Biblical Hebrew Forum

["M & E Anstey" <anstey AT raketnet.nl>]

Hi Vince & Rodney,

Vince wrote:

>in the meantime, let me try this. consider the following examples:
>(1) Word order does make a difference.
>(2) Does word order make a difference?
>i see a syntactic difference: word order. i see a semantic difference: in
>(2) there is "value added", a yes/no question. further, it's not random
>where the verb appears; and we must capture some relation between (1) and
>(2). the standard solution: posit construction (3):
>(3) Q word order does make a difference?

>so, posit a rule whereby the verb must move to lexicalize the element "Q".
>the "Q" does all the semantic and syntactic work, and we have in effect a
>"verb movement" theory.

I don't have the time to go into all the issues raised by Vince's brief
presentation, but I do think it is worth pointing out to non-specialists
such as Rodney that "the standard solution" is perhaps better read in my
opinion as "the standard solution in some generative grammars". But in other
generative and non-generative grammatical theories (1) and (2) are not
derived from (3) but from two different underlying representations, that
differ in one or more ways. In this case, the underlying difference would be
accounted for by a difference in declarative versus interrogative sentence
types (or,  illocutionary vs interrogative illocutionary force). More
importantly, Vince posits that the commonality between (1) and (2) is
another, third syntactic-type construction (3). But other theories would
replace (3) with a cognitive representation, or a lexical semantic
representation, or other types of abstract reps. Other theories posit two or
more (3)-type constructions that are unified to give (1) or (2) etc.

So let me demonstrate how standard Functional Grammar (Dik 1989) would
represent "(3)" underlying (1) and (2) (very simplified).

(3) for (1): Decl Pres (f: make a difference) (sx: f: word order)
(3) for (2): Int Pres    (f: make a difference) (sx: f: word order)

Recent FG theory, as in Functional Discourse Grammar, would be rather
different, but the standard FG is more well-known.

In contrast both to FG and Vince, another theory such as Role and Reference
Grammar, would have a single "(3)" for (1) and (2):
(3) make a difference' (word order)
And to generate (1) and (2) there would be two additions. Firstly what is
called an operator projection is added to this, the operators being Decl in
(1) and Int in (2). Secondly, to account for the different syntax, RRG
supplies a "syntactic" template for each sentence, such as the following for
(1): [Sentence [ Clause [ Core [ Arg Nuc]]]]. Then in RRG, Arg is linked to
"word order" and Nuc to "make a difference". [Many theories adopt such a
construction based approach to grammar these days.]

nb [I have assumed throughout, by the way, that "make a difference" is a
single verbal idiom as it predicates a single property "making a difference"
to a single entity, in this case "word order".]

So for the sake of Rodney and others interested in grammatical theory, I
feel it is worth pointing some of these quite fundamental differences of
opinion about such matters. [By the way Rod, for a good recent intro to
syntactic theory, including the sort Vince uses, see Van Valin, 2001,
Introduction to Syntactic Theory, Cambridge University Press. It is for
first year uni students in a syntax course.]

There are people working in various current theories and many people study
aspects of the text where grammatical theories are replaced (or
supplemented) with other linguistic theories that deal with different
phenomenon, such as participant tracking, discourse structure, anaphora, and
so forth. The degree to which such things are indeed independent from
grammar is in itself an area of debate, not just in Hebrew linguistics but
in linguistics in general.

Finally, there is another profound issue lurking herein that is often not
sufficiently discussed in Biblical Hebrew studies, and that is the
relationship between linguistic theories of any kind and the "data" of the
Hebrew bible. So for some the issue is not so much "which theory/theories
should I use?" but rather "should I use linguistic theory at all, and if so,
why?"

regards

Matthew Anstey
------------------------------------------
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid
"Werkgroep Informatica"
anstey AT raketnet.nl

+31 (0)20 - 444-6626 (W)
+31 (0)255 - 52-6541 (H)

-