Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: aspect and the universal discourse paradigm

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>
  • To: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>, "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: aspect and the universal discourse paradigm
  • Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:13:42 -0400


Hi Rolf,

You said,
>
> Dear Bryan,
>
> As a prerequisite for a fruitful discussion of aspect we must define our
> parameters. In this way we can be sure we speak the same language. Let me
> move in the direction of a definition by making two provocative claims:

Do you mean that we cannot have a fruitful discussion unless we use *your*
definitions? Because I thought I defined terms.

>
> (1) Both the perfective and the imperfective aspects are by nature open,
> although the view represented by the perfective aspect in most instances
> coincides with the end of a situation and therefore seemingly is closed.
>
> (2) Both aspects are strictly subjective viewpoints, and there is
> absolutely no way by help of the Hebrew text to prove that a verb form is
> perfective. In a few special instances (the subject/ object are singular
> and definite count nouns and the context shows explicitly that the action
> was not finished) it is possible to prove that at verb is imperfective.

If there is an inconsistency between traditional notions of the meaning of
the BH verb forms or Waltke and O'Connor's notion of the meanings of the
verb forms and the Universal Paradigm of discourse, then we may yet use
this inconsistency to cast doubt upon the traditional views. In this way
we open the door to the "two-subjective-viewpoints" view.

>
> To stress discourse functions, as you do certainly is profitable, but if
> the above claims be true, it is impossible to show the nature of the
> aspects by help of discourse analysis.

Hmmm. Paul Hopper(_Tense-Aspect:Between Semantics and Pragmatics_,1982):
"...the fundamental notion of aspect is not a local-semantic one but is
discourse pragmatic and is characterizable as _completed event in the
discourse_"(p. 5, italics original) The idea is that aspect is defined by
the parameter [plus or minus 'view of the endpoint']. Carlota Smith(_The
Parameter of Aspect_1997):"Pragmatic interpretation makes an essential
contribution to the interpretation of the (aspectual) viewpoint. At the
pragmatic level, semantic meaning interacts with such factors as
contrastive value, context, and rhetorical emphasis"(p. 61) and again,
"Advancing the plot is perhaps the most basic use of perfectives in
narrative...In narratives, imperfective sentences may present situations
that provide a background for the main events. They present open
situations, not closed events which move the narrative forward...More
specifically, imperfective sentences tend to provide descriptions and other
information, and they present situations that are simultaneous with the
main events" (p. 92, see also entire section 4.4.4).

So let me re-work the old proverb so you'll like it, Rolf: "If it quacks
like a swan, and it waddles like a swan, and water rolls off its duck like
a swan..." When it is clear that a BH verb form is advancing narrative
time, it must by definition be perfective *in that context*. Yes? No?

It is my contention for BH that it is the _sentence in context_ which has
perfectivity or not and not the morphology alone. I.e. It is not the
prefixed or affixed forms in isolation which have aspectual meaning as W
and O'C assert. Rather, it is "compositional rules" which produce
perfectivity or imperfectivity at something higher than the local level.
What then are we to think that the BH morphology of the finite verbs means?
Nothing? They're all aorists?, universal tenses? I don't think so.
Hopper also writes, "A form must have a consistent value or else
communication is impossible; we cannot have linguistic forms which derive
all their meanings from context" (p. 4).

So I think if the popular view that the BH finite verb forms represent
aspects in and of themselves is disposed of, we are free to ask what the
forms do mean, and we are free to consider "subjective viewpoints" as a
possibility. But I shy from calling "subjective viewpoints" aspects.
Soon I'll tell what I think the BH verb forms mean. Gotta run now.

Take care,
Bryan

> Regards
> Rolf

>Rocine wrote:
> >Hi,
> >Are there any 'aspectniks' at home? Wanna come out and play?
> >
> >Here's an English illustration-text borrowed from Waltke and O'Connor,
> >Bernard Comrie, et. al.:
> >
> >John was reading when I entered.
> >
> >The [entering] is viewed in its entirety, beginning, duration, and
> >ending rolled into one view. That's the 'closed' view or perfective. In
> >contrast, only part of the reading is viewed, some "middle" portion of
> >it. It's "open" because we have no view of one or either of its
> >beginning or ending point. The [reading] is therefore viewed
> >imperfectively.
> >
> >As is the case paradigmatically, in the John-sentence above the
> >imperfective('was reading') provides background, a situation which is
> >simultaneous with the perfective('entered') . In terms of the
> >Universal Paradigm of discourse, it is the perfective that moves the
> >narrative forward or moves narrative time forward. The perfective form
> >typically carries the mainline or backbone of a narrative.
> >
> >So, to get comfortable, let's make some generalizations about BH. Let's
> >ignore some exceptions for a moment and call the wayyiqtol perfective.
> >As we expect from the Universal Paradigm, this perfective form does
> >indeed carry the mainline of (past time) narrative. We also know that
> >the BH predicative participle has the discourse function of giving
> >backgrounded activities, and I would say that the predicative participle
> >is the BH verb form representing imperfective aspect par excellance.
> >Might I translate the John-sentence into BH like this using participle
> >for background and wayyiqtol for 'mainline'?
> >
> >yonatan qore) va)abo)
> >
> >see Gen 19:1 velot yo$eb...vayyar) lot
> >
> >Well, all that is said for a frame of reference. My primary inquiry in
> >this letter concerns the qatal. Waltke and O'Connor call the qatal the
> >'perfective' form. (I realize that many of you may know the qatal as
> >the 'perfect' rather than the 'perfective' but there is a pretty
> >significant difference between the two names which we can probably
> >clarify if anyone wants.) I think it's pretty clear that qatal often
> >has perfective meaning. However, it also usually has *discourse
> >functions* which are more in line with the paradigmatic functions of
> >imperfective forms. For instance, does it not often give backround?
> >Take for instance 1 Sam 14:19
> >
> >wayhi [ad diBBer $a)ul...
> >
> >or Gen 32:31
> >
> >vayyizrax lo ha$$eme$ ka)a$er (abar )et P-nu)el vehu) colea( (al y-reKo
> >
> >or how about a simulatnaous situation as in Gen 13:12
> >
> >)abram ya$ab...velot ya$ab
> >
> >Aren't these imperfective qatals?
> >
> >Isn't Gen 22:1, ha)elohim nissah )et )abraham 'open'? It seems that
> >the qatal does not view the situation as an event, it does not move the
> >narrative time forward, it lacks a view of the situation's endpoint.
> >Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to translate Gen 22:1 with the English
> >progressive(imperfective): "Then after these things (the) God was
> >testing Abraham when He said..."
> >
> >Could it be that Waltke and O'Connor jumped too fast when they called
> >'perfective' the form traditionally known as the 'perfect'? Might they
> >have been more heaviliy influenced by tradition than Bernard Comrie?
> >
> >
> >Shalom, Bryan
> >


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page