Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Let me apologize to Galia and everyone else for taking so long to 
pick up this and some other threads.  I hope they're not already 
passe.  I haven't been ignoring you (nor am I conceding!), but 
illness and some other factors have kept me sidelined for a while.  I 
hope these topics are still relevant, so here goes.

Galia wrote:
> Hi Dave Washburn,
> 
> Dave wrote:
> 
> >Let me pause right there and develop further what I meant by
> >"thought."  I think this may be part of the communication difficulty
> >we're having in this thread.  Here is a snippet of my article:
> >
> >The WP construction signals a separate thought not syntactically
> >connected with what precedes it.  Note that this statement says
> >"not *syntactically* connected"; it says nothing about semantic or
> >pragmatic connection.  The construction will be the form of choice
> >for narrative prose simply because it behaves just like the verbs in
> >(a)-(d) [a list of clauses describing the minutes of a meeting - dw].
> >It neither links with what precedes, nor does it contradict or force a
> >break.  It simply indicates a new thought.  (p.44)
> >
> >The question of syntactic connection, along with the strict
> >separation of syntax from other features of language, is the key to
> >this description.  In the case of the qatal, there is a syntactic
> >connection of some kind with the material around the qatal clause
> >(exactly what it is, of course, remains to be fully understood).  After
> >reading your book, I really like the idea of a "new" R-time.
> >However, see below.
> 
>       Yes. I agree that syntax is not a factor in determining the use of
> the form Wayyiqtol.  It rather depends on the interpretation and truth
> conditions of the clause, which are semantic notions. 

I think I've been misunderstood here.  I am saying that syntax *is* 
a factor in determining use of the WP.  That's why I use the 
expression "syntactic connection."  The qatal signals a syntactic 
connection, the WP signals a syntactic break.

What I want to add
> here is that we must be careful in not putting in the same basket semantics
> and pragmatics, and that we need also to add discourse structure (DS) into
> the picture. Let me elaborate.  Traditional linguistics (and here I am
> including the Chomskian approach) refers to the term "syntax" as well as
> "semantics" only with respect to sentences (and its components). Hans Kamp
> in his DRT and Irena Heim in her "cards" theory show that the the structure
> of the discourse has its own rules, affecting truth-conditions (TC). In
> order not to aggrevate anybody, or maybe to keep things separately, they do
> not call the study of DS "syntax", but they still show that not only
> clauses but independent sentences have a crucial rule in determining TC.

Here is where we get into a problem of definitions.  I tend to avoid 
the term "sentence" because it is so imprecise.  For a survey of 
the problems surrounding this word see Andersen (1974).  I prefer 
to speak of clauses and higher units built out of clauses, and in 
fact if one reads the literature on transformational grammar, what 
these call the "sentence" is actually a clause; each "sentence" 
consists of a single string of words dominated by a predicate 
(usually a verb).  Even the next X-bar level above that, S-bar, 
dominates a single clause (I'm simplifying here; subordinate 
clauses muddy things a bit, but they are actually considered 
projections of S/S-bar themselves).  I agree with what has been 
said about discourse structures etc.; however, when it comes to 
examining and determining what exactly is expressed by such 
things as verbal forms, I believe that discourse analysis etc. only 
provide a secondary line of investigation.  To get at the syntactic 
heart of the forms (I dislike the expression "semantic meaning") it 
seems to me necessary to stay at the clause level, at least in the 
main.  Syntax has first and foremost to do with how clauses are 
built and why some are well-formed and others are not.  The WP is 
formed by movement of the verb to the beginning of the clause and 
attachment of the prefix (whatever we conceive that prefix to 
actually be).  The question at hand is, what (syntactically 
speaking) conditions permit, perhaps require or prefer, this 
transformation to take place?  I don't think discourse analysis can 
answer that question.  Once we find the answer, it can inform and 
clarify a lot in discourse that is still nebulous; hence I see a definite 
order ("sequence" if you will ;-) to the lines of investigation that 
needs to be followed.

> Most people consider discourse analysis to be part of pragrmatics. I don't
> like that. As I see it, pragmatics does not determine TC, although many
> times it strondly IMPLICATES them. Sematnics has to do with TC, while
> pragmatics has to do with inferences and implictures,which can be
> cancelled. TC have to do with logical implications which may not be
> cancelled. 

Agreed.  I would take this a step further and say that neither is a 
subset or or subsumes syntax.  Syntax has to do with well-
formedness of structures and ordering of constituents, which may 
only be cancelled or altered diachronically over a fairly lengthy 
period of time (depending on the language).

I recall one of the people asked if there is a difference
> between BH and English concerning the verb forms.  The crucial difference
> between them, it seems to me, is that in BH the form of Wayyiqtol always
> builds an R-time, which results in sequence in the narrative. In English
> the simple past is used for that purpose, but it does not entail
> (logically) that the clause in which it appears necessarily builds a new
> R-time.  

And yet, English is tensed and BH is not!  I mention that as a 
curiosity, little more.

Consider first the difference between (1a), (1b) and (1c) below:
>       1. a. Mary entered the room. She turned the light on and...
>            b. Mary entered the room. She felt depressed...
>          c. Mary turned off the light. It was dark in the room.
> We understand the second sentence in (1a) to move the time forward, so we
> see it as building a new R-time.   The second sentence in (1b) is
> interpreted as reporting a state which overlaps in time the event of
> entering the room. So although its verb is in simple past, the clause does
> not move the R-time forward. 

Yes, and the verb forms - the syntax - can never tell us these 
things about either one.  We must resort to "higher" levels, 
discourse or pragmatics (and in both cases, the wider context, 
which is implied in both of these disciplines) as well as the 
semantics of each clause, to determine this.  At this point, the 
only thing the syntactic information in these clauses can tell us is 
that what is being reported is past tense from the POV of the 
speaker.

Hinrichs (1986) builds a theory around
> aktionsarten, claiming that the difference between (1a) and (1b) is due to
> the fact that the second sentence in (1a) reports an event while the second
> sentence in (1b) reports a state. however, he himself shows that statives
> are not necessarily understood to overlap in time the situation reported in
> the previous clause. (1c) is a variation of an example he himself provides.
> He explains that by saying that eventive clauses introduce the NEXT R-time.
> I will not get into showing why this does not work either (I explain it in
> my book and in my article 1989). I brought this up to claim that in English
> we understand sequence only by pragmatic inferences.  In (1c) we understand
> the room being dark as a RESULT of Mary's turning off the light, and
> therefore we see it as happening after it. But inmagine the room being dark
> all the time, and the light was in the corridor. So Mary turned off the
> light (in the corridor),  the room was dark to begin with, but she didn't
> know that, and when opening the room she fells, etc. Since the sequence in
> English is due to pragmatic inference, it can be cancelled. 

This can be done with (1b) as well:

Mary entered the room.  She felt depressed when she saw the pile 
of bills on the desk waiting for her attention.

Here we do have sequence, so this reinforces what you are saying 
about English.  The event/state distinction makes no difference, the 
only thing that determines sequence is the pragmatic context.

This may be
> shown also by the following example:
>       2. Mary wrote her article, read the new book about BH, washed her
> her, called John, and went to the party.
> Due to Grice's maxim of manner, which says "be orderly," we understand the
> events in (2) to happen in the same order they are reported. But we may
> very well cancell the implicature by adding the phrase "not necessarily in
> that order".  Now, contrary to English, I claim, this cannot be done in
> case of Wayyiqtol in BH, since it *semantically* builds the R-time; it is
> not a pragmatic inference.  Now we understand a series of wayyiqtols to
> form a sequence in the narrative not by pragmatic inference, but by the
> rules of the narrative discourse.

This is where we part company.  I see no need to posit this for the 
WP.  The only reason I have seen to date why we should is 
because, statistically, the vast majority of occurrences appear to 
be in sequences.  However, one could pull out any good-size 
section of narrative prose in English and cull the same statistics 
about the English simple past!  The question, which I raise again, 
is whether sequence (even as defined more recently to include the 
first element in a chain) is sufficient to provide a unified account of 
the uses of the form.  I don't think it is.  There are too many 
counter-examples even within Galia's own corpus.  That 97% figure 
needs all kinds of qualifiers around it, because on p.57 we see that 
the statistical analysis begins by tossing out 20% of occurrences 
of the WP because "there were a number of cases where the text 
itself could not determine with respect to (my) knowledge of the 
world whether there was sequentiality, but where the interpretation 
of sequentiality is possible."  (p. 56)  From the "rest" it is 
determined that 94% are sequential, and of the 6% remaining half 
of those may have a formulaic explanation.  So we are actually 
looking at 94-97% of 80% of the corpus examined, which still 
leaves a large chunk of the material formally unaccounted-for.  That 
bothers me more than a little.

> Re *qatal*. I am not sure what you mean by "syntactic connection". 

Syntactic connections are things like subordination, coordination, 
presence of anaphors, sequence, things like that.  

A
> *qatal* clause does not build an R-time, and therefore it cannot be
> interpreted by itself (concerining its temporalilty). Therefore it is
> usually interpreted with respect to a neihgboring (usually previous
> clause). 

Yes.  I'm considering the idea that the same R-time constitutes a 
syntactic connection, but haven't fully explored it yet.

However, it may have an adverb to give it its interpretation as in
> Gen. 30:21, and Gen. 22:1. You may object to these examples as
> illustrations of the qatal not being syntactly dependent, but rather
> semantically.  You may say for the 30:11, "And afterwards she bore a
> daughter" that "and afterwards" connects the clause with the previous one.
> But the connection is not syntacitc. 

I wouldn't say that at all.  "Afterwards" sets the temporal relation, 
but the simple "and" connects the clauses syntactically.  
Moreover, I would suggest that it's possible to understand )aXaR to 
mean "and finally" or "at last"; it could also be subtly indicating a 
"different" conception/birth, that of a girl.  Notice that, after 
Reuben's birth, each new conception by Leah says "She conceived 
again," WaTTaHaR (oWD; when we get to Dinah (after the 
intervening episode of Bilhah, also part of an unbroken chain of WP 
clauses in ch. 30) we have )aXaR.  There may be a subtle 
semantic distinction between the two adverbs, but one factor is 
significant: the writer seemed to feel it necessary to use (oWD to 
denote a sequence of conceptions and births, or at least to convey 
that Leah was a serious baby factory.  If the verb form is inherently 
sequential, I would not think this would have been necessary at all.

Compare it to the following example:
>       3. Mary went to Orlando. She wanted to see Disney World.
> The second sentence in (3) is syntacticly independent, but it cannot be
> interpreted by itself since it contains the anaphoric pronoun "she", which
> demands an antecedent for its interpretation. Similarly, "Afterwards..."
> would be a well formed indepedent sentence, but must have an anticedent for
> the anaphoric temporal phrase "afterwards". 

Agreed.  I would suggest (tentatively) that in addition to the needed 
antecedent (a syntactic connection that has occupied Chomsky for 
a decade or more), English-speaking listeners would see an 
implied "because" between the two clauses: "Mary went to Orlando 
[because] she wanted to see Disney World."  Hence, the second 
clause is explicitly dependent because of the anaphor, and 
implicitly dependent because there is a clear causal relationship 
between the two.  This latter connection appears to be more 
semantic or pragmatic than syntactic, and I confess I haven't 
worked all of that through yet.

As for Gen. 22:1. The WAYHI
> phrase is not an independent clause. Although it is usually translated as
> "and it came to pass", it is not reporting an event, but serves as an
> adverbial.

Agreed.

> Dave also wrote:
> 
> >Yes!  However, I would suggest that "their own R-time" has, in
> >much of the literature, been assumed to mean that this R-time will
> >*necessarily* be subsequent to the R-time of the previous clause (if
> >there is one).  I suggest this is not the case.  The new R-time can
> >be anything: subsequent (as in narrative prose), the very beginning
> >of something (a la Jonah 1:1), a back-loop of the type we have
> >been discussing recently, a resumptive clause after an aside (as in
> >much of Andersen's material, but see also my TC article), and
> >several other uses.  The critical part of my view to keep in mind is
> >that these factors are NOT determined by the fact that the clause
> >has a WP verb, they are determined by the meaning of the clause
> >in question (in relation to the meanings [semantics] of the clauses
> >around it) and the pragmatics of the discourse unit the clause is in.
> >In this sense, the WP is a "simple" non-modal form.  As John R.
> >put it, use of the WP is nothing spectacular, what should catch our
> >eye is use of something other than the WP.
> 
>  If you are right, and wayyiqtol in the narrative can be "anything", you
> will have to determine the conditions for it to be this thing or the other.
> As for Jonah 1:1, this is what we should expect: the first clause on the
> time-line MUST be in a sequential form.

Then why does this happen so infrequently?  Nearly all of the 
"minor" prophets should have begun with a WP under this view, yet 
they don't.  As for "conditions for it to be this thing or the other" my 
point is still being missed.  Syntactically, it is always the same 
thing: a simple indicative-clause, non-modal, declarative clause.  
What it is semantically (i.e. state, event, durative, punctiliar, 
inchoative, telic etc.) depends on the semantics of the verb used.  
How it relates to other material around it (sequence, back-loop, 
aside, all the matters we have been discussing) depends on the 
pragmatics of the unit where it appears, as well as the semantic 
and discourse-level forces of the clauses around it.  In terms ONLY 
of syntax, the form has nothing to say about these matters becaus 
they are not the provenance of syntax.  When we examine the 
levels separately, we find a unified field of usage of the form that 
really does explain all the usages, and from a generative point of 
view it does produce all and only the well-formed clauses of the 
language that use that form.

[snip]
> >This might seem circular,
> >> but it is not.  The definition of what is a narrative discourse is taken
> >> from linguists and literature people such as Labov and Reinhart,
> >> independently from the forms in BH.  So, when checking narrative 
> >> stretches
> >> in BH, I expect all and only the WP clauses to appear on the (actual)
> >> time-line. The question remains, How do WP clauses behave in
> >> non-narratives.  There, too, as I said above, they form an R-time. 
> >> However,
> >> for a lack of independent analyses for genres other than narrative we
> >> cannot determine their function.
> >
> >Well said.  At the same time, we're working at two different levels.
> >When you said in your book that I "reject the discourse analysis
> >approach altogether" that was true in a sense, but in another sense
> >it is a bit overstated.  I think there is a lot we can learn from
> >discourse analysis; my problem with it is that it assumes certain
> >things about the verb forms that are not yet in evidence.  Hence, I
> >do my grammatical work down at the clause level, hoping to
> >discover what are the basic building blocks of discourse units and
> >patterns.  To do that, I seek the lowest common denominator in
> >various usages of a verbal form, and look for a unified syntactic
> >explanation for why a particular form can appear in discourse types
> >x, y and z.  As far as I know, this has not been done to date in BH.
> 
>       Great. If it is possible that would be the best. The use of the
> form in different genres or kinds of discourse should derive from its
> semantic characteristics.

Here we go again with terminology.  I contend that verb forms such 
as the WP (and the simple past in English) don't have "semantic 
characteristics."  I mention that just to point out that, at times, we 
seem to be using the word "semantic" in two very different ways.

[snip]
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.