Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Prototype Theory and Hebrew Tense/Aspect

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Cc: <kimmo AT kaamas.kielikone.fi>
  • Subject: Prototype Theory and Hebrew Tense/Aspect
  • Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:16:32 -0500



I have just been reading a friend's MA thesis: "Towards a Theory of
Aspectual Nesting for New Testament Greek", Kimmo Huovila, MA Thesis,
Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki, Spring 1999
(available from
http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/yleis/pg/huovila)

This thesis (in good clear and simple English) gives a good
explanation of the theoretical background to study of aspect in NT
Greek and a review of previous studies. The author also makes a start
on building his own theory of NT Greek aspect.

So am I sending this to the wrong list? No, because I found in Kimmo
Huovila's background material some material which may be a great help
towards understanding the Hebrew tense and aspect system. Here are
some quotations from this thesis:

<start of quotation>

1.4 Prototype Nature of Linguistic Categories

The main thesis of Taylor (1989) is that the prototype view is central
to linguistic categorization in general, including grammatical
categorization (especially Taylor 1989:142-157, 197-221). Dahl
(1985:3-26) argues that the prototype view is essential also for the
analysis of aspect, tense, and mood categories. If the prototype
nature of grammatical categorization is not recognized, there is a
danger that the resulting grammatical analysis reflects an unnatural
view of language and not the linguistic intuition of the native
speakers. In the following section I will explain what I mean by
prototype categorization.

1.4.1 IMPRECISENESS AND CATEGORY MEMBERSHIP

Dahl (1985:3) discusses impreciseness in categorization. With this he
means that with respect to category membership there are clear cases
of inclusion and exclusion, but also difficult cases in between. This
is illustrated with the word 'bald'. How many hairs can a bald person
have? He can have some, and still be considered bald. There is no
precise limit.

A prototype is a typical representative of a category. There are,
however, less typical category members. This means that all members of
a category do not have the same status. Thus the category has a focus,
where the most typical members are, and a periphery, where the
borderline cases are. There is no precise limit where the periphery
fades into non-membership.

1.4.2 CENTRALITY OF FEATURES

Some features are more central than others with respect to category
membership. For example, a typical woman is an adult female human
being (categorization by prototype would normally involve more
features, but as they are not necessary for this illustration, I will
not try to define a prototypical woman further). Adulthood is not as
central a feature with respect to categorization (in a neutral context
(if there is such a thing!)) as gender. A relatively young girl could
be called a woman.

A corollary of the prototype being characterized with respect to
several features is that describing the invariant meaning of the
construction does not exhaust its meaning. Frequent associations also
add their own nuances (less central features) to the semantics of the
construction, even if they do not change the truth conditions of the
construction.

What this means with respect to tense and aspect is that it is
possible that a grammatical category in some language codes
prototypically both tense and aspect, but either is more dominant with
respect to categorization. For example, a form may prototypically mean
past tense and perfective aspect, but pastness may be secondary (there
are far more exceptions to the tense meaning than to the aspectual
meaning). I will argue this to be the case for the Greek aorist in
section 6.6.

1.4.3 MULTIPLE FOCI

A category may have several foci. This means that there may be several
prototypes that have something in common, relative to which the
category is characterized. ...

A grammatical prototype category with multiple foci may be illustrated
with the Greek imperfect. It is often used to indicate past tense,
which is one focus of the category (McKay 1994:42-43). It also has
another important use, which is to indicate in a conditional protasis
that the premise is presupposed to be untrue (McKay 1994:75-76,
173-174). ...

1.4.4 NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS?

Categorization by prototype is usually regarded as opposed to
categorization by necessary and sufficient conditions (e.g. Taylor
1989:21-37). ...

<end of quotation>

Now I was aware of this prototype theory as a way of looking at the
semantics of lexical items. This is the first time I have seen it
applied to grammatical categories. But I see this as a good way
forward towards understanding Hebrew verb forms, especially the
controversial WAYYIQTOL. Over the last couple of years this list has
seen many attempts to define "necessary and sufficient conditions" for
the WAYYIQTOL, most of which have fallen apart into unseemly arguments
over interpretation of alleged counter-examples, or have evaporated
into conditions so vague (or vaguely expressed) that none but their
author seems to understand them.

So perhaps we can have another go at understanding the Hebrew verb
system on the basis of this prototype theory. We can, for example,
easily define a prototypical WAYYIQTOL in terms of narrative sequence,
past time and perfectivity. Yet we have seen that no one of these
three characteristics applies to all WAYYIQTOLs. With the prototype
theory we would not expect them to. Similarly we can define the other
verb forms - some of which, expecially weqatal, might well end up with
multiple foci. Anyone interested in pursuing this path with me? For
that matter, has anyone pursued it already? I would be interested in
any responses.

Peter Kirk

==========

Kimmo Huovila's references, those quoted in the above extracts:

Dahl, ™sten 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Basil Blackwell: New York
& Oxford.

McKay, Kenneth 1994. A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek:
An Aspectual Approach. Peter Lang: New York & San Francisco & Bern &
Baltimore & Frankfurt am Main & Berlin & Wien & Paris.

Taylor, John R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in
Linguistic Theory. Clarendon Press: Oxford.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page