Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect
  • Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 07:12:25 +0200

Dear Ken,

"No scholar has accepted that view, so it must be wrong." Is that what a
teacher should tell his students? Or, "the experts do not discuss this
matter, so it is not worth discussing." Or, "no one has come to that
conclusion, so it is not worth exploring." Or, "you cannot use this
expression, because it is not a standard linguistic term." To use such
arguments would prevent rather than promote scientific progress.

In contrast, I have taught my students: When you learned Hebrew, you had to
rely on the words of your teacher and on the grammars. When you now have
acquired a knowledge of the language, you should question and test the words
of your teachers and the words of the grammars. This is what science really
is about: use your mind, explore things you are interested in, and do not
rely on "authorities". We should not gag the inquiring mind, and we should
respect other viewpoint; not calling a cordial discussion of Hebrew verbs "a
mess."

When you say that the expressions "make visible," "angle," "field of view"
are far from clear in their meaning," I must ask: Have you read my
dissertation where I define and explain these expressions? Below I give
three English examples: If we look at an event, my analysis relates to which
part of the event that is the focus, beginning, middle, end etc. This is the
angle. Then I find how great a portion of the event that is the focus. This
is the breadth of focus or the area made visible. In 1) a small sequence in
the middle of the event is the focus (is made visible), and beginning and end
are invisible. In 2) the focus is on the end (and by implication, on the
resultant state): the beginning and middle part are invisible. In 3) the
whole event from beginning to end is the focus (is visible). Is this
difficult to understand? Comrie's definition of the imperfective aspect is:
"the internal structure of a situation." This definition has been widely used
in the linguistic
literature. I find that this definition is not very clear, and therefore I
have tried to describe more clearly what this "internal structure" is, by the
use of the mentioned expressions and other expressions. There is no
requirement for a linguist only to use expressions that have been used by
others. If that was the case, linguistic progress would not occur. But a
requirement is to clearly explain the expressions one are using.

1) Rita was walking in the garden.

2) Rita has walked to her garden.

3) Rita have been walking in the garden.


Allow me a few more comments: One definition of "idiosyncrasy" is: " If a
person has an idiosyncrasy, he or she has a little quirk, or a funny
behavior, that makes him or her different. If you only say goodbye in French,
never in English, that would be an idiosyncrasy. Idio seems like it means
stupid, but really it is Latin for "one's own," as an idiosyncrasy is one's
own particular, usually odd, behavior. Putting salt in your hot chocolate or
needing the light on to sleep or tapping your head while you think are all
idiosyncrasies." (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/idiosyncrasy). To
accuse me of being a little quirk and having a funny or odd behavior, and
even strengthening the accusation by using the epithet "highly," is not very
flattering. The same is true by your attempt to devalue the linguistic
quality of my dissertation by claiming that "it does not interact with recent
standard linguistic literature." Instead of resorting to namecalling, a
scholar should prese
nt linguistic arguments

While I studied Semitic languages, I also studied linguistics, and I have a
degree in applied linguistics (translation). One of the positive
characteristics of the evaluation committee was that all the important
literature that were relevant for the subject of the dissertation, including
the linguistic literature, had been studied and dealt with in a scholarly
way. You are welcome to point out which concepts or methods that are found in
the standard linguistic literature, and which were relevant to my project,
that were left out or not being considered.

In order to show the opposite of what you claim, I give the headings of
chapter 2, which is entitled: "Methodology, definitions and text."

2:1 "The meaning of "meaning" and its communication.
2.1.1 The concepts signaled by words.
2.1.2 The nature of mental concepts
2.1.3 Lexical and morphosyntactic words
2.1.4 Contextual meaning
2.1.5 To make meaning visible

2.2 Semantics versus pragmatics
2.2.1 Grammaticalization
2.2.2 "Semantic meaning" versus "conversational pragmatic implicature"
2.2.3 The search for semantic meaning
2.2.4 An equipollent model versus a privative one
2.2.5 The fundamental semantic nature of "procedural traits"
2.2.5.1 Durativity versus punctiliarity
2.2.5.2 Telicity versus non-telicity
2.2.5.3 Dynamicity versus stativity

2.3 Time, tense and aspect
2.3.1. Tense
2.3.2 Aspect
2.3.3 The model of tense and aspect that is used in this dissertation
2.3.4 The interplay of tense and aspect in the English verbal system

2.4 The meaning of the Hebrew conjugations
2.4.1 A statistical comparison of time and mood of Hebrew verbs
2.4.1.1 Tense and the Hebrew verbal system
2.4.1.2 Mood and the Hebrew verbal system
2.4.1.3 Aspect and the Hebrew verbal system
2.4.2 A new model for the analysis of aspect
2.4.2.1 The quality of focus
2.4.2.2 The angle of focus
2.4.2.3 The breadth of focus
2.4.3 The consequences of the differences between English and Hebrew aspects.

2.5 Methodology and disposition

After a discussion of the verbal systems of the cognate languages, five
chapters with a discussion of each finite and infinite verbal form follows.
In these chapters, different linguistic issues are discussed, such as a
synchronic versus a diachronic approach, whether verbs have the same meaning
in poetic and prose texts, the use and misuse of discourse analysis etc.

Most of the terms used in chapter 2 and in the other chapters are standard
linguistic terms, and the terms used in 2.4.2., 2.4.2.1, 2.4.2.2, and 2.4.3
are based on the three fundamental linguistic parameters: deictic center,
event time, and reference time. I proffer to say that your claim that my
methodology and use of linguistic terms are out of touch with modern
linguistic methodology (if that is what you say), definitely is wrong.
Moreover, the dissertation has two valuable linguistic qualities which are
rare, 1) the whole Hebrew corpus with 79,574 finite and infinite verbs has
been studied and analyzed, and 2) the number of clauses that are analyzed are
4,261, which is an unusually high number for a linguistic thesis.

You wrote:
"Linguists are not constantly debating what aspect is: they do not claim that
aspect is different in Hebrew...the discussion here is not representative of
linguistic studies!"

Does that mean that if we debate what aspect is, we do something silly that
is not representative of linguistics? And if we question whether Hebrew
aspects have the same meaning as the English ones, we are out of touch with
linguistics? B-hebrew is a discussion list for all persons who are interested
in Hebrew. And we cannot expect that each discussion will be of interest for
trained linguists.

In the linguistic literature you will one the one side find those who call
for a strict distinction between semantics and pragmatics. On the other side
you will find those who do not put any weight on this. The problem is that a
language is a living medium, and a consistent distinction between the two in
all cases is not possible. But I think that most linguists would not
criticize an attempt to distinguish between semantic and pragmatic factors in
as many cases as possible. For example, to ask the question whether the past
reference of so many WAYYIQTOLs is an intrinsic part of the verb form or is
caused by the context, is a legitimate linguistic question. Yet, it has
almost never been asked, at least not written about in discussions of Hebrew
verbs.

Then back to what scholars should be occupied with, namely, language. I have
posted an analysis of the YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs in Psalm 18 (typical of the
analyses in my dissertation), and I say that these verbs argue against the
view that WAYYIQTOL has an intrinsic past tense, which is your view. I
challenge you to show whether this analysis of mine is messy or idiosyncratic
and whether the arguments against a past-tense interpretation are valid or
not.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway




Onsdag 29. Mai 2013 03:02 CEST skrev Ken Penner <kpenner AT stfx.ca>:

> I hesitate to jump into this mess, but the comment from Ruth ("You would do
> better to listen to Rolf") prompted me to make a couple of notes.
>
> I don't have a linguistics degree, but I've read enough linguistic
> literature for my PhD thesis (on Hebrew tense, aspect, and modality) to
> know that much of the discussion on this list would appear quite silly to a
> linguist. Rolf's view is highly idiosyncratic and does not interact with
> recent standard linguistic literature. The expressions "make visible"
> "angle" "field of view" are not standard and are far from clear in their
> meaning. Linguists are not constantly debating what aspect is; they do not
> claim that aspect is different in Hebrew. Linguists generally do not
> insist on a strict separation of semantics from pragmatic implicature.
> I'm sure more linguistically trained scholars are on this list, keeping
> their distance. I thought I saw Randall Buth make an appearance. I'm sure
> others have read Bybee, Perkins, Pagliuca, Bhat, Dahl, as well as Andrason,
> Cook.
>
> Bottom line: the discussion here is not representative of linguistic
> studies!
>
>
> Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor, Religious Studies
> 2329 Notre Dame Avenue, 409 Nicholson Tower
> St. Francis Xavier University
> Antigonish, NS B2G 2W5
> Canada
> (902)867-2265
> kpenner AT stfx.ca
>
>
>
>







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page