirȱoriginalȱcontextsȱ andȱinȱtheȱcontextsȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱlaterȱappear.ȱ b. FirstȱFruitsȱ Jeremiahȱ2.3ȱpresentsȱIsraelȱasȱtheȱfirstȱfruitsȱofȱtheȱharvestȱofȱYahweh.ȱ Again,ȱtheȱoriginatorȱcompressesȱaȱtremendousȱamountȱofȱinformationȱ intoȱaȱfewȱshortȱcomments.ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.3ȱ JYJ[NN T[FS JV YDVV[ T YO [Y[NM NM ]J[N  DVJTȱ

Firstȱ Fruitsȱ isȱ aȱ blendedȱ space,ȱ comprisingȱ theȱ sourceȱ andȱ targetȱ doȬ mainsȱofȱthreeȱconceptualȱmetaphors:ȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERSON;ȱ PEOPLEȱ AREȱ PLANTS;ȱandȱ SOCIALȱ ORGANISATIONSȱ AREȱ PLANTS.30ȱIsraelȱappearsȱinȱtheȱ singular,ȱagainȱscopingȱtheȱentireȱsocietyȱtoȱhumanȱscaleȱviaȱtheȱ SOCIEȬ TYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERSONȱ metaphor.ȱ Onceȱ thisȱ moveȱ isȱ accomplished,ȱ Israelȱ mayȱ beȱ mappedȱ asȱ aȱ personȱ withinȱ theȱ targetȱ domainȱ inȱ theȱ PEOPLEȱ AREȱ PLANTSȱmetaphor.ȱTheȱcharacteristicsȱofȱplantsȱareȱthenȱavailableȱasȱtheȱ sourceȱdomainȱforȱunderstandingȱhumans.ȱTheȱsourceȱdomainsȱinȱeachȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ twoȱ metaphorsȱ eachȱ utiliseȱ anȱ entityȱ thatȱ isȱ aȱ singleȱ stepȱ lowerȱonȱtheȱExtendedȱGreatȱChainȱthanȱtheȱentityȱutilisedȱinȱtheȱtargetȱ domain.ȱ Theȱ thirdȱ metaphor,ȱ SOCIALȱ ORGANISATIONSȱ AREȱ PLANTS,ȱ usesȱ anȱ entityȱ inȱ theȱ sourceȱ domainȱ (plants)ȱ thatȱ isȱ twoȱ stepsȱ lowerȱ thanȱ theȱ entityȱ inȱ theȱ targetȱ domainȱ (society).ȱ ȱ Basicȱ mappingsȱ forȱ theȱ SOCIALȱ ORGANISATIONSȱAREȱPLANTSȱmetaphorȱare:ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 30ȱȱ ForȱaȱfullȱdiscussionȱseeȱKövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ8Ȭ9.ȱ

166ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

Source:ȱplantȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Target:ȱsocialȱorganisationsȱ

Theȱwholeȱplantȱ

ȱ

ȱ

>ȱȱ

theȱentireȱorganisationȱ

Aȱpartȱofȱtheȱplantȱ

ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

aȱpartȱofȱtheȱorganisationȱ

Growthȱofȱtheȱplantȱ ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

growthȱofȱorganisationȱ

Removingȱaȱpartȱofȱtheȱplantȱ ȱ

>ȱ

reducingȱorganisationȱ

Theȱrootȱofȱtheȱplantȱ ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

originȱofȱtheȱorganisationȱ

Theȱfloweringȱ

ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

theȱmostȱsuccessfulȱstageȱ

Theȱfruitsȱorȱcropsȱ

ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

beneficialȱconsequencesȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.3ȱintroducesȱonlyȱtheȱideaȱofȱtheȱfirstȱfruits,ȱtheȱfruitȱorȱcropsȱ thatȱmapȱtoȱtheȱbeneficialȱconsequences.ȱIsraelȱwasȱholyȱandȱsetȱapart,ȱandȱ dueȱ toȱ thisȱ relationship,ȱ Israelȱ enjoyedȱ theȱ protectionȱ ofȱ Yahweh.ȱ Theȱ conceptualȱ metaphorsȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ Brideȱ andȱ theȱ Firstȱ Fruitsȱ blendsȱ recurȱ throughoutȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.1Ȭ6.30ȱ andȱ provideȱ theȱ conceptualȱ backȬ dropȱforȱmuchȱofȱthisȱsectionȱofȱtext.ȱTheȱconceptualȱbackdropȱhasȱbeenȱ setȱforȱwhatȱfollows,ȱandȱwhatȱfollowsȱisȱaȱcontrast,ȱindeed.ȱTheȱsameȱ pairȱofȱmetaphorsȱrecursȱatȱ2.20Ȭ2.21,ȱbutȱfromȱaȱveryȱnegativeȱperspecȬ tive:ȱ theȱ brideȱ hasȱ becomeȱ aȱ looseȱ woman,ȱ andȱ theȱ choiceȱ vineȱ whichȱ Yahwehȱ hadȱ plantedȱ hasȱ becomeȱ wild.ȱ Otherȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱ settledȱ nationȱ asȱ aȱ vineȱ occurȱ atȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.10ȱ (feminineȱ reference)ȱ andȱ JereȬ miahȱ6.9ȱ(masculineȱreferenceȱtoȱIsrael)ȱ31ȱ

5.

TheȱAddresseesȱandȱtheȱProblemȱofȱIdentityȱ

Oneȱissueȱtoȱbeȱresolvedȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱaddresseesȱisȱtheȱproblemȱ ofȱidentityȱ(seeȱfullȱdiscussionȱonȱpageȱ178).ȱWhileȱtheȱMTȱisȱfairlyȱclearȱ thatȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱ toȱ addressȱ Jerusalem,ȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ referencesȱ toȱ Israelȱ andȱ Jacobȱ hasȱ causedȱ someȱ toȱ positȱ thatȱ Jeremiah’sȱ earliestȱ preachingȱ includedȱ addressesȱ toȱ theȱ North.32ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ Albertzȱ notesȱ thatȱ termsȱ referringȱ toȱ Israel,ȱ theȱ Houseȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ andȱtheȱHouseȱofȱJacobȱareȱprevalentȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ4.2,ȱwhereasȱtermsȱ referringȱ toȱ Jerusalem,ȱ Zion,ȱ theȱ Daughterȱ ofȱ Zion,ȱ Judahȱ andȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 31ȱȱ Robertȱ Carrollȱ observesȱ thatȱ theȱ forceȱ ofȱ theȱ imagesȱ inȱ thisȱ section,ȱ includingȱ theȱ imagesȱofȱloyalty,ȱlove,ȱfruitfulnessȱandȱprotection,ȱisȱderivedȱfromȱtheȱcontrastȱwithȱ theȱfollowingȱmaterial,ȱwhichȱincludesȱreferencesȱtoȱdisloyalty,ȱmisplacedȱlove,ȱfruitȬ lessnessȱandȱlackȱofȱprotection.ȱCarroll,ȱJeremiah:ȱAȱCommentary,ȱ119.ȱ 32ȱȱ ThisȱsituationȱalsoȱmilitatesȱagainstȱutilisingȱtheȱcomputationȱofȱcumulativeȱreferenȬ tialȱdensityȱtoolȱthatȱwasȱsoȱeffectiveȱinȱanalysingȱtheȱfrequencyȱandȱdistributionȱofȱ entitiesȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2ȱ(seeȱFigureȱ4.8).ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ

167ȱ

Houseȱ ofȱ Judahȱ areȱ prevalentȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.3Ȭ6.30.ȱ Regardingȱ thisȱ division,ȱAlbertzȱstates:ȱ Nurȱ dieȱ Teilsammlungȱ 2.4Ȭ4.2ȱ (ohneȱ 3.6Ȭ18)ȱ gehörtȱ dieȱ Frühzeitȱ Jeremiasȱ (627Ȭ609)ȱ an.ȱ Esȱ handeltȱ sichȱ umȱ UnheilsȬȱ undȱ Heilsprophetieȱ anȱ dieȱ Bewohnerȱ desȱ ehemaligenȱ Nordreichs...4.3Ȭ6.30ȱ isȱ eineȱ Sammlungȱ vonȱ Unheilswortenȱ gegenȱ Judaȱ anȱ derȱ Zeitȱ nachȱ 609,ȱ wahrscheinlichȱ bisȱ zurȱ AufzeichnungȱderȱUrrolleȱ605/4.33ȱ

Albertzȱconcludesȱthatȱthisȱdivisionȱresolvesȱaȱseriesȱofȱterminological,ȱ functionalȱandȱchronologicalȱproblemsȱinȱJeremiahȱ2Ȭ6.ȱGivenȱtheȱcomȬ positeȱnatureȱofȱtheȱbookȱofȱJeremiah,ȱitȱisȱentirelyȱpossibleȱthatȱtheȱtwoȱ sectionsȱ representȱ earlyȱ disasterȱ andȱ salvationȱ preachingȱ toȱ formerȱ inhabitantsȱofȱtheȱNorthȱ thatȱwasȱrepeatedȱtoȱtheȱinhabitantsȱofȱJudahȱ later.ȱȱ However,ȱgivenȱtheȱpreviousȱdiscussionȱofȱperspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ 2.1ff,ȱitȱbecomesȱapparentȱthatȱinȱtheȱfinalȱformȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱbothȱsectionsȱ ofȱmaterialȱfunctionȱasȱtheȱwordsȱofȱtheȱcomplexȱspeakerȱtoȱJerusalem,ȱ whoȱ appearsȱ asȱ theȱ addresseeȱ inȱ 2.2a.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ sectionȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ belongsȱ toȱ Yahweh.ȱ Thus,ȱ whileȱ itȱ isȱ entirelyȱ possibleȱ thatȱ Jeremiahȱ mayȱ haveȱ addressedȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ remnantȱ ofȱ theȱ Northernȱ Kingdom,ȱ theȱtextȬspaceȱofȱtheȱMTȱsupportsȱJerusalemȱasȱtheȱmainȱaddressee.ȱTheȱ issueȱ ofȱ addresseeȱ identityȱ playsȱ anȱ importantȱ roleȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ discussion.ȱ

C. Jeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ 1. ScopingȱfromȱHumanȱScaleȱ Whileȱ theȱ examplesȱdiscussedȱaboveȱpresentedȱspeechȱframesȱ andȱ conceptualȱmetaphorsȱthatȱinvolveȱscopingȱtoȱhumanȱscale,ȱtheȱvirtualȱ visualȱ scanningȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.10ȱ providesȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ scopingȱ fromȱ humanȱ scale.ȱ Scopingȱ fromȱ humanȱ scaleȱ requiresȱ bothȱ aȱ localisedȱ huȬ manȱ experiencerȱ asȱ anȱ anchorȱ pointȱ andȱ identifiableȱ pointsȱ alongȱ aȱ physicalȱ and/orȱ metaphoricalȱ trajectory.ȱ Inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.10,ȱ establishingȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱlocalisedȱhumanȱexperiencerȱisȱofȱprimaȬ ryȱimportance.ȱTheȱreferencesȱtoȱCyprusȱandȱKedarȱmayȱbeȱcalculatedȱ accuratelyȱ onlyȱ whenȱ thisȱ isȱ understood.ȱ Again,ȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ perspective.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ identifyȱ theȱ localisedȱ humanȱ experiencerȱ inȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 33ȱȱ Rainerȱ Albertz,ȱ „Jer.ȱ 2Ȭ6ȱ undȱ dieȱ Frühzeitverkündigungȱ Jeremias,“ȱ ZAWȱ 94ȱ (1982),ȱ 47.ȱ

168ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

Jeremiahȱ 2.10,ȱ itȱ firstȱ isȱ necessaryȱ toȱ accountȱ forȱ participantȱ referenceȱ andȱperspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9.ȱ Theȱ terminologicalȱ difficultiesȱ mentionedȱ inȱ sectionȱ B.5ȱ aboveȱ areȱ evidentȱ inȱ theȱ phraseȱ N T[V[DVYZRONMYDS[V[DJYJ[TDFYO ,ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.4,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱtermȱ JYJ[TDFȱlinksȱtheȱpresentȱspaceȱtoȱJeȬ remiahȱ1.2a.ȱTwoȱquestionsȱnowȱarise.ȱFirst,ȱtoȱwhomȱdoesȱtheȱperspecȬ tiveȱinȱthisȱclauseȱbelong?ȱSecond,ȱhowȱareȱtheȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱhouseȱ ofȱJacobȱandȱtheȱhouseȱofȱIsraelȱtoȱbeȱreconciledȱwithȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱ addresseeȱasȱJerusalemȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.2a?ȱSinceȱthisȱsectionȱisȱaȱcontinuȬ ationȱ ofȱ N3,ȱ examiningȱ theȱ configurationȱ ofȱ participantsȱ inȱ theȱ mentalȱ spacesȱ constructionȱ taggedȱ N3ȱ clarifiesȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ perspectiveȱ withinȱ theȱ clause.ȱ Participantsȱ inȱ N3ȱ includeȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Yahwehasȱ comȬ plexȬspeakerȱ andȱ Jerusalemȱ asȱ addresseeȱ (seeȱ Figureȱ 5.1).ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ sectionȱisȱalsoȱatȱtheȱNQQȱlevelȱofȱembedding,ȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱaccountȱ forȱ theȱ verbȱ YOȱ asȱ aȱ shiftȱ inȱ perspectiveȱ forȱ theȱ complexȱ speaker.ȱ Withinȱ theȱ previousȱ section,ȱ theȱ explicitȱ perspectiveȱ belongsȱ toȱ YahȬ weh,ȱ whileȱ inȱ theȱ presentȱ sectionȱ theȱ implicitȱ perspectiveȱ belongsȱ toȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Likewise,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ argumentȱ above,ȱ whenȱ readingȱ theȱ textȱ inȱ itsȱ presentȱ formȱ theȱ addresseeȱ isȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Jeremiahȱ adȬ dressesȱtheȱpeopleȱdirectlyȱinȱthisȱinstance,ȱsoȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱconstrueȱ theȱ situationȱ asȱ moreȱ iconic.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ becauseȱ theȱ individuatedȱ addresȬ seesȱandȱ Jeremiahȱappearȱwithinȱaȱ humanȱscaleȱsituationȱ ofȱ speaking.ȱ (However,ȱ sinceȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ complexȱ speakerȱ involved,ȱ theȱ situationȱ isȱ notȱatȱtheȱfarȱendȱofȱtheȱscale.)ȱ Aȱ secondȱ featureȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.4Ȭ2.9ȱ alsoȱ dependsȱ uponȱ theȱ locaȬ lisedȱ humanȱ experiencerȱ asȱ anȱ anchorȱ point,ȱ thisȱ timeȱ asȱ anȱ anchorȱ pointȱ alongȱaȱtimeȱ scale.ȱ Theȱ timeȱ scaleȱisȱ anȱinstantiationȱofȱ theȱ pathȱ schema,ȱwhichȱincludesȱaȱpathȱandȱpointsȱalongȱtheȱpath.ȱTheȱearliestȱ pointȱ onȱ theȱ timeȱ scaleȱ isȱJeremiahȱ 2.5b,ȱ NY[D]M[VYD Y EOJO.ȱ Thisȱ rhetoricalȱ questionȱ isȱ significantȱ onȱ severalȱ counts.ȱ Linguistically,ȱ itȱ makesȱtheȱsubjectȱyourȱfathersȱdiscourseȬactiveȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱsectionȱ ofȱ text.ȱ Itȱ doesȱ soȱ byȱ anchoringȱ theȱ termȱfathersȱtoȱtheȱ presentȱ addresȬ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ

169ȱ

seesȱbyȱtheȱm/pȱsuffixȱattachedȱtoȱtheȱnoun.34ȱStylistically,ȱitȱisȱtheȱfirstȱ inȱaȱseriesȱofȱrhetoricalȱquestionsȱthatȱactȱasȱaȱunifyingȱfeatureȱforȱJereȬ miahȱ 2.4Ȭ16.35ȱ Theologically,ȱ theȱ expectedȱ answerȱ isȱ “nothing,”ȱ whichȱ impliesȱthatȱYahwehȱhadȱnotȱgivenȱtheȱancestorsȱanyȱreasonȱtoȱdistanceȱ themselves,ȱnorȱtoȱrunȱafterȱworthlessȱthings.ȱYahwehȱdeclaresȱhimselfȱ blameless.ȱTheȱtimeȱscaleȱmovesȱfromȱpastȱtoȱpresentȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.7a,ȱ NOTMJLT N ]MV  [D Y ,ȱwhereȱtheȱ2/plȱaddresseesȱareȱtheȱobjectȱofȱ theȱ sentence.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ timeȱ scaleȱ movesȱ fromȱ presentȱ toȱ futureȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.9,ȱ whereȱ Yahwehȱ statesȱ hisȱ intentionȱ toȱ contendȱ withȱ bothȱ theȱpresentȱaddresseesȱandȱwithȱtheirȱchildren’sȱchildren.ȱ

2. Counterfactualsȱ AȱpairȱofȱunȬaskedȱrhetoricalȱquestionsȱintroducesȱtheȱreasonsȱforȱthisȱ contention.ȱ Theȱ embeddingȱ inȱ theȱ first,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.6a,ȱ JYJ[J[ YTO  NY,ȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ ancestors.ȱ Theȱ embeddingȱ inȱ theȱ second,ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.8a,ȱ JYJ[J[ YTO  N][PJMJ,ȱ belongsȱtoȱtheȱpriests,ȱ whoȱ areȱ aȱ subgroupȱ ofȱ theȱ currentȱ addressees.ȱ Theȱ failureȱ toȱ askȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 34ȱȱ Thisȱ followsȱ theȱ secondȱ ofȱ Langacker’sȱ generalȱ principlesȱ ofȱ structureȱ building,ȱ whichȱinclude:ȱ 1) Theȱbasicȱunitsȱofȱstructureȱbuildingȱareȱrelationshipsȱratherȱthanȱthings;ȱ 2) Whenȱstructureȱisȱadded,ȱitȱisȱusuallyȱanchoredȱtoȱwhatȱhasȱalreadyȱbeenȱ built,ȱbyȱvirtueȱofȱconceptualȱoverlap;ȱ 3) Evenȱwhenȱcovert,ȱtheȱgroundȱisȱtheȱultimateȱanchorȱforȱbuildingȱconȬ nectedȱstructures;ȱandȱ 4) Inȱaȱsequenceȱofȱclauses,ȱtheȱsubjectȱhasȱaȱspecialȱstatusȱasȱaȱpointȱofȱatȬ tachmentȱtoȱwhatȱhasȱalreadyȱbeenȱconstructedȱandȱasȱaȱpointȱofȱaccessȱtoȱ whatȱisȱcurrentlyȱbeingȱconstructed.ȱȱ ȱ Langacker,ȱ“DiscourseȱinȱCognitiveȱGrammar,”ȱ171Ȭ173.ȱ 35ȱȱ Carrollȱviewsȱtheȱseriesȱofȱrhetoricalȱquestionsȱasȱtheȱunifyingȱfeatureȱinȱthisȱsectionȱ ofȱtext.ȱO’Connorȱwidensȱtheȱissueȱofȱunityȱtoȱincludeȱ“…ȱtheȱunifyingȱeffectsȱofȱrootȱ metaphorsȱinȱpoetryȱandȱprose,ȱnarrativeȱdevices,ȱsymbolicȱmeaningsȱofȱeventsȱandȱ dates.”ȱO’ConnorȱquotesȱBiddle,ȱwhoȱnotesȱthatȱunityȱcomesȱfromȱtheȱdominanceȱofȱ theȱdivineȱvoiceȱacrossȱtheȱbookȱandȱfromȱtheȱcentralȱroleȱgivenȱtoȱJeremiah.ȱTheseȱ viewsȱareȱcompatibleȱwithȱtheȱTDȱapproach.ȱAsȱpreviouslyȱexplained,ȱtheȱconcernȱofȱ thisȱvolumeȱisȱtoȱgainȱanȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱtextȱofȱMTȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱthroughȱ aȱcognitivelyȱbasedȱtextȱanalysis.ȱThisȱanalysisȱincludesȱanȱexpandedȱdescriptionȱofȱ theȱliteraryȱmetaphorsȱfoundȱinȱtheȱbookȱbyȱincludingȱanȱexplanationȱofȱliteraryȱmeȬ taphorȱasȱaȱconceptualȱblendingȱprocessȱthatȱincorporatesȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱwithȱ knowledgeȱ derivedȱ fromȱ frames,ȱ schemasȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ models.ȱ Itȱ alsoȱ allowsȱ forȱ theȱ conceptualisationȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Yahwehȱasȱ aȱ complexȱ speaker.ȱ Markȱ Biddle,ȱ Polyphonyȱ andȱ Symphonyȱ inȱ Propheticȱ Literature:ȱ Rereadingȱ Jeremiahȱ 7Ȭ20ȱ (Macon:ȱ MaȬ conȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1996);ȱ Carroll,ȱ Jeremiah:ȱ Aȱ Commentary,ȱ 122;ȱ O’Connor,ȱ “JereȬ miah,”ȱ489.ȱȱ

170ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

questionȱ mayȱ beȱ describedȱ asȱ aȱ nonȬevent.ȱ Otherȱ negativeȱ statementsȱ occurȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.8:ȱ thoseȱ whoȱ handleȱ theȱ lawȱ [PYF[ N;ȱ theȱ rulersȱ transgressȱ against;ȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ theȱ prophets,ȱ whoȱ bothȱ prophesyȱ byȱ Baalȱandȱgoȱafterȱworthlessȱthings.ȱWhileȱtheseȱareȱnegativeȱstatements,ȱ onlyȱ theȱ failureȱ toȱ askȱ “Whereȱ isȱ Yahweh?”ȱ isȱ aȱ nonȬevent,ȱ whichȱ isȱ somethingȱthatȱshouldȱhaveȱhappened,ȱbutȱdidȱnot.ȱTakenȱtogether,ȱtheȱ subgroupsȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.8ȱmanagedȱtoȱdoȱthingsȱtheyȱshouldȱnotȱhaveȱ doneȱandȱnotȱtoȱdoȱthingsȱtheyȱshouldȱhaveȱdone.ȱNoneȱisȱmoreȱsignifiȬ cantȱ forȱ thisȱ discussionȱ thanȱ theȱ nonȬeventȱ ofȱ theȱ unȬaskedȱ quesȬ tion,”WhereȱisȱYahweh?”ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.6ȱandȱ2.8ȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱancestorsȱandȱtheȱpriestsȱdidȱnotȱ utterȱtheȱstatementȱWhereȱisȱYahweh?ȱAdditionally,ȱtheȱancestorsȱdidȱnotȱ askȱafterȱYahwehȱwhoȱbroughtȱusȱupȱfromȱEgypt,ȱwhoȱledȱusȱinȱtheȱwilderȬ ness,ȱwhichȱisȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱpathȱschema.ȱTheȱsituationȱisȱdifȬ ferentȱforȱtheȱpresentȱaddressees,ȱasȱYahwehȱstates,ȱ“Iȱbroughtȱyouȱintoȱaȱ plentifulȱlandȱtoȱeatȱitsȱfruitsȱandȱgoodȱthings,ȱbutȱwhenȱyouȱenteredȱyouȱdeȬ filedȱmyȱland,”ȱwhichȱisȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱcontainmentȱschema.ȱTheȱ unaskedȱ rhetoricalȱ question,ȱ Whereȱ isȱ Yahweh?,ȱ isȱ aȱ conceptualȱ blendȱ thatȱinvolvesȱtheȱgenerationȱofȱaȱcounterfactualȱspace.ȱToȱthisȱpointȱinȱ theȱvolume,ȱtheȱdescribedȱmentalȱspacesȱnetworkȱhasȱincludedȱaȱseriesȱ ofȱ interconnectedȱ singleȱ spaces.ȱ However,ȱ Fauconnierȱ states,ȱ “weȱ useȱ ‘counterfactual’ȱtoȱmeanȱthatȱoneȱspaceȱhasȱforcedȱincompatibilityȱwithȱ another.”36ȱ Therefore,ȱ counterfactualȱ constructionsȱ areȱ moreȱ complex.ȱ Theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ aȱ counterfactualȱ blendȱ requiresȱ aȱ pairȱ ofȱ spacesȱ asȱ inputs,ȱandȱaȱblendedȱspaceȱasȱwell.ȱForȱJeremiahȱ2.6,ȱtheȱactualȱspace,ȱ Inputȱ 1,ȱ contains:ȱ a)ȱ theȱ ancestorsȱ andȱ b)ȱ theȱ unaskedȱ question.ȱ Theȱ presenceȱofȱthisȱnonȬeventȱresultsȱinȱc)ȱYahweh’sȱdispleasure.ȱThisȱgeȬ neratesȱInputȱ2,ȱaȱcounterfactualȱspaceȱthatȱcontains:ȱa)ȱtheȱancestors,ȱb)ȱ theȱ event,ȱ theȱ askedȱ question,ȱ andȱ c)ȱ theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ contention.ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ theȱ blendedȱ spaceȱ containsȱ theȱ negatedȱ possibilityȱ that:ȱ a)ȱ theȱ ancestors,ȱȱb)ȱmightȱchooseȱtoȱaskȱtheȱquestion,ȱandȱasȱaȱconsequence,ȱc)ȱ Yahweh’sȱdispleasureȱwouldȱcease.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 36ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ230.ȱ

ȱ

171ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ5.7ȱȱȱCounterfactualȱ1:ȱUnfufilledȱPossibilityȱ

Forȱ Jeremiahȱ2.8,ȱ theȱ actualȱspace,ȱInputȱ 1,ȱ containsȱ a)ȱ theȱ addressees,ȱ b)ȱ theȱ nonȬeventȱ ofȱ theȱ unaskedȱ question,ȱ andȱ c)ȱ Yahweh’sȱ displeaȬ sure.37ȱ Thisȱ generatesȱ Inputȱ 2,ȱ aȱ counterfactualȱ spaceȱ thatȱ containsȱ a)ȱ theȱaddressees,ȱb)ȱtheȱaskedȱquestion,ȱbutȱc)ȱnoȱcontention.ȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱ theȱblendedȱspaceȱcontainsȱa)ȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱtheȱaddresseesȱmightȱ b)ȱ chooseȱ toȱ askȱ theȱ question,ȱ thus,ȱ c)ȱ Yahweh’sȱ displeasureȱ wouldȱ cease.ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 37ȱȱ Forȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ nonȬthingsȱ andȱ nonȬeventsȱ inȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱ theory,ȱ seeȱ Ibid.,ȱ241Ȭ247.ȱ

172ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ5.8ȱȱȱCounterfactualȱ2:ȱPossibilityȱBlendȱ

ItȱnowȱbecomesȱimportantȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱtheȱnonȬeventȱ representedȱ byȱ theȱ clauseȱ “WhereȱisȱYahweh?”.ȱ Givenȱ theȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱlandȱofȱEgyptȱ(pathȱschema)ȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.6,ȱandȱtheȱarrivalȱintoȱtheȱ plentifulȱlandȱ(containmentȱschema)ȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.8,ȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱseeȱ elementsȱ ofȱ deuteronomisticȱ thoughtȱ withinȱ theseȱ poeticȱ sections.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱDeuteronomyȱ6.12ȱstates “… takeȱcareȱthatȱyouȱdoȱnotȱforgetȱtheȱ LORD,ȱwhoȱbroughtȱyouȱoutȱofȱtheȱlandȱofȱEgypt,ȱoutȱofȱtheȱhouseȱofȱslavery”ȱ (NRSV).ȱ Theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ nonȬevent,ȱ forgettingȱ Yahweh,ȱ andȱ theȱ eventȱ ofȱ servingȱ otherȱ gods,ȱ occursȱ inȱ manyȱ otherȱ placesȱ asȱ well.ȱ Amongȱ themȱ areȱ Deuteronomyȱ 8.11Ȭ20,ȱ whichȱ discussesȱ theȱ imporȬ tanceȱ ofȱ notȱ forgettingȱ toȱ followȱ Yahweh’sȱ commandments,ȱ ordinancesȱ

ȱ

173ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.10:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ

andȱstatutesȱandȱtheȱthreatȱofȱdestructionȱifȱtheyȱdoȱso,ȱandȱDeuteronȬ omyȱ11.13,ȱwhichȱdiscussesȱtheȱpromiseȱofȱrainȱandȱtheȱthreatȱofȱitȱbeȬ ingȱ withheldȱ shouldȱ theȱ peopleȱ serveȱ otherȱ gods.ȱ Theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ unȬaskedȱ questionȱ isȱ itsȱ statusȱ asȱ aȱ nonȬevent.ȱ NotȬaskingȱ isȱ synȬ onymousȱ withȱ forgetting.ȱ Theȱ ancestorsȱ forgotȱ Yahweh,ȱ andȱ theȱ adȬ dresseesȱwereȱinȱtheȱthroesȱofȱtheȱsameȱnonȬevent.ȱȱȱ

D. Jeremiahȱ2.10:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.10ȱ followsȱ uponȱ Yahweh’sȱ accusationsȱ towardȱ theȱ addresȬ seesȱandȱtowardȱtheirȱchildren’sȱchildrenȱinȱ2.9.ȱTheȱaddresseesȱareȱtheȱ referenceȱ pointȱ onȱ aȱ timescaleȱ ofȱ misbehaviourȱ thatȱ beganȱ withȱ theȱ ancestorsȱinȱtheȱwildernessȱandȱwillȱcontinueȱunlessȱchecked.ȱThisȱisȱinȱ contrastȱwithȱtheȱidyllicȱremembrancesȱinȱ2.2Ȭ2.3,ȱaȱcontrastȱthatȱgrowsȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ sectionsȱ ofȱ textȱ asȱ attentionȱ becomesȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱ focusedȱuponȱtheȱpresentȱsituation.ȱTheȱclauseȱanalysisȱofȱJeremiahȱ2.10ȱ follows.ȱ ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

8 T8][o