Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Peter,

See my comments below.

>Dear Rolf,
>
>May I ask for some clarification here? Is Grice's principle, which you rely
>on here, a definition or an assertion?
>
>If it is simply a definition of "semantic meaning", serving to distinguish
>it from "conversational pragmatic implicature", then I think you need to
>recognise that your disagreement with Randall is over terminology rather
>than substance. Clearly there are some phenomena which fit Grice's
>definition, some uncancellable semantic meanings e.g. your example of "plod"
>(I don't think anyone would argue with that), but Randall is talking also
>about phenomena which do not.
>
>If it is an assertion about everything which fits a wider definition of
>"semantic meaning" (if so, what definition?), then I think you need to
>realise that not everyone accepts this assertion. It is certainly true in
>some cases e.g. "plod", but it would seem not to be true in other cases. It
>is not enough for you to rely simply on the authority of Grice and Broman
>Olsen, you need to justify their results.

A text conveys meaning, and the question is whether a particular meaning is
an intrinsic part of one or more parts of the text, or whether it is based
on the context. I have never met a linguist who has denied the difference
between semantic and pragmatic meaning, so we do not need scholars as Grice
or Broman Olsen for this conclusion. I can hardly imagine that Randal do
not accept this distinction, but it seems that he is unwilling, or does not
see the need to view the verbal system of classical Hebrew in light of it.

I am not sure about the difference between "assertion" and "definition" in
relation to pragmatics versus semantics, so I would just call Grice's
dictum a principle. It simply outlines a method to find the difference
between "semantic meaning" and "conversational pragmatic implicature".
Regarding definition, I would give the following one: "Semantic meaning" is
uncancelable but "conversational pragmatic implicature" is cancelable.

It seems to me that Randall is not willing to look at the verbal system
with the questions "what is semantic and what is pragmatic", but that he
follows Baconianism, which the natural sciences rejected several hundred
years ago: 'Start with an unprejudiced mind, observe the facts, compare
them, and the relevant scientific law will emerge.' The principal point I
have tried to convey to Randall, is that narrative is the worst place to
start when we are going to find the meaning of WAYYIQTOL. This is so,
because the very nature of narrative accounts is past reference, and
consecution. Any verb form used in mainline narrative *must* signal past,
completed events. Therefore, only in a few instances in narrative, where
the context is of a special nature, can we see the semantic meaning of
WAYYIQTOL. In other contexts it is much easier to find the semantic meaning.

>
>I admire your work on analysing the Hebrew verb system in the light of
>Grice's principle and Broman Olsen's system, which I accept as one
>legitimate means of analysis among many. And you seem to have come to an
>important result, if only a negative one, that within this scheme Hebrew has
>neither grammaticalised tenses nor, according to the usual understanding,
>grammaticalised aspects. So you conclude that the choice of verb form, for a
>Hebrew speaker, was one of "conversational pragmatic implicature" or
>"linguistic convention". That is an important result.
>
>Now, does Broman Olsen's system allow you to analyse this "conversational
>pragmatic implicature" or "linguistic convention", to elucidate why a
>speaker would (generally if not always) choose a particular form in a
>particular context? If so, I would be glad of an outline of how this could
>be done. If not, it would seem to me that the system is somewhat lacking; it
>has simply used Grice's principle to define as outside its scope a large
>number of interesting linguistic questions, including almost all those
>related to the biblical Hebrew verb system. Perhaps researchers would be
>better advised to use a different system to analyse biblical Hebrew.

Any study must be restricted, and my model and principles can only be used
to find how many conjugations do Classical Hebrew have, and what is their
meaning,i.e. it has a bearing on the fundamental linguistic units alone.
For pragmatic questions we need other models. The works of Bryan Rocine and
Alviero Niccacci are useful tools. Many different approaches (models) can
be used to study Classical Hebrew, and we can learn something from all of
them. My principal objection to most of them, however, is that they make
several assumptions which never have been tested. The chief assumption is
that the verbal system consists of four conjugations and not two. My study
is a test of this and other important assumptions.


>As for your final paragraph, does not Randall's Arabic example show that the
>meaning of a verb phrase cannot always be broken down into the sum of the
>meanings of its constituent parts? Since you reject modern Arabic examples
>although you argue from English ones as well as Aramaic and Ugaritic ones,
>let me quote one of your own English examples against you: "I had walked".
>The word "had" in this sentence is clearly the past tense of the verb
>"have", meaning "possess". So is it legitimate to insist that "I had walked"
>means that I possessed something, perhaps a "walked thing" or a "walking
>state"? No, this is simply an idiom, like a "hot dog" which is not a dog at
>a high temperature. There are times, in linguistics as in other fields, when
>the whole is not the sum of the parts.
>

I do not think that modern Hebrew can throw any light upon Classical
Hebrew, and similarly with modern Arabic. Randalls example can, however, be
found in Classical Arabic, as well, and here it is much more meaningful,
although the texts of this language that we have, are quite late. In my
view, the use of the prefix-form with LAM in Modern and Classical Arabic is
a remnant of the time-indifferent meaning of the prefix-form.


Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo