Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: discourse analysis and circular reasoning

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: discourse analysis and circular reasoning
  • Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 09:39:19 +0200


Dear Moon,

What you have described below, and which you call "spiral reasoning" is the same that I call "the hermeneutical circle". This is a legitimate scientific tool.

Alviero uses this scientific tool to a great extent, but his work has, in my opinion, a circular side as well. In the Foreword to his "Syntax.." (p12) Alviero says, "Only at this point,after analysing the various syntactic settings suggested by a reading of the text, has it been possible to identify the forms and verbal constructions which can exist independently, within the Hebrew verbal system (WAYYIQTOL, QATAL, YIQTOL, weQATAL, and weYIQTOL, the simple noun clause,the complex noun clause) and to extend a list of tenses for each."

He starts with five finite conjugations, and he ends with five finite conjugations. He has made an excellent *descriptive* study for prose texts of how the verbs are used with and without prefixed WAW. But *description*, which is pragmatics, cannot be used in a *normative* way, to establish semantics. If that is done, it is not "spiral reasoning" but "circular reasoning" - you get out exactly what you put in.

Two basic reasons for circularity are, 1 the method has just been applied to prose texts (at least in the "Syntax.."). (In order to break circularity, one has to show that the results are equally applicable to poetic and semi-poetic texts), 2) There are too many forced explanations of examples from prose where the supposed function of a form does not seem to fit, not to speak of poetic texts where a form functions differently (This is not in the "Syntax..", but has been seen in discussion between different memebers of the list.)


An alternative application of discourse analysis of the Hebrew verbal system is the descriptive one. This means that the patterns that are seen in the use of verbs simply reflect *inguistic convention*,i.e. this is the way the writers used their verbs, something that was inherited from father to son. A pattern that often is seen, is not the only pattern or the only use of this particular form. The fallacy of discourse analysis applied to Hebrew verbs is when characteristics are imputed to particular verbs: WAYYIQTOLs establish a new point of reference, this form occur i mainline, that form in background etc. To go from pragmatics to semantics tends to be circular, and this is what is seen in many studies where discourse analysis is the backbone. Only when a characteristic is seen in *all* cases where the form is used (explainable exceptions accepted) - in prose as well as poetics - is the characteristic a semantic part of the form.



Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo












Rolf warned against the danger of circular reasoning in the method of
discourse analysis. To him, discourse analysis "tries to confirm the
very results on which your method build".

I would like to make some comments.

(1) We need to distinguish "circular reasoning" and "spiral reasoning".
If you travel on the circle, you cannot move forward. But if you
travel on the spiral, you make circular motion, but still move
forward. I think discourse analysis which for example Niccacci does
is more like spiral reasoning than circular reasoning. It does start
with the assumption that different forms would have
different functions. He distinguishes WAYYIQTOL, WEQATAL, WEYIQTOL,
QATAL, YIQTOL, and QOTEL. It is the safest assumption. I would be
happy to go on a spiral travel starting from this assumption. In the
early part of the spiral travel, we would detect the usage of these
forms from examples whose interpretations are clear. In the latter
part of the travel, we would attempt to interpret difficult cases
by using the patterns of usage discovered so far. As long as such an
attempt does not face a total breakdown, it is scientifically
legitimate to continue the trip. One should not criticise this trip
by saying that it builds upon the assumption and sticks to it, but
by saying that the resulting interpretations do not make sense at all.

You worry that the interpretation of a sentence is affected by many
factors, e.g. temporal adverbials, lexical aspects of the
verb, other than the verb form. That is true. But the interpretation
of such sentences would be attempted in the latter part of the
spiral travel.

(2) Science is the refinement of everyday thinking. Physics Laws are
refined descriptions. For example, the Newton's three laws of motion
are just descriptions of the reality. Before we attempt refining
descriptions, we need to find them. In the case of hebrew, I think
that we need descriptions of the verb forms more than we need to
analyze them based on a few parameters. I have some experience
in computational linguistics, a field of Artificial Intelligence.
All the theories seemed to lack "descriptive adequacy". Without it
any attempt to get "explanatory adequacy" would turn out to be
a meaningless game.

Moon
Moon R. Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page