Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Title: Re: BH rolf: data in search of a theory

Dear Vince,

Several appraoches are possible in the study of Hebrew verbs, including your approach. I find several advantages with your approach and appreciate your dissertation as a very good work. For several years I was a part of a group that had weekly discussions in theoretical linguistics and semantics. This lead me to believe that a much more down-to-the earth approach was needed for the study of Classical Hebrew than the elusive theories and models of theoretical linguists.

No conclusions drawn in the study of a dead language are final regardless of model or theory used, but we can hope to draw conclusions that probably are true or are close to the truth. I agree that an inductive approach has its problems; that is the reason why my corpus has an unprecedented size. I draw my conclusions on the basis of the analysis of 80.000 finite and infinite verbs ("all" the verbs of the Tanach and the DSS). I am recording the temporal reference of all these verbs (the relationship between the deictic point and reference time) and their mood. The verbs are ordered on the basis of the uncancelable characteristics durativity, dynamicity (change), and telicity, and the syntactic role of particular groups are recorded as well. If I use the principle of induction in relation to these data, what can I achieve? Not much  as far as the positive meaning of the forms are concerned, because induction can never prove nor verify anything; but particular patterns are clearly seen.

If I, in addition to my inductive approach, also use deduction, I am able to take a large step forward. Deduction cannot prove or veryfy anything more than can induction, but by the help of deduction we can be able to *falsify* something. Because we have a limited number of verbal groups in Hebrew, an act of falsification can be of great help. To be able to make a prediction by which something can be falsified, I need a theory for the distinction between what I  call "semantic meaning" and "conversational pragmatic implicature". This theory is very simple.

The linguistic basis for the theory I use are the works of Paul  H. Grice (1975)* and Mari  Olsen (1997)**. My assumption, which corroborates with generative grammar as well, is that the authors of the Hebrew texts wrote normal sentences in order to be understood.  Grice's principle on this foundation is that "semantic meanings may not be canceled without contradiction or reinforced without redundancy."  This means that the features of the verbal system which cannot be  changed or canceled by the context , represent semantic meaning, while features that can be changed or canceled, represent conversational pragmatic implicature, even though they may seem to represent a uniform meaning in the corpus.

  Olsen (1997:17) uses an example with the word "plod". We can ask: Are the concepts "slow" and "tired" a part of the "semantic meaning" of "plod"? consider the following clauses:

(1) Elsie plodded along, #but not slowly.
(2) Elsie plodded along, #slowly
(3) Margaret plodded along, although she was not tired.
(4) Margaret  plodded along; she was very tired.

Example (1) is contradictory, (2) is redundant, but (3) and (4) are normal. This means that "slow" is  a part of the semantic meaning of "plod" while "tired" is conversational  pragmatic implicature.

I am interested to know whether the WA(Y)-element of WAYYIQTOL is pragmatic (being a conjunction which has a syntactic role), or whether is it semantic (signalling that WAYYIQTOL is a different form compared with YIQTOL/WEYIQTOL). I first test it as to its supposed meaning as past tense, and on the basis of my theory I make the following prediction: If WAYYIQTOL represents past tense, all the occurrences of the form should have past reference (exceptions are accepted, not ad hoc-exceptions but those that can be linguistically explained). I have a list of 734 (5 % ) WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference which do not fulfill the prediction. Thus the claim that WAYYIQTOL represents past tense is falsified.

We can use the same kind of prediction regarding participles. Regarding their verbal use we can make the following prediction: If the participle represents progressiveness, all the occurrences of the participle will be progressive. I have a list of 96 passive participles and 395 active participles which are telic and where reference time intersects event time at the coda. So the claim that participles represent progressiveness is falsified!

The basic differences between our approaches are: 1) I ask about meaning the smallest possible units of the language, while you assume particular meanings of the forms (participle = progressive, WAYYIQTOL is a group different from YIQTOL etc) and try to find patterns based on these assumptions. 2) I work with the material on the basis of induction, and seek simple theories which can be used in a hypothetic deductive approach, while you work on the basis of the theoretical framwork of generative grammar, a framework which is much more elusive.

There are areas where our approaches can complement one another, but the basic weakness in your approach, as I see it, is that you take for granted that there are four Classical Hebrew conjugations (YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, QATAL  and WAQATAL),  while I, by the help of induction/deduction can show that there are just two (YIQTOL/WAYYIQTOL and QATAL/WEQATAL). If my conclusion regarding the number of conjugations is correct, some of your results must be erroneous, because your assumption regarding the number of conjugations then will be wrong. This means that my approach (focussing on the smallest units of language) is needed *before* your more theoretical approach can be used.

* Paul  H. Grice (1975) "Logic and conversation" in P. cole and J. Morgan, eds "syntax and Semantics, Speech Acts.New York: Academic Press,

** Mari Broman Olsen (1997), "A Semantic and pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect", New York and London:Garland Publishing Inc.

Regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo

rolf,

i doubt very much that an inductive approach will produce a viable theory.
the argument for generative grammar was, in part, that no other science
operates the way earlier linguists did:  the notion of a discovery
procedure was, in my view, justly rejected. is that what you're asking
for: a discovery procedure?

generative grammar is about producing mathematical models, like any other
science. some are more interesting than others, some handle data better
than others, some predict better than others:  and the search moves on. 
in other words, linguistics is for me applied mathematics. for some it is
also cognitive psychology... (but biblical scholars might not like that
soulless materialism).

different models for semantics require different types of supplementation
by pragmatics. no inductive framework is going to tell you how to do that.
what you need are better and better semantic models.

it happens, as you know, that i rely on a radical pragmatics theory. since
tense is inherently deictic, i can't see how you can't rely on pragmatics.
i do point out that you can isolate pragmatic effects in certain
environments: e.g., in direct questions, in subordination (you can be sure
of the temporal reference point).

so, e.g., i found in subordination (as i formally define it):
(1) qatal     100% past tense,        perfective, not progressive
(2) yiqtol   100% not past,          not progressive
(3) qotel        100%                    progressive (verbal use only)

my theory tells me where and how to look, and tells me these ought to be
the semantic representations:

(i) participle marked progressive, finite verbs default for not
progressive
(ii) qatal past tense, yiqtol defaults for not past tense

my theory further tells me that pragmatics must handle the defaulting,
among other things. without theory, i don't get off the ground.

it's precisely following the dictates of theory and method that boxed me

> into the problem of the sequentials. but
> in this case, being boxed in
> forced me to come up with a refined proposal for semantic theory.
> and
> theory moves on... i anticipate my proposals being well received
> in
> formal-linguistic circles.
> so after all this hot air of mine, how exactly do we differ? is it at
> the
> level of philosophy of science....?
>
> V
>