Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs

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 lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
  • Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:55:13 +0200

Dear list-members,

David Kummerow brought up the question about "uncancellable meaning" and indicated his strong feeling against the claim that such meaning exists. So I think it is fine to say something about it. The approach I have used in my study of Hebrew verbs is diametrically opposed to the discourse approach of Niccacci and others. Discourse analysis describes functions and patterns, but I have been looking for the *meaning* of each verb form. My question has been whether it is possible to speak of meaning, and if so, whether it is possible to describe this meaning. Therefore I have been looking for characteristics of verbs that remain the same regardless of the outward circumstances. I understand David to mean that such an approach is not possible, because meaning that always is the same and can never be cancelled does not exist. This is the issue, and I will now demonstrate that David is wrong.

Mari Broman Olsen wrote the dissertation "A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of lexical and Grammatical Aspect," and it was published in 1997. She discussed the English and New Testament Greek verbal systems, and her basic approach was to distinguish between "concersational pragmatic implicature" (meaning that is derived from the context and may change (be cancellable) and "semantic meaning" (meaning that always will be the same and never can be cancelled). She got her Ph.D in linguistics, and she would not have achieved that if "uncancellable meaning" is not a viable linguistic concept. I got my Ph.D with a similar approach to Hebrew verbs.

Broman Olsen gives the following example to illustrate the existence of uncancellable meaning:

This principle Broman Olsen takes from the linguist H. P. Grice, and it is that "semantic meanings may not be cancelled without contradiction or reinforced without redundancy".

We can ask: Are the concepts "tired" and "slow" a part of the semantic meaning of "plod"? 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" (there are no situations when "slow" can be cancelled or separated from "plod". But "tired" is not a part of the semantic meaning; people who are plodding along may or may not be tired.

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.

These examples show clearly that "semantic meaning" do exist! In connection with verbs, we may also distinguish between semantic meaning and conversational pragmatic implicature. A verb who is viewed as stative, may also be fientive ("The ship floats," versus "The ship was afloat."). So stativity cannot be classified as semantic meaning. The same is true with verbs that are viewed as punctiliar (some say, punctual); such verbs may have a durative interpretation in some situations. But in three groups of verbs we can speak of semantic meaning.

When a verb is marked for telicity, this property is uncancellable. I use the expression "marked for," because verbs, and phrases, and clauses can be made telic by addition of particular words. Thus, 4) is non-telic, and 5) is telic because of the adverbial. So telicity per se does not represent semantic meaning. But some verbs "are born" telic, so to speak, and they can never loose their telicity. Because of this we can say that they are marked for telicity (the end is conceptually a part of the Aktionsart of the verb).

4) Peter walked on the street.

5) Peter walked to his office.

In English, pharasal verbs are often marked for telicity, such as "break through; pass away; fall apart" etc. They can never loos thir telicity.

Other properties of verbs apart from telicity that are uncancellable are dynamicity (=change) and durativity (an action or state continues for some time). To apply this to 2 Samuel 12:3, the verbs $TH and )KL are both marked for dynamicity (the actions of eating and drinking change through time) and for durativity (the actions go on for a time). Regardless of whether these verbs are expressed as YIQTOLs, WAYYIQTOLs, QATALs, infinitives or participles, they will always remain durative and dynamic.

Those who deny the existence of "semantic meaning," must demonstrate that verbs that are marked for durativity, dynamicity, or telicity can loose these properties.

On the basis of the fact that semantic meaning do exist, in the work with the Hebrew verbal system, I systematically distinguished between pragmatics and semantics. And this has never systematically been done in in studies in BH or the other ancient Semitic language. This means particularly that I distinguish between temporal reference and tempus, which is an elementary linguistic distinction. So why no one has done this in Semitic studies is strange.

In practical application, this distinction between pragmatics and semantics means that when I analyze 93.1% of the WAYYIQTOLs as having past reference, I am not prepared to say that this means that they represent past tense. Neither would I say that this shows that they represent the perfective aspect, because this aspect normally is used with past reference in aspectual language. I did not exclude these possibilities when I started my study, but I took different steps to try to illuminate the situation.

First, I asked if we see a grammaticalization process that is almost completed. Grammaticalization means that a verb form with several uses or functions, gradually over time looses one function after the other, until it eventually has only one function. Such a process would be discernible in the books of the Tanakh; we would expect to see more different uses of WAYYIQTOL in the older books compared with the younger ones. But that is not the case, so I exclude any grammaticalization process.

Second, I asked whether past reference of so many WAYYIQTOLs was pragmatic rather than semantic, and after an analysis of thousands of examples, I concluded that this was the case.

The points above may illustrate the issue, and I stop with this. But the point is that uncancellable semantic meaning do exist, and because of this, it is profitable to study dead languages with this in mind.



Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


















Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page