Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ken Penner <kpenner AT stfx.ca>]

I’ve spoken to a few respected Hebrew linguistic experts at SBL about Alexander Andrason’s panchronic description of the biblical Hebrew verbal system. The responses I received tended to be dismissive, but without specific reasons for the dismissal.

I suspect one reason Andrason’s views are not more widely discussed is that his writing is dense. To make his ideas more accessible, I have summarized one of his articles below. I hope to hear from those who have not yet responded to Andrason’s work (Rolf and Karl, I am already familiar with your positions, so there is no need to repeat them here).

 

Summary of Andrason, “The biblical Hebrew verbal system in light of grammaticalization: The second generation,” Hebrew Studies 52, no. 1 (2011): 19–51. Online: http://www.academia.edu/2393263/THE_BIBLICAL_HEBREW_VERBAL_SYSTEM_IN_LIGHT_OF_GRAMMATICALIZATION_THE_SECOND_GENERATION._Hebrew_Studies_2011_no._52.

1. This study builds on Andersen's diachronic approach to the evolution of the Hebrew verbal system, and Cook's description of grammaticalization in biblical Hebrew.

2. Evolutionary Approach includes three major theories: grammaticalization theory, path theory, and chaos theory, and is based on cognitive linguistics.

2.1 Grammaticalization Theory is the view that cross-linguistically, grams evolve from lexical periphrases to morphemes through a process consisting of accretion, merger, and shrinkage.

2.2 Path Theory depicts a cross-linguistic unidirectional development in which semantically transparent periphrases become grammaticalized into the verbal paradigm into untransparent categories such as aspect, taxis, tense, or mood, and then lose their original prototypical meaning, eventually disappearing or being recycled in new grammatical expressions. The four main trajectories are toward (1) the perfective and past, (2) the imperfective and present, (3) the modal expressions, and (4) the future, to use the labels for the grams have their maximal functionality.

2.3 Chaos theory holds that because grammaticalization and path theories are probabilistic, real-life languages may exhibit deviations from their predicted paths, without nullifying their approaches. This is because although chaotic systems are highly sensitive to initial conditions, chaos is locally unstable but globally stable.

2.4 Cognitive Principles include the expectation that the shape of a construction is related to its function, for example, plurality conveyed by reduplication.

2.5 Dynamic Description of a Synchronically Viewed Language: The evolutionary framework, though diachronic, can help explain the realities of synchronic languages.

2.5.1 Meaning as an Amalgam of Stages: A grammatical object cannot be reduced to one synchronic function. "The prototypical meanings of the formation, that is, values with the gram expressed most frequently, namely its unmarked uses" (29) will be among the range of possible meanings.

2.5.2 Illusion of Binary Opposition: Because the meanings of a gram involve multiple semantic spheres, any contrast with another gram cannot be simplified to a single opposition.

2.5.3 Dynamicity—Gram-Path: Because languages are always changing, synchronic formations are understood as diachronic processes; a gram is a portion of a path.

2.5.4 Panchrony: Because grams at a given moment are synchronic manifestations of a diachronic development, synchrony and diachrony are not incompatible. Their combination through grammaticalization and path theories is "panchrony." It aims at (1) improving the synchronic description of grammatical units in terms of dynamic trajectories; (2) portraying the grammar as a continuous _expression_ of cognitive processes; (3) involves (a) synchronic empirical data collection, (b) panchronic hypothesis, and (c) diachronic-comparative corroboration. When all three of these (synchronic, diachronic, and comparative types of panchrony) coincide in pointing to the same path, it is considered a manifestation of a path.

3. The Criticism of Cook's Model: Cook argues that Biblical Hebrew is aspect-prominent, for two reasons: languages tend to be more aspectual than tensed; and the fact that Hebrew stative qatals are used for present states points to the perfective aspect. Cook posits two paths: resultative for qatal and wayyiqtol (resultative>perfect>perfective>past); and imperfective for yiqtol and qotel (progressive>imperfective>present).

3.1 General Errors: Cook exhibits six divergences from the canonical evolutionary approach: (1) Cook does not use paths as an explanation of the synchronic data; he still understands Biblical Hebrew grams as static products of determined diachronic trajectories; (2) therefore he looks for a single static definition such as a tense or an aspect, rather than an amalgam of meanings; (3) he retains binary opposition, which is incompatible with grammaticalization and path frameworks; (4) he ignores the question of the cognitive plausibility of the input expressions; (5) he is unaware of the fact that resultative and imperfective paths may occur in any temporal context; (6) Cook oversimplifies the stages in the paths; for example, he describes the resultative path as if it had four stages, whereas it should include four sub-paths (anterior, simultaneous, and evidential), and the anterior has at least 10 stages.

3.2 Specific inaccuracies: Cook implies that the English simple past is perfective aspect, but Andrason says it is aspectually unmarked. Cook argues that because qatal is used for the present tense of stative verbs, the qatal is perfective, but Andrason says dynamic and stative predicates undergo different evolutionary paths: anterior, and simultaneous, respectively. Cook thinks that because aspects are a more basic verbal distinction than tenses, it is a priori likely that Hebrew is aspect prominent, but Andrason says aspect being the more basic distinction simply means that the path moves from aspect to tense; even more basic than aspect is taxis. Cook explains that the qatal for future is paralleled by some languages that express the future using perfective forms, but Andrason notes this phenomenon is exceptional. Cook did not provide a plausible regular path for the evolution of the future meaning of qatal. Cook treats qatal and weqatal as a single category because of their common diachronic origin (modal conditional clauses used weqatal), but Andrason says the frequency of the past habitual use of weqatal shows the two forms can no longer be treated as one. Cook claims wayyiqtol is simple past because it cannot express future events, but Andrason counters that with an example of wayyiqtol for a future action and several examples for present states. Cook ignores path theory's tenet that a gram can express any value in its history of evolution. Cook claims that "resultatives are regularly constructed of infinitives" (239), but path theory says these tend to come from participles instead. Finally, Cook fails to relate modal yiqtols to the imperfective path.

4. Conclusion: Cook's three most significant mistakes are: (1) he treats the grams as if they were static, rather than part of a path; (2) he separates a gram's conventional "invariant" meaning from its contextual variations; (3) he assumes binary opposition between verbal categories. A description of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system based on path theory would include: (1) the semantic potential of a gram is a mix of meanings from earlier stages along the path; (2) although all such meanings are equally important, the core meanings are more frequent, and the peripheral uncommon; (3) the gram is to be compared not with only one other gram, but with other grams in the system; (4) the entire system continues to evolve, each trajectory in co-evolving in a way comparable to a dynamic biological model; (5) paths should be determined by three steps (synchronically based hypothesis and its diachronic and comparative verification)

 

 

 

Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Religious Studies

2329 Notre Dame Avenue, 409 Nicholson Tower

St. Francis Xavier University

Antigonish, NS  B2G 2W5

Canada

(902)867-2265

kpenner AT stfx.ca