Version classiqueVersion mobile

New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew

 | 
Aaron D. Hornkohl
, 
Khan Geoffrey

On Pragmatics and Grammar in Biblical Hebrew: Predicate Adjectives and Stative Verbs

Ethan Jones

Résumé

In the study of the pragmatics of Biblical Hebrew, most of the scholarly attention has been on topic and focus. At times, given and new information (i.e., theme and rheme) receive passing mention. Yet a claim has gone mostly unnoticed for decades, namely, that the pragmatic layer of given and new information is inextricably linked to the grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Jenni 1968; 2012). In short, the position is that predicate adjectives mark new information, whereas stative verbs mark given information. The present article revisits this old claim. It returns afresh to this minimal pair, using recent research on Information Structure (Götze et al. 2007). At times, the results corroborate previous research, but other times the seamless connection between pragmatics and grammar is challenged. In all, this article hopes to encourage more work on the relationship between grammar and pragmatics in ancient Hebrew.

Texte intégral

1.0. Preliminary Remarks

  • 1 Some well-known exceptions are Muraoka (1985) and Khan (1988).
  • 2 See, for example, Shimasaki (2002); Holmstedt (2005; 2009; 2011); Van Hecke (2010); Hatav (2017); H (...)

1Syntax and semantics vie for the attention of Hebraists. This means that pragmatics, while important, typically remains underappreciated and understudied.1 Pragmatics, broadly defined, “is the systematic study of meaning by virtue of, or dependent on, the use of language,” which includes “implicature, presupposition, speech acts, and deixis” (Huang 2015, 2). In Hebrew studies, most pragmatic research centres on information structure [IS].2 That is the “packaging of information that meets the immediate communicative needs of the interlocutors” (Féry and Krifka 2008, 123).

  • 3 Firbas (1992), on the other hand, frames topic in terms of given or new information, and not ‘about (...)

2Two important, though often debated, categories of IS are topic and focus. Though variously defined, topic generally has to do with what the communication is about (Mosahvi 2010).3

(1)

ו ֹ עב ַ ז ע ָ ל ָָ ה ה ַ ש ַ ע ַ ר
‘No sooner had Boaz gone up to the gate… ’ (Ruth 3.17)

3In (1), Holmstedt (2009, 130) observes that the topic (Boaz) “orients the reader to which character is acting at a major transition in the book.”

  • 4 Buth (1999, 81) adds more detail to the contrastive feature of focus, writing, “It maybe contraexpe (...)

4Focus, on the other hand, denotes a choice from at least two options, as Hornkohl (2018, 34) illustrates in (2):4

(2)

ו ַ י ֹּֽ מא ְ ר ּ ו ּ֙ א ִ֣ שי א ֶּ ־ל ֵ ער ֵ ה ּּ֙ ו מ ִ֥ י ע ָָ ש ָׂ֖ ה ה ַ ד ָָ ב ִ֣ ר ה ַ ז ֶֶּּ֑ ה ַ ו ַֹּֽֽ י ְ ד ְ שר ּ ו ּ֙ ו ַ י ְ ב ַ ק ְ ש ֵּ֔ ו ו ַ י ִ֣ מא ְ ר ֵּ֔ ו ג ְ עד ֹ ןו ּ֙ ב ֶּ ן ּ֙ י ־ ֹ או ֵָ֔ ש ע ָ ש ָָׂ֖ ה ה ַָ בד ִָ֥ ר ה ַ ז ֶֹּּֽ ה ּ֙ ׃
‘So they said to one another, “Who has done this?” After searching and inquiring, they were told, “Gideon son of Joash did it.”’ (Judg. 6.29)

  • 5 Van Hecke (2010, 58) writes that intonation being “one of the most important clues to the informati (...)
  • 6 See especially Shimasaki (2002); Holmstedt (2005; 2009; 2011); Hatav (2017).

5Research on IS in Biblical Hebrew relies primarily on the establishment of common ground [CG] and syntax and not, for example, on intonation, which is critical for the study of pragmatics in non-ancient languages.5 CG designates the shared information which “is continuously modified in the course of communication” and includes presuppositions, assertions, and discourse referents (Féry and Krifka 2008, 125). Speakers/authors manage CG in part through syntax. Thus, it is no surprise that much of the research on IS in Biblical Hebrew deals with word order.6

6Let us take (3) as an example.

(3)

יתא ש ָ ל ַַ֤ ח י ְ וה ָ ה ּ֙ מל ְ ש ָ ח ֳָ ך ִּ֣֙ ל ְ מ ֵֶּ֔ ל ֶּּ֙ ך ‘The Lord sent me to anoint you king.’ (1 Sam. 15.1)

  • 7 Be it Verb-Subject-Object (VSO) or Subject-Verb-Object (SVO). For the important terminological dist (...)
  • 8 De Regt (2019, 63), for example, argues that “It is not just the participant reference device itsel (...)

7The object ( תא ִ י ) in (3) begins the speech. Irrespective of one’s view of the basic word order in Biblical Hebrew,7 virtually everyone would agree that א ֹ ת ִ י has been moved to the front of the sentence for some pragmatic purpose.8 However, scholars expend considerable energy on the specific reason why, for example, א ֹ ת ִ י is fronted and how that relates to the default word order.

  • 9 While I find it preferable to separate and analyse the two layers, it is worth noting that Erteschi (...)
  • 10 Féry and Krifka (2008, 126) note that “given expressions, like pronouns, can be focused.” See also (...)
  • 11 Additional experimental research corroborates this claim. For example, Toepel and Alter (2013, 227– (...)

8At a general level, Hebraists observe that a topic is typically given (or old) information and focus usually brings new information (Bandstra 1982). Holmstedt (2009), however, rightly separates two layers of pragmatics when analysing the Hebrew Bible. The first layer comprises given information (theme) and new information (rheme); the second includes topic and focus.9 While I shall strictly define given and new information in §2, it should be made quite clear the given/new layer is not one and the same as topic/focus (Gross 2001; Moshavi 2010).10 For example, while focus often correlates with new information, focus items “may either be brand new... identifiable or discourse active” (Van der Merwe and Talstra 2002–2003, 76). In fact, recent experimental research has verified that “focus and newness are different concepts and suggest [s] making a distinction between contrastive focus and new information” (Chen, Li, and Yang 2012, 6).11

9The two pragmatic layers are illustrated in (4):

(4)

Abigail and Benjamin were drinking juice. Abigail wanted to drink another cup.

10Abigail in the second sentence is old information or theme (Holmstedt 2009, 127). The rest of the second sentence, wanted to drink another cup, presents new information (rheme). The status of Abigail in the second layer of pragmatics (topic or focus) depends on the rest of the context.

(5)

And Benjamin wanted another one as well.

  • 12 Topic as described by Holmstedt is a clause-level rather than discourse-level notion.

11If (5) follows (4), then Abigail and Benjamin are the topic (Holmstedt 2009, 127). However, the second layer changes if (6) were to follow (4)– (5).12

(6)

But Benjamin wanted milk.

  • 13 Holmstedt’s labelling of topic and focus in (4)– (6) is not my own. I simply wish to illustrate how (...)

12On account of (6), Holmstedt (2009, 127) finds that “the pragmatic context changes significantly, and accordingly, so does the total pragmatic information conveyed by both Abigail and Benjamin. The situation is now a contrastive one, with the entities Abigail and Benjamin set over against each other. This is Focus.”13

13Hatav (2017, 216–17) adds that rheme can stay in its syntactic place (Subject-Verb-Object, according to her), but focus is moved up (Verb-Subject-Object). Similarly, theme is not influenced by syntax, but a topic is moved to clause-initial position (cf. Abraham 2009).

  • 14 These categories are adapted from Dik (1989, 267). See also Lambrecht (1994, 77–114) for terms such (...)

14In addition, Gross (2001) distinguishes the two pragmatic layers, though, like Holmstedt and Hatav, still majors on topic/focus. Nevertheless, Van Hecke (2010, 83) comments that Gross “adds to the descriptive fine-tuning needed for an accurate description of pragmatic function.” In his own research, Van Hecke (2010) consistently combines the two pragmatic layers with labels such as ‘New Topic’, ‘Given Topic’, and ‘Resumed Topic’.14

15As illustrated above, nearly all the scholarly attention has been on the second layer of pragmatics (topic/focus). When the first layer (given/new) does appear, it is (at best) a prerequisite to move on to an analysis of topic and focus. There is, however, at least one significant exception.

  • 15 See Joosten (1998) and Beckman (2015).

16In 1968, Ernst Jenni laid out his claim for the function of the piʿʿel binyan. His work has encouraged many responses, but his comments on pragmatics have gone mostly unnoticed.15 Nevertheless, Jenni has continued to develop his ideas. In 2007 (republished in 2012), analysing given/new and the grammar of Biblical Hebrew, he attempted to confirm the relationship of pragmatics and grammar:

  • 16 Translations are mine unless otherwise noted.

(7)

ה ּ נ ִֵ֥ ה ח ָ כ ָָ ם א ַָ ת ָׂ֖ ה מ ָ אנד ֵּ֙ ל ‘You are indeed wiser than Daniel’ (Ezek. 28.3)16

(8)

ּ֙ ו ַ י ֶּ ח ְ כ ַ ם ּ֙ כמ ָ ־ל ָ ה ֹּֽ א ָ ד ָ ם ‘He was wiser than anyone else’ (1 Kgs 5.11)

  • 17 Another distinction is that the former is a verbless clause and the latter a verbal clause. Jenni ( (...)

17He claims the predicate adjective ח ָ כ ָ ם in (7) conveys new information. Specifically, ח ָ כ ָָ ם “bringt einen originellen neuen Vergleich” (Jenni 2012, 80). Whereas ו ַ י ֶ ח ְ כ ַ ם in (8) “bringt nur die logische Fortsetzung zum vorangehenden” in v.10: ו ַֹ ת ֶ בר ֙ ח ָ כ ְ מ ַָ ת ׁ ש ְֹ ל ֹ המ מ ֵ ח ָ כ ְַ מ ַ ת כ ָ ב־ל ְ ־ינ ֶֶ דק ֶ ם מו ִַ לכ ח ָ כ ְ מ ַַ ת מ ִ צ ְָ ר ֵ י ִ ם ‘Solomon’s wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt’ (Jenni 2012, 80). Put differently, an author/speaker of Biblical Hebrew would use the predicate adjective ח ָ כ ָָ ם instead of wayyiqṭol ( ו ַ י ֶ ח ְ כ ַ ם ) or qaṭal ( ח ָ כ ַ ם ) for pragmatic reasons and not simply semantics. Thus, the difference between the two grammatical forms in (7) and (8) is not limited to ‘are wiser’ and ‘was wiser’, but includes the dimension of new versus given information.17

18Yet Jenni goes further, arguing that pragmatics is built into the binyan system:

(9)

ּ֙ ו ַ תי ְ ח ַ ב ֵ א ָ ה ֹּֽ א ָָֹ םד ְ שאו ְ ת ֹ ו ּ֙ פמ ְֵ ינ ּ֙ י ְ ה ָ ו ִ֣ ה א ֱֹ הל ֵ֔ םי
‘and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Yhwh God’ (Gen. 3.8)

(10)

ו ָ א ִ י ָ ר ָ א ִ כ ֵ יע־י ַ םר א ַָ כנ ִ י ו ָ חא ָ ב ֵ ׃א
‘And I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.’ (Gen. 3.10)

19Like the predicate adjective/stative verb pair in (7)– (8), the hitpaʿʿel in (9) marks new pragmatic information. The nifʿal in (10), however, “ist keine neue Information, sondern wird als logische Folge unter den gegebenen Umständen angesehen” (2012, 153). To be sure, these observations on the predicate adjective, stative verb, hitpaʿʿel, and nifʿal concern not merely the pragmatics of the particular cases in examples (7)– (10). Rather, there is a much more comprehensive claim: that the predicate adjective and the hitpaʿʿel always bring new pragmatic information, whereas the stative verb and the nifʿal exclusively denote given information.

20While these arguments have not had scholarly engagement, I believe they deserve consideration for at least two reasons. First and most important, clarity is needed on whether grammatical forms themselves mark pragmatic information in Biblical Hebrew. The relationship between grammar and pragmatics, as linguists have ably demonstrated (Ariel 2008; Deppermann 2011), should not be quickly dismissed. Second, the first layer of pragmatics (given and new) calls for more assiduity, lest it be deemed irrelevant or conflated with the second (topic and focus).

21I wish to be quite plain that this article is not merely an analytical check on Jenni’s research. Rather, I hope to use it as a jumping off point for a scholarly conversation on pragmatics and grammar. The relationship between the two has not gone unnoticed by Hebraists.

22It is not unusual, for example, to claim that in a verbless clause (i.e., null-copula) the subject is given information, whereas the predicate is new information (Zewi 1994, 145; Gross 2001, 44). What is more, scholars are certainly aware that a subject pronoun (e.g., אוה ) is often given information as well as the pragmatic topic. That said, Revell (1999, 306) notes “The topic of a clause is... usually its subject; this is not necessarily the case.” In addition, Hornkohl (2018, 35) describes topic as the “marked point of reference for ensuing information,” which can apply to temporal setting (Exod. 16.13) and scene setting (Gen. 3.14–17) as well. Thus, topic and subject are not one in the same.

  • 18 In this article, I will not touch on the pragmatics of the binyanim. Rather, I will concentrate on (...)

23The comments above show that Hebraists are conscious of a relationship between pragmatics and grammar, but it arguably remains on the periphery. In what follows I centre my study on pragmatics, especially given/new information, and the relation (or lack thereof) to the grammar of Biblical Hebrew.18

2.0. On Method

24In attempting to lay bare Jenni’s far-reaching pragmatic claims above, I shall analyse the core of his argument: predicate adjectives and stative verbs. Specifically, I wish to see if predicate adjectives always bring pragmatically new information to the context, and, in turn, if stative verbs always bear given information. To go about this study, I make use of the detailed guidelines for IS analysis formulated by Michael Götze et al. (2007). Regarding the first layer of pragmatics (which is the only layer we concern ourselves with), I categorise the information using given, accessible, and new. The first two have various sub-divisions that allow for specificity and have criteria for making decisions on IS.

  • 19 For an important study of differentiation within givenness, see Prince (1981). Much of what she dis (...)

25Given [GIV], for example, is divided into active [ACT] and inactive [INACT]. Active applies to information that has appeared explicitly in its exact form within the last or same sentence.19

  • 20 The following examples of IS guidelines are inspired by Götze et al. (2007) unless otherwise noted.

(11)

John went home. John [GIV-ACT] drank coffee.20

26Inactive is similar, but does not occur within the immediate sentence. Typically, Götze et al. suggest looking backward for approximately five sentences.

(12)

So John went into the kitchen. It was clean. John [GIV-INACT] was happy.

27Accessible information [ACC], which itself is a bridge between the most often used binary choices of given and new, has numerous sub-divisions. First is situative [SIT], which occurs within discourse.

(13)

Could you hand me the salt [ACC-SIT], please?
Second is aggregation [AGGRG]:

(14)

John went shopping with Emily. They [ACC-AGGRG] bought a lot of gifts.

28Third is inferable [INF]. This involves bridging relations, such as part-whole relation (the garden… its entrance), set-relation (family… children), and entity-attribute (the garden… its scent).

29Fourth is general [GEN]. Here, the speaker understands that the hearer knows the referent from his or her world knowledge:

  • 21 Taken explicitly from Götze et al. (2007).

(15)

The sun [ACC-GEN] set.21

  • 22 I agree with an anonymous reviewer that a graded category for new information would be beneficial. (...)

30The final broad category of IS is new. This, of course, is any participant that cannot be categorised as given or accessible.22

31These categories as presented above may seem straightforward and unproblematic. However, in analysing Biblical Hebrew, the task is far from easy. Setting aside the well-known issues in researching the Hebrew Bible, one major difficulty for us is the extra-textual world of pragmatics. The criteria of information from Götze et al. primarily concerns the ‘internal’ (i.e., what is mentioned earlier in the narrative or speech). The ‘external’, however, is information that a narrator and reader share— though not made explicit (Revell 1999, 307). The intersection of the external and internal via pragmatic presupposition is significant (Van der Merwe and Talstra 2002–2003, 77; Moshavi 2010).

32Van Hecke (2010, 107) rightly avers that the context for pragmatics involves not just “the immediate (narrative or discursive) textual context, but also includes the situation, physical context in which the communication takes place, and even the information which has not yet been referred to in the ongoing communication, but which is shared by the both interlocutors.” Speaking specifically on givenness, Floor (2004, 23) observes “Most theorists agree that… it is more than just activated by the preceding text leading up to it… cognitive and wider extra-textual assumptions and knowledge of the world determine how much of a topic is given.”

33For our purposes, it needs to be remembered that “The interlocutors in written communication can either be a narrator and an audience or characters participating in a communicative event” (Khan and Van der Merwe 2020, 350).

(16)

מ ֹּֽ י־י ֵֵ ר ִ֥ ד ּ֙ תא ָ י א ֶּ ש־ל ָ א ָּׂ֖ לו א ֶּ ־ל ַ ה ֹּֽ מ ַ ח ֲ נ ֶֶּּ֑ ה ו ַ י ִ֣ מא ֶּ ר א ֲ שיב ֵַ֔ י א ֲ נ ָׂ֖ י א ֵֵ ר ִ֥ ד מע ָֹּּֽ֙ ׃ך
‘ “Who will go down with me to Saul, into the camp?” Abishai said “I will go down with you.”’ (1 Sam. 26.6)

34So in (16), for example, “the speaker assumes that the hearer presupposes that somebody will go down with him into the camp to Saul” (Khan and Van der Merwe 2020, 353).

  • 23 As Moshavi (2010, 124) observes, “The mental representation incorporates inferences based on the re (...)

35The complexities of adducing the pragmatic relevance of the situational, physical, and yet-to-be revealed information in the Hebrew Bible are self-evident.23 Nonetheless, I shall attempt to categorise information of predicate adjectives and stative verbs. In doing so, however, I make note of how tentative my various linguistic conjectures might be.

36Before moving to the analysis section, we should be aware of just how close the relationship of adjectives and stative verbs is. Joüon and Muraoka (2006, 331), for example, claim that the qaṭal of stative verbs “is originally a ‘conjugated adjective’.” Concerning cross-linguistics, Cook (2008, 10) argues that “the stative adjective in Biblical Hebrew presents a split-strategy between verbal and nominal encodings,” as evidenced by what he calls verbal strategy (17), zero copula (18), and verbal copula (19).

  • 24 Translations for (16)– (18) are Cook’s (2008).

(17)

ו ְ ע ֵ ני ֵַ֤ י שי ְָ אר ֵ ל ּ֙ כ ָ ב ְִ֣ ד ּ ו זמ ֵ֔ ק ֶּּ֙ ן
‘The eyes of Israel were heavy from old age’ (Gen. 48.10)24

(18)

ּ֙ דיו ֵַ֤ י שמ ֶּ ה ּ֙ כ ְ ב ֵ ד ֵ֔ םי
‘The hands of Moses (were) heavy’ (Exod. 17.12)

(19)

ּ֙ ו ַ י ְ ה ִ֥ י ַ ה ֹּֽ מ ַ ח ֲ נ ֶָּׂ֖ ה כ ָ ב ִֵ֥ ד מ ְֹּֽ דא
‘The camp was very great (lit. ‘heavy’)’ (Gen. 50.9)

37To complicate matters further, some qaṭal and adjectival forms are identical (Pat-El 2013).

  • 25 Emphasis is mine. See also Dixon (2006); Wetzer (2013); Koller (2012).
  • 26 That said, there may be valid reasons for considering adjectives a subcategory of substantives (Hor (...)

38In general, adjectives “are highly complex and significantly less studied than other major lexical categories such as nouns or verbs” (McNally and Kennedy 2008, 1). Some of that difficulty is present in linguistic typology. Hofherr (2010, 1), for instance, notes that “[i] dentifying nouns, verbs and adjectives cross-linguistically is… a difficult enterprise, with adjectives being particularly elusive.”25 Nevertheless, recent study by Naudé and Miller-Naudé (2016) demonstrates that the adjective in Biblical Hebrew is indeed a proper category and should not be indiscriminately lumped together with nouns in the broad category ‘substantives’.26

  • 27 Rothmayr (2009).

39In certain contexts, prototypical statives may be either stative or dynamic (Comrie 1976).27 This cross-linguistic tendency holds true for Biblical Hebrew. For example, by way of “narrative sequence and the presence of punctiliar frames” a stative may become dynamic (Dobbs-Allsopp 2000, 50). Thus, stative verbs are similar and at times even identical to predicate adjectives, but the two are distinct.

  • 28 It should be noted I do not include in this study nominalised adjectives (e.g., Lam. 5.14), since t (...)

40In my study, I analyse the following predicate adjective and qaṭal pairs: ק ָ ןט | ק ָ ןט ; ג ַָ לד | ג ָ ד ֹ לו ; ז ָ ק ֵ ן | ז ָ ק ֵ ן ; ח ָ כ ַ ם |ּּ֙֙ ח ָ כ ָ ם . I have chosen these particular pairs because they feature prominently in Jenni’s research (1968; 1977; 1999; 2007; 2012).28 I begin with . ח ָ כ ָ ם

3.0. Analysis

3.1. Predicate Adjective ( ח ָ כ ָ ם )

  • 29 Isa. 31.2; Jer. 4.22; 8.8; Ezek. 28.3 (notably with הִנה); Hos. 14.10 (while textually new, it is h (...)

41The predicate adjective ( ח ָ כ ָ ם ) brings new information (NEW) in every case.29

(20)

ל ְ ב ַ ע ֲ ב ַּ֤ רו ּ֙ ס ַ ב ֵ ב ּ֙ א ֶּ פ־ת ְ נ ִֵ֣ י ּ֙ ה ַ ד ָ ב ֵָ֔ ר ּ֙ ע ָ ש ָָ ה ּ֙ ע ַ ב ְְ ד ָ ך ִּ֥֙ י ֹ או ָָׂ֖ ב ּ֙ א ֶּ ה־ת ַָ בד ִָ֣ ר ּ֙ ה ַ ז ֶֶּּ֑ ה ּ֙ ו ַ נדא ִ֣ י ּ֙ ח ָ כ ָ כ ם ְ ח ָ כ ְ מ ַ ת ּ֙ מ ַ ל ְַ א ִ֣ ך ּ֙ ה ָ א ֱֹ הל ֵ֔ םי ּ֙ ל ַָ ד ָׂ֖ ע ַ ת ּ֙ א ֶֹּּֽ כ־ת ָ א־ל ֲ ש ִֶּ֥ ר ּ֙ ב ָ א ֶָֹּּֽ ץר ּ֙ ׃
‘In order to change the course of affairs your servant Joab did this very thing. But my lord has wisdom like the wisdom of the angel of God to know all things that are on the earth.’ (2 Sam. 14.20)

42In (20) the speaker gives a compliment to the king. Her statement gives a description that is textually new, but would also be news to the addressee (at least his knowledge of her perception).

3.2. Stative Verb ( ח ָ כ ַ ם )

43For the stative verb (ּ֙ ח ָ כ ַ ם ) the pragmatics vary.

3.2.1. GIV-ACT30

  • 30 Prov. 9.9 (the A line reads תָן לְְחָכָם ‘give to the wise’, making the B line given [GIV-ACT], tho (...)

(21)

ו ַ י ֶּ ח ְ כ ַ ם ּ֙ כמ ָ ־ל ָ ה ֹּֽ א ָ ד ָ ם ּ֙ מ ֵ א ֵ י ָ ת ִ֣ ן ּ֙ ה ָ א ֶּ ז ְָ יחר ּ֙ ו ְ ה ֵ מי ָָ֧ ן ּ֙ ו ְ כ ַ ל ְ כ ָ ל ְּ֙ ו ַ ד ְ ר ַ ד ָׂ֖ ע ּ֙ ב ְ נ ִֵ֣ י ּ֙ מ ֶָּ֑ ח ֹ לו
He was wiser than anyone else, wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, children of Mahol (1 Kgs 5.11)

44It is quite clear that (21) is given [GIV-ACT] because of the two previous verses: ּ֙ ו ַ תי ֵ ן ּ֩֙ א ֱֹ הל ֵּ֨ םי ּ֙ ח ָ כ ְ מ ָָ֧ ה ּ֙ של ְֹ מל ָ ה ּּ֙ תו ְ ב ּ נו ָָׂ֖ ה ּ֙ ה ְַ בר ִֵ֣ ה ּ֙ מ ְֶּ֑ דא ּ֙ ו ְִ֣ חר ַ ב ּ֙ ל ֵֵ֔ ב ּ֙ כ ַ ח ֹ֕ לו ּ֙ א ֲ ש ֶָּׂ֖ ר ּ֙ ע ַ ש־ל ְ פ ִַ֥ ת ּ֙ ה ַ י ָֹּֽ ׃ם ּ֙ ו ַ ת ֵֶּ בר ּ֙ ח ָ כ ְ מ ִַּ֣֙ ת ּ֙ ש ְֹ מל ֵ֔ ה ּ֙ מ ֵֹּֽ ח ָ כ ְ מ ַָּׂ֖֙ ת ּ֙ כ ָ ב־ל ְ נ ֵ ־י ֶּ ק ֶּ֑ ד ֶּ ם ּּ֙ כמו ָׂ֖ ל ּ֙ ח ָ כ ְ מ ִַ֥ ת ּ֙ צמ ְָ ר ֹּֽ םי “God gave Solomon very great wisdom, discernment, and breadth of understanding as vast as the sand on the seashore, so that Solomon’s wisdom exceeded the wisdom of all the people of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt” (1 Kgs 5.9–10).

3.2.2. ACC-SIT31

  • 31 Prov. 23.15; Ecc. 2.15; 7.23. It seems appropriate to understand the imperative use of חָכַם in Pro (...)

(22)

ְ או ָ מ ְֵַּ֨ ר ֹּֽ ית ּ֙ א ֲֹ ינ ּ֙ ב ְ יבל ּ֙ כ ְ קמ ְֵ ר ַ֤ ה ּ֙ ה ַ כ ְ ליס ּ֙ ג ַ א־ם ֲ נ ִ֣ י ּ֙ קי ְֵ ר ֵ֔ ינ ּ֙ ו ְ ל ָָ֧ מ ָ ה ּ֙ ח ָ כ ַָ מ ְ ית ּ֙ א ֲ נ ָׂ֖ י ָּ֙ א ִ֣ ז ּ֙ י ֹ תו ֵֶּ֑ ו ר ְ בד ְִַ֣ יתר ּ֙ ב ְ בל ֵ֔ י ּ֙ ש ֶּ ג ַ ז־ם ֶָּׂ֖ ה ָּ֙ ה ֹּֽ ב ֶּ ל ּ֙ ׃
‘Then I said to myself, “What happens to the fool will happen to me also; why then have I been so very wise?” And I said to myself that this also is vanity.’ (Eccl. 2.15)

45Qohelet understands well his past experience of being ‘very wise’ and thus the qaṭal cannot be new information. Since he is speaking to himself, it is reasonable to consider ח ָ כ ַָ מ ְ ית situational (ACC-SIT).

3.2.3. ACC-INF32

  • 32 Deut. 32.29 (with לו ‘if’); Job 32.9 (though the predicate moves the communication, the information (...)

(23)

ל ִֵ֣ ץ ּ֙ ה ַ י ַ ןי ּ֙ מה ִֶּ֣ ה ּ֙ ש ֵ כ ֶָּ֑ ר ְּ֙ כו ָ ש־ל ִ֥ ג ֶּ ה ּ֙ ב ֹּ֝ ו ּ֙ ל ִ֣ א ּ֙ י ֶּ ח ְ כ ָֹּֽ ׃ם
‘Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise.’ (Prov. 20.1)

46The inference (ACC-INF) comes from the A line, twice over. Two kinds of drinks are but a fool. Therefore, whoever consumes such drink would inevitably be a fool, or ל ִ֣ א ּ֙ י ֶּ ח ְ כ ָֹּֽ ם ‘not wise’.

3.2.4. New

47There is one example of the stative verb that could perhaps be new information.

(24)

ְּ֙ גו ַ ח־ם ֲָ מ ָׂ֖ ת ּ֙ גת ְ ב ָ ב־ל ֶָּּ֑ ה ּ֙ צ ִ֣ ר ְּ֙ דיצו ֵֹ֔ ןו ּ֙ כ ִ֥ י ָּ֙ ח ֹּֽ כ ְָ מ ָׂ֖ ה ּ֙ מ ְֹּֽ ׃דא
‘Hamath also, which borders on it, Tyre and Sidon, though they are very wise.’ (Zech. 9.2)

48In Zech. 9 the information that Tyre and Sidon are ‘very wise’ is certainly textually new. However, it may be better to understand the stative verb in (24) as accessible [ACC-GEN], considering Tyre’s reputation was possibly part of general knowledge of the world (cf. Isa. 23.8; Ezek. 26.15–17; 27.3).

3.3. Predicate Adjective ( ז ָ ןק )

  • 33 Cf. also Job 32.4.

49All unambiguous instances of the predicate adjective ז ָ ק ֵ ן bring new information (NEW)—as Jenni claims.33

(25)

ו ְ א ַ ב ְָ ר ָ ה ֹ ם ו ְ ש ָָ הר ֙ ז ְ ק ֹ נ ִ םי ב ִָ א ַ םי ב ַ י ִָ מ ֶ םי ח ָ ד ַ ל ֙ ל ִ ה ְ י ָ תו ל ְ ש ָָ ר ֹ ה א ַַ חר כ ַ נ ִָׁ ש ֵ ׃םי
‘Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.’ (Gen. 18.11)

  • 34 In addition, we might consider (25) a thetic sentence in which a “unitary situation (‘The situation (...)

50This comment by the narrator in (25) provides new information for the reader that proves important for the remainder of the larger narrative (Gen. 12–22). We should keep in mind, however, that the syntactic structure of waw + subject + predicate in the midst of a wayyiqṭol chain could itself be the device for signalling new information, irrespective of whether the predicate is an adjective or not (cf. Moshavi 2010, 14).34

3.4. Stative Verb ( ז ָ ןק )

3.4.1. GIV-ACT35

  • 35 Josh. 13.1b; 23.2; 1 Sam. 8.5.

(26)

ו ַ י ִ֥ מא ֶּ ר י ְ ה ָ ו ָׂ֖ ה א ֶּ א־ל ַ ב ְָ ר ָ ה ֶּ֑ ם ל ִָ֣ מ ָ ה ּ֙ ז ֶּ ה ּ֩֙ צ ָ ח ֲ ק ֵָּ֨ ה ש ָָ ר ֹ ה ּ֙ ל ֵ רמא ה ַַ א ִ֥ ף א ֻ מ ְ נ ָָ ם א ֵ ל ֵָׂ֖ ד ו ַ א ֲ נ ִּ֥֙ ז י ַָֹּֽ נק ְ ית ּ֙ ׃
‘The Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh, and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old? ’”’ (Gen. 18.13)

51The stative verb ז ַָֹּֽ נק ְ ית contains information that not only is known, but has been stated explicitly in v. 11 (cf. [25] above). Though, as Hornkohl (personal communication) observes, the information is given, it is embedded in direct speech. Therefore, it is not necessarily given from the perspective of the characters. Like our analysis above, Holmstedt (2009, 132) toggles between discourse and narrative. In Ruth 3.17, for example, he considers the fronted object ( ש ֵ ה־ש ַ ש ְ רע ִ֥ םי ‘six measures of barley’) given information, though the characters themselves have not yet shared that information with each other. The audience, however, is already privy to such information via the narrator. In such a case, we should recall that the study of IS involves that “management of the common ground,” which for the Hebrew Bible would mean that the interlocutors “can either be a narrator and an audience or characters participating in a communicative” (Khan and Van der Merwe 2020, 350).

(27)

ּ֙ ו ַ י ֕ מא ֶּ ר ה ּ נ ֵ ־ה ָ נ ָׂ֖ א ז ַָ ק ֶּ֑ נ ְ ית
‘He said, “See, I am old.”’ (Gen. 27.2)

52As in (26), the stative verb in (27) refers back to the information given (GIV-ACT) in the previous verse: ו ַ י ְ יה ּ֙ כ ֹּֽ ז־י ֵָָ ק ִ֣ ן ּ֙ צי ְ ח ֵָ֔ ק ‘when Isaac was old’ (Gen. 27.1).

3.4.2. GIV-INACT

(28)

ָּ֙ ו ַ מאי ְִ֣ ר ּ ו א ֵ ל ָ וי ה ּ נ ֵ ה ּ֙ א ַָ ת ִ֣ ה ז ָ ק ֵַ֔ נ ְ ת
‘and said to him, “You are old.”’ (1 Sam. 8.5)

  • 36 While 1 Sam. 8.1 is admittedly ambiguous as to whether it is a stative verb or predicate adjective, (...)

53Here, the verb ָּ֙ ז ָ ק ֵַ֔ נ ְ ת harks back to the narrator’s statement that ז ֵָ ק ָׂ֖ ן ּ֙ ש ְ מ ּ או ֵֶּ֑ ל ‘Samuel was old’ (1 Sam. 8.1).36

(29)

ו ַ א ֲ ינ ּ֙ ז ַָָ ק ִ֣ נ ְ ית ּ֙ ו ָ ש ֵַ֔ ב ְ ית ּּ֙ בו ַָ נ ָׂ֖ י ּ֙ ה ָּ נ ִ֣ ם ּ֙ תא ְ כ ֶֶּּ֑ ם ּ֙ ו ַ א ֲ ינ ּ֙ תה ְ ה ַַ ל ִ֣ כ ְ ית ּ֙ פל ְ נ ֵ כי ֵֶּ֔ ם ּ֙ מ ּ נ ְ ע ַֻ ר ָׂ֖ י ּ֙ ע ַ ה־ד ַ י ִֹ֥ םו ּ֙ ה ַ ז ֶֹּּֽ ׃ה
‘I am old and grey, but my sons are with you. I have walked before you from my youth until this day.’ (1 Sam. 12.2)

54ז ַָ ק ִ֣ נ ְ ית in (29) is a restatement of the explicit descriptions of Samuel’s age in 1 Sam. 8.1 ( ז ֵָָ ק ָׂ֖ ן ש ְ מ ּ או ֵֶּ֑ ל ‘Samuel was old’) and 8.5 ( א ַָ ת ִּ֣֙ ה ָּ֙ ז ָ ק ֵַ֔ נ ְ ת ‘you are old’).

3.4.3. ACC-INF37

  • 37 Ps. 37.25 (if זַָקַנְתִי is present stative ‘am old’ or inchoative ‘am becoming old’ [i.e., not pre (...)

(30)

ש ַ֤ ב ְ נ ָ ה ב ְ נ ַ ית ּ֙ ל ֵֵ֔ כ ְ ן ּ֙ ָ כ ִ֥ י ז ַָָ ק ָׂ֖ נ ְ ית המ ְ י ִֹ֣ תו ל ְ א ֶּ֑ שי
‘Turn back, my daughters, go, for I am too old to have a husband.’ (Ruth 1.12)

55The previous verse (Ruth 1.11) lays the premise that Naomi is past child-bearing years: ה ֵַ ע ֵ ־דו ִ ל ֹ י ב ָ נ ִ םי ֙ ְ ב ֵ מ ֹ ע ַ י ְ הו ָ י ַ ו ל ָ כ ֶַ ם ל ַ א ֲ נ ִָׁ ש ֵ ׃םי ‘Do I still have sons in my womb that they may become your husbands?’ Thus, ז ַָָ ק ַ נ ְ ת ִ י in (30) is an inference [ACC-INF]—though rhetorically, the repetition is important for Naomi’s argument.

3.4.4. New

(31)

ו ַ י ִ ז ְַָ ק ַ ן י ְ יוה ָָ ד ָ ע ו ַ י ִ ש ְ ב ַַ ע י ִָ מ ַ םי ו ַ י ֶָ תמ
But Jehoiada grew old and full of days, and died. (2 Chron. 24.15)

56Though problematic for Jenni’s comprehensive claim for the stative verb bringing given information, the wayyiqṭol does not seem to be given or accessible. Therefore, (31) should be considered new information.

3.5. Predicate Adjective or Stative Verb ( ז ָ ןק )?

57The form ז ָ ק ֵּ֙ ן is ambiguous. It can be construed as a ms predicate adjective or as a 3ms stative verb. As such, I do not make a decision on the grammar of the form, but categorise the pragmatics of each occurrence.

3.5.1. GIV-ACT

(32)

ּ֙ ו ַ צת ְַ ח ִ֥ ק ש ָָ ר ָׂ֖ ה ּ֙ ב ְ ק ְ בר ִָּ֣ ה ל ֵ א ֶּ֑ רמ א ַ ח ֲֵ ר ַ֤ י ב ְֹ יתל ּ֙ ָ ה ֹּֽ י ְ ת ָ ל־ה ִ֣ י ע ְֶּ נד ֵָ֔ ה ַ ו ֹּֽ נדא ָׂ֖ י ז ֵָֹּֽ ׃ןק
‘So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?”’ (Gen. 18.12)

58ז ָ ק ֵ ן gives us information that is known in the verse prior: ְּ֙ או ַ ב ְָ ר ָ ה ַ֤ ו ם ְ ש ָָ הר ּ֙ ז ְ ק ֵ נ ֵ֔ םי ‘Now Abraham and Sarah were old’ (Gen. 18.11).

3.5.2. GIV-INACT38

  • 38 Josh. 23.1; 1 Sam. 4.18; 8.1.

(33)

ו ַ ת ָ ב ֵּ֨ א ּ֙ ב ַ ש־ת ֶַּ֤ ב ֶּ ע ּ֙ א ֶּ ה־ל ַ מ ֵֶּּ֨ ל ֶּ ך ּ֙ ה ַ ח ְֵַ֔ ד ָ הר ְּ֙ הו ַ מ ֶָּׂ֖ ל ֶּ ך ּ֙ ז ֵָָ ק ִ֣ ן ּ֙ מ ְֶּ֑ דא ַּ֙ ו ֹּֽ א ֲ שיב ַ ג ּ֙ ה ַ ש ִּ֣ נו ַ מ ֵ֔ תי ּ֙ מ ְ ש ַָ ר ָׂ֖ א ת ֶּ ה־ת ַ מ ֶֹּּֽ ל ֶּ ך ּ֙ ׃
‘So Bathsheba went to the king in his room. The king was very old; Abishag the Shunammite was attending the king.’ (1 Kgs 1.15)

59It is unlikely that ז ֵָ ק ִ֣ ן marks new information, because the book of Kings begins by stating ְ הו ַ מ ֶַּ֤ ל ֶּ ך ּ֙ ד ָ דו ּ֙ ז ָ ק ֵ ן ‘Now the king, David, was old’ (1 Kgs 1.1). Jenni (1977, 68), however, argues that (33) is “parenthetischer Umstandssatz, der zur Begründung der Zurückgezogenheit des Königs die Information von v. 1 wiederholt, ohne darauf als etwas Bekanntes zurückzugreifen.” This analysis appears incorrect, as both vv. 1 and 15 are descriptions of David by the narrator.

(34)

ו ְ א ַ ב ְָ ר ָ ה ִ֣ ם ּ֙ ז ָ ק ֵ ן ּ֙ ב ָָׂ֖ א ּ֙ ב ַ י ָ מ ֶּ֑ םי ַּ֙ ו ֹּֽ הי ָ ו ָ ה ּ֙ ב ֵַ ר ִ֥ ך ּ֙ א ֶּ א־ת ַ ב ְָ ר ָ ה ָׂ֖ ם ּ֙ ב ַֹּּֽ֙ לכ ּ֙ ׃
‘Now Abraham was old, well advanced in years; and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things.’ (Gen. 24.1)

  • 39 I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for pointing this out more clearly.

60Based on Gen. 18.11–13 (cf. examples (25) and (32), above), ּ֙ ז ָ ק ֵ ן in (34) is best understood as given information (GIV-INACT). Jenni, on the other hand, calls (34) “neueinsetzende Exposition” and thus understands the predicate to denote new information (1977, 68). Abraham’s age in (34) is already part of the common ground between the narrator and audience, however. The narrator’s repetition of ז ָ ק ֵ ן here has to do with its relevance for the episode.39

3.5.3. ACC-GEN

(35)

ו ַ ת ָ֧ מא ֶּ ר ּ֙ ה ַ ב ְ יכ ָ ר ָ ה ּ֙ א ֶּ ה־ל ַ צ ְ יע ָ ר ָׂ֖ ה ּ֙ א ָ ב ִ֣ ני ּ ו ּ֙ ז ֵָָ ק ֶּ֑ ן ְּ֙ או ֵּ֨ שי ּ֙ א ֵַ֤ ןי ּ֙ ב ָ א ֵֶָּּ֨ ץר ּ֙ ל ָ ב ִֹ֣ או ּ֙ ע ָ ל ֵֵ֔ ני ּ ו ּ֙ כ ְ ד ֶֶָּּׂ֖ כ ךר ָ ה־ל ָָ א ֶֹּּֽ ץר ּ֙ ׃
‘And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world.”’ (Gen. 19.31)

61The older sister describes Lot as old—a fact well-known to both sisters [ACC-GEN]. This information is used to issue a directive in v. 32: ּ֙ ל ְ כ ֵָּ֨ ה ּ֙ נ ַ ש ְֶָּ ק ָ֧ ה ּ֙ א ֶּ א־ת ָ ב ָ ני ּ ו ּ֙ י ַַָֽׂ֖ ןי ּ֙ ו ְ שנ ְ כ ְ ב ִָ֣ ה ּ֙ מע ֶֹּ֑ ו ‘Come, let’s make our father drink wine and we will lie with him.’

3.5.4. New40

  • 40 Gen. 27.1; Josh. 13.1a; 1 Sam. 2.22; 17.12; 2 Sam. 19.33; 2 Kgs 4.14.

(36)

ּ֙ ו ְ ה ַ מ ֶַּ֤ ל ֶּ ך ָּ֙ דוד ּ֙ ז ָ ק ֵ ן ּ֙ ב ָָׂ֖ א ּ֙ ב ַ י ָ מ ֶּ֑ םי ּ֙ ו ַ י ְ כ ַ ס ֵֻּ֨ ה ּ ו ּ֙ ב ַ ב ְ ג ָ ד ֵ֔ םי ּ֙ ו ְ ל ִ֥ א ּ֙ י ַ ח ָׂ֖ ם ּ֙ ל ֹֹּֽ ׃ו
The king David was old and advanced in years. They covered him with clothes, but he could not get warm. (1 Kgs 1.1)

62Introducing the narrative, ז ָ ק ֵ ן is new information.

3.6. Predicate Adjective ק ָ ןט

63The only clear use of the predicate adjective is accessible [ACC-SIT].

(37)

ָּ֧֙ ו ַ י ִ֣ מא ֶּ ר ש ְ מ ּ או ֵ ל ה ֲ ל ֹ או ק־םא ָ ט ַ֤ ן א ַ ת ָ ה ּ֙ ב ְ ע ֵ ני ֵֶּ֔ י ָּ֙ ך ָ שאר ּ֙ בש ְ ט ִֵ֥ י שי ְָ אר ֵָׂ֖ ל ָ א ֶּ֑ ת ָ ה ו ַ מי ְ ש ָ ח ֲָ ך ּ֙ י ְ ה ָ ו ָ ה ל ְ מ ֶָּׂ֖ ל ֶּ ך ּ֙ ע ַ שי־ל ְָ אר ֵֹּֽ ׃ל
‘Samuel said, “Though you are small in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? Yhwh anointed you king over Israel.’” (1 Sam. 15.17)

3.7. Stative Verb ק ָ ןט

64For the stative verb there is no given information proper (GIV-ACT or GIV-INACT).

3.7.1. ACC-SIT

(38)

ּ֙ ו ַ קת ְ ט ַ ן ּ֩֙ ע ֵֹּ֨ דו ז ַ֤ תא ב ְ ע ֵ ני ֵֶּּ֨ י ָ ך ּ֙ א ֲ נד ִָּ֣֙ י י ְ וה ֵ֔ ה ו ַ ת ְ ד ַ ב ֵָ ר ַ ג ִּ֥֙ ם א ֶּ ב־ל ֵֹּֽ ע־תי ַ ב ְְ ד ָ ך ָּׂ֖֙ ל ְ מ ֵָֹּֽ ר ֶּ֑ ח ֹ קו
‘And this was a small thing in your eyes, O Lord Yhwh; you have spoken also of your servant’s house for a great while to come.’ (2 Sam. 7.19 || 1 Chron. 17.17)

  • 41 The possibility of inference or general [ACC] categories here should not be dismissed, however. In (...)

65David presents nothing new in the first clause of (38). Rather, his statement is situational [ACC-SIT] (cf. Prince 1981, 230–31).41

3.7.2. New

(39)

ק ָֹ נט ְ ת ִ י מ ִֹ לכ ה ַ ח ֲ ס ִָ םיד ֙ מו ִ כ ָ ־ל ָ ה ָ א ֱֹ מ ֶ ת
‘I am not worthy of the least of all the steadfast love and all the faithfulness.’ (Gen. 32.11)

66Since there is no clear information that is given or accessible in the surrounding context of (39), the verb ק ָֹ נט ְ ת ּ֙ י would seem to express new information. Jacob appears to use ק ָֹ נט ְ ית along with ע ַ ב ְ ד ֶֶָּּ֑ ך ‘your servant’ for purposes of deference. This politeness strategy lays the foundation for the request ה ַּ֙ ליצ ִֵ֥ ינ ּ֙ נ ָָ א ‘please deliver me’ (Gen. 32.12; cf. Bridge 2019, 576–77). We should note that (39) poses a rather significant problem for the argument that stative verbs always bring given information.

3.8. Predicate Adjective ג ָ לוד

67Unlike the predicate adjectives ז ָ ק ֵ ן and ג ָ ד ֹ לו , ק ָ ןט does not present new information exclusively.

3.8.1. ACC-GEN42

  • 42 Cf. 2 Chron. 2.4b.

(40)

יכ ּ֩֙ ג ָ ד ֵֹּ֨ לו ּ֙ י ְ ה ָ ו ַ֤ ה ּּ֙ מו ְ ה ֻ ל ָ ל ּ֙ מ ְ א ֵ֔ ד ְּ֙ נו ֹ ו ָ ר ִ֥ א ּ֙ ה ָּׂ֖ או ּ֙ ע ַ כ־ל ָ א־ל ֱֹ ל ֹּֽ םיה ּ֙ ׃
‘For great is Yhwh, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods.’ (1 Chron. 16.25)

68Based on the description of Götze et al. (2007), ג ָ ד ֹֹ לו in (40) would seem to be generalised information in which the speaker and addressee readily understand the predicate as something as obvious from general world knowledge (e.g., the setting of the sun).

3.8.2. New43

  • 43 Gen. 39.9 (with comparative מִן); Exod. 18.11 (with comparative מִן); Deut. 1.28 (with comparative  (...)

(41)

ּ֙ ו ַ י ִ֥ מא ֶּ ר ַּ֙ ק ָׂ֖ ןי ּ֙ א ֶּ י־ל ְ ה ָ ו ֶּ֑ ה ּ֙ ג ִָ֥ ד ֹ לו ּ֙ ע ֲֹ נו ָׂ֖ י ּ֙ מ ּ נ ְֹּֽ ׃אש
‘Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear!”’ (Gen. 4.13)

69ג ִָ֥ ד ֹ לו in (41) is fronted. In particular, the predicate adjective is focused. It is not surprising that the fronted, focused predicate adjective also relates new information. Nevertheless, we should not conflate focus with new information (Moshavi 2010). Nor should word order be seen as corresponding directly to the status of information (Gross 2001).

3.9. Stative Verb ( ג ָ ד ַ ל )

3.9.1. GIV-ACT

(42)

ו ַ י ְ ה ִ֣ ׀י ּ֙ ב ַ י ָ מ ִ֣ םי ּ֙ ה ָ ה ֵ ם ּ֙ ו ַ גי ְַ ד ַ֤ ל ּ֙ שמ ֶּ ה ּ֙ ו ַ י ֵ צ ִֵ֣ א ּ֙ א ֶּ א־ל ֶּ ח ֵָ֔ וי ּ֙ ו ַ י ְַַָֽׂ֖ אר ּ֙ ב ְ בס ְֹ ל ָ ת ֶּ֑ ם ּ֙ ו ַ י ְַ אר ּ֙ א ִ֣ שי ּ֙ צמ ְ ר ֵ֔ מ י ַ כ ִֶּ֥ ה ּ֙ בע־שיא ְ ר ָׂ֖ י ּ֙ מ ֵ א ֶָּ ח ֹּֽ וי ּ֙ ׃
‘One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and saw their forced labour. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his kinsfolk.’ (Exod. 2.11)

70The wayyiqṭol in (42) refers back to ו ַ גי ְַ ד ִ֣ ל ּ֙ ה ַ י ֶּ ל ֶּ ד ‘when the child grew up’ in v. 10.

3.9.2. GIV-INACT44

  • 44 Cf. also 1 Kgs 12.10 || 2 Chron. 10.10.

(43)

ו ַ גי ְַ ד ָׂ֖ ל ּ֙ ש ְ מ ּ או ֵֶּ֑ ל ַּ֙ ו ֹּֽ והי ָ ה ּ֙ ה ָָ י ִ֣ ה ּ֙ מע ֹ ו ְֵּ֔֙ לו ֹּֽ פה־א ִ֥ לי ּ֙ כמ ָ ־ל ְ בד ָָ ר ָׂ֖ וי ָּ֙ א ְֹּֽ צר ָ ה ּ֙ ׃
‘As Samuel grew up, the Lord was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground.’ (1 Sam. 3.19)

  • 45 Though children growing up is categorised as accessible [ACC-GEN] elsewhere, (41) is given [GIV-INA (...)

71Earlier in the narrative, Samuel was growing up: ְּ֙ הו ַּ נ ִַ֣ ע ַ ר ּ֙ ש ְ מ ּ או ֵ ל ּ֙ לה ִֵ֥ ך ְ גו ֵָ ד ָׂ֖ ל ּ֙ ו ֶָּ֑ ט ֹ בו ‘and the boy Samuel continued growing in stature and favour’ (1 Sam. 2.26). Thus, the information in (43) is given (GIV-INACT).45

3.9.3. ACC-INF46

  • 46 Gen. 24.35 (inference coming from the previous verb בַרַך ‘ [and Yhwh] blessed’); 26.13; 1 Sam. 26. (...)

(44)

ע ַ ־ל ִֵּ֥֙ ןכ ּ֙ ג ַָ ד ָׂ֖ ל ְ ת ָּ֙ א ֲ ד ָ נ ִ֣ י ּ֙ י ְ וה ֶּ֑ ה ּ֙ כ ֹּֽ א־י ִֵ֣ ןי ּ֙ כ ָ מ ֹ ו ָ ך ְּ֙ או ֵַ֤ ןי ּ֙ א ֱֹ םיהל ֹּּֽ֙ ז ּ לו ָ ת ֵֶָּ֔ ך ּ֙ ב ְ כ ִ֥ ל ּ֙ א ֲ ש ֶּ ש־ר ַָ מ ָׂ֖ ע ְ נ ּ ו ּ֙ ב ְ א ָ ז ְ נ ֵֹּֽ ני ּ ׃ו
‘Therefore you are great, O Yhwh God; for there is no one like you, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.’ (2 Sam. 7.22)

72The previous verse (2 Sam. 7.21) does not give the exact information as (44) per se, but the inference is not difficult to discern: ב ַ ע ֲ ב ַּ֤ רו ְּ֙ ד ָ ב ְֹּֽ ר ָ ך ֹּּּֽ֙ כו ְ בל ְָ ך ֵּ֔֙ ע ָ ש ֕ תי ָּ֙ א ִֵ֥ ת ּ֙ כ ָ ה־ל ַ ג ְ ד ּ לו ָָׂ֖ ה ּ֙ ה ַ ז ֶּ֑ תא ּ֙ ל ְ ה ֹ דו ָׂ֖ י ַ ע ּ֙ א ֶּ ע־ת ַ ב ְ ד ֶָֹּּֽ ך ‘because of your promise, and according to your own heart, you have wrought all this greatness, so that your servant may know it.’ Of course, the inference is made clearer because of ע ַ כ־ל ִֵ֥ ן ‘therefore’ (cf. Van der Merwe et al. 2017, 450–51).

3.9.4. ACC-GEN47

  • 47 Because several occurrences are inchoative ‘become great’ or ‘grow’, we could understand the inform (...)

(45)

ו ֵַ ת ָ֧ ל ֶּ ד ּ֙ א ֵֹּֽ ש ֶּ לג־ת ְ ע ָָ ד ּ֙ ל ֹ ו ָּׂ֖֙ ב ָ נ ֶּ֑ םי ּ֙ ו ַ גי ְְ לד ֵּּ֨ ו ְּ֙ ב ֹּֽ נ ֵ ה־י ָ שא ָֹ ה ּ֙ ו ַ י ְ ג ְָ שר ִּ֣ ו ּ֙ א ֶּ פי־ת ְ ת ָ ח ּ֙ ו ַ י ַ֤ מא ְ ר ּ ו ּ֙ ל ֹ ו ּּ֙֙ ל ֹּֽ א ּ֙ ־ ּ֙ נת ְַ ח ִ֣ ל ּ֙ ב ְ ב ֵ א־תי ָ ב ֵ֔ ני ּ ו ּ֙ כ ָ י ּ֙ ב ֶּ שא־ן ִָ֥ ה ּ֙ א ֶַּ ח ֶָּׂ֖ תר ּ֙ א ָֹּֽ ת ָ ׃ה
‘Gilead’s wife also bore him sons; and when his wife’s sons grew up, they drove Jephthah away, saying to him, “You shall not inherit anything in our father’s house; for you are the son of another woman.”’ (Judg. 11.2)

73Though ו ַ גי ְְ לד ֵּּ֨ ו is new textually, I find the wayyiqṭol in (45) to be generalised, as this is simply the process of human life, similar to the sun setting (Götze et al. 2007).

3.9.5. New48

  • 48 Num. 14.17; 1 Sam. 26.24b; 1 Kgs 12.8 || 2 Chron. 10.8; Mic. 5.3 (new textually and it seems that t (...)

(46)

ְּ֙ או ּ לו ָ ם ּ֙ א ָ ח ַ֤ וי ּ֙ ה ַ ק ָ ןט ּ֙ גי ְַ ד ִ֣ ל ּ֙ ממ ֵֶּּ֔ נ ּ ו ְּ֙ זו ְַ ער ָֹׂ֖ ו ּ֙ הי ְ י ִֶּ֥ ה ּ֙ מ ְֹּֽ ה־אל ַ ג ֹ יו ֹּֽ ׃ם
‘Nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations.’ (Gen. 48.19)

74Contra Jenni’s expectations of pragmatic information, I do not see any basis for the categories of given or accessible in (46). In the biblical narrative it is much to Joseph’s chagrin that the new information is that the younger brother will be greater than the older. His stated expectation was for the first-born: ּ֙ ו ַ י ָ֧ מא ֶּ ר ּ֙ י ֹ סו ֵָ ף ּ֙ א ֶּ א ־ל ָ ב ָׂ֖ וי ּ֙ כ־אל ִֵ֣ ן ּ֙ א ָ ב ֶּ֑ י ּ֙ ־יכ ֶּ ז ִ֣ ה ּ֙ ה ַ ב ְ כ ֵ֔ ר ּ֙ ש ִ֥ םי ּ֙ י ְ נימ ְָ ך ָּׂ֖֙ ע ַ אר־ל ֹּֽ ש ֹ ׃ו ‘Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father! Since this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head”’ (Gen. 48.18).

4.0. Conclusions

75My study allows for several conclusions—some certain and others tentative. First, Jenni is often correct that predicate adjectives denote new information, while stative verbs bring given information. However, that is not always the case. A stative verb at times denotes new information (§§3.2.4; 3.4.4; 3.7.2; 3.9.5), and predicate adjectives do not always indicate new information (§§3.6; 3.8.1). Second, the analysis of IS using three categories (given, accessible, new) provides clarity and specificity in a way that the typical given-new dichotomy does not. Third, examination of the first layer of pragmatics (theme/rheme as some call it) should be a more prominent and explicit part of pragmatic research on Biblical Hebrew, even if the layer is more banal than the second layer (topic/focus). Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, more work is needed on the intersection of grammar and pragmatics in Biblical Hebrew.

76The above research demonstrates that Jenni’s study is ultimately unsuccessful. That is not to say, however, that his supposition of grammar marking pragmatics is fallacious. As pragmatics gains more attention from Hebraists, study of the relationship of grammar and pragmatics will hopefully follow. It is my hope that this article may help, at least in some small way, to advance the conversation on how grammar and pragmatics relate to one another.

Bibliographie

References

Abraham, Werner. 2009. ‘The Syntactic Link between Thema and Rhema: A Syntax-Discourse Interface’. Folia Linguistica 37 (1–2): 13–34.

Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bandstra, Barry. 1982. ‘The Syntax of Particle “ky” in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic’. Phd dissertation, Yale University.

Beckman, John C. 2015. ‘Toward the Meaning of the Biblical Hebrew Piel Stem’. Phd dissertation, Harvard University.

Blühdorn, Hardarik. 2011. ‘Informationsstrukturelle Gestaltung von Satzverknüpfungen: Wie interagieren Konnektoren und Prosodie? ’ In Satzverknüpfungen: Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion, edited by Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi, and Anna Volodina, 263–96. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Buth, Randall. 1999. ‘Word Order in the Verbless Clause: A Generative-Functional Approach’. In The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, edited by Cynthia Miller, 79–108. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Bridge, Edward. 2019. ‘Polite Rhetoric: Judah’s Plea to Joseph in Gen 44.18–34’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43: 571–87.

Chen, Lijing, Xingshan Li, and Yufang Yang. 2012. ‘Focus, Newness and Their Combination: Processing of Information Structure in Discourse’. PLOS ONE 7: 1–9.

Cook, John. 2008. ‘The Hebrew Participle and Stative in Typological Perspective’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 34 (1): 1–19.

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corsentino, Anthony. 2012. ‘Predicates in perspective’. Synthese 187: 519–45.

Deppermann, Arnulf. 2011. ‘Pragmatics and Grammar’. In Foundations of Pragmatics, edited by Wolfram Bublitz and Neal R. Norrick. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Dik, Simon. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris.

Dixon, R. M. W. 2006. ‘Adjective Classes in Typological Perspective’. In Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, edited by R.M.W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikenvald, 1–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

De Regt, Lénart J. 2019. Linguistic Coherence in Biblical Hebrew Texts: Arrangement of Information, Participant Reference Devices, Verb Forms, and Their Contribution to Textual Segmentation and Coherence. Revised edition. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias.

Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 2000. ‘Biblical Hebrew Statives and Situation Aspect’. Journal of Semitic Studies 45 (1): 21–53.

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Féry, Caroline and Manfred Krifka. 2008. ‘Information Structure: Notional Distinctions, Ways of Expression’. In Unity and Diversity of Languages, edited by Piet van Sterkenburg, 123– 35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Floor, Sebastiaan J. 2004. ‘From Information Structure, Topic, and Focus to Theme in Biblical Hebrew Narrative’. Phd dissertation, University of Stellenbosch.

Gómez-González, María de los Ángeles. 2001. The Theme–Topic Interface: Evidence from English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Götze, Michael, Thomas Weskott, Cornelia Endriss, Ines Fiedler, Stefan Hinterwimmer, Svetlana Petrova, Anne Schwarz, Stavros Skopeteas, Ruben Stoel. 2007. ‘Information Structure’. In Information Structure in Cross-Linguistic Corpora: Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure Vol. 7: Working Papers of the SFB), edited by Stefanie Dippier, Michael Götze, and Stavros Skopeteas, 147–88. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.

Gross, Walter. 2001. Doppelt besetztes Vorfeld: Syntaktische, pragmatische, und übersetzungstechnische Studien zum althebräischen Verbalsatz. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Hatav, Galia. 2017. ‘The Infinitive Absolute and Topicalization of Events in Biblical Hebrew’. In Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Data, Methods, and Analyses, edited by Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius, 207–32. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo. 2010. ‘Adjectives: An introduction’. In Adjectives: Formal Analyses in Syntax and Semantics, edited by Patricia Cabredeo Hofherr and Ora Matushanksy, 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hornkohl, Aaron D. 2018. ‘Biblical Hebrew Tense–Aspect–Mood, Word Order and Pragmatics: Some Observations on Recent Approaches’. In Studies in Semitic Linguistics and Manuscripts: A Liber Discipulorum in Honour of Professor Geoffrey Khan, edited by Nadia Vidro, Ronny Vollandt, Esther-Miriam Wagner, Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, 27–56. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

Holmstedt, Robert D. 2005. ‘Word Order in the Book of Proverbs’. In Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by R.L. Troxel, D.R. Magary, and K.G. Friebel, 135–54. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

— ——. 2009. ‘Word Order and Information Structure in Ruth and Jonah: A Generative-Typological Analysis’. Journal of Semitic Studies 54 (1): 111–39.

— ——. 2011. ‘The Typological Classification of the Hebrew of Genesis: Subject-Verb or Verb-Subject? ’ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11: 1–39.

— ——. 2016. The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Huang, Yan. 2015. Pragmatics. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jenni, Ernst. 1968. Das hebräische Pi‘el. Zürich: EVZ.

— ——. 1977. ‘ZAQEN: Bemerkungen zum Unterschied von Nominalsatz und Verbalsatz’. In Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli, edited by H. Donner, R. Hanhart, R. Smend, 185–95. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Reprinted in B. Huwyler and K. Seybold (eds). 2007. Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer (2007).

— ——. 1999. ‘Subjektive und objective Klassifikation im althebräischen Nominalsatz’. Theologische Zeitschrift 55: 103– 11. Reprinted in Luchsinger, J., H.-P. Mathys, M. Saur (eds). 2005. Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments II. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

— ——. 2007. ‘Adjektive und Eigenschaftsverben im Althebräischen’. In Diskurse und Texte: Festschrift für Konrad Ehlich zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by A. Reder, 251–58. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Brigitte. Reprinted in Jenni, H., H.-P. Mathys, S. Sarasin (eds). 2012. Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments III. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

— ——. 2012. ‘Nif‘al und Hitpa‘el im Biblisch-Hebräischen’. In Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments III, edited by H. Jenni, H.-P. Mathys, S. Sarasin, 131–304. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Joosten, Jan. 1998. ‘The Functions of the Semitic D Stem: Biblical Hebrew Materials for a Comparative-Historical Approach’. Orientalia 67: 202–30.

Jones, Andrew. 2015. ‘Word Order and Information Structure in Finite Verb Clauses in Hellenistic Period Hebrew’. Phd dissertation, University of Toronto.

Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2006. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Revised edition. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Khan, Geoffrey. 1988. Studies in Semitic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

— ——. 2019. ‘Copulas, Cleft Sentences and Focus Markers in Biblical Hebrew’. In Ancient Texts and Modern Readers: Studies in Ancient Hebrew Linguistics and Bible Translation, edited by Gideon R. Kotzé, Christian S. Locatell, and John A. Messarra, 14–62. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

Khan, Geoffrey, and Christo H. J. van der Merwe. 2020. ‘Towards a Comprehensive Model for Interpreting Word Order in Classical Hebrew’. Journal of Semitic Studies 65: 347–90.

Krifka, Manfred. 2007. ‘Basic Notions of Information Structure’. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6: 13–55.

Koller, Aaron. 2012. ‘Diachronic Change and Synchronic Readings: Midrashim on Stative Verbs and Participles’. Journal of Semitic Studies 57 (2): 265–94.

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topics, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lang, Ewald, and Barbara Pheby. 2011. ‘Intonation und Interpretation von Satzverknüpfungen in literarischen Hörbuchtexten’. In Satzverknüpfungen: zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion, edited by Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi, and Anna Volodina, 297–326. Berlin: De Gruyter.

McNally, Louise, and Christopher Kennedy (eds). 2008. Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L., and Jacobus A. Naudé. 2016. ‘Is the Adjective Distinct from the Noun as a Grammatical Category in Biblical Hebrew? ’ In die Skriflig 50 (4): 1–9.

Moshavi, Adina M. 2010. Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Finite Clause. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Muraoka, Takamitsu. 1985. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Leiden: Brill.

Neeleman, Ad, and Reiko Vermeulen. 2013. ‘The Syntactic Expression of Information Structure’. In The Syntax of Topic, Focus, and Contrast: An Interface-based Approach, edited by Ad Neeleman and Reiko Vermeulen, 1–38. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Pat-El, Na’ama. 2013. ‘Stative: Biblical Hebrew’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan et al., vol. III: 619–20. Leiden: Brill.

Prince, Ellen. 1981. ‘Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information’. In Radical Pragmatics, edited by Peter Cole, 223– 54. New York: Academic Press.

Revell, E. J. 1999. ‘Thematic Continuity and the Conditioning of Word Order in Verbless Clauses’. In The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, edited by Cynthia Miller, 297–319. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Rothmayr, Antonia. 2009. The Structure of Stative Verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Shimasaki, Katsuomi. 2002. Focus Structure in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of Word Order and Information Structure. Bethesda, MD: CDL.

Toepel, Ulrike, and Kai Alter. 2013. ‘On the Independence of Information Structural Processing from Prosody’. In Information Structure: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects, edited by Anite Steube, 227–40. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. 2017. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Second edition. London: Bloomsbury.

Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., and Eep Talstra. 2002–2003. ‘Biblical Hebrew Word Order: The Interface of Information Structure and Formal Features’. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 15/16: 68–107.

Van Hecke, Pierre. 2010. From Linguistics to Hermeneutics: A Functional and Cognitive Approach to Job 12–14. Leiden: Brill.

Wetzer, Harrie. 2013. Typology of Adjectival Predication. Amsterdam: De Gruyter.

Zewi, Tamar. 1994. ‘The Nominal Sentence in Biblical Hebrew’. In Semitic and Cushitic Studies, edited by Gideon Goldenberg and Shlomo Raz, 145–67. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Notes

1 Some well-known exceptions are Muraoka (1985) and Khan (1988).

2 See, for example, Shimasaki (2002); Holmstedt (2005; 2009; 2011); Van Hecke (2010); Hatav (2017); Hornkohl (2018); Khan (2019); Moshavi (2010).

3 Firbas (1992), on the other hand, frames topic in terms of given or new information, and not ‘aboutness’.

4 Buth (1999, 81) adds more detail to the contrastive feature of focus, writing, “It maybe contraexpected, that is, the speaker/writer assumes his or her audience maybe expecting something different and so marks it for Focus. It may also be new information that is specially marked to fill in, or to complete, assumed missing information. It may also be old information that needs special reinforcement, through repetition.” While scholars typically describe focus as contrastive, Hornkohl (2018) observes that topic can also be so.

5 Van Hecke (2010, 58) writes that intonation being “one of the most important clues to the informational structure of clauses is not available to us any longer, limiting the analytical detail of pragmatic research in Classical Hebrew.” For more on the role on intonation in IS see Lang and Pheby (2011) and Blühdorn (2011).

6 See especially Shimasaki (2002); Holmstedt (2005; 2009; 2011); Hatav (2017).

7 Be it Verb-Subject-Object (VSO) or Subject-Verb-Object (SVO). For the important terminological distinction of ‘dominant’ word order as opposed to ‘basic’ word order in Biblical Hebrew, see Khan and Van der Merwe (2020).

8 De Regt (2019, 63), for example, argues that “It is not just the participant reference device itself... but also its place at the beginning of the sentence which is determined by the context beyond the sentence.”

9 While I find it preferable to separate and analyse the two layers, it is worth noting that Erteschik-Shir (2007, 7) sees things differently, as she argues that “topic and focus are the only information structure primitives needed to account for all information structure phenomena.”

10 Féry and Krifka (2008, 126) note that “given expressions, like pronouns, can be focused.” See also Chen, Li, and Yang (2012). The separation of the two layers appears rather prominently in the work of Gómez-González (2001). A. Jones (2015, 70) writes that “Unlike theme and rheme, topic and focus have proven difficult to define with precision.” Whilst I may agree with his latter observation, the former is quite mistaken. One need only to survey Gómez-González (2001) to notice the complexities and lack of agreement in defining given (theme) with any precision.

11 Additional experimental research corroborates this claim. For example, Toepel and Alter (2013, 227–29) differentiate between new information and contrastive information. They develop a “tripartition of focus into broad, narrow new, and contrastive [focus]... to capture the interactions of semantic-pragmatic, phonological, and phonetic aspects of focus in discourse.”

12 Topic as described by Holmstedt is a clause-level rather than discourse-level notion.

13 Holmstedt’s labelling of topic and focus in (4)– (6) is not my own. I simply wish to illustrate how a scholar distinguishes the layers of pragmatics, and especially the emphasis on the second layer, namely, topic and focus. For the more appropriate and fine-grained description of “contrastive topic” as it relates to “Benjamin” in (6), see Khan and Van der Merwe (2020, 371–72) and Hornkohl (2018, 34–38).

14 These categories are adapted from Dik (1989, 267). See also Lambrecht (1994, 77–114) for terms such as ‘active’, ‘accessible’, ‘unused’, and ‘brand new’.

15 See Joosten (1998) and Beckman (2015).

16 Translations are mine unless otherwise noted.

17 Another distinction is that the former is a verbless clause and the latter a verbal clause. Jenni (1968 and especially 1977) makes the point that new versus given is a critical pragmatic difference between the two types of clauses.

18 In this article, I will not touch on the pragmatics of the binyanim. Rather, I will concentrate on the area of grammar on which Jenni bases his argument.

19 For an important study of differentiation within givenness, see Prince (1981). Much of what she discusses as given—be it predictable, salient, or shared—is covered in Götze et al. (2007).

20 The following examples of IS guidelines are inspired by Götze et al. (2007) unless otherwise noted.

21 Taken explicitly from Götze et al. (2007).

22 I agree with an anonymous reviewer that a graded category for new information would be beneficial. However, I have not found appropriate sub-categories for such. Therefore, I content myself with new as a category.

23 As Moshavi (2010, 124) observes, “The mental representation incorporates inferences based on the reader’s knowledge and experience; thus information not explicitly referred to in the text may nonetheless constitute activated information” (emphasis mine).

24 Translations for (16)– (18) are Cook’s (2008).

25 Emphasis is mine. See also Dixon (2006); Wetzer (2013); Koller (2012).

26 That said, there may be valid reasons for considering adjectives a subcategory of substantives (Hornkohl, personal communication). For the debate to be advanced, we would need to touch on typology, taxonomy, and more in the fields of linguistics and philosophy of language (particular its history). Such discussion is beyond our purpose here.

27 Rothmayr (2009).

28 It should be noted I do not include in this study nominalised adjectives (e.g., Lam. 5.14), since these are not predicative adjectives/statives.

29 Isa. 31.2; Jer. 4.22; 8.8; Ezek. 28.3 (notably with הִנה); Hos. 14.10 (while textually new, it is here part of a rhetorical question); Ps. 107.43 (cf. Hos. 14.10); Prov. 26.16; 28.11.

30 Prov. 9.9 (the A line reads תָן לְְחָכָם ‘give to the wise’, making the B line given [GIV-ACT], though the yiqṭol [וְיֶחְכַם] may well be inchoative); 9.12 (the second qaṭal is given [GIV-ACT]: אִם־חְָכַמְתָ חָכַָמְתָ לֶָך ‘if you are wise, you are wise for yourself’); Prov. 20.1 (cf. 9.9).

31 Prov. 23.15; Ecc. 2.15; 7.23. It seems appropriate to understand the imperative use of חָכַם in Proverbs as situationally bound [ACC-SIT]: Prov. 6.6; 8.33; 13.20; 23.15; 23.19; 27.11. However, there are other possible categories for these imperatives.

32 Deut. 32.29 (with לו ‘if’); Job 32.9 (though the predicate moves the communication, the information still seems inferable from v. 8 וְנִׁשְמַַת ׁשַַדָי ְתבִינֵם ‘and the breath of the Almighty makes them discern’ [cf. Prince 1981]); Prov. 19.20 (the B line is inferable from the A: ׁשְמַָע עְצָה וְקַבָל מוסֶָר לְמַָעַן תֶחְכַַם בְאַחֲִריֶתֵָך׃ ‘Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom for the future’); Eccl. 7.23 (it seems possible to consider the B line as inferable from the A: כָל־זַה נִִסָיתִי ַבֵחָכְמֶָה ‘All this I have tested by wisdom’).

33 Cf. also Job 32.4.

34 In addition, we might consider (25) a thetic sentence in which a “unitary situation (‘The situation was...’)” is expressed (Khan and Van der Merwe 2020, 358).

35 Josh. 13.1b; 23.2; 1 Sam. 8.5.

36 While 1 Sam. 8.1 is admittedly ambiguous as to whether it is a stative verb or predicate adjective, the pragmatic analysis of (28) still holds. For further discussion of the grammatically opaque cases, such as 1 Sam. 8.1, see §3.5 (especially §3.5.2).

37 Ps. 37.25 (if זַָקַנְתִי is present stative ‘am old’ or inchoative ‘am becoming old’ [i.e., not preterite ‘became old’ or past perfective ‘have become old’], then it is an inference from the past time qaṭal הָיִָיתִי in the previous clause: ַנֹעַר הָיִָיתִי ‘I was a boy’; the focus particle prior to our stative verb גַם־זַָקַנְתִי marks contrast, even if that contrast is inferable).

38 Josh. 23.1; 1 Sam. 4.18; 8.1.

39 I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for pointing this out more clearly.

40 Gen. 27.1; Josh. 13.1a; 1 Sam. 2.22; 17.12; 2 Sam. 19.33; 2 Kgs 4.14.

41 The possibility of inference or general [ACC] categories here should not be dismissed, however. In any case, the stative verb does not convey given information.

42 Cf. 2 Chron. 2.4b.

43 Gen. 39.9 (with comparative מִן); Exod. 18.11 (with comparative מִן); Deut. 1.28 (with comparative ;)מִן9.1 (with comparative ;)מִן11.23 (with comparative מִן, cf. Holmstedt [2016, 306–7] for analysis of zero-relatives); Josh. 10.2; Judg. 5.16 (though possibly accessible [ACC], לִפְלַגָות ְראובֹן גְדוִלַים חִקְרי־לֵב ‘Among the clans of Reuben the searchings of heart were great’ may best be understood as part of the general knowledge of the speaker and addressee); 2 Sam. 13.15; Ps. 135.5 (the psalmist seems to raise the CG so that the addressees will know [יַַָ֭דעְתי] that Yhwh is great); 2 Chron. 2.4a.

44 Cf. also 1 Kgs 12.10 || 2 Chron. 10.10.

45 Though children growing up is categorised as accessible [ACC-GEN] elsewhere, (41) is given [GIV-INACT], because its information was stipulated explicitly earlier in the narrative.

46 Gen. 24.35 (inference coming from the previous verb בַרַך ‘ [and Yhwh] blessed’); 26.13; 1 Sam. 26.24a; 2 Sam. 7.22, 26 || 1 Chron. 17.24; 1 Kgs 10.23 || 2 Chron. 9.22; Zech. 12.7 (the first clause וְהוִׁשַיַע יְהָוָה אֶת־ אָהֳלַי יְהוָדַה בִֵָראׁשָנֶה ‘Yhwh will deliver the tents of Judah first’ allows לֵא־ תִגְדַֹל ‘will not surpass’ to be an inference; moreover, the negated yiqṭol suggests that the yiqṭol itself was already presupposed); Mal. 1.5; Ps. 92.6 (inference from previous verse ִכֹי שִמַחְַתָנִי יְהָוָה בְפָעֳלֶֶָך ְבֵמַעֲשַי יֶָדָיָך אֲַרנֵֵן ‘for you Yhwh have made me glad by your work; at the works of your hands I sing for joy’); Job 2.13; Lam. 4.6; Ezra 9.6 (the qaṭal clause ‘our guilt is great/high (גְָדלַָה) as the heavens’ is inferable from the previous clause: עֲונתֹינו ָרבו֙ לְמַָעְלָה רֹאׁש ‘our iniquities have risen above our head’).

47 Because several occurrences are inchoative ‘become great’ or ‘grow’, we could understand the information as new. However, the majority has to do with children growing up. This is, of course, expected from general knowledge of the world: Gen. 21.8, 20; 25.27; 38.11, 14; Exod. 2.10; Judg. 13.24; 1 Sam. 2.21; 2 Kgs 4.18; Ezek. 16.7; Ruth 1.13. A similar assessment of horns in Daniel appears; they ‘grow’—as horns do: Dan. 8.9, 10. At least one has to do with prominence (of the first-born): Gen. 48.19a. However, there are a few texts which speak to Yhwh’s greatness. In such cases, it appears that CG is shared in a general knowledge that Yhwh is גַָדל: Ps. 35.27; 40.17; 70.5; 104.1.

48 Num. 14.17; 1 Sam. 26.24b; 1 Kgs 12.8 || 2 Chron. 10.8; Mic. 5.3 (new textually and it seems that the scope of greatness was not common ground: ִכֵי־עַָתַה יִגְַדַל עַד־אַפְסי־אֵֶָרץ ‘for now he will be great to the ends of the earth’); Zech. 12.11.

Auteur

Ethan C. Jones (PhD, SWBTS, 2016) is the author of Valency of the Hithpael in the series Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament (EOS, 2017). He has edited a volume on ancient Hebrew (Eisenbrauns, 2018). He is currently completing the book Solomon: Language, Linguistics, and Interpretation of 1 Kings 3–11 (Fortress Academic). He was recently a Visiting Scholar at the University of Cambridge (Hebrew Studies). He teaches in Texas (USA). His research focuses on the intersection of linguistics and interpretation of ancient Hebrew. His most recent research appears in journals such as JSS, ZAW, JSOT, VT, and JNSL.

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search