The Pragmatics of Perception and Cognition in MT Jeremiah 1:1-6:30: A Cognitive Linguistics Approach (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft)

Elizabeth R. Hayes The Pragmatics of Perception and Cognition in MT Jeremiah 1:1-6:30

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Herausgegeben von John Barton · Reinhard G. Kratz Choon-Leong Seow · Markus Witte

Band 380

≥ Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Elizabeth R. Hayes

The Pragmatics of Perception and Cognition in MT Jeremiah 1:1-6:30 A Cognitive Linguistics Approach

≥ Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI 앪 to ensure permanence and durability.

ISBN 978-3-11-020229-8 ISSN 0934-2575

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hayes, Elizabeth R. (Elizabeth Russell), 1952The pragmatics of perseption and cognition in MT Jeremiah 1:1-6:30 : a cognitive linguistics approach / Elizabeth R. Hayes. p. cm. - (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ; Bd. 380) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-020229-8 (23 ⫻ 15,5 cm, clothbound : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O. T. Jeremiah I, 1-VI, 30 - Criticism, textual. 2. Bible. O. T. Jeremiah I, 1-VI, 30 - Language, style. 3. Bible. O. T. Jeremiah I, 1-VI, 30 - Grammar. 4. Cognitive grammar. I. Title. BS1525.52.H39 2008 2241.2066-dc22 2008026315

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. 쑔 Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin

Prefaceȱ ȱ Thisȱ volumeȱ beganȱ asȱ doctoralȱ thesis,ȱ writtenȱ atȱ Oxfordȱ University.ȱ Prof.ȱ H.G.M.ȱ Williamson,ȱ myȱ thesisȱ supervisor,ȱ providedȱ patientȱ enȬ couragement,ȱ wiseȱ counselȱ andȱ anȱ unsurpassedȱ eyeȱ forȱ detail.ȱ Hisȱ senseȱ ofȱ timingȱ isȱimpeccable,ȱandȱIȱhaveȱgrownȱtoȱrespectȱtheȱphraseȱ ‘...justȱoneȱorȱtwoȱlittleȱthings’.ȱIȱamȱmoreȱthanȱgratefulȱforȱhisȱgenerosiȬ tyȱandȱsupport.ȱ Theȱ Theologyȱ Facultyȱ inȱ Oxfordȱ offeredȱ manyȱ opportunitiesȱ forȱ academicȱ development.ȱ Professorȱ Johnȱ Bartonȱ fosteredȱ connectionsȱ throughȱtheȱOxfordȬBonnȱtheologicalȱexchangeȱandȱtheȱOxfordȬLeidenȱ exchange.ȱWritingȱpapersȱandȱattendingȱtheseȱeventsȱhaveȱbeenȱformaȬ tiveȱexperiences,ȱandȱtheȱfriendshipsȱthatȱhaveȱgrownȱinȱtheȱprocessȱareȱ priceless.ȱ Theȱ inputȱ ofȱ threeȱ otherȱ mentorsȱ hasȱ beenȱ important,ȱ asȱ well.ȱ Dr.ȱ Darrellȱ Hobson,ȱ professorȱ ofȱ OT,ȱ nurturedȱ aȱ loveȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ respectȱ forȱ academicȱ integrityȱ duringȱ myȱ undergraduateȱ yearsȱ atȱ Northwestȱ University,ȱ Kirkland,ȱ WA.ȱ Dr.ȱ Pamelaȱ Scaliseȱ andȱ Dr.ȱ Charlesȱ Scaliseȱ ofȱ Fullerȱ Seminaryȱ haveȱ beenȱ unceasinglyȱ supportive,ȱ andȱtheirȱtimeȱandȱattentionȱduringȱmyȱstudentȱandȱgraduateȱassistantȱ daysȱhasȱbeenȱhighlyȱprized.ȱ Presentingȱ aȱ firstȱ paperȱ atȱ theȱ Northwestȱ sectionȱ ofȱ theȱ Societyȱ ofȱ BiblicalȱLiteratureȱopenedȱtheȱdoorȱforȱthisȱresearchȱproject.ȱEhudȱbenȱ Zviȱprovidedȱgentleȱencouragement,ȱwhichȱȱhasȱfosteredȱbothȱacademicȱ progressȱ andȱ collegialȱ contacts,ȱ Theȱ SBLȱ Linguisticsȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ HeȬ brewȱsectionȱhasȱbeenȱaȱsourceȱofȱvaluableȱinformationȱforȱthisȱvolume.ȱ ParticularȱthanksȱgoȱtoȱCynthiaȱMiller,ȱwhoȱwasȱwillingȱtoȱengageȱinȱanȱ extendedȱeȬmailȱdialogue.ȱ SeveralȱlinguistsȱhaveȱtakenȱtimeȱtoȱanswerȱquestionsȱandȱshareȱinȬ formation.ȱ Amongȱ theseȱ are:ȱ Eepȱ Talstra,ȱ whoseȱ guidedȱ tourȱ throughȱ hisȱBHȱcomputationalȱlinguisticsȱprojectȱatȱFreeȱUniversity,ȱAmsterdamȱ addedȱ depthȱ toȱ thisȱ thesis,ȱ Ronȱ Langacker,ȱ fromȱ UCȱ Sanȱ Diego,ȱ whoȱ engagedȱ inȱ aȱ veryȱ helpfulȱ eȬmailȱ dialogueȱ regardingȱ cognitiveȱ gramȬ mar,ȱandȱGillesȱFauconnier,ȱwhoseȱworkȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱcognitiveȱscienceȱ providesȱsubstantialȱundergirdingȱforȱtheȱideasȱinȱthisȱvolume.ȱThanksȱ alsoȱtoȱEveȱSweetserȱforȱcritiquingȱtheȱearlierȱmanuscript.ȱFinally,ȱIȱamȱ mostȱgratefulȱtoȱDr.ȱDavidȱCramȱofȱJesusȱCollege,ȱOxford,ȱwhoȱreadȱanȱ earlyȱchapterȱdraftȱandȱofferedȱmanyȱhelpfulȱcomments.ȱ

VIȱ

Prefaceȱ

Specialȱ thanksȱ areȱ dueȱ toȱ Oxfordȱ friends,ȱ includingȱ Helenȱ Kraus,ȱ PatriciaȱTerrellȱandȱBetsyȱLivingstone.ȱIȱamȱgratefulȱtoȱlongȬtimeȱSeattleȱ friendȱCarrellȱQuinnȱandȱtoȱmyȱnewȱfriendȱLindaȱSwanberg,ȱwhoseȱsonȱ Shaneȱinspiresȱmeȱtoȱrunȱtheȱraceȱwithȱconfidence.ȱ IȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱthankȱtheȱeditorsȱofȱtheȱseriesȱBeihefteȱzurȱZeitschriftȱ fürȱdieȱalttestmentlicheȱWissenschaft,ȱProf.ȱJohnȱBarton,ȱProf.ȱReinhardȱG.ȱ Kratz,ȱProf.ȱChoonȬLeongȱSeowȱandȱProf.ȱMarkusȱWitte,ȱforȱacceptingȱ thisȱvolumeȱforȱpublication.ȱTheȱtransformationȱfromȱthesisȱtoȱvolumeȱ hasȱbeenȱanȱadventure,ȱindeed.ȱThankȱyouȱalsoȱtoȱAlbrechtȱDöhnertȱforȱ helpingȱthisȱvolumeȱtoȱfindȱaȱhomeȱatȱdeȱGruyter.ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ delightȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ theȱ effortsȱ ofȱ twoȱ excellentȱ friends,ȱ whoȱproofȬreadȱ theȱmanuscriptȱ andȱprovidedȱvaluableȱ comments:ȱ DiȬ anaȱ Atkinsonȱ andȱ Bethȱ ElnessȬHanson.ȱ Yourȱ kindnessȱ andȱ generosityȱ areȱtreasured,ȱindeed.ȱAȱspecialȱthankȱyouȱgoesȱtoȱRyanȱHayesȱforȱreȬ checkingȱtheȱfinalȱproofs.ȱAdditionally,ȱSabinaȱDabrowskiȱofȱdeȱGruyȬ terȱ hasȱprovidedȱtimelyȱadviceȱandȱencouragementȱduringȱtheȱ editingȱ process.ȱAllȱremainingȱinfelicitiesȱinȱtheȱtextȱareȱmineȱalone.ȱ Endlessȱ thanksȱ goȱ toȱ myȱ husband,ȱ Glenn,ȱ ourȱ children,ȱ Becky,ȱ JeȬ remy,ȱRyan,ȱRobin,ȱandȱtheirȱloves:ȱJay,ȱNarina,ȱandȱAaron.ȱTheirȱanticsȱ neverȱceaseȱtoȱamazeȱandȱtheirȱloveȱisȱtheȱlightȱofȱmyȱheart.ȱForȱallȱofȱ theirȱgoodnessȱandȱpatience,ȱIȱdedicateȱthisȱbookȱtoȱmyȱfamily.ȱ ȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ ȱ Prefaceȱ ȱ............................................................................................................ȱȱ Vȱ TableȱofȱContentsȱȱ.......................................................................................ȱȱ VIIȱ TableȱofȱFiguresȱ ȱ...........................................................................................ȱȱ XIȱ Abbreviationsȱ ȱ...........................................................................................ȱȱ XIIIȱ ClauseȱTagȱConventionsȱ ȱ..........................................................................ȱȱ XVȱ MentalȱSpacesȱConventionsȱ ȱ.................................................................ȱȱ XVIIȱ ȱ Chapterȱ1:ȱ TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ ȱ...........................ȱȱ 1ȱ 1.Aȱ Linguistic,ȱLiteraryȱandȱTechnologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱTextȱ ȱ..ȱȱ 4ȱ 1.A.1ȱ TheoreticalȱShift:ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyondȱ ȱ..........................ȱȱ 4ȱ 1.A.2ȱ MethodologicalȱShift:ȱComputersȱandȱBHȱTextȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 8ȱ 1.Bȱ TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ ȱ...............................................ȱȱ 11ȱ 1.B.1ȱ TheȱScopeȱofȱtheȱTaskȱ ȱ...............................................................ȱȱ 11ȱ 1.B.2ȱ Author,ȱTextȱandȱReaderȱ ȱ..........................................................ȱȱ 14ȱ 1.B.3ȱ TextȱasȱMaterialȱAnchorȱ ȱ...........................................................ȱȱ 20ȱ 1.B.4ȱ TextȱDynamics:ȱProblemsȱandȱPossibilitiesȱ ȱ..........................ȱȱ 27ȱ ȱ Chapterȱ2:ȱ TheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱȱ DynamicsȱApproachȱ ȱ...................................................................................ȱȱ 29ȱ 2.Aȱ TheoryȱandȱMethodȱ..............................................................................ȱȱ 29ȱ 2.A.1ȱ Author,ȱTextȱandȱReader:ȱAȱReȬconceptualisationȱ ȱ.............ȱȱ 30ȱ 2.A.2ȱ TheȱReadingȱProcessȱ ȱ................................................................ȱȱ 32ȱ 2.A.3ȱ ExplainingȱtheȱNetworkȱModelȱ ȱ..............................................ȱȱ 32ȱ 2.A.4ȱ ImageȱSchemataȱ ȱ........................................................................ȱȱ 35ȱ 2.Bȱ PropheticȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ ȱ.........................................................ȱȱ 37ȱ 2.B.1ȱ Viewpointȱ ȱ...................................................................................ȱȱ 37ȱ 2.B.2ȱ Deixisȱ ȱ...........................................................................................ȱȱ 39ȱ 2.B.3ȱ DeixisȱandȱBHȱ ȱ............................................................................ȱȱ 39ȱ 2.B.4ȱ PerspectiveȱandȱNonȬSpatialȱDomainsȱ ȱ..................................ȱȱ 41ȱ 2.Cȱ Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ ȱ.................................................................................ȱȱ 44ȱ 2C.1ȱ ClauseȱAnalysisȱ ȱ..........................................................................ȱȱ 44ȱ 2.C.2ȱ InformationȱStructureȱ ȱ...............................................................ȱȱ 53ȱ 2.C.3ȱ CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ ȱ...........................ȱȱ 59ȱ

VIIIȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ

2.C.4ȱ StructuringȱConceptualȱPackets:ȱSpeechȱFramesȱ ȱ................ȱȱ 64ȱ 2.Dȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ ȱ.................................ȱȱ 65ȱ ȱ Chapterȱ3:ȱ TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ....ȱ67ȱ 3.Aȱ GrammaticalȱTheories:ȱSyntaxȱandȱGrammaticalȱConstructionsȱ...ȱ68ȱ 3.A.1ȱ RoleȱandȱReferenceȱGrammarȱ .................................................ȱȱ 69ȱ 3.A.2ȱ CognitiveȱGrammarȱ ȱ.................................................................ȱȱ 70ȱ 3.A.3ȱ ConstructionȱGrammarȱ ȱ............................................................ȱȱ 73ȱ 3.Bȱ CognitiveȱApproachedȱtoȱBHȱTermsȱofȱPerceptionȱandȱȱ Cognitionȱ ȱ..............................................................................................ȱȱ 73ȱ 3.B.1ȱ RoleȱandȱReferenceȱGrammarȱ ȱ.................................................ȱȱ 74ȱ 3.B.2ȱ PrototypicalȱSituationsȱ ȱ.............................................................ȱȱ 76ȱ 3.B.3ȱ PerceptionȱandȱCognitionȱTermsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ........ȱȱ 77ȱ 3.Cȱ TheȱBHȱVerbȱInȱContextȱ ȱ.....................................................................ȱȱ 78ȱ 3.C.1ȱ Overviewȱ ȱ....................................................................................ȱȱ 79ȱ 3.C.2ȱ Terminologyȱ ȱ...............................................................................ȱȱ 79ȱ 3.C.3ȱ CategoriesȱandȱtheȱBHȱVerb:ȱTenseȱversusȱAspectȱ ȱ.............ȱȱ 82ȱ 3.C.4ȱ TheȱTDȱApproach:ȱMappingȱtheȱSyntaxȬSemanticsȱȱ ȱInterfaceȱ ȱ......................................................................................ȱȱ 83ȱ 3.Dȱ SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBHȱText:ȱCognitiveȱAdditionsȱ ȱ........................ȱȱ 91ȱ 3.D.1ȱ CognitiveȱMetaphorȱandȱTime:ȱTIMEȱISȱMOTIONȱ ȱ...................ȱȱ 92ȱ 3.D.2ȱ ExtendingȱAspectualȱBoundaries:ȱTIMEȱISȱSPACEȱ ..................ȱȱ 94ȱ 3.D.3ȱ BiblicalȱHebrew:ȱTIMEȱISȱSPACEȱ ȱ................................................ȱȱ 96ȱ 3.D.4ȱ InherentȱPropertiesȱofȱMatterȱandȱBHȱAspectȱ ȱ.....................ȱȱ 97ȱ 3.D.5ȱ InteractionȱofȱMatterȱandȱDiscourseȱStructureȱinȱBHȱ ȱ.........ȱȱ 99ȱ 3.Eȱ ReturningȱtoȱtheȱMargins:ȱTheȱBinyanȱSystemȱ ȱ............................ȱȱ 101ȱ 3.E.1ȱ TraditionalȱCategoriesȱ ȱ...................................................................ȱȱ 101ȱ 3.E.2ȱ CognitiveȱAdditions:ȱConceptualȱBlendingȱ ȱ...............................ȱȱ 102ȱ ȱ Chapterȱ4:ȱ CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ......................ȱȱ 109ȱ 4.Aȱ Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3:ȱEstablishingȱTextȬLevelȱPerspectiveȱ ȱ...............ȱȱ 111ȱ 4.A.1ȱ PerspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ ȱ.............................................ȱȱ 111ȱ 4.A.2ȱ TheȱContainmentȱSchemaȱ ȱ.....................................................ȱȱ 119ȱ 4.A.3ȱ ConceptualȱMetaphor:ȱTIMEȱISȱAȱCONTAINERȱ ȱ......................ȱȱ 121ȱ 4.Bȱ Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȬbuildingȱTermsȱ ȱ........................................ȱȱ 123ȱ 4.B.1ȱ PerspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3ȱ ȱ..............................................ȱȱ 123ȱ 4.B.2ȱ SpaceȬbuildersȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ ȱ.......................................ȱȱ 124ȱ 4.B.3ȱ ConceptualȱMetaphorȱandȱLiteraryȱMetaphorȱ ȱ...................ȱȱ 135ȱ

ȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ

IXȱ

Chapterȱ5:ȱ CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ ȱ......................ȱȱ 147ȱ 5.Aȱ Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.4:ȱSpeechȱDomainȱFourȱ ȱ.........................................ȱȱ 148ȱ 5.A.1ȱ Perspectiveȱ ȱ...............................................................................ȱȱ 148ȱ 5.A.2ȱ ConceptualȱScopingȱandȱAchievingȱHumanȱScaleȱ ȱ...........ȱȱ 150ȱ 5.Bȱ Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3:ȱTransitionȱtoȱComplexȱSpeakerȱ ȱ........................ȱȱ 154ȱ 5.B.1ȱ Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 156ȱ 5.B.2ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱ ȱ..........................................................ȱȱ 159ȱ 5.B.3ȱ ConceptualȱMetaphorȱ ȱ.............................................................ȱȱ 161ȱ 5.B.4ȱ LiteraryȱMetaphorȱandȱConceptualȱMetaphorȱ ȱ...................ȱȱ 162ȱ 5.B.5ȱ TheȱAddresseesȱandȱtheȱProblemȱofȱIdentityȱ ȱ.....................ȱȱ 166ȱ 5.Cȱ Jeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ ȱ..................................................ȱȱ 167ȱ 5.C.1ȱ ScopingȱFromȱHumanȱScaleȱ ȱ..................................................ȱȱ 167ȱ 5.C.2ȱ Counterfactualsȱ ȱ.......................................................................ȱȱ 169ȱ 5.Dȱ Jeremiahȱ2.10:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ ȱ.......................................................ȱȱ 173ȱ 5.D.1ȱ Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ ȱ...................ȱȱ 174ȱ 5.D.2ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱ ȱ..........................................................ȱȱ 175ȱ 5.Eȱ Jeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15:ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱMetaphorȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 175ȱ 5.E.1ȱ Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 177ȱ 5.E.2ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱ ȱ..........................................................ȱȱ 177ȱ 5.Fȱ Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11/12:ȱWhoȱisȱȈMeȈ?ȱ TheȱProblemȱofȱIdentityȱandȱȱ ȱ theȱAccessȱPrincipleȱ ȱ........................................................................ȱȱ 178ȱ 5.Gȱ Jeremiahȱ3.19Ȭ20:ȱSpaceȬbuildingȱinȱPoeticȱTextȱ ȱ..........................ȱȱ 182ȱ 5.G.1ȱ Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ ȱ...................ȱȱ 184ȱ 5.G.2ȱ VerbsȱofȱSpeakingȱandȱCognitiveȱExtensionȱ ȱ........................ȱ184ȱ ȱ Chapterȱ6:ȱ CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ......................ȱȱ 187ȱ 6.Aȱ Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31:ȱDiscursiveȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 188ȱ 6.A.1ȱ Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.2:ȱConditionalȱSpaceȱ ȱ....................................ȱȱ 190ȱ 6.A.2ȱ Jeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.18:ȱCentreȬPeripheryȱ ȱ..................................ȱȱ 194ȱ 6.A.3ȱ Jeremiahȱ4.23Ȭ4.26:ȱDeȬCreationȱ ȱ...........................................ȱȱ 200ȱ 6.Bȱ Jeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ ȱ.........ȱȱ 205ȱ 6.B.1ȱ Jeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.14:ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱCognitiveȱȱ Metaphorȱ ȱ....................................................................................ȱȱ 206ȱ 6.B.2ȱ Jeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ6.30:ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱCognitiveȱȱ Metaphorȱ ȱ....................................................................................ȱȱ 215ȱ 6.B.3ȱ TheȱContributionȱofȱFrames,ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱȱ ConceptualȱMetaphorȱ ȱ...............................................................ȱȱ 225ȱ ȱ

Xȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ

Chapterȱ7:ȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ...........................................................................ȱȱ 231ȱ ȱ Bibliographyȱ ȱ...............................................................................................ȱȱ 239ȱ ȱ IndexȱofȱBiblicalȱReferencesȱ ȱ....................................................................ȱȱ 253ȱ IndexȱofȱAuthorsȱ ȱ.......................................................................................ȱȱ 259ȱ IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ ȱ........................................................................................ȱȱ 263ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

TableȱofȱFiguresȱ ȱ Figureȱ1.1ȱ Langacker’sȱCanonicalȱViewingȱArrangementȱ ȱ...................ȱȱ15ȱ Figureȱ1.2ȱ Langacker’sȱViewingȱArrangementȱforȱSpeechȱSituationsȱ ȱ16ȱ Figureȱ1.3ȱ ReconceptualisationȱofȱtheȱRelationshipȱbetweenȱAuthor,ȱ TextȱandȱReaderȱ ȱ...................................................................................ȱȱ 17ȱ Figureȱ1.4ȱ ViewingȱArrangementȱBasedȱUponȱEmbodiedȱExperienceȱ19ȱ Figureȱ1.5ȱ ClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ3.6ȱ ȱ..........................................ȱȱ 24ȱ Figureȱ2.1ȱ Originator,ȱTextȱandȱReaderȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ ȱ.............ȱȱ 30ȱ Figureȱ2.2ȱ Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ ȱ........................................ȱȱ 48ȱ Figureȱ3.1ȱ IntransitiveȱConstructionȱBlendȱ ȱ.........................................ȱȱ 105ȱ Figureȱ3.2ȱ TransitiveȱCausedȱMotionȱBlendȱ ȱ........................................ȱȱ 106ȱ Figureȱ4.1ȱ PerspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ ȱ...........................................ȱȱ 111ȱ Figureȱ4.2ȱ ViewingȱArrangementȱN1ȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ ȱ.................ȱȱ 113ȱ Figureȱ4.3ȱ ClauseȱanalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ.....................................ȱȱ 114ȱ Figureȱ4.4ȱ CumulativeȱReferentialȱDensityȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ.........ȱȱ 116ȱ Figureȱ4.5ȱ ViewingȱArrangementȱN2ȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.2ȱ ȱ................ȱȱ 123ȱ Figureȱ4.6ȱ SpeechȱDomainsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.3ȱ ȱ..................................ȱȱ 127ȱ Figureȱ4.7ȱ SecondaryȱSpeechȱDomainsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.2ȱ ȱ..............ȱȱ 129ȱ Figureȱ4.8ȱ CumulativeȱReferentialȱDensityȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2ȱ ȱ.......ȱȱ 131ȱ Figureȱ4.9ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.19ȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 134ȱ Figureȱ4.10ȱ ClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱ ȱ...........................ȱȱ 139ȱ Figureȱ4.11ȱ ExplanationȱofȱClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱ ȱȱ 139ȱ Figureȱ4.12ȱ ClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.13Ȭ1.15ȱ ȱ...........................ȱȱ 140ȱ Figureȱ4.13ȱ ExplanationȱofȱClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.13Ȭ1.15ȱ ȱȱ 141ȱ Figureȱ5.1ȱ ViewingȱArrangementȱforȱJeremiahȱ2.2Ȭ3.25ȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 148ȱ Figureȱ5.2ȱ SummaryȱofȱViewingȱArrangementsȱinȱJeremiahȱȱ ȱ 1.1Ȭ3.25ȱ ȱ.................................................................................................ȱȱ 151ȱ Figureȱ5.3ȱ IconicityȱScaleȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ 153ȱ Figureȱ5.4ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3ȱClauseȱLayoutȱ ȱ...........................................ȱȱ 154ȱ Figureȱ5.5ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ ȱ........................................ȱȱ 155ȱ Figureȱ5.6ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3ȱ ȱ......................ȱȱ 161ȱ Figureȱ5.7ȱ Counterfactualȱ1:ȱUnfufilledȱPossibilityȱ ȱ............................ȱȱ 171ȱ Figureȱ5.8ȱ Counterfactualȱ2:ȱPossibilityȱBlendȱ ȱ....................................ȱȱ 172ȱ Figureȱ5.9ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.10ȱClauseȱLayoutȱ ȱ...............................................ȱȱ 173ȱ

XIIȱ

TableȱofȱFiguresȱ

Figureȱ5.10ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.10ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ............................................ȱȱ 174ȱ Figureȱ5.11ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15ȱClauseȱLayoutȱ .....................................ȱȱ 176ȱ Figureȱ5.12ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15ȱ ClauseȱAnalysisȱ ȱ.................................ȱȱ 176ȱ Figureȱ5.13ȱ Jeremiahȱ5.13ȱ TheȱProblemȱofȱIdentityȱinȱJeremiahȱȱ ȱ 3.6ȱ ȱ..........................................................................................................ȱȱ 180ȱ Figureȱ5.14ȱ SpaceȬbuildingȱinȱPoeticȱText:ȱClauseȱLayoutȱ ȱ................ȱȱ 183ȱ Figureȱ5.15ȱ SpaceȬbuildingȱinȱPoeticȱText:ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ ȱ.............ȱȱ 183ȱ Figureȱ6.1ȱ ViewingȱArrangementȱforȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31ȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 189ȱ Figureȱ6.2ȱ ViewingȱArrangementȱforȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ....................ȱȱ 205ȱ Figureȱ6.3ȱ SummaryȱofȱImageȱSchemataȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ.........ȱȱ 226ȱ ȱ

Abbreviationsȱ ȱ ASTIȱ BHRGȱȱ BOȱ BZAWȱ CBQȱ CLȱ ETLȱ GKCȱ HTRȱ HCLȱ HSȱ ICCȱ JMȱ JAȱ JBLȱ JBLMSȱ JLȱ JNSLȱ JPȱ JSSȱ JTTLȱ OSȱ SBLȱ SLCSȱ VTȱ VTȱSupȱ WBCȱ ZAHȱ ZAWȱ ZPȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

AnnualȱofȱtheȱScandinavianȱTheologicalȱInstituteȱ BiblicalȱHebrewȱReferenceȱGrammarȱ ȱ BibliothecaȱOrientalisȱ ȱ BeihefteȱzurȱZeitschriftȱfürȱdieȱalttestamentlicheȱWissenschaftȱ CatholicȱBiblicalȱQuarterlyȱ CognitiveȱLinguisticsȱ ȱ EphemeridesȱTheologicaeȱLovaniensisȱ Gesenius’ȱHebrewȱGrammarȱȱ ȱ HarvardȱTheologicalȱReviewȱ ȱ HebrewȱComputationalȱLinguisticsȱ HebrewȱStudiesȱ InternationalȱCriticalȱCommentaryȱ GrammarȱofȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ ȱ JournalȱAsiatiqueȱ JournalȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱȱ JournalȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱMonographȱSeriesȱ JournalȱofȱLinguisticsȱ ȱ JournalȱofȱNorthwestȱSemiticȱLanguagesȱ JournalȱofȱPragmaticsȱ ȱ JournalȱofȱSemiticȱStudiesȱ JournalȱofȱTranslationȱandȱTextȱLinguisticsȱ ȱ OudtestamentischeȱStudiënȱ SocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ ȱ StudiesȱinȱLanguageȱCompanionȱSeriesȱ VetusȱTestamentumȱ VetusȱTestamentumȱSupplementȱSeriesȱ WordȱBiblicalȱCommentaryȱ ZeitschriftȱfürȱAlthebraistikȱ ZeitschriftȱfürȱdieȱAlttestamentlicheȱWissenschaftȱ ZeitschriftȱfürȱPhonetikȱ

ClauseȱTagȱConventionsȱ ȱ WayyiqtolȬSȱ wawȬconsecutiveȱimperfectȱwithȱexplicitȱsubjectȱ WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ wawȬconsecutiveȱimperfectȱwithoutȱexplicitȱsubjectȱ WȬQatalȱ wawȬconsecutiveȱperfectȱ Yiqtolȱ ȱ imperfectȱ Qatalȱ ȱ perfectȱ Impvȱ ȱ imperativeȱ Qotelȱ ȱ participleȱ(onlyȱtaggedȱwhenȱusedȱverbally)ȱ Qetolȱ ȱ infinitiveȱconstructȱ Qatolȱ ȱ infinitiveȱabsoluteȱ NmClȱ ȱ nominalȱclauseȱ PrepPȱ ȱ prepositionalȱphraseȱ Wȱ ȱ wawȱ Xȱ ȱ sentenceȱconstituentȱoccurringȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱverb,ȱotherȱ than:ȱ Sȱ subjectȱ Oȱ objectȱ ȱ Dueȱtoȱspaceȱconstraintsȱtheȱclauseȱtagȱcolumnȱonlyȱcontainsȱtagsȱforȱclauseȱ constituentsȱthatȱcontributeȱtoȱfocus.ȱConsequently,ȱclausesȱareȱtaggedȱforȱ verbalȱformsȱandȱforȱconstituentsȱthatȱoccurȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱverb.ȱ(Thereȱmayȱbeȱ occasionalȱexceptions.)ȱ ȱ

MentalȱSpacesȱConventionsȱ(MSC)ȱ ȱ Baseȱ Mȱ ȱ Cȱ

initialȱspaceȱinȱaȱmentalȱspacesȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱ genericȱmentalȱspace,ȱ(addedȱsuperscriptȱindicatesȱcharacter)ȱ Character’sȱPerspectiveȱ–ȱmarkedȱforȱprimaryȱcharactersȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ Pȱ

Nȱ

Qȱ

ȱ Dȱ

C1ȱ–ȱTheȱLORDȱ C2ȱ–ȱJeremiahȱȱ C3ȱ–ȱJerusalemȱȱ

Perceptionȱspace:ȱCharacter’sȱPerspectiveȱ (basedȱuponȱtermsȱofȱperceptionȱandȱcognition)ȱ ȱ Narrativeȱspaceȱorȱdomain:ȱNarrator’sȱRealityȱȱ (basedȱuponȱnarrativeȱtextȬtype;ȱnarrativeȱstartingȱfromȱwayyiqtol)ȱ ȱ N1:ȱanonymousȱnarratorȱȱ N2:ȱJeremiahȱasȱnarratorȱ N3:ȱJeremiahȱasȱnarratorȱofȱembeddedȱspaceȱthatȱincludesȱtheȱ ComplexȱSpeakerȱandȱJerusalemȱasȱinterlocutors.ȱ ȱ Quotationȱspaceȱorȱdomain:ȱCharacter’sȱRealityȱ (basedȱuponȱdiscursiveȱtextȬtype;ȱdirectȱspeechȱstartingȱfromȱquotaȬ tion)ȱ Discursiveȱspaceȱorȱdomain:ȱCharacter’sȱRealityȱ (basedȱuponȱdiscursiveȱtextȬtype;ȱstartingȱfromȱyiqtolȱinȱnarrativeȱ text)ȱ

ȱ Subspacesȱareȱgeneratedȱrecursively,ȱandȱincludeȱspacesȱopenedȱbyȱtermsȱ andȱ constructionsȱ fromȱ theȱ semanticȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ deixis,ȱ speechȱ andȱ perception,ȱ epistemicȱandȱdeonticȱmodality,ȱhypotheticals,ȱandȱinterrogatives,ȱamongȱothȬ ersȱ ȱ

1. TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ ȱ TheȱHatterȱopenedȱhisȱeyesȱonȱhearingȱthis;ȱbutȱallȱheȱsaidȱwasȱȱ “Whyȱisȱaȱravenȱlikeȱaȱwritingȱdesk?”ȱ ȱ ~ȱLewisȱCarroll1ȱ

ȱ Duringȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱtwentiethȱcentury,ȱbiblicalȱstudiesȱbeganȱ toȱwitnessȱtheȱriseȱandȱconfluenceȱofȱtwoȱelementsȱasȱseeminglyȱdispaȬ rateȱasȱCarroll’sȱravenȱandȱwritingȱdesk.ȱTheȱfirstȱhasȱbeenȱaȱmovementȱ awayȱ fromȱ diachronicallyȱ orientedȱ historicalȬcriticalȱ inquiriesȱ andȱ toȬ wardȱ synchronicallyȱ orientedȱ linguisticȱ andȱ literaryȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ biblicalȱtexts.2ȱTheȱsecondȱhasȱbeenȱtheȱrapidȱandȱpervasiveȱadvanceȱofȱ technology,ȱ specificallyȱ withinȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ computersȱ andȱ textȱ processing,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ contributedȱ toȱ formal,ȱ structuralȱ andȱ distribuȬ tionalȱ analysesȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ text.ȱ Whileȱ theseȱ movementsȱ areȱ artisticȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ scientificȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ areȱ theyȱ indeedȱ ravensȱ andȱ writingȱdesks?ȱȱ Atȱminimum,ȱtheseȱmovementsȱhaveȱpromptedȱfreshȱapproachesȱtoȱ biblicalȱtextȱandȱitsȱrelationshipsȱwithȱitsȱoriginatorsȱandȱreaders.3ȱTextȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

2ȱȱ

3ȱȱ

Originally,ȱnoȱanswerȱwasȱexpectedȱforȱthisȱriddle,ȱalthoughȱCarrollȱdidȱdeviseȱoneȱ asȱanȱafterthought.ȱLewisȱCarrollȱandȱHughȱHaughton,ȱAliceȇsȱAdventuresȱinȱWonderȬ land,ȱCentenaryȱed.,ȱPenguinȱClassicsȱ(London:ȱPenguin,ȱ1998),ȱ311,ȱn.ȱ314.ȱ Theȱbeginningsȱofȱthisȱ movementȱwereȱseenȱwithȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱNewȱCritiȬ cism,ȱoriginallyȱutilisedȱforȱtheȱstudyȱofȱEnglishȱliteraryȱtexts,ȱtoȱtheȱstudyȱofȱbiblicalȱ texts.ȱForȱaȱshortȱhistoryȱseeȱJ.ȱCherylȱExumȱandȱDavidȱJ.ȱA.ȱClines,ȱTheȱNewȱLiteraryȱ CriticismȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱBible,ȱJSOTȱSupȱ143ȱ(Sheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱ11Ȭ26.ȱForȱ applicationȱofȱtheȱliteraryȱapproachȱtoȱBHȱtextȱseeȱRobertȱAlterȱandȱFrankȱKermode,ȱ TheȱLiteraryȱGuideȱtoȱtheȱBibleȱ(Cambridge,ȱMass:ȱBelknapȱPressȱofȱHarvardȱUniversiȬ tyȱPress,ȱ1987);ȱAdeleȱBerlin,ȱPoeticsȱandȱInterpretationȱofȱBiblicalȱNarrative,ȱBibleȱandȱ LiteratureȱSeries,ȱ9ȱ(Sheffield:ȱAlmondȱPress,ȱ1983);ȱMeirȱSternberg,ȱTheȱPoeticsȱofȱBibȬ licalȱNarrative:ȱIdeologicalȱLiteratureȱandȱtheȱDramaȱofȱReading,ȱIndianaȱStudiesȱinȱBibliȬ calȱ Literatureȱ (Bloomington,ȱ Ind:ȱ Indianaȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1987).ȱ Forȱ theȱ interrelaȬ tionshipȱbetweenȱinterpretiveȱapproachesȱandȱtheologyȱseeȱJohnȱBarton,ȱReadingȱtheȱ OldȱTestament:ȱMethodȱinȱBiblicalȱStudyȱ(London:ȱDartonȱLongmanȱ&ȱTodd,ȱ1984);ȱS.ȱ E.ȱGillingham,ȱOneȱBible,ȱManyȱVoices:ȱDifferentȱApproachesȱtoȱBiblicalȱStudiesȱ(London:ȱ SPCK,ȱ1998);ȱRobertȱMorganȱandȱJohnȱBarton,ȱBiblicalȱInterpretationȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1988).ȱ TheȱdebateȱbetweenȱsynchronicȱandȱdiachronicȱapproachesȱtoȱtheȱtextȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱ BibleȱisȱexploredȱinȱJ.ȱC.ȱdeȱMoor,ȱed.,ȱSynchronicȱorȱDiachronic?ȱAȱDebateȱonȱMethodȱinȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ Exegesis,ȱ Oudtestamentischeȱ Studiënȱ 34ȱ (Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1995).ȱ Vanȱ derȱ WalȱproposesȱaȱsynchronicȱreadingȱofȱMTȱJeremiahȱinȱA.ȱJ.ȱO.ȱvanȱderȱWal,ȱ“Towardȱ

2ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

dynamicsȱ (TD)ȱ isȱ suchȱ anȱ approach.ȱ TDȱ isȱ aȱ cognitivelyȱ oriented,ȱ linȬ guisticsȬbasedȱapproachȱtoȱbiblicalȱtextȱthatȱisȱcharacterisedȱbyȱitsȱpanȬ chronicȱ andȱ integrativeȱ nature.4ȱ Asȱ such,ȱ thisȱ approachȱ seeksȱ toȱ comȬ bineȱ insightsȱ gainedȱ fromȱ analysesȱ ofȱ theȱ biblicalȱ textȱ atȱ theȱ syntactic,ȱ semanticȱandȱpragmaticȱlevelsȱwithȱinformationȱderivedȱfromȱhistoricalȱ andȱ culturalȱstudies,ȱfocusingȱuponȱ“blocksȱofȱmaterialȱthatȱ areȱlargerȱ thanȱtheȱsentence.”5ȱThisȱexplorationȱintoȱtheȱdynamicsȱofȱbiblicalȱtextȱ givesȱ specialȱ attentionȱ toȱ featuresȱ thatȱ contributeȱ toȱ textȱ segmentationȱ andȱtextualȱunity,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱtheȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱtheseȱfeaturesȱafȬ fectȱmeaningȱconstruction.6ȱȱ Theȱ termȱ dynamicsȱinȱ theȱ heuristicȱ termȱ TDȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱtextȱasȱaȱmeansȱofȱhumanȱcommunication,ȱwhichȱisȱanȱactive,ȱfluidȱ andȱdynamicȱprocess.ȱFromȱthisȱperspective,ȱtheȱtextȱisȱnotȱaȱmereȱarteȬ fact,ȱbutȱratherȱitȱactsȱasȱaȱfocalȱlinkȱbetweenȱ presentȬdayȱreadersȱ andȱ hearersȱandȱtheȱoriginatorsȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱWhileȱtheȱcontextsȱandȱculturesȱ ofȱ theȱ author/speakerȱ andȱ variousȱ groupsȱ ofȱ hearers/readersȱ areȱ seeȬ minglyȱquiteȱdisparateȱwhenȱanȱancientȱtextȱisȱinvolved,ȱtheȱcognitiveȱ processesȱ involvedȱ inȱ humanȱ communicationȱ provideȱ manyȱ pointsȱ ofȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ theȱ originatorȱ ofȱ theȱ ancientȱ textȱ andȱ itsȱ readers.ȱ Additionally,ȱtheȱhighȱincidenceȱofȱreportedȱspeechȱthatȱisȱattributedȱtoȱ charactersȱ withinȱ propheticȱ textȱ highlightsȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱ communicativeȱprocess.ȱToȱaȱcertainȱextent,ȱsuchȱpassagesȱyieldȱtoȱconȬ versationalȱ analysisȱ andȱ theȱ conceptsȱ thatȱ areȱ integralȱ toȱ speechȱ actȱ theory.ȱHowever,ȱspeechȱactȱtheoryȱaloneȱisȱinsufficientȱtoȱdealȱwithȱtheȱ narrativeȱportionsȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱTheȱTDȱapproachȱdrawsȱfromȱthreeȱcogȬ nitiveȱtheoriesȱinȱorderȱtoȱaccountȱforȱtheȱvarietyȱofȱinformationȱinȱtheȱ text:ȱ cognitiveȱscienceȱandȱcognitiveȱlinguisticsȱ provideȱ theȱtheoreticalȱ underpinnings,ȱandȱcognitiveȱgrammarȱenrichesȱtheȱfindingsȱofȱBiblicalȱ Hebrewȱgrammarians.ȱ Threeȱ presuppositionsȱ areȱ fundamentalȱ toȱ theȱ TDȱ approach.ȱ First,ȱ theȱtextȱisȱtheȱfocalȱpointȱofȱinquiry.ȱSecondly,ȱtheȱtextȱisȱtheȱproductȱofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

4ȱȱ

5ȱȱ 6ȱȱ

aȱSynchronicȱAnalysisȱofȱtheȱMasoreticȱTextȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱJeremiah,”ȱinȱReadingȱtheȱ BookȱofȱJeremiah:ȱAȱSearchȱforȱCoherence,ȱed.ȱMartinȱKesslerȱ(WinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenȬ brauns,ȱ2004),ȱ13Ȭ23.ȱ TheȱtermȱpanchronicȱisȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱaȱmethodȱthatȱisȱconsciousȱofȱbothȱtheȱdiachȬ ronicȱ andȱ synchronicȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ textȱ andȱ seeksȱ toȱ incorporateȱ historicalȱ inȬ sightsȱ withinȱ theȱ explorationȱ ofȱ aȱ text.ȱ Seeȱ Johnȱ A.ȱ Cook,ȱ “Theȱ Hebrewȱ Verb:ȱ Aȱ GrammaticalizationȱApproach,”ȱZAHȱ14ȱ(2001),ȱ117Ȭ144.ȱ Walterȱ Rayȱ Bodine,ȱ Discourseȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literature:ȱ Whatȱ Itȱ Isȱ andȱ Whatȱ Itȱ Offers,ȱSemeiaȱStudiesȱ(Atlanta:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ1.ȱȱ Meaningȱ constructionȱ isȱaȱprocessȱ thatȱwriterȱandȱreaderȱ share.ȱForȱ theȱwriter,ȱthisȱ occursȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱcreativeȱprocess,ȱwhileȱforȱtheȱreader,ȱmeaningȱconstructionȱisȱ cuedȱbyȱproductȱofȱtheȱcreativeȱprocess,ȱtheȱtext.ȱȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

3ȱ

aȱdynamicȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱlanguageȱusersȱandȱlanguage.ȱFinally,ȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ textȱ analysisȱ andȱ interpretationȱ involvesȱ aȱ similar,ȱ dyȬ namicȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ languageȱ usersȱ andȱ language.ȱ Theȱ text,ȱ then,ȱstandsȱasȱaȱfocalȱlinkȱbetweenȱtheȱlanguage,ȱcontextȱandȱcultureȱofȱ theȱtextȱproducer(s)ȱandȱtheȱlanguages,ȱcontextsȱandȱculturesȱofȱaȱwideȱ arrayȱ ofȱ textȱ consumers.7ȱ Thus,ȱ whileȱ thisȱ methodȱ isȱ notȱ intendedȱ toȱ solveȱhistoricalȬcriticalȱquandaries,ȱitȱdoesȱseekȱtoȱrelateȱtheȱtextȱbothȱtoȱ itsȱoriginalȱaudienceȱandȱtoȱitsȱmodernȱaudiencesȱasȱwell.ȱ Becauseȱtheseȱpresuppositionsȱareȱbroad,ȱtheȱcognitiveȱsciencesȱnoȬ tionȱ ofȱ conceptualȱblendingȱhasȱbeenȱchosenȱ asȱ theȱ integrativeȱ principleȱ behindȱaȱTDȱapproach.ȱConceptualȱblendingȱisȱaȱcognitiveȱmechanismȱ byȱ whichȱ conceptualȱ informationȱ fromȱ variousȱ inputȱ spacesȱ isȱ proȬ jectedȱ intoȱ aȱ spaceȱ thatȱ isȱ calledȱ theȱ blend.8ȱ Conceptualȱ blendingȱ isȱ atȱ theȱrootȱofȱaȱwideȱarrayȱofȱcognitiveȱprocesses,ȱandȱthus,ȱisȱavailableȱforȱ multipleȱaspectsȱofȱtextȱanalysisȱandȱintegration,ȱsuchȱasȱmappingȱtheȱ syntaxȬsemanticsȱinterface;ȱestablishingȱtextualȱboundariesȱandȱconnecȬ tions;ȱ incorporatingȱ extraȬtextualȱ knowledgeȱ withȱ textualȱinformation;ȱ andȱ providingȱ aȱ basisȱ forȱ understandingȱ metaphor.ȱ Additionally,ȱ inȬ sightsȱ fromȱ cognitiveȱ linguisticsȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ enrichȱ aȱ TDȱ approachȱwhenȱ usedȱtoȱreȬexamineȱgrammaticalȱcategoriesȱandȱtermiȬ nologyȱfromȱaȱcognitiveȱperspective.9ȱ However,ȱbeforeȱintroducingȱtheȱTDȱmethodȱandȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱJeȬ remiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ aȱ shortȱ accountingȱ ofȱ recentȱ linguistic,ȱ literaryȱ andȱ technologicalȱresearchȱisȱinȱorder.ȱThisȱwillȱbeȱfollowedȱbyȱanȱintroducȬ tionȱtoȱtheȱtheoryȱandȱmethodologyȱutilisedȱbyȱaȱTDȱapproach,ȱandȱbyȱ aȱ shortȱ discussionȱ regardingȱ theȱ strengthsȱ andȱ limitationsȱ ofȱ theȱ apȬ proach.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 7ȱȱ

8ȱȱ 9ȱȱ

Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ theȱ textȱ actsȱ asȱ aȱ materialȱ anchorȱ forȱ complexȱ projections.ȱ Gillesȱ FauconnierȱandȱMarkȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink:ȱConceptualȱBlendingȱandȱtheȱMindȇsȱ HiddenȱComplexitiesȱ(NewȱYork:ȱBasicȱBooks,ȱ2002),ȱ211.ȱȱ Asȱ Fauconnierȱ suggests,ȱ thereȱ mayȱ beȱ “manyȱ differentȱ andȱ sometimesȱ clashingȱ inputsȱintoȱaȱsingleȱblendedȱspace.”ȱIbid.,ȱ329.ȱȱ RonaldȱW.ȱLangacker,ȱFoundationsȱofȱCognitiveȱGrammarȱ(Bloomington,ȱInd:ȱIndianaȱ Universityȱ Linguisticsȱ Club,ȱ 1983);ȱ idem,ȱ Foundationsȱ ofȱ Cognitiveȱ Grammar,ȱ vol.ȱ 1ȱ (Stanford:ȱSUP,ȱ1987);ȱidem,ȱConcept,ȱImage,ȱandȱSymbol:ȱTheȱCognitiveȱBasisȱofȱGramȬ mar,ȱ2ndȱed.,ȱCognitiveȱLinguisticsȱResearch;ȱ1ȱ(Berlin:ȱMoutonȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2002).ȱȱ

4ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

A. Linguistic,ȱLiteraryȱandȱTechnologicalȱApproachesȱ toȱBHȱTextȱ Recentȱlinguistic,ȱliteraryȱandȱtechnologicalȱresearchȱdemonstratesȱsigȬ nificantȱ theoreticalȱ andȱ methodologicalȱ shifts.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ sectionsȱ detailȱtheȱcontributionsȱofȱseveralȱscholarsȱinȱeachȱofȱtheseȱareas.ȱ

1. TheoreticalȱShift:ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyondȱ ScholarsȱsuchȱasȱRobertȱLongacre,ȱPeterȱCotterell,ȱMaxȱTurner,ȱCynthiaȱ Miller,ȱ Kirkȱ LoweryȱandȱAdeleȱ Berlinȱ areȱ representativeȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱ haveȱexploredȱBHȱatȱlevelsȱaboveȱtheȱsentenceȱandȱwhoȱhaveȱincorpoȬ ratedȱ insightsȱ fromȱ otherȱ areasȱ ofȱ linguistics,ȱ suchȱ asȱ pragmatics,ȱ intoȱ theirȱdescriptionȱandȱanalysesȱofȱtexts.10ȱ RobertȱLongacre’sȱdiscourseȱanalysisȱapproachȱtoȱbiblicalȱtextȱwasȱ influencedȱbyȱF.ȱI.ȱAndersen,ȱwhoȱwasȱtheȱfirstȱtoȱbringȱtogetherȱPike’sȱ tagmemeȱ theoryȱ andȱ BHȱ text.11ȱ Beginningȱ withȱ theȱ assertionȱ thatȱ “…ȱ languageȱisȱlanguageȱonlyȱinȱcontext”,ȱLongacreȱclarifiesȱaȱprogrammeȱ forȱworkȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱdiscourseȱanalysisȱ(textȱlinguistics).12ȱHisȱlistȱofȱ tasksȱ requiringȱ aȱ discourseȱ analysisȱ approachȱ overȱ andȱ againstȱ aȱ senȬ tenceȱgrammarȱapproachȱincludesȱfeaturesȱsuchȱas,ȱ“…ȱdefinitivizationȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 10ȱȱ Berlin,ȱA.ȱBerlin,ȱPoetics;ȱAdeleȱBerlin,ȱTheȱDynamicsȱofȱBiblicalȱParallelismȱ(BloomingȬ ton,ȱInd:ȱIndianaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1985);ȱPeterȱCotterellȱandȱMaxȱTurner,ȱLinguisticsȱ andȱBiblicalȱInterpretationȱ(London:ȱSPCK,ȱ1989);ȱJeanȬMarcȱHeimerdinger,ȱTopic,ȱFoȬ cusȱ andȱ Foregroundȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Hebrewȱ Narratives,ȱ JSOTȱ Supȱ 295ȱ (Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ AcademicȱPress,ȱ1999);ȱRobertȱE.ȱLongacre,ȱJoseph:ȱAȱStoryȱofȱDivineȱProvidence:ȱAȱTextȱ Theoreticalȱ andȱ Textlinguisticȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Genesisȱ 37ȱ andȱ 39Ȭ48ȱ (Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ Ind:ȱ EiȬ senbrauns,ȱ 1989);ȱ Kirkȱ Lowery,ȱ “Theoreticalȱ Foundationsȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱ Discourseȱ Grammar,”ȱinȱDiscourseȱAnalysisȱofȱBiblicalȱLiterature:ȱWhatȱItȱIsȱandȱWhatȱItȱOffers,ȱed.ȱ Walterȱ Rayȱ Bodineȱ (Atlanta:ȱ Scholarȇsȱ Press,ȱ 1995),ȱ 103Ȭ130;ȱ Cynthiaȱ L.ȱ Miller,ȱ Theȱ Representationȱ ofȱ Speechȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Narrative:ȱ Aȱ Linguisticȱ Analysis,ȱ HSMȱ (WiȬ nonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ2003).ȱ 11ȱȱ Francisȱ I.ȱ Andersen,ȱ Theȱ Hebrewȱ Verblessȱ Clauseȱ inȱ theȱ Pentateuch,ȱ JBLMSȱ 14ȱ (NashȬ ville:ȱPublishedȱforȱtheȱSocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱbyȱAbingdonȱPress,ȱ1970).ȱBothȱ ofȱtheseȱscholarsȱfollowȱaȱfunctionalȱapproachȱtoȱBHȱtext,ȱasȱopposedȱtoȱaȱformalist,ȱ theoreticallyȱ motivatedȱ approachȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Chomskyan,ȱ generativeȱ approach.ȱ C.ȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merwe,ȱ “Someȱ Recentȱ Trendsȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Linguistics:ȱ Aȱ Fewȱ PointersȱTowardsȱaȱMoreȱComprehensiveȱModelȱofȱLanguageȱUse,”ȱHSȱ44ȱ(2003),ȱ7Ȭ 24ȱ(17).ȱȱ 12ȱȱ Robertȱ E.ȱ Longacre,ȱ Theȱ Grammarȱ ofȱ Discourse,ȱ Topicsȱ inȱ Languageȱ andȱ Linguisticsȱ (NewȱYork:ȱPlenum,ȱ1983).ȱ

ȱ

Linguistic,ȱLiteraryȱandȱTechnologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱTextȱ

5ȱ

andȱtheȱuseȱofȱdeictics;ȱverbȱtense,ȱaspect,ȱandȱmode;ȱwordȱorderȱpheȬ nomena;ȱsequenceȱsignalsȱandȱconjunctions.”13ȱ ThreeȱaspectsȱofȱLongacre’sȱworkȱareȱpertinentȱtoȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱ theȱ TDȱ approachȱ toȱ BH.ȱ First,ȱ Longacre’sȱ modelȱ functionsȱ atȱ theȱ disȬ courseȱlevel.14ȱSecondly,ȱLongacre’sȱmodelȱisȱhierarchicallyȱstructured.ȱ Theȱlargestȱunitȱisȱaȱmacrostructure.ȱTheȱmacrostructureȱmayȱbeȱmacroȬ segmentedȱandȱmicroȬsegmentedȱbyȱvariousȱtextȬinternalȱfeaturesȱsuchȱ asȱverbalȱ forms,ȱ orȱbyȱ thematicȱ content.ȱFinally,ȱtheȱ focusȱofȱhisȱworkȱ hasȱ beenȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ narrativeȱ discourse.ȱ Hisȱ descriptiveȱ modelȱ inȬ cludesȱdiscussionȱofȱtextȬtypeȱcategoriesȱsuchȱasȱnarrative,ȱprocedural,ȱ hortatoryȱ andȱ expository,ȱ withȱ theȱ laterȱ additionȱ ofȱ predictiveȬ proceduralȱandȱhortatoryȬjudicial.ȱTheȱlaterȱadditionsȱreflectȱhisȱdesireȱ toȱexploreȱaȱtextȬtypeȱotherȱthanȱnarrative.15ȱȱ PeterȱCotterellȱandȱMaxȱTurnerȱincorporateȱinsightsȱfromȱtheȱstudyȱ ofȱ linguisticsȱ toȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ interpretation.ȱ Theyȱ defineȱ theȱ termȱ discourseȱ asȱ “anyȱ coherentȱ stretchȱ ofȱ language.”16ȱ Coherenceȱ inȬ volvesȱ topicȱ continuity,ȱ grammaticalȱ structureȱ andȱ meaning.ȱ Cotterellȱ andȱ Turnerȱ claimȱ thatȱ understandingȱ discourseȱ asȱ aȱ communicationȱ eventȱnecessarilyȱinvolvesȱnotȱonlyȱsyntaxȱandȱsemanticsȱbutȱpragmatȬ icsȱasȱwell.ȱTheyȱpresentȱaȱsetȱofȱsixȱcomponentsȱthatȱareȱfeaturesȱofȱaȱ discourse:ȱ theȱ setȱ ofȱ descriptionsȱ referredȱ to;ȱ theȱ setȱ ofȱ propositionsȱ included;ȱtheȱsetȱofȱactualȱsentencesȱused;ȱtheȱsetȱofȱthematicȱnets;ȱtheȱ netȱ ofȱ timeȱ reference;ȱ andȱ theȱ referenceȬrelationȱ diagram.17ȱ Eachȱ ofȱ theseȱcategoriesȱisȱrelevantȱforȱtheȱTDȱapproach.18ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 13ȱȱ Bodineȱ notesȱ thatȱ theseȱ itemsȱ reflectȱ problemȱ areasȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ studies.ȱ Bodine,ȱ Discourseȱ Analysis,ȱ 11.ȱ Theȱ listȱ alsoȱ includesȱ pronominalisation;ȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ locativeȱ andȱ temporalȱ expressions;ȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ adverbialȱ clauses;ȱ variationsȱ inȱ reportedȱ speech;ȱandȱvariationȱinȱtheȱlengthȱofȱsyntacticalȱunits.ȱLongacre,ȱGrammar,ȱxv.ȱȱ 14ȱȱ Seeȱ Robertȱ E.ȱ Longacre,ȱ “Theȱ Paragraphȱ asȱ aȱ Grammaticalȱ Unit,”ȱ inȱ Syntaxȱ andȱ Semantics,ȱed.ȱTalmyȱGivonȱ(NewȱYork:ȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1979),ȱ115Ȭ134.ȱSeeȱalsoȱRoȬ bertȱ Deȱ Beaugrandeȱ andȱ Wolfgangȱ U.ȱ Dressler,ȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Textȱ Linguistics,ȱ Longmanȱ Linguisticsȱ Libraryȱ 26ȱ (London:ȱ Longman,ȱ 1981);ȱ Josephȱ Evansȱ Grimes,ȱ Theȱ Threadȱ ofȱ Discourse,ȱ Januaȱ Linguarum.ȱ Seriesȱ Minor;ȱ 207ȱ (Theȱ Hague:ȱ Mouton,ȱ 1975).ȱ 15ȱȱ RobertȱE.ȱLongacre,ȱ“BuildingȱforȱtheȱWorshipȱofȱGod:ȱExodusȱ25:1Ȭ30,”ȱinȱDiscourseȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literature:ȱWhatȱItȱIsȱandȱ WhatȱItȱOffers,ȱed.ȱ W.ȱ R.ȱ Bodine,ȱSemeiaȱ Studiesȱ(Atlanta:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ21Ȭ49.ȱ 16ȱȱ CotterellȱandȱTurner,ȱLinguistics,ȱ230.ȱ 17ȱȱ Cotterellȱ andȱ Turnerȱ areȱ quotingȱ fromȱ C.ȱ F.ȱ Rieser,ȱ “Onȱ theȱ Developmentȱ ofȱ Textȱ Grammar,”ȱinȱCurrentȱTrendsȱinȱTextȱLinguistics,ȱed.ȱWolfgangȱU.ȱDresslerȱ(Berlin:ȱdeȱ Gruyter,ȱ1978),ȱ13.ȱInȱturn,ȱRieserȱisȱquotingȱJ.ȱS.ȱPetofi,ȱ“StudiesȱinȱTextȱGrammar,”ȱ inȱStudiesȱinȱTextȱGrammar,ȱedsȱJ.ȱS.ȱPetofiȱandȱH.ȱRieserȱ(Dordrecht:ȱReidel,ȱ1973).ȱ 18ȱȱ Theȱ setȱ ofȱ descriptionsȱ intersectsȱ withȱ theȱ informationȱ structureȱ categoryȱ topic,ȱ theȱ setȱofȱpropositionsȱintersectsȱwithȱtheȱinformationȱstructureȱcategoryȱfocus,ȱtheȱsetȱofȱ actualȱ sentencesȱ representsȱ theȱpragmaticȱaspect,ȱtheȱ setȱofȱthematicȱ netsȱ correlatesȱ

6ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

Cotterellȱ andȱ Turnerȱ encourageȱ interpretersȱ toȱ moveȱ beyondȱ theȱ levelȱofȱtheȱsentenceȱandȱtheyȱcreateȱanȱunderstandingȱofȱtextȱthatȱisȱnotȱ genreȬlimited.ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ theyȱ stressȱ theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ incorporatingȱ pragmatics,ȱ orȱ languageȱ inȱ use,ȱ withȱ syntaxȱ andȱ semanticsȱ inȱ textualȱ processingȱandȱproposeȱaȱsetȱofȱfeaturesȱforȱassessingȱtextualȱcohesion.ȱȱ Theȱ workȱ ofȱ Adeleȱ Berlinȱ includesȱ detailedȱ studiesȱ ofȱ bothȱ narraȬ tiveȱandȱpoeticȱtexts.ȱAlthoughȱBerlinȱclaims,ȱ“Iȱamȱnotȱaȱlinguistȱnorȱaȱ discipleȱofȱlinguists,”19ȱherȱapproachȱtoȱbiblicalȱparallelismȱreflectsȱtheȱ understandingȱofȱoneȱwhoȱisȱcognisantȱofȱstructuralist,ȱpsycholinguisticȱ andȱtextȱlinguisticȱapproaches,ȱasȱwellȱasȱwithȱtheȱpoeticȱtheoryȱofȱRoȬ manȱJakobsonȱasȱwell.20ȱ Berlinȱ explainsȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ parallelismȱ byȱ elaboratingȱ uponȱJakobson’sȱstatement,ȱ“Theȱpoeticȱfunctionȱprojectsȱtheȱprincipleȱ ofȱequivalenceȱfromȱtheȱaxisȱofȱselectionȱintoȱtheȱaxisȱofȱcombination.“21ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ parallelismȱ movesȱ equivalenceȱ fromȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ theȱ selectionȱ (paradigmatic)ȱ toȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ theȱ createdȱ sentenceȱ (syntagȬ matic).22ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱparallelismȱatȱtheȱlineȱlevel,ȱthisȱtypeȱofȱrelationȬ shipȱ mayȱ beȱ discernedȱ atȱ levelsȱ smallerȱ thanȱ theȱ lineȱ (words,ȱ phrasesȱ andȱsounds),ȱandȱconversely,ȱmayȱbeȱdiscernedȱwithinȱlargerȱsegmentsȱ ofȱtheȱtext.23ȱWhenȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱparallelismȱisȱenlargedȱinȱthisȱ way,ȱnewȱpossibilitiesȱforȱgraspingȱtheȱtextȱarise.24ȱȱ Berlinȱmakesȱ aȱ secondȱ contributionȱtoȱtheȱ understandingȱ ofȱ paralȬ lelism,ȱwhichȱalsoȱhasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱconceptȱofȱpoeticȱfunction.ȱSinceȱ theȱdaysȱofȱBishopȱLowth,ȱthereȱhasȱbeenȱaȱtendencyȱtoȱassociateȱparalȬ lelismȱ withȱ poetry.25ȱ Berlinȱ exploresȱ Kugel’sȱ thesisȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

19ȱȱ 20ȱȱ

21ȱȱ 22ȱȱ 23ȱȱ

24ȱȱ 25ȱȱ

withȱtheȱconceptȱofȱsemanticȱdomainȱandȱtheȱnetȱofȱtimeȱreferenceȱcorrelatesȱwithȱtheȱ categoryȱ ofȱ temporalȱ deixis.ȱ Theȱ referenceȬrelationȱ diagramȱ isȱ aȱ speciesȱ ofȱ mentalȱ spacesȱmapping.ȱTheseȱissuesȱareȱintroducedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱchapter.ȱ Berlin,ȱDynamics,ȱix.ȱȱ RomanȱJakobson,ȱ“LinguisticsȱandȱPoetics,”ȱinȱStyleȱandȱLanguage,ȱed.ȱThomasȱAlbertȱ Sebeokȱ (Bloomington:ȱ 1960),ȱ 350Ȭ377;ȱ idem,ȱ “Poetryȱ ofȱ Grammarȱ andȱ Grammarȱ ofȱ Poetry,”ȱLinguaȱ21ȱ(1968),ȱ597Ȭ609.ȱ Jakobson,ȱ“LinguisticsȱandȱPoetics,”ȱ358.ȱȱ Berlin,ȱDynamics,ȱ7.ȱȱȱ Anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ repetitionȱ ofȱ theȱ roots N2Sȱ andȱ Oȱ asȱ anȱ inclusioȱ inȱ JereȬ miahȱ 3.21ȱ andȱ 3.25.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ occurrencesȱ areȱ inȱ differentȱ syntacticalȱ constructions,ȱ yetȱformȱanȱinterestingȱsetȱofȱbookendsȱforȱtheȱsection. Forȱexample,ȱseeȱvanȱderȱWal,ȱ“TowardȱaȱSynchronicȱAnalysisȱofȱtheȱMasoreticȱTextȱ ofȱtheȱBookȱofȱJeremiah.”ȱ However,ȱitȱisȱworthwhileȱtoȱrememberȱthatȱLowth’sȱobservationsȱregardingȱparalȬ lelismȱ areȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ hisȱ studyȱ ofȱ propheticȱ literature.ȱ Inȱ Lectureȱ 19,ȱ Lowthȱ states,ȱ“Inȱorderȱtheȱmoreȱclearlyȱtoȱevinceȱthisȱpoint,ȱIȱshallȱendeavourȱtoȱillustrateȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ parallelismȱ accordingȱ toȱ itsȱ differentȱ species,ȱ firstȱ byȱ examplesȱ takenȱ fromȱ thoseȱ booksȱ commonlyȱ allowedȱ toȱ beȱ poetical,ȱ andȱ afterwardsȱ byȱ corresponȬ dentȱexamplesȱtakenȱfromȱtheȱprophets.”ȱRobertȱLowth,ȱLecturesȱonȱtheȱSacredȱPoetryȱ

ȱ

Linguistic,ȱLiteraryȱandȱTechnologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱTextȱ

7ȱ

strictȱ bifurcationȱ betweenȱ proseȱ andȱ poetryȱ inȱ BH,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ aȱ contiȬ nuumȱ existsȱthatȱ movesȱ fromȱ proseȱtoȱ elevatedȱ style.26ȱ Sheȱ goesȱonȱ toȱ explainȱ thatȱ elevatedȱ styleȱ comprisesȱ bothȱ tersenessȱ andȱ parallelism,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ poetryȱ isȱ discernedȱ byȱ observingȱ textȱ forȱ theȱ predominanceȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱfactors.ȱForȱBerlin,ȱparallelismȱfunctionsȱasȱ theȱ“constructiveȱprincipleȱonȱwhichȱaȱpoemȱisȱbuilt.“27ȱBerlin’sȱinsightsȱ intoȱtheȱnatureȱofȱparallelismȱareȱhelpfulȱwhenȱapproachingȱpropheticȱ text,ȱwhichȱcontainsȱaȱvarietyȱofȱdifferentȱconstructiveȱprinciples.28ȱ Finally,ȱ Berlinȱ presentsȱ anȱ overviewȱ ofȱ scholarshipȱ thatȱ linksȱ linȬ guisticsȱ withȱ BHȱ parallelism.29ȱ Sheȱ notesȱ thatȱ syntacticȱ analysisȱ isȱ theȱ unifyingȱfactorȱforȱtheseȱstudies,ȱandȱthatȱthisȱanalysisȱmayȱtakeȱplaceȱ atȱeitherȱaȱsurfaceȱstructureȱorȱaȱdeepȱstructureȱlevel.30ȱBerlin’sȱexamiȬ nationȱ ofȱ parallelismȱ contributesȱ toȱ theȱ TDȱ approachȱ inȱ severalȱ ways.ȱ First,ȱsheȱopensȱtheȱdoorȱforȱtheȱdiscoveryȱofȱparallelismȱwithinȱunitsȱofȱ textȱbothȱsmallerȱandȱlargerȱthanȱtheȱsentence.ȱThisȱstretchesȱtheȱpossiȬ bilityȱ ofȱ discoveringȱ thematicȱ linksȱ withinȱ aȱ largeȱ spanȱ ofȱ textȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ parallelȱ structures.ȱ Second,ȱ sheȱ clarifiesȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ poeticȱfunctionȱbyȱincludingȱbothȱtersenessȱandȱparallelismȱandȱaddsȱtoȱ theseȱtheȱconceptȱofȱpredominanceȱasȱaȱdiagnosticȱcriterion.ȱFinally,ȱsheȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

26ȱȱ 27ȱȱ 28ȱȱ

29ȱȱ

30ȱȱ

ofȱ theȱ Hebrews,ȱ vol.ȱ 1ȱ (London:ȱ Routledge/Thoemmesȱ Press,ȱ 1995),ȱ 34.ȱ Watsonȱ isȱ equallyȱ comprehensiveȱ inȱ hisȱ approach.ȱ Seeȱ Wilfredȱ G.ȱ E.ȱ Watson,ȱ Classicalȱ Hebrewȱ Poetry:ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱItsȱTechniques,ȱ2ndȱed.,ȱJSOTȱSupȱ26ȱ(Sheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1986);ȱ idem,ȱTraditionalȱTechniquesȱinȱClassicalȱ HebrewȱVerse,ȱJSOTȱSupȱ170ȱ(Sheffield:ȱShefȬ fieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1994).ȱ Berlin,ȱDynamics,ȱ5.ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ6.ȱȱ Inȱaddition,ȱtheseȱinsightsȱareȱimportantȱtoȱtheȱJeremiahȱtext,ȱasȱtheyȱofferȱanȱoptionȱ toȱ theȱ strictȱ proseȬpoetryȱ bifurcationȱ withinȱ sourceȬcriticalȱ arguments,ȱ byȱ whichȱ someȱhaveȱsoughtȱtoȱisolateȱtheȱipsissimaȱverbaȱofȱJeremiah.ȱSeeȱ“PoetryȱandȱProse,”ȱ inȱJackȱR.ȱLundbom,ȱJeremiahȱ1Ȭ20,ȱTheȱAnchorȱBible,ȱvol.ȱ21A,ȱ(NewȱYork:ȱDoubleȬ day,ȱ 1999),ȱ 63Ȭ67.ȱ Forȱ furtherȱ discussion,ȱ seeȱ Williamȱ L.ȱ Holladay,ȱ “Prototypeȱ andȱ Copies:ȱAȱNewȱApproachȱtoȱtheȱPoetryȬProseȱProblemȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱJeremiah,”ȱJBLȱ 79,ȱ351Ȭ367.ȱForȱaȱtechnicalȱdiscussionȱregardingȱtheȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱproseȱandȱ poetryȱinȱBHȱseeȱJohannesȱCornelisȱdeȱMoorȱandȱWilfredȱG.ȱE.ȱWatson,ȱVerseȱinȱAnȬ cientȱnearȱEasternȱProse,ȱAlterȱOrientȱundȱAltesȱTestamentȱ(NeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱVerlagȱ ButzonȱundȱBercker,ȱ1993),ȱxȬxvii.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ regard,ȱ seeȱ Stephenȱ A.ȱ Geller,ȱ Parallelismȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Biblicalȱ Poetry,ȱ Harvardȱ SemiticȱMonographs,ȱNo.ȱ20ȱ(Missoula:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1979);ȱidem,ȱ“TheȱDynamicsȱ ofȱParallelȱVerse,”ȱHTRȱ75ȱ(1982),ȱ35Ȭ56;ȱidem,ȱ“ThroughȱWindowsȱandȱMirrorsȱintoȱ theȱHebrewȱBible:ȱHistory,ȱLiteratureȱandȱLanguageȱinȱtheȱStudyȱofȱText,”ȱinȱAȱSenseȱ ofȱ Textȱ (Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ Ind:ȱ Eisenbrauns,ȱ 1982),ȱ 3Ȭ40;ȱ Edwardȱ L.ȱ Greenstein,ȱ “Howȱ DoesȱParallelismȱMean?”ȱinȱAȱSenseȱofȱTextȱ(WinonaȱLake,ȱInd.:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1982),ȱ 41Ȭ70;ȱ Dennisȱ Pardee,ȱ Ugariticȱ andȱ Hebrewȱ Poeticȱ Parallelism:ȱ Aȱ Trialȱ Cutȱ (‘Ntȱ Iȱ andȱ Proverbsȱ 2),ȱ VTȱ Supȱ 39ȱ (Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1988);ȱ Dennisȱ Pardeeȱ andȱ S.ȱ Davidȱ Sperling,ȱ HandbookȱofȱAncientȱHebrewȱLetters:ȱAȱStudyȱEdition,ȱSourcesȱforȱBiblicalȱStudy;ȱNo.ȱ15ȱ (Chico,ȱCA:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1982).ȱȱ Berlin,ȱDynamics,ȱ19.ȱȱ

8ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

notesȱ thatȱ linguisticȱ studiesȱ ofȱ parallelismȱ haveȱ engagedȱ inȱ syntacticȱ studiesȱ atȱ bothȱ theȱ deepȱ andȱ surfaceȱ levelsȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Theseȱ pointsȱ allowȱ poetryȱ toȱ beȱ analysedȱ usingȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ criteriaȱ asȱ prose,ȱ whichȱ opensȱ theȱ wayȱ toȱ aȱ moreȱ unifiedȱ descriptionȱ andȱ analysisȱ ofȱ aȱ multiȬgenredȱtextȱsuchȱasȱJeremiah.ȱȱ Cynthiaȱ Millerȱ hasȱ undertakenȱ aȱ linguisticȱ analysisȱ ofȱ reportedȱ speechȱ inȱ BHȱ narrative.ȱ Herȱ primaryȱ focusȱ isȱ theȱ applicationȱ ofȱ theȱ theoryȱandȱmethodȱofȱmodernȱlinguisticsȱ“…toȱaȱdescriptionȱandȱanalȬ ysisȱ ofȱ theȱ variousȱ syntacticȱ devicesȱ forȱ reportingȱ speechȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ narrative.”ȱ Millerȱ thenȱ explainsȱ theȱ distributionȱ andȱ significȬ anceȱofȱtheseȱdevicesȱbyȱmakingȱreferenceȱtoȱtheirȱplaceȱ“…withinȱtheȱ enclosingȱ narrative.”31ȱ Thus,ȱ whileȱ notȱ usingȱ anȱ overtȱ textȱ linguisticsȱ approach,ȱ Millerȱ nonethelessȱ examinesȱ textȱ atȱ aȱ levelȱ beyondȱ theȱ senȬ tence.ȱȱ Millerȱ discussesȱ theȱ pragmaticsȱ involvedȱ whenȱ oneȱ contextȱ ofȱ speakingȱreportsȱanotherȱcontextȱofȱspeaking,ȱthusȱintroducingȱtheȱideaȱ thatȱ allȱ reportedȱ speechȱ isȱ metapragmatic.ȱ Thisȱ insightȱ isȱ particularlyȱ relevantȱtoȱpropheticȱtextȱsuchȱasȱJeremiah,ȱbecauseȱreportedȱspeechȱisȱ aȱprominentȱfeatureȱofȱtheseȱtexts.ȱȱ Finally,ȱaȱwordȱmustȱbeȱsaidȱregardingȱtheȱthoroughgoingȱnatureȱofȱ Miller’sȱ research.ȱ Inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ herȱ research,ȱ Millerȱ analysedȱ overȱ 4,500ȱtokensȱofȱreportedȱspeechȱinȱGenesisȬIIȱKings.32ȱHerȱworkȱdemonȬ stratesȱ aȱ tendencyȱ toȱ goȱ beyondȱ theȱ sentence,ȱ toȱ incorporateȱ insightsȱ notȱonlyȱfromȱsyntaxȱandȱsemantics,ȱbutȱfromȱpragmaticsȱasȱwell,ȱandȱ toȱ approachȱ theȱ interpretiveȱ taskȱ withȱ scientificȱ rigour.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ termȱ computerȱ isȱ conspicuouslyȱ absentȱ fromȱ Miller’sȱ descriptionȱ andȱ analysis.ȱ

2. MethodologicalȱShift:ȱComputersȱandȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱTextȱ DuringȱtheȱlastȱtwentyȬfiveȱyears,ȱtheȱcomputerȱhasȱtakenȱoverȱtheȱroleȱ ofȱ theȱ writingȱdeskȱforȱmanyȱscholars.ȱFromȱsimpleȱsearchingȱtoȱcomȬ plexȱlinguisticȱstudy,ȱtheȱcomputerȱopensȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱpossibilitiesȱ forȱstudyȱandȱanalysis.ȱEepȱTalstra,ȱC.H.ȱvanȱderȱMerwe,ȱJohnȱH.ȱSailȬ hamer,ȱ andȱ A.ȱ E.ȱ denȱ exterȱ Bloklandȱ areȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ ofȱ theȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ haveȱ madeȱ significantȱ contributionsȱ toȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ techȬ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 31ȱȱ Miller,ȱRepresentation,ȱ4.ȱȱ 32ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ19.ȱȱ

ȱ

Linguistic,ȱLiteraryȱandȱTechnologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱTextȱ

9ȱ

nologyȱ asȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ furtheringȱ linguisticȱ researchȱ intoȱ theȱ complexiȬ tiesȱofȱBH.33ȱȱ Inȱ hisȱ article,ȱ “Recentȱ Trendsȱ inȱ theȱ Linguisticȱ Descriptionȱ ofȱ Oldȱ Hebrew,”ȱvanȱderȱMerweȱprovidesȱaȱsurveyȱofȱthreeȱtrendsȱinȱtheȱfieldȱ ofȱlinguisticsȱandȱOldȱHebrewȱ(OH),ȱtheȱfirstȱofȱwhichȱisȱ“…theȱcompuȬ terizedȱ compilationȱ ofȱ taxonomiesȱ ofȱ linguisticȱ constructionsȱ –ȱ withȱ specialȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱlinguisticȱframeworksȱthatȱareȱusedȱ inȱtheȱdatabases.”34ȱHeȱthenȱgoesȱonȱtoȱprovideȱaȱsynopsisȱofȱtheȱworkȬ ingȱtheoriesȱofȱseveralȱscholars,ȱincludingȱW.ȱRichter,ȱW.ȱEckhardt,ȱW.ȱ Gross,ȱE.ȱTalstra,ȱL.ȱJ.ȱDeȱRegtȱandȱK.ȱLowery.ȱAsȱvanȱderȱMerweȱobȬ serves,ȱȱRichter’sȱworkȱhasȱbeenȱfoundationalȱinȱprovidingȱaȱtheoreticalȱ frameworkȱregardingȱmorphologyȱandȱsyntaxȱofȱOH,ȱwhileȱitȱhasȱbeenȱ theȱ taskȱ ofȱ theȱ othersȱ toȱ makeȱ useȱ ofȱ thatȱ frameworkȱ byȱ developingȱ computerȱ programmesȱ forȱ analysisȱ ofȱ OHȱ text.ȱ Heȱ thenȱ contrastsȱ TalȬ stra’sȱtheoryȱwithȱthatȱofȱLowery,ȱnotingȱthatȱTalstra’sȱtheoryȱinvolvesȱ aȱ“…strictȱsurfaceȱlevelȱstructuralistȱapproach,”ȱwhileȱLoweryȱadoptsȱaȱ functionalȱapproachȱthatȱallowsȱforȱtheȱintersectionȱofȱsyntax,ȱsemanticsȱ andȱpragmatics.35ȱȱ Inȱ practicalȱ terms,ȱ thisȱ contrastȱ isȱ significantȱ forȱ theȱ TDȱ approach.ȱ Onȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱTalstra’sȱclauseȱhierarchyȱnotationalȱsystemȱprovidesȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ systemȱ forȱ trackingȱ aȱ closeȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ surfaceȱ structureȱ ofȱ BHȱ texts,ȱ whichȱ isȱ beneficialȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ accountsȱ forȱ theȱ greatestȱ amountȱ ofȱ distributionalȱ data.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ Lowery’sȱ theoryȱalsoȱincludesȱtheȱfunctionalȱaspectsȱofȱsemanticsȱandȱpragmaticsȱ forȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱtext,ȱwhichȱmovesȱtheȱdiscussionȱtowardsȱlanguageȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 33ȱȱ A.ȱ T.ȱ denȱ exterȱ Blokland,ȱ Inȱ Searchȱ ofȱ Textȱ Syntax:ȱ Towardsȱ aȱ Syntacticȱ TextȬ SegmentationȱModelȱforȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ(Amsterdam:ȱVUȱPress,ȱ1995);ȱFerencȱPostma,ȱ E.ȱ Talstraȱ andȱ M.ȱ Vervenne,ȱ Exodus:ȱ Materialsȱ inȱ Automaticȱ Textȱ Processing,ȱ InstruȬ mentaȱBiblicaȱ1ȱ(Amsterdam:ȱVUȱBoekhandl,ȱ1983),ȱ19;ȱJohnȱSailhamer,ȱ“AȱDatabaseȱ Approachȱ toȱ theȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱ Narrative,”ȱ MAARAVȱ 5Ȭ6ȱ (1990),ȱ 319Ȭ335;ȱ E.ȱ Talstra,ȱ “Textȱ Grammarȱ andȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bibleȱ I:ȱ Elementsȱ ofȱ aȱ Theory,”ȱ BOȱ 35ȱ (1978),ȱ169Ȭ174;ȱidem,ȱ“TextȱGrammarȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱBibleȱII:ȱSyntaxȱandȱSemanȬ tics,”ȱ BOȱ 39ȱ (1982),ȱ 26Ȭ38;ȱ idem,ȱ “Towardȱ aȱ Distributionalȱ Definitionȱ ofȱ Clausesȱ inȱ BiblicalȱHebrew,”ȱETLȱ63ȱ(1987),ȱ95Ȭ105;ȱidem,ȱ“TextȱGrammarȱandȱBiblicalȱHebrew:ȱ Theȱ Viewpointȱ ofȱ Wolfgangȱ Schneider,”ȱ JTTLȱ 5ȱ (1992),ȱ 296Ȭ297;ȱ C.ȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merwe,ȱ“RecentȱTrendsȱinȱtheȱDescriptionȱofȱOldȱHebrew,”ȱJNSLȱ15ȱ(1989),ȱ217Ȭ241.ȱȱ Alsoȱ ofȱ interestȱ areȱ C.ȱ Hardmeierȱ andȱ E.ȱ Talstra,ȱ “Sprachgestaltȱ undȱ Sinngehalt:ȱ Wegeȱ zuȱ neuenȱ Instrumentenȱ derȱ Computergestützenȱ Textwahrnehmung,”ȱ ZAWȱ 101ȱ(1989),ȱ408Ȭ428;ȱEmmanuelȱTov,ȱ“ComputerȱAssistedȱResearchȱofȱtheȱGreekȱandȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,”ȱ inȱ Computerȱ Assistedȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Text,ȱ ed.ȱ E.ȱ Talstraȱ (Amsterdam:ȱVUȱPress,ȱ1989),ȱ87Ȭ118.ȱ 34ȱȱ vanȱderȱMerwe,ȱ“SomeȱRecentȱTrends,”ȱ217.ȱȱ 35ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ229.ȱȱ

10ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

asȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ humanȱ communication.36ȱ Becauseȱ ofȱ this,ȱ theȱ TDȱ apȬ proachȱ beginsȱ withȱ aȱ closeȱ trackingȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ byȱ aȱ notationalȱ systemȱ similarȱtoȱTalstra’sȱandȱincludesȱanȱanalysisȱofȱsemanticȱandȱpragmaticȱ aspectsȱofȱtheȱtextȱasȱwell.37ȱ Theȱworkȱ ofȱ A.ȱ F.ȱdenȱexterȱBloklandȱillustratesȱ bothȱ theȱ capabiliȬ tiesȱandȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱgeneratedȱbyȱaȱcomputationalȱanalysisȱofȱBHȱ text.ȱUtilisingȱaȱcomputerȱanalysis,ȱdenȱexterȱBloklandȱsetsȱforthȱaȱhieȬ rarchicalȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ Iȱ Kingsȱ 1ȱ andȱ 2.ȱ Hisȱ methodȱ isȱ aȱ bottomȬupȱ processingȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱinȱwhichȱheȱjoinsȱclausesȱinȱaȱmannerȱdeterminedȱ byȱ variousȱ surfaceȱ structureȱ characteristics,ȱ suchȱ asȱ verbȱ formsȱ andȱ referenceȱtracking.38ȱThisȱisȱanȱelevenȬstepȱprocess,ȱresultingȱinȱanȱeleȬ venȬstageȱ hierarchyȱ ofȱsegmentation.ȱ Heȱdemonstratesȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ possiȬ bleȱ toȱ turnȱ thisȱ analysisȱ onȱ itsȱ head,ȱ andȱ readingȱ theȱ resultsȱ fromȱ theȱ topȱ down,ȱ heȱ appliesȱ thisȱ reversibleȱ methodȱ toȱ aȱ comparisonȱ withȱ anȱ analysisȱbyȱLongacre.39ȱThisȱmethodȱisȱaȱthoroughȱsyntacticȱdescriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱatȱ hand,ȱandȱdenȱexterȱBlockland’sȱcompilationȱofȱfeatures,ȱ whichȱ tendȱ toȱ joinȱ unitsȱ ofȱ textȱ atȱ givenȱ levelsȱ inȱ theȱ hierarchy,ȱ bearsȱ attentionȱforȱaȱTDȱapproach.ȱ Computerȱ assistedȱ analysisȱprovidesȱaȱsignificantȱ toolȱ forȱsomeȱ ofȱ theȱanalyticalȱtasksȱrequiredȱbyȱaȱTDȱapproachȱtoȱBHȱpropheticȱtext.ȱItȱ isȱ particularlyȱ usefulȱ forȱ examiningȱ theȱ textȱ atȱ levelsȱ higherȱ thanȱ theȱ sentence,ȱ whileȱ givingȱ attentionȱ toȱ surfaceȱ levelȱ featuresȱ suchȱ asȱmorȬ phologyȱandȱsyntax.ȱ Aȱthoroughȱdescriptionȱ andȱanalysisȱ atȱthisȱlevelȱ providesȱtheȱbasisȱforȱexaminingȱsemanticȱfeatures,ȱwhichȱinȱturnȱplayȱ intoȱpragmaticȱfeatures,ȱsuchȱasȱpoeticȱfunction.ȱ TechnologyȱforȱtheȱmorphologicalȱanalysisȱofȱBHȱisȱwidelyȱavailaȬ ble.40ȱHowever,ȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱofȱclauseȱandȱsentenceȱlevelȱsyntacticȱ analysisȱrequireȱaȱsizeableȱdatabaseȱandȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱaccessȱandȱmaniȬ pulateȱ theȱ dataȱbyȱ meansȱofȱ programmingȱ languages.41ȱAtȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 36ȱȱ Thanksȱ areȱ dueȱ toȱ Kirkȱ Lowery,ȱ whoȱ providedȱ theȱ presentȱ authorȱ withȱ aȱ copyȱ ofȱ “Jonaȱ1ȱ–ȱClauseȱHierarchyȱAccordingȱtoȱEepȱTalstra”,ȱ(WerkgroepȱInformatica,ȱVrijeȱ Universiteit,ȱAmsterdam),ȱasȱwellȱasȱmanyȱhelpfulȱremarks.ȱ 37ȱȱ ThanksȱareȱdueȱtoȱEepȱTalstra,ȱwhoȱhasȱgenerouslyȱprovidedȱdatabaseȱinformation,ȱ andȱ aȱ personalȱ explanationȱ ofȱ theȱ computationalȱ linguisticsȱ projectȱ atȱ VU,ȱ AmsterȬ dam.ȱ 38ȱȱ Blokland,ȱSearch,ȱ152Ȭ154.ȱ 39ȱȱ Hisȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ Longacreȱ isȱ ratherȱ harsh,ȱ andȱ perhapsȱ unjustified,ȱ givenȱ theȱ differȬ encesȱinȱapproach.ȱIbid.,ȱ293.ȱ 40ȱȱ Forȱexample,ȱtheȱLogosȱLibraryȱSystemȱincludesȱaȱmorphologicallyȱtaggedȱversionȱofȱ theȱBibliaȱHebraica.ȱLogosȱLibraryȱSystemȱ(LogosȱResearchȱSystems,ȱInc.),ȱ1997.ȱȱOtherȱ widelyȱavailableȱprogrammesȱareȱBibleȱWorksȱandȱBibleȱWindows.ȱ 41ȱȱ Theȱ historyȱ ofȱ computingȱ andȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ computerȬassistedȱ analysisȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ textsȱ areȱ intertwined.ȱ Currentlyȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ performȱ manyȱ complexȱ functionsȱwithȱpersonalȱcomputers,ȱnetworksȱandȱtheȱInternet.ȱTheseȱareȱrecentȱdeȬ

ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

11ȱ

thisȱ writing,ȱ theȱ releaseȱ ofȱ theȱ Stuttgartȱ Electronicȱ Studyȱ Bibleȱ hasȱ exȬ pandedȱ theȱ horizonsȱ byȱ makingȱ word,ȱ phraseȱ andȱ clauseȱ informationȱ accessibleȱtoȱLibronixȱusers.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱcurrentȱsearchȱengineȱisȱunaȬ bleȱtoȱexploitȱallȱdata,ȱthisȱaȱsignificantȱstepȱforward.42ȱ

B. TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ Asȱ previouslyȱ mentioned,ȱ TDȱ isȱ aȱ cognitivelyȬoriented,ȱ linguisticsȬ basedȱ approachȱ toȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ text,ȱ whichȱ isȱ characterisedȱ byȱ itsȱ panchronicȱandȱintegrativeȱnature.ȱThreeȱpresuppositionsȱareȱbasicȱforȱ theȱ TDȱ approach:ȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ theȱ focalȱ pointȱ ofȱ inquiry;ȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ theȱ dynamicȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ languageȱ usersȱ andȱ lanȬ guage;ȱandȱtheȱreadingȱprocessȱinvolvesȱaȱsimilar,ȱdynamicȱrelationshipȱ betweenȱ languageȱ usersȱ andȱ language.ȱ Fromȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ perspective,ȱ theȱ textȱ standsȱ isȱ aȱ materialȱ anchorȱ betweenȱ theȱ textȱ producer(s)ȱ andȱ theȱtextȱconsumer(s).ȱȱ

1. TheȱScopeȱofȱtheȱTaskȱ Narrativeȱ textȱ hasȱ beenȱ theȱ primaryȱ fieldȱ ofȱ studyȱ forȱ theȱ topȬdownȱ discourseȱ analyst,ȱ theȱ bottomȬupȱ computationalȱ linguistȱ andȱ theȱ deȬ terminedȱ distributionalȱ analystȱ asȱ well.43ȱ Notably,ȱ propheticȱ literatureȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ velopments.ȱ Theȱ shiftȱ fromȱ largeȱ mainframeȱ computers,ȱ repleteȱ withȱ theirȱ massiveȱ airȬconditionedȱrooms,ȱtoȱdeskȱtopȱcomputersȱwithȱsimilarȱcapabilitiesȱisȱreflectedȱinȱ E.ȱTalstra,ȱComputerȱAssistedȱAnalysisȱofȱBiblicalȱTexts:ȱPapersȱReadȱ atȱtheȱWorkshopȱonȱ theȱ Occasionȱ ofȱ theȱ Tenthȱ Anniversaryȱ ofȱ theȱ Werkgroepȱ Informatica,ȱ Facultyȱ ofȱ Theology,ȱ Vrijeȱ Universiteit,ȱ Amsterdam,ȱ Novemberȱ 5Ȭ6,ȱ 1987,ȱ Applicatioȱ 7ȱ (Amsterdam:ȱ Freeȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1989).ȱProgressȱfromȱdeskȱtopȱtoȱInternetȱcapability,ȱincludingȱtheȱ decisionȱ toȱ utilizeȱ aȱ dataȱ baseȱ approachȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ anȱ SGML/HTMLȱ Webȱ compatibleȱ format,ȱ isȱ documentedȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ formationȱ ofȱ theȱ Databaseȱ Project,ȱseeȱJ.ȱHoftjitzer,ȱ“TheȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱDatabaseȱProject,”ȱinȱStudiesȱinȱAncientȱ HebrewȱSemanticsȱ(Louvain:ȱPeeters,ȱ1985),ȱ65Ȭ85.ȱȱȱ 42ȱȱ Talstraȱ states,ȱ “Ofȱ course,ȱ accessȱ toȱ theȱ optionsȱ availableȱ inȱ theȱ dataȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ realisedȱbyȱaȱsearchȱengineȱthatȱisȱableȱtoȱexploitȱinȱanȱeffectiveȱwayȱallȱtheȱtextualȱ featuresȱpresent.ȱCreatingȱaȱdatabaseȱisȱoneȱthing,ȱusingȱitȱisȱsomethingȱelse.”ȱE.ȱTalȬ stra,ȱ“TextȱSegmentationȱandȱLinguisticȱLevels,”ȱ(2003),ȱ1Ȭ40ȱ(34).ȱ 43ȱȱ Narrativeȱstudiesȱpredominateȱinȱrecentȱlinguisticȱresearch.ȱForȱexample,ȱseeȱRobertȱ D.ȱBergen,ȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱandȱDiscourseȱLinguisticsȱ(Dallas:ȱSummerȱInstituteȱofȱLinȬ guistics,ȱ1994);ȱWalterȱRayȱBodine,ȱLinguisticsȱandȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ(WinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱ Eisenbrauns,ȱ1992);ȱBodine,ȱDiscourseȱAnalysis;ȱCynthiaȱL.ȱMiller,ȱTheȱVerblessȱClauseȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Linguisticȱ Approaches,ȱ Linguisticȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Westȱ Semiticȱ (WinonaȱLake,ȱInd.:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1999).ȱAȱrecentȱadditionȱtoȱthisȱlistȱisȱSebastiaanȱJ.ȱ

12ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

isȱamongȱtheȱunploughedȱfieldsȱforȱeachȱofȱtheseȱapproaches.ȱTwoȱfeaȬ turesȱ ofȱ propheticȱ literatureȱ contributeȱ toȱ thisȱ situation:ȱ theȱ textȱ comȬ prisesȱ manyȱgenres,ȱ includingȱ prose,ȱ poetryȱ andȱ elevatedȱ speech;ȱ andȱ propheticȱ literatureȱ isȱ highlyȱ discursive:ȱ reportedȱ speechȱ andȱ directȱ addressȱareȱprominentȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱtext.44ȱThus,ȱdelimitingȱaȱcoherentȱ andȱ comprehensiveȱ frameȱ ofȱ referenceȱ forȱ theȱ linguisticȱ analysisȱ andȱ descriptionȱofȱpropheticȱtextsȱposesȱaȱsignificantȱchallenge.ȱ SomeȱrecentȱlinguisticȱstudiesȱofȱBHȱtextȱconcentrateȱonȱsingleȱgeȬ nres:ȱ discourseȱ analyticȱ approaches,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Longacre’s,ȱ proveȱ usefulȱ forȱtheȱdescriptionȱandȱanalysisȱofȱnarrativeȱtext;ȱtheȱstudiesȱofȱWatson,ȱ KugelȱandȱBerlinȱprovideȱinsightȱintoȱpoeticȱtextsȱandȱmetaphorȱstudiesȱ suchȱasȱDoyle’sȱassistȱinȱdiscerningȱabstractȱmeaning.ȱ 45ȱHowever,ȱlittleȱ hasȱbeenȱwrittenȱregardingȱaȱholisticȱanalysisȱofȱpropheticȱtext.ȱ46ȱAddiȬ tionally,ȱ weȱ lackȱ aȱ coherentȱ methodȱ forȱ integratingȱ researchȱ resultsȱ fromȱmultipleȱperspectives.ȱȱ Nonetheless,ȱ utilisingȱ anȱ integrativeȱ approachȱ toȱ textȱ analysisȱ isȱ important,ȱasȱtheȱresultsȱofȱanyȱsingleȱtheoryȱareȱboundȱbyȱitsȱstrengthsȱ andȱ weaknesses.47ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ twoȱ particularȱ problemsȱ ariseȱ whenȱ structuralȱapproachesȱareȱpairedȱwithȱpropheticȱtext.ȱTheȱfirstȱproblemȱ hasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱHebrewȱverbalȱsystem.ȱSomeȱstructuralȱapproachesȱ relyȱ heavilyȱ uponȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ verbalȱ formsȱ asȱ structuralȱ cues.ȱ Suchȱ reȬ lianceȱ uponȱ verbalȱ formsȱ isȱ insufficient,ȱ primarilyȱ becauseȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ consensusȱregardingȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱverbalȱsystemȱsinceȱtheȱBHȱtenseȱ versusȱaspectȱdebateȱ isȱongoing.48ȱAdditionally,ȱlittleȱhasȱbeenȱwrittenȱ regardingȱtheȱlinguisticȱroleȱofȱtheȱbinyanȱsystem,ȱwhichȱisȱcomplexȱandȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 44ȱȱ

45ȱȱ 46ȱȱ

47ȱȱ 48ȱȱ

Floor,ȱ“FromȱInformationȱStructure,ȱTopic,ȱandȱFocus,ȱtoȱThemeȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ Narrative.”ȱ(DLit,ȱUniversityȱofȱStellenbosch,ȱ2004).ȱ Althoughȱnarrativeȱstudiesȱpredominate,ȱaȱsmallȱnumberȱofȱBHȱpoetryȱstudiesȱhaveȱ beenȱundertakenȱfromȱaȱlinguisticsȱperspective.ȱSeeȱRandallȱButh,ȱ“TopicȱandȱFocusȱ inȱHebrewȱPoetry:ȱPsalmȱ51,”ȱinȱLanguageȱinȱContext:ȱEssaysȱforȱRobertȱE.ȱLongacre,ȱedsȱ Shinȱ Jaȱ Jooȱ Hwangȱ andȱ Williamȱ R.ȱ Merrifieldȱ (Arlington:ȱ Summerȱ Instituteȱ ofȱ LinȬ guisticsȱ andȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Texasȱ atȱ Arlington,ȱ 1992),ȱ 83Ȭ96.ȱ Forȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ prose,ȱpoetryȱandȱelevatedȱspeechȱinȱBH,ȱseeȱJamesȱL.ȱKugel,ȱTheȱIdeaȱofȱBiblicalȱPoeȬ try:ȱParallelismȱandȱItsȱHistoryȱ(NewȱHaven:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1981),ȱ77.ȱ BrianȱDoyle,ȱTheȱApocalypseȱofȱIsaiahȱMetaphoricallyȱSpeaking:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱtheȱUse,ȱFuncȬ tion,ȱandȱSignificanceȱofȱMetaphorsȱinȱIsaiahȱ24Ȭ27ȱ(Leuven:ȱPeeters,ȱ2000).ȱ However,ȱ seeȱ Martinȱ Kessler,ȱ Readingȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Jeremiah:ȱ Aȱ Searchȱ forȱ Coherenceȱ (WinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ2004);ȱErnstȱR.ȱWendland,ȱTheȱDiscourseȱAnalysisȱofȱ Hebrewȱ Propheticȱ Literature,ȱ Mellenȱ Biblicalȱ Pressȱ Series,ȱ vol.ȱ 40,ȱ (Lewiston,ȱ Newȱ York:ȱMellenȱBiblicalȱPress,ȱ1994).ȱ vanȱderȱMerwe,ȱ“SomeȱRecentȱTrends,”ȱ18.ȱȱ InroadsȱhaveȱbeenȱmadeȱintoȱtheȱHebrewȱverbalȱsystem.ȱSee,ȱforȱexample,ȱTalȱGoldȬ fajn,ȱ Wordȱ Orderȱ andȱ Timeȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Narrative,ȱ Oxfordȱ Theologicalȱ MonoȬ graphsȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱCook,ȱ“Grammaticalization.“ȱHowȬ ever,ȱtheȱissueȱisȱfarȱfromȱresolved.ȱȱ

ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

13ȱ

affectsȱ manyȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ meaningȱ construction.49ȱ Theȱ secondȱ problemȱ hasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱoneȱform/oneȱfunctionȱnotionȱbehindȱsomeȱstructuralȱ approaches,ȱwhichȱisȱlimitingȱforȱnarrativeȱtextȱandȱplacesȱundueȱconȬ straintsȱ uponȱ elevatedȱ speechȱ andȱ propheticȱ parallelism.ȱ Indeed,ȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱthatȱoneȱlinguisticȱformȱmightȱsignalȱseveralȱfunctions,ȱorȱmulȬ tipleȱlinguisticȱformsȱmightȱrepresentȱaȱsingleȱfunction.50ȱȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ taskȱ ofȱ delimitingȱ aȱ coherentȱ andȱ comprehensiveȱ apȬ proachȱtoȱBHȱpropheticȱtextȱisȱtwoȬfold:ȱfirst,ȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱestablishȱ suitableȱlinksȱbetweenȱtheȱlanguage,ȱcontextȱandȱculturesȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱ textȱproducersȱ andȱthoseȱ ofȱtheȱpresentȱtextȱconsumers;ȱsecondly,ȱitȱisȱ necessaryȱtoȱthoroughlyȱexploreȱallȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱtextȱitself.ȱSinceȱlanȬ guageȱuseȱisȱtheȱproductȱofȱhumanȱconceptualisation,ȱinsightsȱfromȱtheȱ areasȱofȱcognitiveȱscience,ȱcognitiveȱlinguisticsȱandȱcognitiveȱgrammarȱ haveȱ anȱ importantȱ placeȱ inȱ delimitingȱ aȱ coherentȱ andȱ comprehensiveȱ frameȱofȱreferenceȱforȱinterpretingȱBHȱtext.51ȱTheȱTDȱapproachȱincorpoȬ ratesȱ theseȱ ideasȱ inȱ twoȱ ways:ȱ first,ȱ byȱ elucidatingȱ theȱ reȬ conceptualisationȱ ofȱ theȱ interrelationshipȱ betweenȱ author,ȱ textȱ andȱ reader;ȱandȱsecondly,ȱinȱtheȱtextȱanalyticȱmethodȱitself.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 49ȱȱ See,ȱ however,ȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ Wolde,ȱ “Linguisticȱ Motivationȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ Exegesis,”ȱ inȱ NarrativeȱSyntaxȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱBible,ȱed.ȱE.ȱJ.ȱvanȱWolde,ȱBiblicalȱInterpretationȱSeȬ ries,ȱV.ȱ29ȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1997),ȱ21Ȭ50.ȱNiliȱMandelblit,ȱ“TheȱGrammaticalȱMarkingȱofȱ ConceptualȱIntegration:ȱFromȱSyntaxȱtoȱMorphology,”ȱCLȱ11ȱ(2000),ȱ197Ȭ241.ȱ 50ȱȱ Mandelblit,ȱ inȱ herȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ Modernȱ Hebrewȱ verbalȱ sysȬ tem,ȱ hasȱ observedȱ thatȱ theȱ syntacticȱ formȱ ofȱ theȱ sentenceȱ andȱ theȱ morphologicalȱ formȱ ofȱtheȱverbȱ(itsȱbinyan)ȱcombineȱinȱtwoȱ distinctȱways.ȱTwoȱ sentencesȱ withȱtheȱ sameȱ syntacticȱ forms,ȱ butȱ withȱ twoȱ differentȱ morphologicalȱ forms,ȱ willȱ haveȱ theȱ sameȱbasicȱeventȱstructureȱwithȱdifferentȱcrossȬspaceȱmappings,ȱwhileȱdifferentȱsynȬ tacticȱ formsȱ withȱ theȱ sameȱ morphologicalȱ formȱ willȱ exhibitȱ aȱ differentȱ eventȱ strucȬ ture,ȱbutȱwithȱtheȱsameȱcrossȬspaceȱmapping.ȱTheȱissueȱofȱcrossȬspaceȱmappingȱhasȱ toȱdoȱwithȱtheȱunderlyingȱmotionȱconstructionȱspecifiedȱbyȱtheȱbinyan.ȱForȱinstance,ȱ althoughȱsentencesȱwithȱniphalȱverbsȱhaveȱaȱsubject,ȱtheyȱareȱessentiallyȱagentless,ȱasȱ theȱoneȱperformingȱtheȱactionȱisȱnotȱencodedȱinȱtheȱverbȱform.ȱAȱsimilarȱsituationȱexȬ istsȱ withȱ imperativeȱ forms,ȱ inȱ whichȱ actionȱ isȱ requestedȱ byȱ aȱ nonȬsubjectȱ entityȱ whoseȱidentityȱmustȱbeȱcontextuallyȱassessed.ȱȱȱ 51ȱȱ Theȱ presentȱ authorȱ becameȱ awareȱ ofȱtheȱ cognitiveȱapproachesȱthroughȱ Martinȱ FolȬ lingstad’sȱ work.ȱ Coincidentally,ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merweȱ encounteredȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ S.S.A.ȱ Marmaridou,ȱwhoseȱresearchȱprogrammeȱhasȱmanyȱpointsȱofȱcontactȱwithȱtheȱtheoȬ reticalȱunderpinningsȱofȱthisȱeffortȱtoȱarticulateȱaȱtextȱdynamicȱapproachȱtoȱBHȱtext,ȱ includingȱtheȱviewȱofȱlanguageȱasȱdynamicȱratherȱthanȱstaticȱandȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱ embodiedȱ experienceȱ forȱ meaningȱ construction.ȱ Carlȱ Martinȱ Follingstad,ȱ “Deicticȱ ViewpointȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱText:ȱAȱSyntagmaticȱandȱParadigmaticȱAnalysisȱofȱtheȱ ParticleȱKi.”ȱ(DoctoralȱThesis,ȱVrijeȱUniversiteitȱteȱAmsterdamȱ2001,ȱSILȱInternationȬ al,ȱ2001);ȱSophiaȱ S.ȱ A.ȱ Marmaridou,ȱPragmaticȱ Meaningȱ andȱ Cognition,ȱ Pragmaticsȱ&ȱ Beyond;ȱNewȱSer.ȱ72ȱ(Amsterdam:ȱJ.ȱBenjaminsȱPublishing,ȱ2000).ȱ

14ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

2. Author,ȱTextȱandȱReaderȱ Likeȱ anyȱ text,ȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ staticȱ entity.ȱ Thisȱ perceptionȱisȱreinforcedȱbyȱtheȱlimitationsȱofȱBH,ȱwhichȱhasȱbeenȱpreȬ servedȱasȱaȱformallyȱarticulatedȱlanguageȱonlyȱforȱworship.ȱBecauseȱofȱ this,ȱthereȱareȱnoȱspeakersȱtoȱcreateȱfreshȱexamples.ȱTheȱdataȱavailableȱ forȱ formulatingȱ grammaticalȱ conclusionsȱ isȱ limitedȱ toȱ theȱ corpusȱ atȱ hand.ȱ Evenȱ so,ȱ theȱ textȱ itselfȱ isȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ realȱ languageȱ users,ȱ communicatingȱinȱrealȱcontextsȱandȱunderȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱrealȱculturalȱ influencesȱandȱconstraints.52ȱThereȱisȱaȱcommunicativeȱdynamismȱsurȬ roundingȱtheȱtext,ȱwhichȱisȱbestȱexploredȱbyȱincludingȱtheȱhumanȱeleȬ mentȱinȱtheȱinterpretationȱprocess.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ taskȱ involvedȱ inȱ delimitingȱ theȱ TDȱ approachȱ isȱ reȬ conceptualisingȱ theȱ relationshipȱ thatȱ holdsȱ betweenȱ theȱ authorȱ (fromȱ hereon,ȱ originator),ȱ theȱ textȱ andȱ theȱ reader.53ȱ Aȱ modelȱ fromȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ hasȱ beenȱ selectedȱ forȱ thisȱ task.ȱ Thisȱ model,ȱ describedȱ asȱ theȱ canonicalȱ viewingȱ arrangement,ȱ isȱ dependentȱ uponȱ knownȱ featuresȱ ofȱ perceptionȱandȱisȱrepresentedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱdiagram.54ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 52ȱȱ ThisȱisȱwhyȱitȱisȱnotȱsafeȱorȱprudentȱtoȱjettisonȱhistoricalȬcriticalȱstudy.ȱ 53ȱȱ Inȱthisȱanalysisȱtheȱtermȱoriginatorȱreplacesȱtheȱtermȱauthorȱandȱactsȱasȱaȱcoverȱtermȱ forȱtheȱgroupȱofȱpeopleȱwhoȱhaveȱcontributedȱtoȱtheȱfinalȱformȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱincludingȱ theȱoriginalȱauthorȱandȱanyȱsubsequentȱredactorsȱorȱeditors.ȱȱ 54ȱȱ Inȱtermsȱofȱcognitiveȱgrammar,ȱaȱviewingȱarrangementȱmayȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱcanoniȬ cal,ȱ inȱ whichȱ caseȱ theȱ viewerȱ isȱ distinctȱ fromȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ perception,ȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ perceptionȱ isȱ sharplyȱ delimited,ȱ andȱ theȱ viewer’sȱ attentionȱ isȱ directedȱ outward.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ viewingȱ arrangement,ȱ theȱ viewerȱ construesȱ theȱ perceivedȱ objectȱ withȱ “…maximalȱ objectivityȱ andȱ construesȱ himselfȱ withȱ maximalȱ subjectivity.”ȱ Ronaldȱ W.ȱ Langacker,ȱ “Deixisȱ andȱ Subjectivity,”ȱ inȱ Grounding:ȱ Theȱ Epistemicȱ Footingȱ ofȱ DeixisȱandȱReference,ȱed.ȱFrankȱBrisardȱ(Berlin:ȱMoutonȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2002),ȱ1Ȭ28ȱ(15).ȱ ȱ

ȱ

15ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ1.1ȱȱȱLangackerȇsȱCanonicalȱViewingȱArrangementȱȱ

Theȱcanonicalȱviewingȱarrangementȱisȱbasedȱuponȱvisualȱperception.ȱItȱ consistsȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱcomponents:ȱVȱrepresentsȱtheȱviewer;ȱtheȱboxȱ representsȱ theȱ visualȱ field;ȱ theȱ dashedȱ rectangleȱ indicatesȱ theȱ locusȱ ofȱ viewingȱ attention,ȱ whichȱ isȱ alsoȱ referredȱ toȱ asȱ theȱ onstageȱ region;ȱ PEȱ representsȱ theȱ perceivedȱ entity;ȱ andȱ theȱ dashedȱ arrowȱ representsȱ theȱ perceptualȱ relationshipȱ thatȱ holdsȱ betweenȱ theȱ perceivingȱ individualȱ andȱtheȱentityȱbeingȱperceived.ȱȱ Inȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱsubjectivity,ȱLangackerȱutilisesȱthisȱdiagramȱtoȱ explainȱ theȱ “…ȱ inherentȱ asymmetryȱ betweenȱ theȱ rolesȱ ofȱ subjectȱ andȱ objectȱofȱperception.”ȱWhenȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱviewerȱasȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱperȬ ceptionȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱtheȱperceivedȱ entityȱ asȱtheȱobjectȱ ofȱ perceptionȱareȱ maximallyȱ asymmetrical,ȱ theyȱ exhibitȱ theȱ followingȱ threeȱ characterisȬ tics:ȱVȱandȱPȱareȱwhollyȱdistinct;ȱPȱisȱsharplyȱdelimited;ȱandȱV’sȱattenȬ tionȱ isȱ directedȱ outward,ȱ soȱ thatȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ perceiveȱ himselfȱ inȱ anyȱ way.55ȱ Additionally,ȱ Langackerȱ notesȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ discussȱ abȬ stractȱconceptualisations,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱmeaningsȱofȱlinguisticȱexpressionsȱ withinȱaȱspeechȱsituationȱusingȱaȱsimilarȱdiagram.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 55ȱȱ Langacker,ȱ“DeixisȱandȱSubjectivity,“15.ȱ ȱ

16ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ1.2ȱȱȱLangackerȇsȱViewingȱArrangementȱforȱSpeechȱSituationsȱ

Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ conceptualisationȱ includesȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearer,ȱ theȱ groundȱ ofȱ theȱ speechȱ eventȱ andȱ theȱ sharedȱ conceptualisaȬ tionȱofȱtheȱcommunication.ȱThisȱsituationȱisȱrepresentedȱinȱtheȱdiagramȱ asȱfollows:ȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱhearerȱareȱtheȱrelevantȱconceptualisersȱ(corȬ respondingȱtoȱVȱinȱfigureȱ1).ȱTheȱinterrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱspeakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ isȱ representedȱ byȱ theȱ horizontalȱ dashedȱ lines.ȱ Theȱ speakerȱ andȱhearerȱareȱoffȱstageȱ–ȱtheyȱareȱmaximallyȱsubjective,ȱbutȱnonethelessȱ present.ȱ Theirȱ sharedȱ conceptualisation,ȱ C,ȱ isȱ onȱ stageȱ asȱ theȱ focusȱ ofȱ attention;ȱitȱisȱmaximallyȱobjective.ȱTheȱouterȱboxȱrepresentsȱtheȱoverallȱ scopeȱ ofȱ theȱ expression,ȱ andȱ theȱ innerȱ rectangleȱ representsȱ theȱ immeȬ diateȱscopeȱofȱtheȱexpression.56ȱThisȱdiagramȱrepresentsȱaȱprototypicalȱ speechȱ situation,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ haveȱ immediateȱ accessȱtoȱoneȱanotherȱandȱtoȱelementsȱwithinȱtheȱgroundȱofȱtheȱspeechȱ situation,ȱ suchȱ asȱ timeȱ andȱ space.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ theȱ deicticȱ centresȱ representedȱbyȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱtheȱhearerȱshareȱtheȱsameȱground.57ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 56ȱȱ Ronaldȱ W.ȱ Langacker,ȱ ”Context,ȱ Cognition,ȱ andȱ Semantics:ȱ Aȱ Unifiedȱ Dynamicȱ Approach,”ȱ inȱ Jobȱ 28:ȱ Cognitionȱ inȱ Context,ȱ ed.ȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ Woldeȱ (Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 2003),ȱ 179Ȭ230ȱ(183).ȱ 57ȱȱ Forȱ Langacker,ȱ theȱ termȱ groundȱ includesȱ theȱ speechȱ event,ȱ itsȱ participantsȱ andȱ itsȱ immediateȱcircumstances.ȱLangacker,ȱ“DeixisȱandȱSubjectivity,“ȱ7.ȱ

ȱ

17ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

Theȱ dottedȱ linesȱ thatȱ joinȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ toȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ perceptionȱrepresentȱsharedȱgaze.ȱInȱaȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱcommunicationȱsituaȬ tion,ȱsharedȱgazeȱisȱanȱimportantȱcommunicationȱcue.ȱBailensonȱstates:ȱ Asideȱfromȱverbalȱchannels,ȱnonȬverbalȱchannelsȱavailableȱduringȱfaceȬtoȬ faceȱ communicationȱ includeȱ gazeȱ fromȱ headȱ postureȱ andȱ eyeȱ direction,ȱ armȱ gestures,ȱ bodyȱ posture,ȱ andȱ facialȱ expressionsȱ (asȱ wellȱ asȱ nonȬverbalȱ aspectsȱofȱlanguageȱsuchȱasȱvariationsȱinȱintonationȱandȱvoiceȱquality).58ȱȱ

Textȱ levelȱ deicticȱ termsȱ areȱ oneȱ meansȱ availableȱ toȱ theȱ authorȱ forȱ enȬ couragingȱsharedȱgazeȱ(seeȱ2.B.2ȱbelow).ȱ FromȱaȱTDȱperspective,ȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱreconceptualiseȱtheȱrelationȬ shipȱbetweenȱtheȱtext,ȱtheȱoriginatorsȱofȱtheȱtextȱandȱtheȱreadersȱofȱtheȱ textȱusingȱanȱexpandedȱversionȱofȱtheȱpreviousȱdiagram.ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ1.3ȱȱȱReȬconceptualisationȱofȱtheȱRelationshipȱbetweenȱAuthor,ȱTextȱandȱReaderȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 58ȱȱ JeremyȱN.ȱBailenson,ȱAndrewȱC.ȱBeallȱandȱJimȱBlascovich,ȱGazeȱandȱTaskȱPerformanceȱ inȱSharedȱVirtualȱEnvironmentsȱȱ(2002,ȱaccessed);ȱavailableȱfromȱ http://www.stanford.edu/~bailenso/papers/VCA%20Gaze.pdf.ȱ

18ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

Inȱthisȱdiagram,ȱtheȱouterȱboxȱdelineatesȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱconceptualisaȬ tion.ȱ Thisȱ encompassesȱ theȱ followingȱ aspects:ȱ theȱ locusȱ ofȱ viewingȱ atȬ tention,ȱorȱtheȱonstageȱregion,ȱrepresentsȱtheȱtext;ȱCȱindicatesȱtheȱfocusȱ frame,ȱ orȱtheȱconceptualisationȱofȱtheȱportionȱofȱtextȱunderȱconsideraȬ tionȱatȱaȱgivenȱmoment;ȱOȱisȱaȱcoverȱtermȱforȱtheȱoriginalȱauthorȱandȱallȱ subsequentȱeditorialȱhands;ȱRȱisȱaȱcoverȱtermȱforȱallȱreaders;ȱGȱindicatesȱ theȱ groundȱ thatȱ holdsȱ forȱ theȱ relevantȱ conceptualiser.ȱ Onceȱ again,ȱ theȱ conceptualisersȱ areȱ offȱ stage.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ maximallyȱ subjectiveȱ butȱ present.ȱImportantly,ȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱsubjectivityȱwouldȱchangeȱifȱoneȱofȱ theȱ interlocutorsȱ wereȱ toȱ becomeȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ theȱ communicationȱ event.ȱ InȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱdiagramȱFigureȱ1.2,ȱwhichȱrepresentsȱaȱprototypiȬ calȱ speechȱ eventȱ withȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ sharingȱ aȱ commonȱ ground,ȱ theȱ diagramȱ inȱ Figureȱ 1.3ȱ highlightsȱ theȱ disjunctionȱthatȱ existsȱ forȱ theȱ originatorsȱandȱreadersȱofȱanȱancientȱtext.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱspeechȱeventȱ isȱnonȬprototypical,ȱwithȱtheȱcommunicationȱparticipantsȱseparatedȱbyȱ space,ȱtimeȱandȱculture.ȱInȱFigureȱ1.3,ȱtheȱdottedȱlinesȱaroundȱtheȱtermsȱ grammar,ȱ contextȱ andȱ cultureȱ reflectȱ theȱ partialȱ mannerȱ inȱ whichȱ theseȱ categoriesȱ establishȱ connectionsȱ betweenȱ theȱ textȱ originatorsȱ andȱ theȱ readers,ȱ thusȱ emphasisingȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ linguistic,ȱ historicalȱ andȱ culturalȱ studiesȱ forȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ ancientȱ text.ȱ Theȱ solidȱ lineȱ aroundȱ embodiedȱ experienceȱ highlightsȱ anȱ importantȱ analogicalȱ connecȬ tionȱ betweenȱ originatorȱ andȱ reader.59ȱ Thisȱ connectionȱ isȱ proposedȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ humansȱ possessȱ similarȱ neuralȱ networks,ȱ whichȱ mayȱ beȱ modelledȱ byȱ connectionistȱ networks,ȱ andȱ thatȱ suchȱ netȬ worksȱareȱcharacteristicȱofȱembodiedȱhumanȱexperience.60ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 59ȱȱ Althoughȱ thisȱ volumeȱ isȱ basedȱ uponȱ recentȱ researchȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ gramȬ marȱ andȱ linguistics,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ senseȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ reconceptualisationȱ presentedȱ inȱ Figureȱ1.3ȱprovidesȱaȱnewȱwineskinȱforȱtheȱoldȱwineȱofȱtheȱhistoricalȬcriticalȱmethod.ȱ Johnȱ Collinsȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ principleȱ ofȱ analogyȱ isȱ foundationalȱ forȱ theȱ historicalȬ criticalȱapproach,ȱstating,ȱ“Toȱunderstandȱtheȱancientȱcontextȱofȱaȱtextȱrequiresȱsomeȱ sympatheticȱanalogyȱbetweenȱancientȱandȱmodernȱsituations.ȱIndeed,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱasȬ sumptionsȱ ofȱ historicalȱ criticismȱ isȱ thatȱ textsȱ areȱ humanȱ productsȱ andȱ thatȱ humanȱ natureȱhasȱnotȱchangedȱbeyondȱrecognitionȱoverȱtheȱcenturies“.ȱThus,ȱbothȱtheȱemȬ phasisȱuponȱanalogyȱbasedȱuponȱhumanȱexperienceȱandȱtheȱmaintenanceȱofȱtheȱdisȬ tinctionȱ betweenȱ subjectivityȱ andȱ objectivityȱ expressedȱ inȱ theȱ reȬconceptualisationȱ renderȱ thisȱ volumeȱ moreȱ modernȱ thanȱ postȬmodern.ȱ Johnȱ J.ȱ Collins,ȱ Theȱ Bibleȱ afterȱ Babelȱ(GrandȱRapids,ȱMichigan:ȱEerdmans,ȱ2005),ȱ5.ȱ 60ȱȱ Marmaridouȱstates,ȱ“…connectionismȱviewsȱtheȱbrainȱasȱaȱnetworkȱcharacterisedȱbyȱ causalȱprocessesȱbyȱwhichȱunitsȱofȱintricateȱsystemsȱexciteȱandȱinhibitȱeachȱotherȱandȱ thusȱdynamicallyȱadaptȱtoȱtheirȱenvironments.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱmajorȱfeaturesȱthatȱhasȱatȬ tractedȱ cognitiveȱ scientistsȱ toȱ networkȱ modelsȱ isȱ that,ȱ beingȱ neurallyȱ inspired,ȱ theyȱ seemȱ moreȱ compatibleȱ thanȱ symbolicȱ modelsȱ withȱ whatȱ weȱ knowȱ ofȱ nervousȱ sysȬ tems.”ȱMarmaridou:ȱ48.ȱ

ȱ

19ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

TheȱdiagramȱinȱFigureȱ1.4ȱdemonstratesȱthatȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱinforȬ mationȱ generatedȱ byȱ theȱ embodiedȱ experienceȱ factorȱ isȱ effectiveȱ inȱ narȬ rowingȱtheȱgapȱbetweenȱtheȱperceptionȱofȱtheȱoriginatorȱandȱthatȱofȱtheȱ reader.61ȱȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ1.4ȱȱȱViewingȱArrangementȱBasedȱuponȱEmbodiedȱExperienceȱ

TheȱTDȱreȬconceptualisationȱdrawsȱattentionȱtoȱcognitiveȱprocessesȱthatȱ areȱinherentȱinȱtheȱembodiedȱhumanȱexperienceȱsharedȱbyȱtextȱoriginaȬ tor,ȱspeaker,ȱhearerȱandȱreaderȱalike.ȱItȱopensȱtheȱwayȱforȱincorporatingȱ prototypeȱstructures,ȱimageȱschematicȱstructures,ȱconceptualȱmetaphor,ȱ idealisedȱ cognitiveȱ modelsȱ andȱ Mentalȱ Spacesȱ Theoryȱ (MST)ȱ intoȱ theȱ interpretationȱofȱancientȱtext,ȱinȱsoȱfarȱasȱitȱmayȱbeȱdemonstratedȱthatȱ theseȱcategoriesȱhaveȱuniversalȱcharacteristics.ȱȱ Thisȱ reȬconceptualisationȱalsoȱpavesȱtheȱwayȱforȱaȱshiftȱinȱtheȱmeȬ taphorȱ thatȱ isȱ usedȱ toȱ describeȱ humanȱ communication.ȱ Typically,ȱ communicationȱisȱdescribedȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱconduitȱmetaphor,ȱaȱconcepȬ tualȱmetaphorȱ basedȱuponȱtheȱpathȱschema.62ȱInȱthisȱmodel,ȱwordsȱandȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 61ȱȱ ThisȱalsoȱholdsȱforȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱhearerȱinȱFigureȱ1.2.ȱTheyȱshareȱtheȱgroundȱofȱtheȱ speechȱeventȱandȱtheȱembodiedȱexperienceȱasȱwell.ȱ 62ȱȱ Markȱ Johnson,ȱ Theȱ Bodyȱ inȱ theȱ Mind:ȱ Theȱ Bodilyȱ Basisȱ ofȱ Meaning,ȱ Imagination,ȱ andȱ Reasonȱ(Chicago:ȱUCP,ȱ1987),ȱ26.ȱ

20ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

grammaticalȱstructuresȱareȱsaidȱtoȱcontainȱmeaning.ȱTheȱspeakerȱisȱsaidȱ toȱ packȱ andȱ sendȱ thisȱ informationȱ toȱ theȱ hearer,ȱ whoȱ thenȱ unpacksȱ theȱ meaning.ȱThisȱmodelȱisȱonlyȱpartiallyȱcompatibleȱwithȱtheȱprototypicalȱ speechȱ situationȱ inȱ Figureȱ 1.2,ȱ whereȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ shareȱ aȱ situationȱofȱspeakingȱinȱwhichȱtemporal,ȱspatialȱandȱculturalȱelementsȱ ofȱ theȱ situationȱareȱavailableȱtoȱbothȱparties.ȱSignificantly,ȱtheȱconduitȱ modelȱfailsȱtoȱaccountȱforȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱextraȬlinguisticȱinformation,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ temporal,ȱ spatialȱ andȱ culturalȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ situation,ȱ theȱ bodyȱ languageȱofȱtheȱ interlocutors,ȱ ȱ andȱ howȱ theseȱ conȬ tributeȱtoȱmeaningȱconstruction.ȱ Forȱ thisȱreason,ȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱreliesȱ uponȱaȱ networkȱ model.ȱ Inȱ thisȱmodel,ȱbothȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱtheȱhearer,ȱquaȱconceptualisers,ȱparticȬ ipateȱ inȱ theȱ constructionȱ ofȱ aȱ sharedȱ cognitiveȱ network.63ȱ Theȱ speakȬ er/authorȱhasȱinȱmindȱanȱeventȱthatȱheȱorȱsheȱwishesȱtoȱshareȱwithȱtheȱ hearer/reader.ȱ Theȱ speakerȱ selectsȱ wordsȱ andȱ grammaticalȱ construcȬ tionsȱ andȱ usesȱ theseȱ asȱ toolsȱ toȱ promptȱ theȱ hearerȱ toȱ open,ȱ structureȱ andȱ linkȱ mentalȱ spaces,ȱ formingȱ aȱ networkȱ ofȱ spacesȱ asȱ discourseȱ unȬ folds.ȱ Asȱ theȱ spokenȱ orȱ writtenȱ wordȱ isȱ encounteredȱ byȱ theȱ hearerȱ orȱ reader,ȱ linguisticȱ informationȱ isȱ blendedȱ withȱ bothȱ genericȱ (imageȱ schematic)ȱ andȱ specificȱ (temporal,ȱ spatialȱ andȱ cultural)ȱ backgroundȱ informationȱ inȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ meaningȱ construction.ȱ Thisȱ modelȱ isȱ compatibleȱwithȱFigureȱ1.3.ȱ TheȱsecondȱtaskȱinvolvedȱinȱdelimitingȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱisȱdesignȬ ingȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ textȱ analysisȱ thatȱ isȱ compatibleȱ withȱ theȱ reȬ conceptualisationȱ justȱ discussed.ȱ Theȱ theoryȱ andȱ methodȱ forȱ theȱ TDȱ textȱanalysisȱwillȱbeȱintroducedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱsection.ȱ

3. TextȱasȱaȱMaterialȱAnchorȱ TheȱsecondȱtaskȱinvolvedȱinȱdelimitingȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱisȱtoȱcreateȱaȱ comprehensiveȱtextȱanalysis.ȱAȱmodelȱfromȱcognitiveȱscienceȱhasȱbeenȱ selectedȱ forȱ thisȱ task.ȱ Fromȱaȱ cognitiveȱscienceȱ perspective,ȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ representsȱ aȱ materialȱ anchorȱ forȱ complexȱ projections.64ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱtheȱphysicallyȱavailableȱtextȱactsȱasȱanȱanchor,ȱorȱfocalȱlink,ȱforȱ conceptualȱ processing.65ȱForȱtheȱreader,ȱthisȱprocessingȱincludesȱcreatȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 63ȱȱ ThisȱmodelȱisȱbasedȱuponȱFauconnier’sȱMST.ȱ 64ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ202.ȱȱ 65ȱȱ Theȱ termȱ focalȱ linkȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ reȬconceptualisationȱ schemaȱ developedȱ byȱ theȱ presentȱauthorȱandȱisȱcompatibleȱwithȱtheȱdiagramsȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱsection.ȱFauconȬ nier’sȱmaterialȱanchorȱisȱusedȱinȱmuchȱtheȱsameȱway,ȱwithȱtheȱadvantageȱofȱincludingȱ actualȱphysicalȱpropertiesȱofȱtheȱentityȱinvolved.ȱȱ

ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

21ȱ

ingȱ adequateȱ linksȱ betweenȱ theȱ language,ȱ contextȱ andȱ cultureȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱproducersȱandȱthoseȱofȱtheȱpresentȬdayȱtextȱconsumers.ȱAȱdescripȬ tionȱofȱthisȱprocessȱbeginsȱwithȱtheȱanalysisȱandȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱsynȬ tax,ȱ semanticsȱ andȱ pragmaticsȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Understandingȱ theȱ text,ȱ orȱ materialȱanchor,ȱisȱtheȱfirstȱpriority.ȱ66ȱȱ Onceȱagain,ȱaȱ featureȱ ofȱcomputerisedȱinformationȱprocessingȱactsȱ asȱaȱsourceȱdomainȱforȱunderstandingȱtheȱTDȱapproach.67ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱitȱ isȱ theȱ layerȱ featureȱ thatȱ isȱ usedȱ inȱ manyȱ computerȱ applications,ȱ fromȱ textȱandȱimageȱmanagementȱtoȱmusicalȱarrangement,ȱarchitectureȱandȱ design.ȱTexts,ȱmusicalȱscoresȱandȱcathedralsȱareȱallȱexamplesȱofȱmateriȬ alȱanchorsȱforȱconceptualȱprocessing.ȱAȱmusicalȱscoreȱactsȱasȱaȱmaterialȱ anchorȱforȱtheȱcognitiveȱprocessingȱofȱmusic.ȱAȱcomposerȱusesȱaȱnotaȬ tionȱ systemȱ toȱ createȱ anȱ anchorȱ forȱ theȱ combinationsȱ ofȱ pitches,ȱ rhythmsȱandȱtonesȱthatȱheȱorȱsheȱimagines.ȱOtherȱmusiciansȱareȱableȱtoȱ followȱ theȱ combinationȱ ofȱ instructionsȱ thatȱ theȱ scoreȱ contains,ȱ givingȱ riseȱtoȱanȱactualȱperformanceȱofȱtheȱmusic.ȱTheȱscoreȱisȱnotȱtheȱmusic,ȱ butȱratherȱaȱhighlyȱcompressedȱrecordȱofȱcues,ȱaȱrecordȱwhichȱisȱcomȬ pressedȱbyȱtheȱcomposerȱandȱsubsequentlyȱdecompressedȱbyȱtheȱmusiȬ cian.ȱAȱcathedralȱisȱaȱmaterialȱanchorȱwhichȱrepresentsȱtheȱintersectionȱ betweenȱtheȱphysicalȱworldȱandȱtheȱdivine.ȱItȱisȱfirmlyȱsituatedȱspatialȬ ly,ȱasȱopposedȱtoȱtheȱephemeralȱdeity,ȱsoȱwhenȱindividualsȱtravelȱtoȱtheȱ cathedral,ȱtheyȱareȱapproachingȱaȱstationaryȱspotȱwhereȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱ theȱdeityȱisȱlocated.ȱToȱenterȱintoȱtheȱcathedralȱisȱtoȱencounterȱtheȱunȬ seen,ȱbutȱnowȱlocalisedȱdeity.68ȱȱȱȱ Composers,ȱ cathedralȱ architectsȱ andȱ authorsȱ createȱ materialȱ ancȬ hors,ȱwhileȱmusicians,ȱtheȱfaithfulȱandȱtextȱanalystsȱmakeȱuseȱofȱthem.ȱ Althoughȱcomposing,ȱ designingȱ andȱ authoringȱ doȱnotȱseemȱtoȱresemȬ bleȱ playingȱ symphonies,ȱ attendingȱ worshipȱ orȱ analysingȱ texts,ȱ allȱ ofȱ theseȱ activitiesȱ areȱ processedȱ viaȱ conceptualȱ blending.ȱ Theȱ composerȱ combinesȱnovelȱgroupingsȱofȱpitches,ȱrhythmsȱandȱtonesȱwithȱnotationsȱ inȱaȱscore;ȱtheȱarchitectȱcombinesȱimaginedȱspaceȱandȱmaterial;ȱandȱtheȱ authorȱcombinesȱnewȱconceptions,ȱsyntacticȱformsȱandȱmarksȱonȱaȱpageȱ (orȱtablet,ȱorȱscroll,ȱorȱpot,ȱorȱplinth).ȱTheȱmusicianȱcombinesȱnotationsȱ withȱ voiceȱ orȱ instrument,ȱ creatingȱ music.ȱ Theȱ faithfulȱ onesȱ moveȱ toȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 66ȱȱ ThisȱanalysisȱmovesȱinȱtheȱsameȱsynchronicȬdiachronicȱorderȱasȱproposedȱbyȱTalstraȱ inȱ hisȱ analysisȱ ofȱ Deuteronomyȱ 9ȱ andȱ 10.ȱ E.ȱ Talstra,ȱ “Deuteronomyȱ 9ȱ andȱ 10:ȱ SynȬ chronicȱ andȱ Diachronicȱ Observations,”ȱ inȱ Synchronicȱ orȱ Diachronic:ȱ Aȱ Debateȱ onȱ MeȬ thodȱinȱOldȱTestamentȱExegesis,ȱed.ȱJ.C.ȱdeȱMoorȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1995),ȱ187Ȭ210.ȱȱ 67ȱȱ Sourceȱandȱtargetȱdomainsȱareȱusedȱinȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱcognitiveȱmetaphor,ȱwhichȱ willȱbeȱtakenȱupȱinȱchapterȱ4.II.C.ȱSeeȱZoltanȱKövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroducȬ tionȱ (Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ Oxford:ȱ OUP,ȱ 2002);ȱ Georgeȱ Lakoffȱ andȱ Markȱ Johnson,ȱ MetaȬ phorsȱWeȱLiveȱByȱ(Chicago;ȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1980).ȱ 68ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ206.ȱȱ

22ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

wardȱ theȱ deity,ȱ conceptuallyȱ mergingȱ materialȱ spaceȱ withȱ nonȬspace.ȱ Theȱreader,ȱorȱtextȱanalyst,ȱencountersȱtheȱtextȱviaȱtheȱreadingȱprocess,ȱ creatingȱanȱelaborateȱconceptualȱstructureȱwhichȱreplicatesȱtheȱauthor’sȱ conceptionsȱonȱmanyȱpoints.ȱȱ Theȱ similaritiesȱ involvedȱ inȱ theseȱ seeminglyȱ disparateȱ conceptualȱ blendsȱ mayȱ beȱillustratedȱ byȱ examiningȱ theȱ computerȱ technologyȱthatȱ supportsȱtheȱcreativeȱprocess,ȱspecificallyȱtheȱlayeringȱfeatureȱthatȱisȱatȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ theȱ computerȱ programmesȱ usedȱ forȱ designȱ andȱ composiȬ tion.69ȱTheseȱprogrammesȱutiliseȱaȱseriesȱofȱlayersȱtoȱbuildȱupȱaȱunifiedȱ file,ȱbeȱitȱaȱthreeȱdimensionalȱdrawingȱorȱaȱcompleteȱmusicalȱscore.ȱTheȱ 21stȬcenturyȱ cathedralȱ architectȱ willȱ beginȱ byȱ creatingȱ aȱ layerȱ representingȱ theȱ mostȱ permanentȱ feature,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ floorȱ planȱ ofȱ aȱ building,ȱandȱthenȱaddȱsuccessiveȱlayersȱrepresentingȱbuiltȬinȱfeatures,ȱ largeȱ designȱ features,ȱ andȱ followȱ theseȱ withȱ layersȱ representingȱ theȱ placementȱ ofȱ lessȱ permanentȱ features,ȱ suchȱ asȱ furniture.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ layersȱmayȱ beȱcombinedȱandȱviewedȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱAtȱthisȱpoint,ȱwithȱaȱ threeȬaxisȱ programme,ȱ theȱ designerȱ isȱ ableȱ toȱ viewȱ theȱ virtualȱ spaceȱ dynamically:ȱtheȱcomputerȱwillȱallowȱaȱwalkȬthroughȱofȱtheȱimaginedȱ space.ȱ Althoughȱ thereȱ areȱ drawbacksȱ involvedȱ inȱ notȱ actuallyȱ beingȱ there,ȱ theȱ resultsȱ areȱ moreȱ vividȱ thanȱ traditionalȱ blueprints,ȱ allowingȱ forȱaȱcomprehensiveȱdecisionȬmakingȱprocessȱforȱtheȱproject.ȱLikewise,ȱ aȱcomposerȱorȱarrangerȱmightȱdigitallyȱmasterȱaȱmusicalȱscoreȱbyȱcreatȬ ingȱ separateȱ layersȱ forȱ eachȱ vocalȱ partȱ orȱ eachȱ instrument,ȱ whichȱ theȱ programmeȱ thenȱ combinesȱ toȱ formȱ aȱ unifiedȱ score.ȱ Aȱ synthesizerȱ isȱ ableȱtoȱplayȱtheȱscoreȱtoȱtheȱcomposer,ȱwhoȱisȱableȱtoȱmakeȱonȬlineȱadȬ justments.ȱ Onceȱagain,ȱthereȱareȱcertainȱdrawbacks.ȱAȱsynthesizerȱisȱaȱ disappointingȱ(compressed)ȱsubstituteȱforȱaȱliveȱorchestra.ȱWhileȱitȱcanȱ replicateȱtheȱpitchȱpatternsȱrepresentedȱbyȱtheȱmusicalȱscore,ȱaȱsyntheȬ sizerȱ isȱ unableȱ toȱ recreateȱ theȱ emergentȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ embodiedȱ expeȬ rience,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱliveȱperformance.ȱȱItȱisȱfarȱmoreȱsatisfyingȱtoȱparticȬ ipateȱinȱtheȱconcertȱhallȱevent,ȱwithȱskilledȱmusiciansȱplayingȱbeforeȱaȱ receptiveȱ audience.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ theȱ composerȱ orȱ arrangerȱ hasȱ aȱ toolȱ thatȱhelpsȱtheȱcreativeȱprocess.ȱAȱcompletedȱtextȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱaȱmusicalȱ scoreȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ representsȱ multipleȱ parametersȱ forȱ meaningȱ construcȬ tion,ȱsuchȱasȱsyntax,ȱsemanticsȱandȱpragmatics.ȱIfȱtheȱtextȱisȱviewedȱasȱaȱ compositeȱseriesȱofȱlayers,ȱtheȱtextȱanalystȱisȱableȱtoȱcreateȱaȱprincipledȱ analysisȱbyȱmappingȱoneȱsetȱofȱfeaturesȱatȱaȱtime,ȱthenȱ combiningȱtheȱ mappingsȱtoȱviewȱtheȱtextȱinȱaȱholistic,ȱdynamicȱmanner.70ȱByȱmovingȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 69ȱȱ Manyȱ thanksȱ areȱ dueȱ toȱ Rebeccaȱ Brownȱ ofȱ Rebeccaȱ Brownȱ Design,ȱ whoȱ graciouslyȱ explainedȱtheȱinnerȱworkingsȱofȱdesignȱprogrammes.ȱ 70ȱȱ Importantly,ȱthereȱisȱnotȱnecessarilyȱaȱoneȬtoȬoneȱcorrespondenceȱbetweenȱobservedȱ structuresȱatȱtheȱsyntactic,ȱsemanticȱandȱpragmaticȱlevels.ȱ

ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

23ȱ

inȱ aȱ mostȱ permanentȱ toȱ leastȱ permanentȱ direction,ȱ theȱ textȱ analystȱ isȱ ableȱtoȱaccountȱforȱtextȱfeaturesȱonȱaȱcontinuumȱfromȱtheȱmostȱconcreteȱ toȱtheȱleastȱconcrete,ȱthenȱtoȱ“hear”ȱtheȱlayersȱasȱaȱunifiedȱcomposition.ȱ Itȱ isȱ positedȱ thatȱ variousȱ textȱ featuresȱ functionȱ atȱ differentȱ levels,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ meaningȱ constructionȱ involvesȱ bothȱ theȱ layersȱ andȱ theȱwhole.ȱȱ Similarly,ȱ theȱ proposedȱ TDȱ processȱ isȱ integrative,ȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ comȬ prisesȱtheȱserialȱdescription,ȱanalysisȱandȱconceptualȱblendingȱofȱthreeȱ mainȱlayers:ȱsyntax,ȱsemanticsȱandȱpragmatics.71ȱSyntaxȱrepresentsȱtheȱ mostȱ concreteȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ text,ȱ whileȱ semanticsȱ isȱ slightlyȱ lessȱ conȬ crete,ȱbutȱavailable,ȱandȱpragmaticsȱisȱtheȱleastȱconcrete.72ȱTheȱanalysisȱ willȱ beȱ enhancedȱ byȱ theȱ reader’sȱ encyclopaedicȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ world,ȱ andȱ byȱ extraȬtextualȱ understandings,ȱ suchȱ asȱ thoseȱ developedȱ throughȱhistoricalȬcriticalȱandȱanthropologicalȱinquiries.ȱ TheȱTDȱprocedureȱconsistsȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱstages:ȱȱ 1.

Synchronicȱanalysis:ȱsyntaxȱandȱsemantics;ȱ

2.

informationȱstructure:ȱtopicȱandȱfocus;ȱ

3.

cognitiveȱstructuring:ȱtheȱnetworkȱmodelȱandȱmetaphor;ȱandȱ

4.

conceptualȱblending:ȱincorporatingȱextraȬtextualȱinformation.ȱ

Stageȱ 1ȱ isȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ mappingȱ ofȱ theȱ syntacticȱ featuresȱ ofȱ JereȬ miahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ andȱ anȱ accountingȱ ofȱ theȱ basicȱ formalȱ relationshipsȱ thatȱ holdȱ forȱ theseȱ features.ȱ Thisȱ stageȱ involvesȱ aȱ “bottomȬup”ȱ analysis,ȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ modelȱ utilisedȱ byȱ theȱ Werkgroupȱ Informatica,ȱ Vrijeȱ Universiteit,ȱtheȱNetherlands.ȱTheȱtextȱisȱpresentedȱinȱaȱclauseȱanalysisȱ format,ȱasȱinȱtheȱshortȱexampleȱbelow.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 71ȱȱ Curiously,ȱ thisȱ blendingȱ operationȱ occursȱ inȱ everydayȱ speech,ȱ althoughȱ nativeȱ speakersȱgenerallyȱareȱunawareȱofȱanythingȱexceptȱtheȱfinalȱcommunication.ȱTransȬ latingȱforȱnonȬnativeȱspeakersȱhighlightsȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱthatȱareȱ‘hidden’ȱinȱeveryȬ dayȱcommunication.ȱ 72ȱȱ Forȱ anȱ introductionȱ toȱ issuesȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ pragmatics,ȱ includingȱ deixisȱ andȱ speechȬactȱ theory,ȱ seeȱ D.ȱ A.ȱ Cruse,ȱ Pragmaticsȱ (Oxford:ȱ OUP,ȱ 2000);ȱ Jacobȱ L.ȱ Mey,ȱPragmatics:ȱAnȱIntroduction,ȱ2dȱed.ȱ(Oxford:ȱBlackwell,ȱ2001).ȱ

24ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

ClauseȱLayoutȱ

Jerȱ

^GNG0CJ8JŽ
3.6aȱ bȱ

N HT o[JHDWOJHV HTG$  cȱ [KJJHMNQJ C+QDH*TCJNH.NC dȱ _ŽP$CTLNH.VCZC7NG Yȱ ]H[oP\K7hYȱ

eȱ

ȱ Jerȱ Typeȱ 3.6aȱ Nȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ WayyiqtolȬXȱ

PNGȱ 3sg Mȱ 2sg Mȱ

Focusȱ

MSCȱ

PREDȱ

Baseȱ

bȱ NQȱ

XȬQatalȱȱ

Interȱ

cȱ NQPȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgFȱ

ARGUȱ

dȱ NQPȱ

Qotelȱ

sgFȱ

PREDȱ

SBȱforȱ M1ȱ M1ȱ Focusȱ

ȱ eȱ NQPNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ

3sgFȱ

PREDȱ

ȱ Figureȱ1.5ȱȱȱClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ3.6ȱ

Theȱanalysedȱtextȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱtopȱbox,ȱwithȱoneȱclauseȱperȱlineȱ andȱ includesȱ bothȱ kethivȱ andȱ qereȱ readingsȱ whenȱ relevant.ȱ Theȱ syntaxȱ analysisȱ involvesȱ theȱ threeȱ leftȬmostȱ columnsȱ inȱ theȱ lowerȱ box.ȱ Theseȱ columnsȱ containȱ theȱ followingȱ information:ȱ theȱ firstȱ columnȱ containsȱ theȱclauseȱidentifier;ȱtheȱsecondȱcontainsȱtheȱdiscourseȱtypeȱ(N:ȱnarraȬ tive,ȱ D:ȱ discursive,ȱ Q:ȱ quote,ȱ P:ȱ perception);ȱ theȱ thirdȱ containsȱ theȱ shorthandȱverbȱform.ȱTheȱformalȱsyntacticȱpatternsȱdiscoveredȱbyȱthisȱ processȱareȱmadeȱavailableȱforȱfurtherȱanalysis.ȱInformationȱregardingȱ constituentȱorderȱisȱgivenȱinȱcolumnȱ5ȱandȱinformationȱregardingȱmenȬ talȱ spacesȱ constructionȱ isȱ givenȱ inȱ columnȱ 6.ȱ Constituentȱ orderȱ isȱ anȱ importantȱ indicatorȱ ofȱ focusȱ typeȱ inȱ discussionsȱ ofȱ informationȱ strucȬ ture,ȱ andȱ isȱ aȱ characteristicȱ formalȱ featureȱ inȱ certainȱ typesȱ ofȱ paralȬ

ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

25ȱ

lelism.ȱ Theȱ presenceȱ orȱ absenceȱ ofȱ theȱ subjectȱ givesȱ informationȱ forȱ maintainingȱreferenceȱinȱtheȱtextȱandȱisȱvaluableȱforȱdiscerningȱtypologȬ icalȱ information.ȱ Finally,ȱ frontedȱ particlesȱ areȱ valuableȱ cluesȱ forȱ theȱ structureȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱTheȱsyntaxȱanalysisȱisȱaȱhighlyȱcompressed,ȱblackȬ andȬwhiteȱ recordȱofȱformalȱtextualȱfeaturesȱandȱ hasȱmuchȱinȱcommonȱ withȱtheȱfloorȱplanȱofȱaȱbuildingȱorȱtheȱnotationȱofȱaȱmusicalȱscore.ȱItȱisȱ synchronicȱinȱnature,ȱencompassingȱtheȱwholeȱtext,ȱwithoutȱcommentȬ ingȱ uponȱ theȱ diachronicȱ developmentȱ ofȱ syntacticȱ formsȱ represented.ȱ Thisȱ stageȱ alsoȱ involvesȱ trackingȱ semanticȱ featuresȱ thatȱ indicateȱ basicȱ relationshipsȱ thatȱ holdȱ betweenȱ clauseȱ constituents.ȱ Semanticȱ featuresȱ representȱtheȱmergerȱbetweenȱsyntacticȱform,ȱlexicalȱchoiceȱandȱmeanȬ ingȱ construction.ȱ Thisȱ includesȱ columnȱ threeȱ andȱ theȱ followingȱ colȬ umns.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ example,ȱ theȱ fifthȱ columnȱ containsȱ theȱ person,ȱ numberȱ andȱ genderȱ ofȱ theȱ verb.ȱ Theȱ sixthȱ columnȱ containsȱ informationȱ strucȬ tureȱ detailȱ andȱ theȱ seventhȱ containsȱ notationsȱ regardingȱ conceptualȱ structuring.ȱȱ Byȱ wayȱ ofȱ anȱ example,ȱ theȱ syntacticȱ notationȱ WayyiqtolȬS mightȱ representȱeitherȱtheȱphrase,ȱNowȱtheȱWordȱofȱtheȱLordȱcame,ȱasȱinȱ1.4a,ȱorȱ Andȱtheȱbannerȱwasȱraised,ȱdependingȱuponȱlexicalȱchoices,ȱi.e.ȱtheȱdefiȬ nitenessȱofȱtheȱnounȱorȱnounȱphraseȱandȱtheȱbinyanȱofȱtheȱverb.ȱSimilarȱ constructionsȱwithoutȱmarkersȱofȱdefinitenessȱwouldȱyieldȱtheȱphrasesȱ Nowȱaȱwordȱcame,ȱorȱAndȱaȱbannerȱwasȱraised.ȱ Newȱ informationȱ isȱ availableȱ atȱ thisȱ point.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ mayȱ beȱ posedȱasȱtoȱwhyȱaȱcertainȱtermȱorȱcombinationȱofȱtermsȱisȱusedȱasȱopȬ posedȱtoȱanotherȱtermȱorȱcombinationȱofȱterms.ȱAdditionally,ȱtheȱissueȱ ofȱ meaningȱ changeȱ overȱ timeȱ mayȱ beȱ addressedȱ andȱ insightsȱ gainedȱ fromȱanalysesȱsuchȱasȱCookȇsȱstudyȱofȱverbalȱforms.73ȱTheȱcombinationȱ ofȱwordȱorderȱandȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱverbsȱofȱspeakingȱorȱperceptionȱplayȱ intoȱ theȱ MSTȱ conceptȱ ofȱ spaceȬbuilders,ȱwhichȱ providesȱ importantȱcuesȱ forȱmeaningȱconstruction.ȱWordȱchoicesȱfromȱaȱsingleȱsemanticȱdomainȱ playȱaȱpartȱinȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱcertainȱtypesȱofȱparallelism.ȱSynchronȬ icȱobservationsȱmightȱcombineȱwithȱdiachronicȱobservationsȱregardingȱ lexemesȱorȱverbalȱforms.ȱ Stageȱ2ȱisȱanȱinformationȱstructureȱanalysis.ȱThisȱanalysisȱhasȱtoȱdoȱ withȱ languageȱ asȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ humanȱ communication,ȱ orȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ lanȬ guageȱinȱcontext.ȱPriorȱtoȱthisȱdiscussion,ȱsentencesȱinȱtheȱtextȱhaveȱbeenȱ analysedȱ atȱ levelȱ 1.ȱ Commentsȱ mayȱ nowȱ beȱ madeȱ aboutȱ theȱ informaȬ tionȱstructureȱofȱtheȱsentences,ȱwhichȱincludesȱbothȱtheȱauthor’sȱlexicalȱ andȱsyntacticȱchoicesȱforȱpromptingȱmeaningȱconstructionȱandȱmodelȬ lingȱtheȱmappingȱofȱdecompressedȱconceptualȱblendsȱcuedȱbyȱtheȱtext.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 73ȱȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization.”ȱȱ

26ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

Informationȱ structure,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Knudȱ Lambrecht,ȱ isȱ theȱ relationȬ shipȱ betweenȱ linguisticȱ formsȱ andȱ theȱ mentalȱ statesȱ ofȱ speakersȱ andȱ hearers.74ȱ Informationȱ structureȱ isȱ concernedȱ withȱ howȱ informationȱ isȱ transmittedȱ betweenȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ (authorȬreader).ȱ Thisȱ isȱ reflectedȱinȱtheȱformalȱpropertiesȱwhichȱtheȱspeakerȱ(author)ȱdeploysȱinȱ hisȱorȱherȱcommunicationȱstrategyȱandȱhowȱtheseȱreflectȱtheȱspeaker’sȱ assumptionsȱregardingȱtheȱencyclopaedicȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱworldȱthatȱ isȱsharedȱwithȱhisȱorȱherȱhearerȱ(reader).ȱItȱisȱalsoȱreflectedȱinȱhowȱtheȱ sharedȱknowledgeȱisȱexpandedȱuponȱbyȱtheȱadditionȱofȱnewȱdiscourseȱ information.ȱȱ ȱLambrechtȱ discussesȱ informationȱ structureȱ underȱ fourȱ categories:ȱ (i)ȱpragmaticȱpresuppositionȱandȱpragmaticȱassertion;ȱ(ii)ȱidentifiabilityȱ andȱ activation;ȱ (iii)ȱ topicȱ andȱ (iv)ȱ focus.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ category,ȱ pragmaticȱ presuppositionȱ andȱ pragmaticȱ assertion,ȱ isȱ ofȱ primaryȱ importanceȱ forȱ understandingȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱlinguisticȱformsȱandȱtheȱmenȬ talȱ statesȱ ofȱ speakersȱandȱhearers.ȱForȱ example,ȱtheȱpresentȱ authorȱasȬ sumesȱ thatȱ thoseȱ readingȱ thisȱ chapterȱ areȱ familiarȱ withȱ termsȱ suchȱ asȱ MTȱ andȱ Jeremiah,ȱ thusȱ theseȱ termsȱ areȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ sharedȱinforȬ mationȱ andȱ doȱ notȱ requireȱ definitionsȱ orȱ evenȱ fullȱ spellings.75ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱhand,ȱdefinitionsȱareȱofferedȱforȱcertainȱwordsȱandȱconcepts.ȱThisȱ demonstratesȱtheȱpresentȱauthor’sȱassumptionȱthatȱtheȱlinguisticȱtermsȱ usedȱtoȱdescribeȱinformationȱstructureȱmayȱnotȱbeȱsharedȱknowledgeȱatȱ thisȱpointȱinȱtheȱcommunicationȱprocess.ȱAsȱtheȱauthor’sȱgoalȱisȱtoȱinȬ creaseȱtheȱamountȱofȱsharedȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱworld,ȱtheseȱtermsȱhaveȱ beenȱgivenȱspecialȱformalȱtreatment.ȱThisȱexampleȱreflectsȱtheȱinterrelaȬ tionshipȱbetweenȱpragmaticȱpresuppositionȱandȱpragmaticȱassertion,ȱorȱ “…theȱ speaker’sȱ assumptionsȱ aboutȱ theȱ hearer’sȱ stateȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ andȱawarenessȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱanȱutterance.”76ȱTheȱremainingȱthreeȱcateȬ goriesȱwillȱbeȱtakenȱupȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱchapters.ȱ Stageȱ 3ȱ isȱ anȱ assessmentȱ ofȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ structureȱ thatȱ isȱ cuedȱ byȱ textualȱ features.ȱ Thisȱ assessmentȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ Mentalȱ Spacesȱ Theoryȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 74ȱȱȱ Informationȱstructureȱisȱ“…ȱthatȱcomponentȱofȱsentenceȱgrammarȱinȱwhichȱproposiȬ tionsȱ asȱ conceptualȱ representationsȱ ofȱ statesȱ ofȱ affairsȱ areȱ pairedȱ withȱ lexicogramȬ maticalȱstructuresȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱtheȱmentalȱstatesȱofȱinterlocutorsȱwhoȱuseȱandȱ interpretȱtheseȱstructuresȱasȱunitsȱofȱinformationȱinȱgivenȱdiscourseȱcontexts.”ȱKnudȱ Lambrecht,ȱInformationȱStructureȱandȱSentenceȱForm:ȱTopic,ȱFocus,ȱandȱtheȱMentalȱRepreȬ sentationsȱ ofȱ Discourseȱ Referents,ȱ Cambridgeȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Linguistics;ȱ 71ȱ (Cambridge:ȱ CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994),ȱ5.ȱȱ 75ȱȱ Thisȱassumptionȱmayȱorȱmayȱnotȱreflectȱtheȱtruth,ȱdependingȱuponȱwhoȱisȱengagedȱ inȱreadingȱthisȱsection.ȱWhileȱmembersȱofȱtheȱOTȱscholarlyȱcommunityȱwouldȱhaveȱ noȱtroubleȱwithȱeitherȱMTȱorȱJeremiah,ȱitȱisȱlikelyȱthatȱaȱgroupȱofȱcognitiveȱlinguistsȱ wouldȱbenefitȱfromȱaȱfullȱspellingȱforȱMasoreticȱTextȱandȱsomeȱinformationȱregardingȱ itsȱbackground.ȱ 76ȱȱ Lambrecht,ȱInformationȱStructure,ȱxiii.ȱȱ

ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱTheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

27ȱ

(MST).ȱThisȱtheoryȱdescribesȱandȱexplainsȱhowȱ“…asȱweȱthinkȱandȱtalk,ȱ mentalȱ spacesȱ areȱ setȱ up,ȱ structured,ȱ andȱ linkedȱ underȱ pressureȱ fromȱ grammar,ȱcontext,ȱandȱculture.ȱTheȱeffectȱisȱtoȱcreateȱaȱnetworkȱofȱspacȬ esȱ throughȱ whichȱ weȱ moveȱ asȱ discourseȱ unfolds.ȱ Becauseȱ eachȱ spaceȱ stemsȱfromȱanotherȱspaceȱ(itsȱ‘parent’),ȱandȱbecauseȱaȱparentȱcanȱhaveȱ manyȱoffspring,ȱtheȱspaceȱnetworkȱwillȱbeȱaȱtwoȬdimensionalȱlattice.”77ȱȱ AccordingȱtoȱFauconnier,ȱMSTȱisȱconcernedȱwithȱ“…theȱinteractionȱ betweenȱ grammarȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ structure:ȱ inȱ particular,ȱ onȱ theȱ prinȬ cipledȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ mentalȱ spaceȱ structuresȱ andȱ syntaxȱ andȱ semantics.”78ȱ Likeȱ informationȱ structure,ȱ MSTȱ isȱ interestedȱ inȱ examinȬ ingȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ textȱ (formalȱ grammar)ȱ andȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ constructionsȱ whichȱ textȱ evokes.ȱ Asȱ cognitiveȱ constructions,ȱ FauconȬ nier’sȱ mentalȱ spacesȱ bearȱ aȱ strongȱ resemblanceȱ toȱ Lambrecht’sȱ mentalȱ representations.ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ becauseȱ MSTȱ alsoȱ examinesȱ theȱ relationȬ shipsȱthatȱareȱestablishedȱbetweenȱspacesȱdueȱtoȱcognitiveȱconnections,ȱ thisȱtheoryȱmayȱprovideȱadditionalȱunderstandingȱregardingȱtheȱinterȬ relationshipȱbetweenȱsectionsȱofȱtextȱandȱtheȱtextȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱ

4. TextȱDynamics:ȱProblemsȱandȱPossibilitiesȱ TheȱgoalȱofȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱisȱtoȱgainȱanȱintegratedȱunderstandingȱofȱ BHȱpropheticȱtext,ȱaȱprocessȱthatȱisȱdoublyȱcomplicated.ȱTheȱfirstȱcomȬ plicationȱisȱ theȱ compositeȱnatureȱofȱtheȱmaterial.ȱTheȱsecondȱisȱapplyȬ ingȱ theȱ varietyȱ ofȱ inȬdepthȱ andȱ focusedȱ researchȱ resultsȱ fromȱ recentȱ distributionalȱ andȱ structuralȱ approachesȱ toȱ stretchesȱ ofȱ textȱ thatȱ areȱ largerȱ thanȱ theȱ sentence,ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ acȬ complishȱ theȱ taskȱ ofȱ bringingȱ allȱ aspectsȱ togetherȱ inȱ aȱ coherentȱ andȱ comprehensiveȱ manner,ȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ sciencesȱ notionȱ ofȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱwillȱactȱasȱtheȱunifyingȱprincipleȱforȱtheȱTDȱapproach.ȱ Atȱfirstȱglance,ȱthisȱapproachȱmayȱappearȱtoȱbeȱnothingȱmoreȱthanȱ anȱextendedȱcloseȱreadingȱofȱtheȱbiblicalȱtext.ȱWithȱitsȱemphasisȱuponȱaȱ comprehensiveȱsyntaxȱanalysisȱandȱaȱcorrespondingȱsemanticȱanalysis,ȱ thisȱapproachȱdoesȱresembleȱsuchȱaȱreading,ȱalbeitȱinȱanȱenrichedȱform.ȱ However,ȱaȱTDȱapproachȱmovesȱbeyondȱaȱcloseȱreading,ȱdueȱtoȱitsȱemȬ phasisȱuponȱtheȱcontributionȱmadeȱbyȱcognitiveȱprocessing.ȱȱ FromȱaȱTDȱperspective,ȱtheȱsymbolsȱthatȱcombineȱtoȱformȱtheȱtextȱ areȱnotȱviewedȱasȱbeadsȱonȱaȱstring,ȱwithȱoneȬtoȬoneȱcorrespondenceȱtoȱ entitiesȱorȱprocesses.ȱRather,ȱtheyȱrepresentȱpromptsȱforȱmeaningȱconȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 77ȱȱ G.ȱ Fauconnierȱ andȱ E.ȱ Sweetser,ȱ Spaces,ȱ Worlds,ȱ andȱ Grammarȱ (Chicago:ȱ UCP,ȱ 1996),ȱ 11.ȱȱ 78ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ

28ȱ

TextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ

struction.ȱ Thisȱ allowsȱ forȱ theȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ oneȱ formȱ mightȱ actȱ asȱ aȱ promptȱ forȱ moreȱ thanȱ oneȱ functionȱ orȱ thatȱ oneȱ functionȱ mightȱ beȱ promptedȱbyȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱform.ȱAdditionally,ȱmeaningȱconstructionȱ isȱ viewedȱ asȱ aȱ dynamicȱ process,ȱ wherebyȱ meaningȱ accruesȱ asȱ textȱ isȱ processed.ȱ Wordȱ orderȱ andȱ informationȱ fromȱ variousȱ semanticȱ doȬ mainsȱ combineȱ inȱ theȱ author’sȱ conceptualȱ construction,ȱ whichȱ inȱ turnȱ actȱ asȱ promptsȱ forȱ theȱ readerȱ orȱ textȱ analystȱ inȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ processȱ ofȱ meaningȱconstruction.ȱ RecentȱresearchȱintoȱindividualȱfeaturesȱofȱBHȱtext,ȱsuchȱasȱMiller’sȱ studyȱofȱreportedȱspeechȱandȱFollingstad’sȱstudyȱofȱtheȱparticleȱ[KM,ȱproȬ videȱinformationȱregardingȱfeaturesȱwhichȱhaveȱanȱimpactȱuponȱmeanȬ ingȱconstructionȱatȱtheȱsyntactic,ȱsemantic,ȱand/orȱpragmaticȱlevels.ȱByȱ utilisingȱ theȱ seriesȱ ofȱ analysesȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ sciencesȱ notionȱ ofȱ conceptualȱ blending,ȱ theȱ TDȱ approachȱ providesȱ aȱ coherentȱ andȱ comprehensiveȱ methodȱ forȱ incorporatingȱ theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ suchȱstudiesȱinȱtheȱinterpretiveȱprocess.ȱ ȱ

2. TheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱ theȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ ȱ Veryȱdangerousȱthings,ȱtheories!ȱ ȱ ~ȱDorothyȱSayers1ȱ ȱ TheȱaimȱofȱthisȱchapterȱisȱtoȱoutlineȱtheȱprimaryȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱTDȱapȬ proach,ȱ demonstratingȱ thatȱ thisȱ approachȱ offersȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ meȬ thodȱforȱunderstandingȱtheȱtextȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱBible.ȱThisȱapproachȱhasȱ severalȱstrengths.ȱItȱprovidesȱaȱfreshȱlookȱatȱanȱancientȱtext;ȱitȱallowsȱforȱ anȱ examinationȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptualȱ understandingsȱ ofȱ theȱ originatorȱ ofȱ theȱtextȱandȱitȱprovidesȱaȱprincipledȱwayȱtoȱintegrateȱinformationȱfromȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ linguisticȱandȱ technicalȱstudies.ȱ Thisȱ approachȱ isȱ effectiveȱ forȱanȱarrayȱofȱinterpretiveȱtasks.ȱ2ȱHowever,ȱsinceȱitȱhasȱbeenȱdesignedȱ specificallyȱtoȱhandleȱsomeȱcomplexitiesȱuniqueȱtoȱpropheticȱliterature,ȱ thisȱchapterȱwillȱconcentrateȱuponȱaȱshortȱexampleȱtakenȱfromȱJeremiahȱ 3.6Ȭ10.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ 2ȱȱ

DorothyȱL.ȱSayers,ȱTheȱUnpleasantnessȱatȱtheȱBellonaȱClubȱ(London:ȱErnestȱBenn,ȱ1928;ȱ reprint,ȱLondon:ȱStoddardȱandȱHoughton,ȱ1968),ȱ30.ȱ TheȱTDȱapproachȱhasȱprovedȱusefulȱforȱinvestigatingȱquotationsȱandȱallusionsȱinȱtheȱ NT,ȱ demonstratingȱ thatȱ theȱ conceptualȱ componentȱ ofȱ thisȱ approachȱ isȱ effectiveȱ acrossȱ genres.ȱ Seeȱ E.ȱ R.ȱ Hayes,ȱ “Theȱ Influenceȱ ofȱ Ezekielȱ 37ȱ onȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 6:14Ȭ 7:1,”ȱinȱTheȱ Bookȱ ofȱEzekielȱ andȱ Itsȱ Influence,ȱedsȱJohannesȱTrompȱandȱ H.ȱJ.ȱDeȱ Jongeȱ (Hampshire:ȱAshgate,ȱ2007),ȱ115Ȭ118.ȱ

30ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

A. TheoryȱandȱMethodȱ 1. Author,ȱTextȱandȱReader:ȱAȱReȬconceptualisationȱ ReȬconceptualisingȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱoriginator,ȱtextȱandȱreaderȱ isȱessentialȱtoȱtheȱTDȱapproach,ȱasȱthisȱassistsȱinȱunderstandingȱtheȱroleȱ ofȱtheȱtextȱasȱaȱphysicallyȱavailableȱfocalȱlinkȱandȱasȱanȱanchorȱforȱcomȬ plexȱcognitiveȱprojections.ȱItȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱreȬconceptualiseȱtheȱrelationȬ shipȱ betweenȱ theȱ originator,ȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ andȱ theȱ presentȱreaderȱasȱfollows:ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ2.1ȱȱȱOriginator,ȱTextȱandȱReaderȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

ȱ

TheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

31ȱ

Forȱthisȱchapter,ȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱoccupiesȱtheȱtextȬspace,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱ locusȱofȱviewingȱattentionȱorȱonstageȱregion.ȱWithinȱthisȱregion,ȱCȱindiȬ catesȱ theȱ portionȱ ofȱ textȱ underȱ considerationȱ atȱ aȱ givenȱ moment,ȱ andȱ thusȱ isȱ theȱ dynamicȱ portionȱ ofȱ theȱ diagram.ȱ Atȱ theȱ lowerȱ left,ȱ theȱ Oȱ indicatesȱtheȱoriginalȱauthorȱandȱallȱsubsequentȱeditorialȱhands.ȱAtȱtheȱ lowerȱright,ȱRȱisȱaȱcoverȱtermȱforȱallȱreaders,ȱincludingȱtheȱpresentȱauȬ thorȱ andȱ readersȱ ofȱ thisȱ chapter.ȱ Theȱ chapterȱ isȱ theȱ groundȱ forȱ theȱ presentȱwriterȱandȱreader.ȱȱ Informationȱ regardingȱ bothȱ theȱ originatorȱ andȱ theȱ historicalȱ andȱ culturalȱframeworkȱofȱtheȱtextȱisȱavailableȱfromȱatȱleastȱtwoȱsources:ȱtheȱ encyclopaedicȱ backgroundȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ reader(s)ȱ andȱ externalȱ sources.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ anȱ importantȱ differentiation.ȱ Encyclopaedicȱ backȬ groundȱknowledgeȱisȱlocatedȱinȱtheȱmindȱofȱtheȱreader,ȱmodelledȱhereȱ inȱ aȱ subjectiveȱ position,ȱ andȱ isȱ immediatelyȱ availableȱ forȱ reactivationȱ andȱ conceptualȱ blending.ȱ However,ȱ externalȱ historicalȱ andȱ culturalȱ materialȱisȱlocatedȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱconceptualizationȱdiagram.ȱAccessingȱ externalȱmaterialȱrequiresȱbringingȱsuchȱmaterialȱtoȱtheȱonstage,ȱobjecȬ tiveȱpositionȱinȱaȱseparateȱconceptualȱevent.ȱAfterȱtheȱexternalȱinformaȬ tionȱ hasȱ beenȱ processedȱ andȱ isȱ retainedȱ asȱ encyclopaedicȱ backgroundȱ knowledge,ȱ itȱ becomesȱ internallyȱ accessibleȱ andȱ subjectivelyȱ availableȱ whenȱengagingȱinȱfurtherȱstudy.3ȱȱ Traditionalȱ exegeticalȱ methodsȱ addressȱ thisȱ issueȱ byȱ isolatingȱ hisȬ torical,ȱcultural,ȱtextualȱanalysesȱandȱinquiriesȱregardingȱtheȱidentityȱofȱ theȱ author/originator,ȱ effectivelyȱ creatingȱ aȱ distinct,ȱ objectiveȱ viewingȱ arrangementȱforȱeach.ȱTheȱTDȱapproachȱtakesȱthisȱoneȱstepȱfurtherȱbyȱ redefiningȱtheȱrelativeȱpositionȱofȱtheȱoriginatorȱandȱreaderȱduringȱtheȱ readingȱ process.ȱ Inȱ theȱ TDȱ analysisȱ bothȱ areȱ offȱ stage,ȱ whereȱ theyȱ areȱ presentȱbutȱmaximallyȱsubjective.4ȱThisȱallowsȱforȱtheȱexplorationȱofȱtheȱ veryȱ strongȱ connectionȱ thatȱ existsȱ betweenȱ authorȱ andȱ readerȱ basedȱ uponȱ embodiedȱ experience.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ TDȱ modelȱ explicatesȱ theȱ conȬ ceptualȱ blendingȱ process,ȱ whichȱ allowsȱ forȱ aȱ principledȱ integrationȱ ofȱ informationȱfromȱvariousȱsources.ȱThisȱmodelȱhasȱimplicationsȱforȱtheȱ readingȱprocessȱandȱforȱinterpretation.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 3ȱȱ

4ȱȱ

Inȱreality,ȱtheȱprocessȱisȱrecursive:ȱencyclopaedicȱbackgroundȱknowledgeȱisȱsuppleȬ mentedȱbyȱstudyȱofȱexternalȱsources.ȱThisȱinformationȱbecomesȱpartȱofȱtheȱencycloȬ paedicȱ backgroundȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ soȱ on.ȱ Eachȱ recursionȱ involvesȱ furtherȱ concepȬ tualȱblending.ȱ Itȱ isȱ possibleȱ forȱ thisȱ configurationȱ toȱ beȱ altered,ȱ particularlyȱ ifȱ theȱ auȬ thor/originator/narratorȱorȱnarratorȱasȱcharacterȱisȱincludedȱasȱaȱfirstȱorȱsecondȱperȬ sonȱreferenceȱinȱtheȱtext,ȱatȱwhichȱpointȱheȱorȱsheȱisȱsimultaneouslyȱobjectivelyȱonsȬ tageȱandȱsubjectivelyȱpresentȱasȱviewer.ȱThisȱisȱanȱissueȱofȱcrossȬspaceȱidentity.ȱSeeȱ chapterȱ5,ȱsectionȱB.5.ȱ

32ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

2. TheȱReadingȱProcessȱ TheȱreadingȱprocessȱisolatesȱaȱsingleȱtextȱasȱtheȱlocusȱofȱviewingȱattenȬ tion.ȱYetȱtheȱsingleȱtextȱisȱitselfȱaȱcomplexȱobject,ȱandȱasȱaȱresult,ȱsoȱisȱ theȱreadingȱprocess.ȱWhenȱconsideringȱsuchȱcomplexity,ȱTalstraȱnotes:ȱ HumanȱreadersȱusuallyȱperformȱgrammaticalȱanalysisȱandȱtextualȱinterpreȬ tationȱinȱoneȱrun…ȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ patternsȱofȱ theȱ concatenationȱ ofȱ words,ȱ theȱsegmentationȱintoȱclauseȱconstituentsȱandȱtheȱprocessȱofȱinterpretationȱ allȱareȱperformedȱinȱtheȱsameȱprocessȱofȱreading.ȱHowever,ȱwhenȱusingȱaȱ computerȱtoȱidentifyȱpatternsȱofȱconcatenationȱandȱsegmentationȱandȱalsoȱ toȱassignȱthemȱlabelsȱofȱgrammaticalȱfunctions,ȱoneȱhasȱtoȱseparateȱtheȱvarȬ iousȱroutinesȱinȱorderȱtoȱmakeȱclearȱhowȱexactlyȱtheȱflowȱofȱinformationȱisȱ establishedȱinȱtheȱprocessȱofȱreading.5ȱ

Acknowledgingȱthisȱisȱtheȱcase,ȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱusesȱaȱfiveȬfoldȱanalyȬ sisȱtoȱmodelȱconceptualizationȱthatȱunderliesȱtheȱreadingȱprocess.ȱThisȱ modelȱis,ȱinȱeffect,ȱaȱlayeredȱblendingȱtemplate.6ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱcomȬ puterȱprogrammeȱanalogyȱdescribedȱinȱChapterȱ1,ȱeachȱanalyticalȱstageȱ resemblesȱ aȱ layerȱ inȱ aȱ computerȱ programme:ȱ fromȱ floorȱ planȱ (syntaxȱ analysis)ȱ toȱ permanentȱ featuresȱ (semantics);ȱ fromȱ virtualȱ decoratingȱ (pragmatics)ȱtoȱaȱvirtualȱwalkȬthroughȱ(cognitiveȱmodelling).ȱInformaȬ tionȱaccruesȱasȱeachȱlayerȱisȱintegratedȱviaȱconceptualȱblending.ȱInȱthisȱ wayȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱ contributesȱ toȱ theȱ mentalȱ spaceȱ network,ȱ whichȱactsȱasȱaȱcognitiveȱsubstrateȱforȱreasoningȱandȱisȱanȱunderlyingȱ featureȱofȱtheȱreadingȱprocess.ȱ

3. ExplainingȱtheȱNetworkȱModelȱ TDȱisȱaȱ cognitiveȱapproach.ȱItȱdrawsȱfromȱcognitiveȱlinguistics,ȱcogniȬ tiveȱ grammarȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ scienceȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ createȱ anȱ adequateȱ frameȱofȱreferenceȱforȱtheȱdescriptionȱandȱanalysisȱofȱBHȱtext.7ȱForȱcogȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 5ȱȱ 6ȱȱ

7ȱȱ

Talstra,ȱ“TextȱSegmentationȱandȱLinguisticȱLevels,”ȱ11.ȱ Thisȱ termȱ isȱ usedȱ byȱ Edwinȱ Hutchinsȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱ processȱ involvedȱinȱtheȱmethodȱofȱloci,ȱaȱmemoryȱaidȱwhichȱisȱusedȱbyȱassociatingȱtheȱmaterialȱ toȱbeȱrememberedȱwithȱlocationsȱalongȱaȱfamiliarȱpathȱorȱwithinȱaȱfamiliarȱstructure.ȱ Rememberingȱtheȱmaterialȱthenȱbecomesȱaȱmatterȱofȱmentallyȱtraversingȱtheȱfamiliarȱ path,ȱ whichȱ cuesȱ theȱ respectiveȱ associations.ȱ Fauconnierȱ andȱ Turner,ȱ Theȱ Wayȱ Weȱ Think,ȱ208.ȱ Forȱ cognitiveȱ linguisticsȱ seeȱ Williamȱ Croftȱ andȱ D.ȱ A.ȱ Cruse,ȱ Cognitiveȱ Linguistics,ȱ Cambridgeȱ Textbooksȱ inȱ Linguisticsȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2004);ȱ M.ȱ Haspelmathȱ andȱ others,ȱ eds.,ȱ Languageȱ Typologyȱ andȱ Languageȱ Universals:ȱ AnȱInternationalȱHandbookȱ(Berlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001);ȱDavidȱLee,ȱCognitiveȱLinȬ guistics:ȱAnȱIntroductionȱ(MelbourneȱandȱOxford:ȱOUP,ȱ2001).ȱForȱcognitiveȱgrammarȱ seeȱ Langacker,ȱ Foundationsȱ ofȱ Cognitiveȱ Grammar;ȱ idem,ȱ Foundationsȱ ofȱ Cognitiveȱ

ȱ

TheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

33ȱ

nitiveȱ grammarȱ semanticsȱ isȱ conceptualization.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ view,ȱ linguisticȱ unitsȱareȱcomprisedȱofȱwordsȱandȱphrasesȱwhichȱactȱasȱpromptsȱforȱonȬ line,ȱcognitiveȱlevelȱmeaningȱconstruction.8ȱThisȱviewȱofȱmeaningȱconȬ structionȱisȱcompatibleȱwithȱcognitiveȱsciencesȱnetworkȱmodel,ȱpresentedȱ byȱFauconnier,ȱwhoȱstates:ȱ Mentalȱ spacesȱ areȱ smallȱ conceptualȱ packetsȱ constructedȱ asȱ weȱ thinkȱ andȱ talkȱ forȱ purposesȱ ofȱ localȱ understandingȱ andȱ action…ȱ Mentalȱ spacesȱ areȱ veryȱpartial.ȱTheyȱcontainȱelementsȱandȱareȱstructuredȱbyȱframes.ȱTheyȱareȱ interconnectedȱandȱcanȱbeȱmodifiedȱasȱthoughtȱandȱdiscourseȱunfold.9ȱ

Givenȱthisȱdescription,ȱitȱseemsȱentirelyȱpossibleȱtoȱunderstandȱaȱmenȬ talȱspaceȱnetworkȱasȱanȱemergentȱthreeȬdimensionalȱcreation,ȱsimilarȱtoȱ theȱ interconnectedȱ andȱ occasionallyȱ encapsulatedȱ structureȱ whichȱ ocȬ cursȱwhenȱhotȱwaterȱencountersȱliquidȱdetergentȱorȱwhenȱaȱchildȱblowsȱ bubblesȱinȱmilk.10ȱȱ Withȱregardȱtoȱcognitiveȱprocessingȱatȱtheȱbiologicalȱlevel,ȱFauconȬ nierȱstates:ȱ Inȱtermsȱofȱprocessing,ȱelementsȱinȱmentalȱspacesȱcorrespondȱtoȱactivatedȱ neuronalȱ assembliesȱ andȱ linkingȱ betweenȱ elementsȱ correspondsȱ toȱ someȱ kindȱ ofȱ neurobiologicalȱ binding.ȱ Onȱ thisȱ view,ȱ mentalȱ spacesȱ operateȱ inȱ workingȱmemory,ȱbutȱareȱbuiltȱupȱpartlyȱbyȱactivatingȱstructuresȱavailableȱ fromȱ longȬtermȱ memory.ȱ Mentalȱ spacesȱ areȱ interconnectedȱ inȱ workingȱ memory,ȱ canȱ beȱ modifiedȱ asȱ thoughtȱ andȱ discourseȱ unfold,ȱ andȱ canȱ beȱ usedȱgenerallyȱtoȱmodelȱdynamicȱmappingsȱinȱthoughtȱandȱlanguage.11ȱ

Theȱnetworkȱmodelȱpositsȱthatȱaȱmentalȱspacesȱnetworkȱbeginsȱwithȱaȱ baseȱ space,ȱ aȱ spaceȱ whichȱ representsȱ theȱ mutuallyȱ knownȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱ interlocutors.12ȱTheȱbaseȱspaceȱisȱwhereȱaȱsituationȱisȱsetȱup.ȱThereafter,ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Grammar;ȱ Ronaldȱ W.ȱ Langacker,ȱ Grammarȱ andȱ Conceptualization,ȱ Cognitiveȱ LinguisȬ ticsȱ Researchȱ 14ȱ (Berlin:ȱ Moutonȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ 1999);ȱ Langacker,ȱ Concept,ȱ Image,ȱ andȱ Symbol:ȱ Theȱ Cognitiveȱ Basisȱ ofȱ Grammar.ȱ Forȱ cognitiveȱ scienceȱ seeȱ Fauconnierȱ andȱ Sweetser,ȱ Spaces,ȱ Worlds,ȱ andȱ Grammar;ȱ Gillesȱ Fauconnier,ȱ Mentalȱ Spaces:ȱ Aspectsȱ ofȱ Meaningȱ Constructionȱinȱ NaturalȱLanguageȱ (Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ 1994);ȱ idem,ȱ Mappingsȱ inȱ Thoughtȱ andȱ Languageȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1997);ȱFauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink;ȱRayȱJackendoff,ȱLanguagesȱofȱ theȱ Mindȱ (Cambridge,ȱ Mass:ȱ MIT,ȱ 1999);ȱ Lee,ȱ Cognitiveȱ Linguistics:ȱ Anȱ Introduction;ȱ Johnȱ R.ȱ Taylor,ȱ Cognitiveȱ Grammar,ȱ Oxfordȱ Textbooksȱ inȱ Linguisticsȱ (Oxford;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2002).ȱ 8ȱȱ Theȱ termȱ onȬlineȱ isȱ usedȱ hereȱ toȱ describeȱ meaningȱ constructionȱ asȱ aȱ processȱ thatȱ occursȱinȱtheȱmindȱofȱtheȱconceptualizerȱandȱisȱpromptedȱbyȱbothȱlinguisticȱandȱnonȬ linguisticȱcues.ȱ 9ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ40.ȱ 10ȱȱ Inȱtheȱearlyȱstagesȱofȱresearch,ȱtheȱpresentȱwriterȱentertainedȱthisȱthoughtȱasȱaȱlikelyȱ extensionȱofȱtheȱtwoȬdimensionalȱlattice.ȱCoincidentally,ȱFauconnierȱhasȱintroducedȱ aȱbubbleȱchamberȱmetaphorȱinȱhisȱlaterȱwriting.ȱIbid.,ȱ321.ȱ 11ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ102.ȱ 12ȱȱ Fauconnier,ȱMappings,ȱ38Ȭ39.ȱ

34ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

itȱ remainsȱ accessibleȱ forȱ meaningȱ constructionȱ fromȱ otherȱ derivativeȱ spaces.ȱAsȱdiscourseȱprogresses,ȱnewȱspacesȱareȱopened,ȱstructuredȱandȱ linked.ȱ SpaceȬbuildersȱ areȱ termsȱ whichȱactȱ asȱ cuesȱ forȱestablishingȱ newȱ mentalȱ spacesȱ orȱ whichȱ referȱ backȱ toȱ previouslyȱ openedȱ mentalȱ spacȬ es.13ȱ Newȱ spacesȱ areȱ linkedȱ toȱ theȱ baseȱ space,ȱ andȱ theȱ networkȱ isȱ exȬ tendedȱ asȱ theseȱ newȱ spacesȱ areȱ incorporated. Atȱ anyȱ givenȱ pointȱ inȱ time,ȱoneȱspaceȱwillȱbeȱtheȱfocusȱspaceȱinȱtheȱdevelopingȱdiscourse.ȱTheȱ focusȱ spaceȱ isȱ whereȱ newȱ informationȱ accruesȱ (correspondingȱ toȱ theȱ onstageȱ regionȱ inȱ Figureȱ 1.1).ȱ Itȱ isȱ accessedȱ fromȱ theȱ currentȱ viewpointȱ spaceȱ(correspondingȱtoȱtheȱviewer/readerȱinȱFigureȱ1.1).ȱȱ Onceȱestablished,ȱmentalȱspacesȱareȱinternallyȱstructuredȱbyȱframesȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ models.14ȱ Aȱ mentalȱ spaceȱ isȱ saidȱ toȱ beȱ framedȱ whenȱ “…elementsȱandȱrelationsȱareȱorganizedȱ asȱaȱ packageȱ thatȱ weȱalreadyȱ knowȱabout.”15ȱAȱframeȱisȱaȱrecognisableȱorganisationȱofȱelementsȱandȱ relationsȱ whichȱisȱpresentȱinȱlongȬtermȱmemoryȱ andȱmayȱbeȱ recruitedȱ intoȱtheȱmentalȱspacesȱnetworkȱatȱtheȱworkingȱmemoryȱlevel.ȱAȱframeȱ mayȱincludeȱinformationȱbasedȱuponȱscales:ȱhowȱquickly,ȱhowȱmuch,ȱhowȱ large;ȱ itȱ mayȱ possessȱ forceȱ dynamicȱ structure:ȱ tappingȱ aȱ key,ȱ slappingȱ aȱ back,ȱhittingȱaȱwall;ȱthereȱmayȱbeȱimageȱschemasȱinvolved:ȱcontainment,ȱ pathȱ orȱ direction;ȱ andȱ vitalȱ relations,ȱ suchȱ asȱ change,ȱ identity,ȱ timeȱ andȱ spaceȱmayȱbeȱexpressed.16ȱTheseȱfeaturesȱareȱlikelyȱtoȱappearȱinȱvariousȱ combinationsȱ withinȱ aȱ singleȱ frame,ȱ promptingȱ Fauconnierȱ toȱ note:ȱ “Thereȱ isȱ aȱ massiveȱ interplayȱ amongȱ scales,ȱ forceȱ dynamicȱ patterns,ȱ imageȱschemas,ȱandȱvitalȱrelations,ȱallȱofȱwhichȱareȱubiquitouslyȱavailȬ ableȱinȱhumanȱconceptualȱstructureȱandȱcognition.”17ȱ Aȱframeȱmayȱexhibitȱvariousȱdegreesȱofȱcomplexity.ȱAȱframeȱmightȱ beȱ quiteȱ specific,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ frameȱ representedȱ byȱ aȱ boxingȱ match,ȱ whichȱwouldȱincludeȱaȱboxingȱring,ȱtwoȱopponents,ȱaȱreferee,ȱaȱparticuȬ larȱtypeȱofȱforceȱdynamicsȱandȱsoȱon.ȱAȱframeȱmightȱbeȱmoreȱgeneric,ȱ suchȱ asȱ aȱ fightingȱ frame,ȱ whichȱ wouldȱ includeȱ opponentsȱ andȱ forceȱ dynamics.ȱFinally,ȱaȱframeȱmightȱbeȱmoreȱgenericȱyet,ȱsuchȱasȱaȱcompeȬ titionȱframe,ȱwhichȱwouldȱincludeȱcompetitorsȱbutȱleaveȱtheȱforceȱdyȬ namicsȱunspecified.ȱAdditionally,ȱmentalȱspacesȱmightȱexhibitȱanȱevenȱ moreȱ finelyȬgrainedȱ typologyȱ whichȱ includesȱ variousȱ details,ȱ suchȱ asȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 13ȱȱ 14ȱȱ 15ȱȱ 16ȱȱ

Fauconnier,ȱMentalȱSpaces,ȱ17.ȱ Fauconnier,ȱMappings,ȱ39.ȱ FauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ104.ȱ Additionalȱ vitalȱ relationsȱ include:ȱ causeȬeffect,ȱ partȬwhole,ȱ representation,ȱ role,ȱ analogy,ȱ disȬanalogy,ȱ property,ȱ similarity,ȱ category,ȱ intentionalityȱ andȱ uniqueness.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ93.ȱ 17ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ104.ȱ

ȱ

TheoryȱandȱMethodȱ

35ȱ

theȱ colourȱ ofȱ theȱ boxingȱ ring,ȱ theȱ shoeȱ sizeȱ ofȱ theȱ fighter,ȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ dayȱandȱsoȱon.18ȱȱ FramesȱandȱcognitiveȱmodelsȱrepresentȱtwoȱlinguisticȱconstrualȱopȬ erations,ȱorȱconceptualizationȱprocessesȱinvolvedȱinȱhumanȱ communiȬ cation.ȱ Additionally,ȱ mentalȱ spaces,ȱ orȱ conceptualȱ packets,ȱ mayȱ beȱ structuredȱ internallyȱ byȱ deixis,ȱ metaphor,ȱ metonymyȱ andȱ otherȱ vitalȱ relationsȱsuchȱasȱcauseȱandȱeffect.19ȱTheȱpresentȱstudyȱhighlightsȱimageȱ schemasȱ asȱ elementsȱ thatȱ areȱ sharedȱ byȱ theȱ textȱ originatorȱ andȱ theȱ reader.ȱ Additionally,ȱ thereȱ isȱanȱ emphasisȱ uponȱ informationȱ structureȱ andȱ deixis,ȱ asȱ theseȱ processesȱ contributeȱ toȱ establishingȱ perspective.ȱ Imageȱschemataȱareȱdescribedȱbelow,ȱandȱperspectiveȱwillȱbeȱdiscussedȱ inȱtheȱsectionȱtoȱfollow.ȱ

4. ImageȱSchemataȱȱ Imageȱ schemataȱ areȱ oneȱ wayȱ thatȱ humanȱ beingsȱ retainȱ genericȱ backȬ groundȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱworld,ȱincorporatingȱitȱwithȱlinguisticȱstrucȬ turesȱandȱmoreȱcomplexȱculturalȱbackgroundȱknowledgeȱinȱtheȱprocessȱ ofȱmeaningȱconstruction.ȱTheȱgenericȱnatureȱofȱimageȱschemataȱwithinȱ humanȱ experienceȱ providesȱ anȱ importantȱ linkȱ betweenȱ theȱ auȬ thor/originatorȱofȱanȱancientȱtextȱandȱtheȱvarietyȱofȱreadersȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱ Regardingȱimageȱschemata,ȱwhichȱalsoȱoperateȱatȱlevelȱC,ȱMarkȱJohnsonȱ notes:ȱȱ …ȱ imageȱ schemataȱ andȱ theirȱ transformationsȱ constituteȱ aȱ distinctȱ levelȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ operations,ȱ whichȱ isȱ differentȱ fromȱ bothȱ concreteȱ richȱ imagesȱ (mentalȱpictures),ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱabstract,ȱfinitaryȱpropositionalȱreȬ presentationsȱonȱtheȱother.20ȱȱ …ȱ theyȱ operateȱ atȱ oneȱ levelȱ ofȱ generalityȱ andȱ abstractionȱ aboveȱ concrete,ȱ richȱimages.ȱAȱschemaȱconsistsȱofȱaȱsmallȱnumberȱofȱpartsȱandȱrelations,ȱbyȱ virtueȱofȱwhichȱitȱcanȱstructureȱindefinitelyȱmanyȱperceptions,ȱimages,ȱandȱ events.ȱ Inȱ sum,ȱ imageȱ schemataȱ operateȱ atȱ aȱ levelȱ ofȱ mentalȱ organizationȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 18ȱȱ Paulȱ Werthȱ usesȱ theȱ boxingȱ ringȱ analogyȱ inȱ hisȱ analysis.ȱ Aȱ consistentȱ useȱ ofȱ thisȱ finelyȱ grainedȱ typologyȱ isȱ oneȱ detailȱ thatȱ distinguishesȱ Werth’sȱ discourseȱ worlds,ȱ textȱworldsȱandȱsubȬworldsȱfromȱFauconnier’sȱmentalȱspaces.ȱPaulȱWerth,ȱ“Howȱtoȱ BuildȱaȱWorldȱ(inȱaȱLotȱLessȱThanȱSixȱDays,ȱUsingȱOnlyȱWhatȇsȱinȱYourȱHead),”ȱinȱ Newȱ Essaysȱ onȱ Deixis:ȱ Discourse,ȱ Narrative,ȱ Literature,ȱ ed.ȱ Keithȱ Greenȱ (Amsterdam:ȱ Rodopi,ȱ1995),ȱ49Ȭ80.ȱ 19ȱȱ Croftȱ andȱ Cruseȱ argue,ȱ “Ifȱ linguisticȱ construalȱ operationsȱ areȱ trulyȱ cognitive,ȱ thenȱ theyȱshouldȱbeȱrelatedȱtoȱorȱidenticalȱwith,ȱgeneralȱcognitiveȱprocessesȱthatȱareȱpostȬ ulatedȱbyȱpsychologists.”ȱCroftȱandȱCruse,ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics,ȱ45.ȱ 20ȱȱ Johnson,ȱTheȱBodyȱinȱtheȱMind:ȱTheȱBodilyȱBasisȱofȱMeaning,ȱImagination,ȱandȱReason,ȱ27.ȱ

36ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

thatȱ fallsȱ betweenȱ abstractȱ propositionalȱ structures,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ side,ȱ andȱ particularȱconcreteȱimagesȱonȱtheȱother.21ȱ

Additionally,ȱ forȱ Johnson,ȱ imageȱ schemataȱ areȱ derivedȱ fromȱ andȱ helpȱ toȱorderȱembodiedȱhumanȱexperiences.ȱHeȱproposes:ȱ Inȱ orderȱ forȱ usȱ toȱ haveȱ meaningful,ȱ connectedȱ experiencesȱ thatȱ weȱ canȱ comprehendȱandȱreasonȱabout,ȱthereȱmustȱbeȱaȱpatternȱandȱorderȱtoȱourȱacȬ tions,ȱ perceptions,ȱ andȱ conceptions.ȱ Aȱ schemaȱ isȱ aȱ recurrentȱ pattern,ȱ shape,ȱ andȱregularityȱin,ȱorȱof,ȱtheseȱongoingȱorderingȱactivities.ȱTheseȱpatternsȱemergeȱ asȱ meaningfulȱ structuresȱ forȱ usȱ chieflyȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ ourȱ bodilyȱ moveȬ mentsȱthroughȱspace,ȱourȱmanipulationȱofȱobjects,ȱandȱourȱperceptualȱinteȬ ractions.22ȱȱ

GenericȱimageȱschemasȱareȱsubjectȱtoȱtransformationȱbyȱtheȱconcepȬ tualiser.ȱLakoffȱobservesȱthatȱtheȱconceptualiserȱisȱableȱtoȱperformȱvariȬ ousȱ transformationsȱ uponȱ basicȱ imageȱ schemataȱ byȱ manipulatingȱ abȬ stractȱ structureȱ inȱ mentalȱ space.ȱ Johnsonȱ highlightsȱ fourȱ possibleȱ transformations:ȱ ȱ

a.ȱpathȬfocusȱtoȱendpointȬfocus;ȱ

ȱ

b.ȱmultiplexȱtoȱmass;ȱ

ȱ

c.ȱfollowingȱaȱtrajectory;ȱandȱ

ȱ

d.ȱsuperimposition.23ȱȱ

Thus,ȱaȱgenericȱimageȱschema,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱpathȱschema,ȱmayȱbeȱmaniȬ pulatedȱinȱtheȱmindȱofȱtheȱconceptualiserȱtoȱproduceȱmotionȱalongȱtheȱ pathȱthatȱbeginsȱatȱoneȱpointȱandȱendsȱatȱanother.ȱTheȱvanishingȱofȱtheȱ CheshireȱCat,ȱbeginningȱwithȱtheȱendȱofȱhisȱtailȱandȱendingȱwithȱtheȱgrin,ȱisȱ aȱwhimsical,ȱrichȱimageȱbasedȱuponȱtheȱpathȱschemaȱandȱmanipulatedȱ byȱ theȱ pathȬfocusȱ toȱ endpointȬfocusȱ transformation.ȱ Thisȱ processȱ isȱ accompaniedȱ byȱ aȱ twistȱ inȱ theȱ usualȱ figureȬgroundȱ configuration,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ figureȱ isȱ highlightedȱ againstȱ theȱ ground.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ figureȱ isȱ systematicallyȱerasedȱfromȱ theȱgroundȱuntilȱonlyȱtheȱgrinȱ reȬ mains.ȱ Byȱ leavingȱ theȱ grin,ȱ Carrollȱ playsȱ uponȱ expectations,ȱ thisȱ timeȱ byȱaȱmanipulationȱofȱtheȱcentreȬperipheryȱschema.ȱThisȱgenericȱschemaȱ springsȱfromȱtheȱembodiedȱhumanȱexperience,ȱinȱwhichȱbodiesȱhaveȱaȱ core,ȱandȱtheyȱhaveȱextremities.ȱItȱhasȱbeenȱobservedȱthatȱtheȱcoreȱconȬ tainsȱtheȱvitalȱelementsȱofȱlifeȱandȱisȱrequired,ȱwhileȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱgetȱ onȱ withȱ missingȱ extremities.ȱ Carrollȱ reversesȱ theȱ internalȱ logicȱ ofȱ theȱ centreȬperipheryȱ schemaȱ byȱ leavingȱ theȱ peripheralȱ andȱ removingȱ theȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 21ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ29.ȱ 22ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ 23ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ26.ȱ

ȱ

PropheticȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

37ȱ

centre.24ȱImageȱschemataȱareȱoneȱwayȱthatȱembodiedȱhumanȱexperienceȱ mayȱbeȱsaidȱtoȱbeȱsharedȱacrossȱculturesȱandȱacrossȱtime;ȱthusȱexaminȬ ingȱtheȱtextȱfromȱthisȱperspectiveȱprovidesȱaȱsignificantȱpointȱofȱcontact.ȱȱ

B. PropheticȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ Perspective,ȱ whichȱ includesȱ viewpoint,ȱ deixisȱ andȱ subjectivityȬ objectivity,ȱ providesȱ muchȱ relevantȱ informationȱ forȱ understandingȱ propheticȱ text.ȱ Linguisticȱ construalȱ operationsȱ suchȱ asȱ viewpointȱ andȱ deixisȱoriginateȱfromȱembodiedȱexperienceȱandȱprovideȱmeansȱforȱunȬ derstandingȱ nonȬspatialȱ abstractionsȱ asȱ well.25ȱ Aȱ briefȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ viewpointȱ andȱ deixis,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ perspectiveȱ inȱ nonȬspatialȱ domainsȱ follows.ȱ

1.

Viewpointȱ

Theȱdiscussionȱofȱcognitiveȱviewpointȱisȱparticularlyȱimportantȱforȱtheȱ TDȱ analysisȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱ Cognitiveȱ viewpoint,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Langacker,ȱ isȱ aȱ “focalȱ adjustment.”26ȱ Langackerȱ differentiatesȱ betweenȱ vantageȱ pointȱ andȱ orientation.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ construalȱ ofȱ theȱ statementȱ Timmyȱisȱinȱfrontȱofȱtheȱtreeȱdependsȱuponȱtheȱphysicalȱvantageȱpointȱofȱ theȱspeakerȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱrelativeȱpositionsȱofȱTimmyȱandȱtheȱtree.ȱOfȱ theȱ threeȱ coordinatesȱ usedȱ inȱ assessingȱ theȱ situation,ȱ theȱ treeȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ stable.ȱ Theȱ observerȱ andȱ Timmyȱ areȱ bothȱ movable.ȱ Thusȱ whenȱ Timmyȱisȱlocatedȱbetweenȱtheȱobserverȱandȱtheȱtree,ȱheȱisȱsaidȱtoȱbeȱinȱ frontȱofȱtheȱtree.ȱAlternatively,ȱifȱtheȱobserverȱandȱTimmyȱareȱlocatedȱatȱ oppositeȱ sidesȱ ofȱ theȱ tree,ȱ theȱ statementȱ Timmyȱ isȱ inȱ backȱ ofȱ theȱ treeȱ isȱ moreȱaccurate.ȱOrientationȱisȱdeterminedȱbyȱverticality,ȱtheȱunderstandȬ ingȱ ofȱ whichȱ isȱ derivedȱ fromȱ aȱ person’sȱ canonical,ȱ ordinarilyȱ uprightȱ position,ȱ whichȱ resultsȱinȱtheȱcognitiveȱ differentiationȱofȱaboveȱandȱ beȬ low.27ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 24ȱȱ Aȱ caseȱ mightȱ beȱ madeȱ forȱ theȱ universalityȱ ofȱ imageȱ schemata,ȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ worldwideȱpopularityȱofȱAlice’sȱAdventures.ȱCarroll’sȱmasterfulȱmanipulationȱofȱimȬ ageȱschemataȱisȱattractive,ȱifȱnotȱslightlyȱdisturbing.ȱ 25ȱȱ Forȱaȱcognitiveȱlinguisticsȱviewȱofȱdeixis,ȱseeȱtheȱessaysȱinȱFrankȱBrisard,ȱGrounding:ȱ TheȱEpistemicȱFootingȱofȱDeixisȱandȱReference,ȱCognitiveȱLinguisticsȱResearch;ȱ21ȱ(BerȬ lin:ȱM.ȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2002).ȱ 26ȱȱȱ Langacker,ȱFoundationsȱofȱCognitiveȱGrammar,ȱ40Ȭ45.ȱ 27ȱȱ CroftȱandȱCruse,ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics,ȱ59.ȱ

38ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

Significantly,ȱwhenȱtheȱtermȱviewpointȱspaceȱisȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱpartȱ ofȱ aȱ mentalȱ spaceȱ construction,ȱ itȱ isȱ usedȱ inȱ aȱ muchȱ moreȱ schematicȱ way.ȱThus,ȱinȱhisȱlandmarkȱstudyȱofȱtheȱparticleȱ [M,ȱFollingstadȱrightlyȱ differentiatesȱbetweenȱviewpoint,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱcognitiveȱconcept,ȱandȱliteȬ raryȱpointȱofȱview.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱviewpoint,ȱwhenȱappliedȱtoȱaȱmentalȱ spacesȱconfiguration,ȱisȱaȱcognitiveȱlevelȱfunction,ȱwhileȱliteraryȱpointȱofȱ viewȱisȱaȱmanifestationȱofȱtheȱviewpointȱfunctionȱbyȱanȱentityȱinȱaȱspeȬ cificȱdiscourse.ȱFromȱaȱTDȱperspective,ȱtheȱspeaker/authorȱusesȱliteraryȱ pointȱofȱviewȱasȱaȱcueȱforȱmeaningȱconstructionȱonȱtheȱpartȱofȱtheȱhearȬ er/reader.28ȱ Thusȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ specificȱ instantiation,ȱ orȱ manifestation,ȱ ofȱ theȱ moreȱ schematicȱ cognitiveȱ viewpoint.29ȱ Theȱ author/originatorȱ employsȱ literaryȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ toȱ createȱ perspectiveȱ inȱ theȱ text.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ auȬ thor/originatorȱ mightȱ assignȱ theȱ Oȱ (originator)ȱ roleȱ toȱ himȬȱ orȱ herself,ȱ asȱinȱaȱletter;ȱtoȱaȱnarratorȱorȱtoȱanonymousȱthirdȱperson;ȱorȱtoȱanyȱoneȱ ofȱaȱnumberȱofȱcharactersȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱTheȱnarrator,ȱorȱgenericȱthirdȱperȬ sonȱspeaker,ȱisȱtheȱdefaultȱchoice.ȱTheȱnarratorȱhasȱtheȱwidestȱaccessȱtoȱ pragmaticȱinformationȱregardingȱtheȱgroundȱofȱtheȱeventȱdescribedȱandȱ theȱ charactersȱ involved.ȱ Theȱ narrator,ȱ asȱ speaker,ȱ isȱ ableȱ toȱ reportȱ theȱ speechȱ andȱ thoughtsȱ ofȱ theȱ charactersȱ (bothȱ directlyȱ andȱ indirectly),ȱ andȱtoȱassignȱaccessȱtoȱtheȱcharacterȇsȱsituatednessȱinȱtheȱworld.ȱThisȱinȬ cludesȱnotȱonlyȱspatioȬtemporalȱinformation,ȱbutȱinformationȱregardingȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ stateȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ consciousnessȱ (epistemicȱ informaȬ tion)ȱandȱwill,ȱwishesȱandȱdesiresȱ(deonticȱinformation).ȱThus,ȱwhenȱaȱ characterȱspeaksȱ orȱevaluatesȱaȱsituation,ȱaccessȱtoȱinformationȱisȱconȬ strainedȱ toȱ theȱcharacterȇsȱperspective.ȱMostȱimportantly,ȱtheȱreaderȱisȱ accompaniedȱbyȱaȱvarietyȱofȱ“companions”ȱasȱtheȱliteraryȱpointȱofȱviewȱ shiftsȱ inȱ theȱ text.ȱ However,ȱcognitiveȱstructuringȱisȱnotȱ limitedȱ toȱ liteȬ raryȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ andȱ subsidiaryȱ mentalȱ spacesȱ mightȱ accrueȱ withinȱ theȱscopeȱofȱaȱsingleȱinstanceȱofȱliteraryȱpointȱofȱview,ȱi.e.ȱwhenȱaȱchaȬ racterȱreportsȱaȱthoughtȱthatȱincludesȱaȱshiftȱinȱground.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 28ȱȱ Inevitably,ȱtheȱauthor’sȱuseȱofȱthisȱcueȱwillȱbeȱconditionedȱbyȱgrammar,ȱcontextȱandȱ culture.ȱ Theȱ reader’sȱ encounterȱ withȱ theȱ cueȱ willȱ alsoȱ beȱ conditionedȱ byȱ grammar,ȱ contextȱandȱculture.ȱ 29ȱȱ Fauconnierȱ states,ȱ “Language,ȱ asȱ weȱ knowȱ it,ȱ isȱ aȱ superficialȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ hidȬ den,ȱ highlyȱ abstract,ȱ cognitiveȱ constructions…ȱ Mentalȱ spacesȱ areȱ theȱ domainsȱ thatȱ discourseȱ buildsȱ upȱ toȱ provideȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ substrateȱ forȱ reasoningȱ andȱ interfacingȱ withȱtheȱworld.”ȱFauconnier,ȱMappings,ȱ34.ȱ

ȱ

PropheticȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

2.

39ȱ

Deixisȱ

Deixisȱisȱdefinedȱas:ȱ …theȱcharacteristicȱfunctionȱofȱlinguisticȱexpressionsȱthatȱrelateȱtoȱtheȱperȬ sonal,ȱspatial,ȱandȱtemporalȱaspectsȱofȱutterancesȱdependingȱuponȱtheȱgivȬ enȱutteranceȱsituation.30ȱȱ

Thus,ȱ deixisȱ providesȱ perspectiveȱ thatȱ isȱ anchoredȱ inȱ someȱ wayȱ toȱ aȱ speakerȱinȱaȱgivenȱsituationȱofȱspeaking.ȱAȱsituationȱofȱspeakingȱmightȱ beȱ prototypical,ȱ asȱ representedȱ byȱ aȱ faceȬtoȬfaceȱ conversation,ȱ orȱ nonȬ prototypical,ȱasȱrepresentedȱbyȱaȱwrittenȱtext.ȱTextȱisȱnonȬprototypicalȱ dueȱ toȱ itsȱmetaȬrepresentationalȱcharacter.ȱ Aȱ secondȱlayerȱ ofȱ complexityȱ arisesȱinȱthatȱwrittenȱtextȱoftenȱcontainsȱreportedȱspeechȱactsȱoccurringȱ betweenȱcharacters.ȱForȱthisȱreason,ȱdeicticȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱactȱ atȱaȱminimumȱofȱtwoȱdistinctȱlevelsȱwhenȱaȱtextȱisȱinvolved.ȱFirst,ȱthereȱ areȱtextȬlevel,ȱorȱmetaȬlinguisticȱdeicticȱtermsȱandȱphrasesȱwhichȱanȱauȬ thorȱ usesȱ toȱ guideȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ readerȱ throughȱ theȱ text.ȱ Theseȱ areȱ oftenȱ usedȱasȱspaceȬbuilders.ȱSecondly,ȱthereȱareȱrealȱworldȱtermsȱthatȱactȱasȱ cuesȱ forȱcognitiveȱ structuringȱ ofȱ situationsȱ andȱ predicationsȱ involvingȱ charactersȱwithinȱtheȱtext.ȱTheseȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱareȱalsoȱusedȱ inȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱcommunicationȱsituations,ȱandȱareȱexamplesȱofȱdeixisȱasȱ aȱstructuringȱdevice.ȱȱ

3.

DeixisȱandȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ

Konradȱ Ehlichȱ hasȱ madeȱ aȱ significantȱ contributionȱ towardsȱ underȬ standingȱ deicticȱ termsȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew.ȱ Ehlichȱ expandsȱ uponȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Bühlerȱ inȱ distinguishingȱ betweenȱ deicticȱ functionȱ andȱ anaȬ phoricȱfunction.ȱHeȱstates:ȱ Theȱ deicticȱ procedureȱ isȱ aȱ linguisticȱ instrumentȱ forȱ achievingȱ focusingȱ ofȱ theȱhearer’sȱattentionȱtowardsȱaȱspecificȱitemȱwhichȱisȱpartȱofȱtheȱrespectiveȱ deicticȱ spaceȱ (deiktischerȱ Raum).ȱ Theȱ deicticȱ procedureȱ isȱ performedȱ byȱ meansȱofȱdeicticȱexpressions.31ȱ Theȱ anaphoricȱ procedureȱ isȱ aȱ linguisticȱ instrumentȱ forȱ havingȱ theȱ hearerȱ continueȱ(sustain)ȱaȱpreviouslyȱestablishedȱfocusȱtowardsȱaȱspecificȱitemȱonȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 30ȱ ȱ Hadumonȱ Bussman,ȱ Routledgeȱ Dictionaryȱ ofȱ Languageȱ andȱ Linguisticsȱ (London:ȱ RouȬ ledge,ȱ1996),ȱ117.ȱ 31ȱȱ KonradȱEhlich,ȱ“AnaphoraȱandȱDeixis:ȱSame,ȱSimilar,ȱorȱDifferent?”ȱinȱSpeech,ȱPlace,ȱ andȱ Action,ȱ edsȱ R.ȱ J.ȱ Jarvellaȱ andȱ Wolfgangȱ Kleinȱ (Chichester:ȱ Wiley,ȱ 1982),ȱ 315Ȭ338ȱ (325).ȱAnotherȱimportantȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱdeixisȱisȱKarlȱBühler,ȱ“Theȱ DeicticȱFieldȱofȱLanguageȱandȱDeicticȱWords,”ȱinȱSpeech,ȱPlace,ȱandȱAction:ȱStudiesȱinȱ DeixisȱandȱRelatedȱTopics,ȱedsȱR.ȱJ.ȱJarvellaȱandȱW.ȱKleinȱ(Chichester:ȱJohnȱWileyȱandȱ Sons,ȱ1982),ȱ9Ȭ30.ȱ

40ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

whichȱ heȱ hadȱ orientedȱ hisȱ attentionȱ earlier.ȱ Theȱ anaphoricȱ procedureȱ isȱ performedȱbyȱmeansȱofȱanaphoricȱexpressions.32ȱ

Ehlich’sȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱpointingȱfunctionȱofȱdeicticȱtermsȱandȱ theȱattentionȱsustainingȱfunctionȱofȱanaphoricȱtermsȱisȱsignificantȱfromȱ aȱcognitiveȱpointȱofȱview.ȱDeicticȱtermsȱareȱlikelyȱtoȱbeȱinvolvedȱinȱactiȬ vatingȱ newȱ discourseȱ entitiesȱ (sentenceȱ focus)ȱ orȱ callingȱ attentionȱ toȱ previouslyȱintroducedȱentitiesȱ(argumentȱfocus).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱdeicticȱ termsȱ actȱ asȱ spaceȬbuilders,ȱ whereasȱ anaphoricȱ termsȱ areȱ likelyȱ toȱ beȱ usedȱasȱstructuringȱdevices.ȱ TheȱfollowingȱchartȱcontainsȱaȱselectionȱofȱBHȱtermsȱandȱconstrucȬ tionsȱwhichȱcueȱbothȱdeicticȱandȱanaphoricȱfunctions.ȱItȱisȱnoteworthyȱ thatȱtheseȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱrepresentȱaȱnumberȱofȱsemanticȱdoȬ mains,ȱ includingȱ prepositionsȱ (spatial),ȱ pronounsȱ (person),ȱ adverbsȱ (timeȱandȱspace),ȱparticlesȱ(text),ȱandȱconjunctionsȱ(text).ȱTheȱtermsȱareȱ separatedȱintoȱthreeȱcategories:ȱrealȱworldȱtermsȱthatȱareȱusedȱinȱfaceȬtoȬ faceȱcommunication;ȱlinguisticȱworldȱtermsȱthatȱareȱusedȱbyȱtheȱoriginaȬ torȱ toȱ assistȱ theȱ readerȱ throughȱ theȱ text;ȱ andȱ relationȱ words,ȱ whichȱ areȱ usedȱ toȱ establishȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ elementsȱ inȱ aȱ sentence,ȱ inȱ whichȱperspectiveȱisȱdeterminedȱbyȱtheȱelements.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 32ȱȱ Ehlich,ȱ“AnaphoraȱandȱDeixis:ȱSame,ȱSimilar,ȱorȱDifferent?”ȱ330.ȱ

ȱ

41ȱ

PropheticȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

BiblicalȱHebrewȱDeicticȱTermsȱ “RelationȱWords”ȱ Relationswörter33 Author,ȱ Narratorȱ orȱ CharacȬ terȱPerspectiveȱinȱText ȱ “RealȱWorld”ȱTermsȱ Personal,ȱSpatialȱandȱȱ Temporal CharacterȱPerspectiveȱinȱText 1stȱandȱ2ndȱperson pronounsȱ SpeechȱActȱ

0/ ) +  0' + +3 =#'2 :% 1 3 +8 :& '=+¡3 $/ :< 3 -:= =%=/ -3/ȱ ȱ

ȱ

'1 ')1 #1%1 != = -= = !+ =$ !$

DemonstrativeȱPronouns:ȱ DeicticȱFunction34ȱ

'! !#! !1! /! 0!

LocativeȱAdverbs:ȱȱ DeicticȱFunctionȱ TemporalȱAdverbs:ȱ DeicticȱFunctionȱ

“I”ȱ1/sȱ “we”ȱ1/pȱ “you”ȱf/s;ȱf/pȱ “you”m/s;ȱm/pȱ “this”;ȱ“these” “he”;ȱ“she”ȱ “they”ȱ

-+! !6 !1! -
“LinguisticȱWorld”ȱTermsȱ DiscourseȱandȱTextȱ AuthorȇsȱPerspective TextȱDeicticsȱ SentenceȱDeicticsȱ DiscourseȱMarkersȱ

4.

ȱ

!=3# !'!# '!'#ȱ ! 0! !1!# !1! )0) 0)¡+3 0)+ !)) !

PerspectiveȱandȱNonȬspatialȱDomainsȱ

Viewpoint,ȱdeixisȱandȱimageȱschemataȱareȱspatiallyȱbasedȱphenomena.ȱ However,ȱ theseȱ perspectiveȬinducingȱ termsȱ andȱ constructionsȱ areȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 33ȱȱ Haraldȱ Schweizer,ȱ Metaphorischeȱ Grammatik:ȱ Wegeȱ zurȱ Integrationȱ vonȱ GrammatikȱundȱTextinterpretationȱinȱderȱExegeseȱ(St.ȱOttilien:ȱEOSȬVerlag,ȱ1981),ȱ236Ȭ 237.ȱ 34ȱȱ Konradȱ Ehlich,ȱ Verwendungenȱ derȱ Deixisȱ Beimȱ Sprachlichenȱ Handeln:ȱ Linguistischȱ PhilologischeȱUntersuchungenȱzumȱHebräischenȱDeiktischenȱSystemȱ(FrankfurtȱamȱMainȱ andȱLasȱVegas:ȱP.ȱLang,ȱ1979).ȱ

42ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

availableȱ forȱ structuringȱ nonȬspatialȱ domainsȱ asȱ well.ȱ Asȱ Croftȱ andȱ Cruseȱnote:ȱ Perspective,ȱespeciallyȱdeixis,ȱisȱperhapsȱtheȱmostȱobviousȱandȱmostȱcomȬ mentedȱ uponȱ ofȱ theȱ construalȱ operations.ȱ Particularlyȱ forȱ spatialȱ descripȬ tions,ȱperspectiveȱisȱessentialȱandȱitsȱdependenceȱonȱtheȱrelativeȱpositionȱofȱ theȱspeakerȱisȱwellȱknown.ȱButȱperspectiveȱisȱalsoȱfoundȱinȱnonspatialȱdoȬ mains:ȱweȱhaveȱaȱperspectiveȱbasedȱonȱourȱknowledge,ȱbelief,ȱandȱattitudesȱ asȱwellȱasȱourȱspatiotemporalȱlocation.35ȱ

Perspectiveȱbasedȱuponȱknowledge,ȱbeliefȱandȱattitudesȱformsȱtheȱbasisȱ forȱ aȱ specificȱcategoryȱofȱspaceȱbuildingȱtermsȱandȱconstructions.ȱThisȱ groupȱofȱspaceȬbuilders,ȱwhichȱincludesȱtermsȱfromȱtheȱsemanticȱfieldsȱ ofȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognition,ȱ areȱ particularlyȱ prominentȱ inȱ propheticȱ literature,ȱ henceȱ theyȱ areȱ keyȱ toȱ theȱ concernsȱ ofȱ thisȱ volume.36ȱ Theȱ spaceȬbuilderȱ thatȱ initiatesȱ aȱ newȱ spaceȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ indicationȱ ofȱ theȱ mannerȱinȱwhichȱaȱspaceȱisȱtoȱbeȱconstruedȱbyȱtheȱconceptualiser.ȱTemȬ poralȱ references,ȱ suchȱ asȱ inȱ 1925,ȱ indicateȱ aȱ timeȱ space;ȱ locativeȱ referȬ ences,ȱsuchȱasȱonȱtheȱplanetȱMars,ȱindicateȱaȱlocativeȱspace;ȱreferencesȱtoȱ schematicȱ information,ȱ suchȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ gameȱ ofȱ chess,ȱ referȱ toȱ aȱ domainȱ space.ȱ Verbsȱ ofȱ speaking,ȱ suchȱ asȱ …andȱ Godȱ said…ȱ atȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.6a,ȱ indicateȱaȱquotationȱspace;ȱverbsȱofȱperception,ȱsuchȱasȱ…andȱIȱsaw…ȱatȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.8a,ȱ indicateȱ anȱ intakeȱ ofȱ informationȱ space.37ȱ Perspectiveȱ basedȱuponȱknowledge,ȱbeliefȱandȱattitudeȱisȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱuseȱofȱaȱ mentalȱ stateȱ predicate,ȱ suchȱ asȱ think,ȱ believe,ȱ doubt,ȱ know,ȱ supposeȱ andȱ guess.38ȱ Thus,ȱ theseȱ termsȱ setȱ upȱ propositionalȱ attitudeȱ spaces,ȱ spacesȱ thatȱareȱcloselyȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱindividualȱorȱentityȱinvolved,ȱasȱareȱ theȱ propositionalȱ contentȱ quotationȱ spacesȱ andȱ intakeȱ ofȱ informationȱ spaces.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 35ȱȱȱȱCroftȱandȱCruse,ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics,ȱ58.ȱ 36ȱȱ Theseȱareȱtheȱverbaȱsentiendiȱandȱverbaȱsciendi,ȱtermsȱsuchȱasȱsee,ȱhear,ȱknow,ȱunderȬ stand,ȱremember,ȱforgetȱandȱconsider.ȱTheseȱtermsȱtakeȱanȱexperiencerȱasȱgrammatiȬ calȱsubjectȱandȱoftenȱtakeȱcomplementȱclausesȱasȱgrammaticalȱobject.ȱ 37ȱȱ TheȱscalarȱnatureȱofȱthisȱcategoryȱisȱwellȱrepresentedȱinȱtheȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ11ȱexampleȱ inȱChapterȱ2,ȱwhereȱTO indicatesȱbothȱspeechȱandȱthoughtȱandȱJ Tȱindicatesȱ bothȱvisualȱperceptionȱandȱobservation.ȱ 38ȱȱ Nuytsȱ describesȱ epistemicȱ modalityȱ asȱ aȱ semanticȱ domainȱ andȱ proposesȱ aȱ listȱ ofȱ mentalȱstateȱpredicatesȱwhichȱoverlapsȱwithȱoneȱgroupȱofȱspaceȱbuildingȱterms.ȱThisȱ impliesȱthatȱtheȱremainingȱgroupsȱofȱspaceȬbuilders,ȱsuchȱasȱtimeȱreference,ȱspatialȱ referenceȱandȱsocialȱreference,ȱareȱrepresentedȱinȱlanguageȱbyȱgroupsȱofȱwordsȱandȱ termsȱfromȱspecificȱsemanticȱdomains,ȱwhichȱmayȱvaryȱwidelyȱinȱtheirȱgrammaticalȱ compositionȱ(i.e.ȱprepositionsȱinvolvedȱinȱspatialȱdescription,ȱtemporalȱadverbsȱandȱ verbȱtenseȱinvolvedȱinȱtemporalȱdescriptionȱandȱpersonalȱpronounsȱinvolvedȱinȱsoȬ cialȱ description).ȱ Significantly,ȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ grammaticalȱ formsȱ actȱ asȱ cuesȱ forȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ spaceȬbuilderȱ function.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ correspondenceȱ betweenȱ grammaticalȱ formȱandȱcognitiveȱfunctionȱisȱnotȱoneȱtoȱone,ȱbutȱratherȱmanyȱtoȱone,ȱandȱisȱbasedȱ uponȱtheȱinterfaceȱbetweenȱsyntaxȱandȱsemantics.ȱ

ȱ

PropheticȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

43ȱ

AȱpropositionalȱattitudeȱspaceȱhasȱaffinitiesȱwithȱtheȱconceptȱofȱepȬ istemicȱmodality,ȱorȱ“aȱspeakerȇsȱevaluationȱofȱtheȱlikelihoodȱofȱaȱstateȱ ofȱaffairs,ȱasȱexpressedȱinȱlanguage.”39ȱAsȱinȱspatialȱandȱtemporalȱreferȬ ences,ȱperspectiveȱisȱindexedȱbyȱtheȱpositionȱofȱspeakerȱasȱcentre,ȱalbeitȱ inȱaȱmoreȱabstractȱmannerȱthanȱtheȱnormalȱdeicticȱcentre.ȱNuytsȱtakesȱ anȱexperientialistȱview,ȱstating:ȱ Evaluatingȱtheȱlikelihoodȱofȱaȱstateȱofȱaffairsȱisȱnotȱjustȱaȱ(modal)ȱlinguisticȱ category.ȱItȱrelatesȱdirectlyȱtoȱtheȱwayȱweȱperceive,ȱmemorizeȱandȱactȱinȱtheȱ physicalȱandȱsocialȱworldȱweȱliveȱinȱ…ourȱcapacityȱtoȱreflectȱonȱourȱknowȬ ledgeȱandȱourȱreasoningȱwithȱit…ourȱcapacityȱtoȱmetarepresent.40ȱ

NuytsȱspeaksȱinȱconcertȱwithȱMarmaridou,ȱwhoȱarguesȱforȱanȱexperienȬ tialistȱ approachȱ toȱ deixis,ȱ andȱ withȱ Croftȱ andȱ Cruse,ȱ whoȱ associateȱ perspectiveȱ withȱ “theȱ philosophicalȱ notionȱ ofȱ ourȱ situatednessȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱinȱaȱparticularȱlocationȱ–ȱwhereȱlocationȱmustȱbeȱconstruedȱbroadȬ lyȱtoȱincludeȱtemporal,ȱepistemic,ȱandȱculturalȱcontextȱasȱwellȱasȱspatialȱ location.”41ȱTheȱTDȱapproachȱadoptsȱthisȱexperientialistȱperspective,ȱasȱ itȱprovidesȱaȱcomprehensiveȱbasisȱforȱdeterminingȱtheȱgroundȱofȱaȱsituȬ ationȱ ofȱ speaking,ȱ bothȱ asȱ itȱ relatesȱ toȱ theȱ speaker/authorȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ representationȱ ofȱ situationsȱ ofȱ speakingȱ fromȱ theȱ embeddedȱ perspecȬ tiveȱofȱvariousȱcharacters.ȱ42ȱ Becauseȱ ofȱ itsȱ emphasisȱ uponȱ cognitiveȱ structuring,ȱ theȱ TDȱ apȬ proachȱ isȱ usefulȱ forȱ confrontingȱ twoȱ interrelatedȱ questionsȱ thatȱ loomȱ largeȱforȱexegetes,ȱtranslatorsȱandȱstudentsȱofȱBHȱtext.ȱFirst,ȱwhatȱconȬ stellationȱ ofȱ linguisticȱ featuresȱ servesȱ toȱ delimitȱ aȱ sectionȱ ofȱ textȱ forȱ interpretation?ȱSecondly,ȱwhatȱlinguisticȱandȱcognitiveȱfactorsȱstructureȱ andȱ interconnectȱ variousȱ sectionsȱ ofȱ theȱ text?ȱ Theȱ networkȱ modelȱ isȱ ableȱtoȱ accountȱforȱcognitiveȱstructuringȱthatȱisȱindicatedȱbyȱbothȱsenȬ tencesȱ andȱ longerȱ segmentsȱ ofȱ text.43ȱ Aȱ primaryȱ goalȱ ofȱ theȱ TDȱ apȬ proachȱ isȱ toȱ examineȱ textsȱ forȱ grammaticalȱ cuesȱ thatȱ actȱ asȱ spaceȬ buildersȱ andȱ spaceȱ connectors,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ forȱ elementsȱ thatȱ structureȱ andȱ interconnectȱ spaces.ȱ Thus,ȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ synchronicȱ textȱ levelȱ analysisȱ bothȱ precedesȱ andȱ informsȱ historicalȱ andȱ culturalȱ study.ȱ Itȱ isȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 39ȱȱ Janȱ Nuyts,ȱ Epistemicȱ Modality,ȱ Language,ȱ andȱ Conceptualizationȱ (Amsterdam:ȱ Johnȱ Benjamins,ȱ2001),ȱxv.ȱ 40ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ 41ȱȱ CroftȱandȱCruse,ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics,ȱ58;ȱMarmaridou,ȱPragmaticȱMeaningȱandȱCogniȬ tion.ȱ 42ȱȱ Theȱexperientialistȱapproachȱisȱalsoȱevidentȱinȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱstudies,ȱsuchȱasȱ thoseȱbyȱLakoffȱandȱJohnson.ȱThisȱissueȱwillȱbeȱexploredȱinȱchapterȱ4.B.3.ȱ 43ȱȱ Seeȱ Margaretȱ H.ȱ Freeman,ȱ “Cognitiveȱ Mappingȱ inȱ Literaryȱ Analysis,”ȱ Styleȱ (2002);ȱ JoséȱSandersȱandȱGiselaȱRedeker,ȱ“PerspectiveȱandȱtheȱRepresentationȱofȱSpeechȱandȱ ThoughtȱinȱNarrativeȱDiscourse,”ȱinȱSpaces,ȱWorlds,ȱandȱGrammar,ȱedsȱG.ȱFauconnierȱ andȱE.ȱSweetserȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1996).ȱ

44ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

importantȱ toȱ considerȱ thisȱ asȱ aȱ cyclicalȱ processȱ inȱ whichȱ diachronicȱ historicalȱandȱculturalȱstudyȱalsoȱimpactȱsynchronicȱunderstandingsȱofȱ theȱtext.ȱȱ

C. Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ Sinceȱ cognitiveȱ packetsȱ areȱ “…setȱ up,ȱ structured,ȱ andȱ linkedȱ underȱ pressureȱfromȱgrammar,ȱcontext,ȱandȱculture,”ȱaȱthoroughȱgrammaticalȱ analysisȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ priorityȱ forȱ theȱ TDȱ approach.44ȱ Theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ thisȱ analysisȱ provideȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ contextualȱ andȱ culturalȱ inferencesȱ andȱ connections.ȱTheȱfirstȱstepȱisȱaȱcomprehensiveȱsyntaxȱanalysis.ȱSecondȬ ly,ȱ preliminaryȱdecisionsȱregardingȱ theȱ informationȱstructureȱcategoryȱ ofȱ topicȱ areȱ madeȱ forȱ eachȱ ofȱ theȱ clausesȱ representedȱ inȱ theȱ analysis.ȱ Third,ȱ preliminaryȱ decisionsȱ regardingȱ theȱ informationȱ structureȱ cateȬ goryȱofȱfocusȱareȱmadeȱforȱeachȱclauseȱandȱforȱtheȱsectionȱinȱquestion.ȱ Fourth,ȱpreliminaryȱdecisionsȱregardingȱtheȱcognitiveȱstructuringȱofȱtheȱ largerȱsectionȱareȱproposedȱfromȱaȱcognitiveȱnetworkȱperspective.ȱThisȱ isȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ spaceȬbuildersȱ involved,ȱ andȱ whichȱ linguisticȱconstrualȱoperations,ȱinȱadditionȱtoȱinformationȱstructure,ȱareȱ availableȱforȱstructuringȱandȱlinkingȱtheȱspaces.ȱFinally,ȱtheȱanalysisȱisȱ refinedȱandȱfinalised,ȱbasedȱuponȱtheȱpreviousȱfindings,ȱinȱconjunctionȱ withȱavailableȱhistoricalȱandȱculturalȱinformation.45ȱ

1.

Clauseȱanalysisȱ

Theȱsyntaxȱportionȱofȱtheȱclauseȱanalysisȱfollowsȱtheȱascendant,ȱrecurȬ siveȱ model,ȱ originallyȱ developedȱ forȱ theȱ computerȱ databaseȱ atȱ VU,ȱ AmsterdamȱandȱnowȱutilisedȱbyȱtheȱStuttgartȱElectronicȱStudyȱBible.46ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 44ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱSweetser,ȱSpaces,ȱWorlds,ȱandȱGrammar,ȱ11.ȱ 45ȱȱ ThisȱprocessȱhasȱsimilaritiesȱtoȱthatȱofȱSebastiaanȱFloor,ȱwhoȱutilisesȱtheȱinformationȱ structureȱcategoriesȱtopicȱandȱfocusȱtoȱexamineȱtextsȱforȱthemeȱtraces,ȱorȱ“…cluesȱinȱtheȱ surfaceȱformȱofȱaȱdiscourseȱthat…pointȱtoȱtheȱcognitiveȱmacrostructureȱorȱthemeȱofȱ theȱ text.”ȱ Sebastiaanȱ J.ȱ Floor,ȱ “Fromȱ Informationȱ Structure,ȱ Topic,ȱ andȱ Focus,ȱ toȱ ThemeȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱNarrative.”ȱ(DLit,ȱUniversityȱofȱStellenbosch,ȱ2004).ȱAȱmaȬ jorȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ approachesȱ involvesȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ macrostructure.ȱ Whileȱ aȱ TDȱ approachȱ arguesȱ forȱ cognitiveȱ structuringȱ andȱ thatȱ suchȱ structuringȱ isȱ cuedȱbyȱsurfaceȱlevelȱinformationȱpresentedȱbyȱtheȱtext,ȱitȱabandonsȱtheȱtermȱmacroȬ structureȱinȱfavourȱofȱtheȱphraseȱonȬlineȱmeaningȱconstruction,ȱwhichȱbetterȱreflectsȱtheȱ notionȱofȱcognitiveȱstructuringȱasȱaȱdynamicȱprocessȱwhichȱisȱpromptedȱbyȱratherȱthanȱ containedȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱ 46ȱȱ TheȱascendantȱprocessȱeliminatesȱsomeȱofȱtheȱambiguityȱthatȱresultsȱfromȱaȱdescenȬ dentȱprocess,ȱsuchȱasȱthatȱusedȱbyȱLongacre,ȱasȱitȱbeginsȱbyȱdiscerningȱtheȱcontoursȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

45ȱ

Thisȱ ascendantȱ processȱ mimics,ȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱ degree,ȱ theȱ brainȱ activityȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ readingȱ process.47ȱ Initially,ȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ segmentedȱ intoȱ clauseȬlevelȱunits.48ȱOneȱclauseȱcomprisesȱoneȱpredication,ȱandȱaȱclauseȱ mayȱbeȱeitherȱverbalȱorȱnominal.ȱAtȱminimum,ȱaȱverbalȱclauseȱconsistsȱ ofȱ anȱ inflectedȱ orȱ participialȱ verbalȱ formȱ plusȱ anȱ implicitȱ orȱ explicitȱ subject.ȱ Whileȱ theȱ TDȱ modelȱ beginsȱ withȱ clauseȱ levelȱ segments,ȱ itȱ isȱ importantȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱclauseȬlevelȱsegmentsȱcompriseȱphraseȬlevelȱ segments,ȱ orȱ clauseȱ atoms,ȱ andȱ thatȱ phraseȬlevelȱ segmentsȱ compriseȱ lexicalȬlevelȱsegments,ȱorȱphraseȱatoms.49ȱThisȱunderstandingȱreflectsȱtheȱ extremelyȱ detailedȱ accountingȱ ofȱ surfaceȬlevelȱ textȱ featuresȱ thatȱ isȱ reȬ quiredȱ forȱ computerisedȱ textȱ processing.50ȱ Whenȱ parsingȱ aȱ text,ȱ theȱ computerȱ delimitsȱ theȱ lexicalȱ andȱ phraseȬlevelȱ segmentsȱ byȱ aȱ setȱ ofȱ recursiveȱ patternȱ matchingȱ processes.ȱ Itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ replicateȱ thisȱ manually,ȱhowever,ȱitȱisȱtimeȱconsumingȱandȱpossiblyȱlessȱaccurateȱtoȱ doȱso.ȱȱ Becauseȱpatternȱmatchingȱisȱimportantȱforȱestablishingȱconnectionsȱ atȱtheȱlexemeȱandȱphraseȱlevels,ȱitȱisȱhypothesisedȱthatȱclauseȱlevelȱpatȬ ternsȱ mayȱ beȱ usedȱ toȱ establishȱ connectionsȱ atȱ theȱ sentenceȱ andȱ disȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

47ȱȱ

48ȱȱ

49ȱȱ

50ȱȱ

ofȱtheȱtextȱandȱthenȱobservesȱforȱcognitiveȱstructuralȱcuesȱandȱclues,ȱratherȱthanȱbeȬ ginningȱwithȱaȱstructuralȱtheoryȱandȱimposingȱtheȱtheoryȱuponȱtheȱtext.ȱForȱaȱcritiȬ queȱ ofȱLongacreȱinȱthisȱ respect,ȱ seeȱJeanȬMarcȱHeimerdinger,ȱ Topic,ȱ Focusȱ andȱ ForeȬ groundȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Hebrewȱ Narratives,ȱ JSOTȱ Supȱ 295ȱ (Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ1999).ȱ CognitiveȱscientistsȱuseȱeventȬrelatedȱbrainȱpotentialȱmeasuresȱinȱtrackingȱtheȱtwoȱphasȬ esȱofȱlanguageȱprocessingȱrepresentedȱbyȱspeakingȱandȱhearing.ȱInȱspeaking,ȱanȱareaȱ ofȱtheȱbrainȱknownȱasȱtheȱBrocaȱareaȱisȱresponsibleȱforȱbreakingȱcomplexȱideasȱintoȱ smallerȱunitsȱ whichȱareȱlinearised,ȱwhereasȱinȱhearingȱtheȱsameȱ areaȱisȱresponsibleȱ forȱtheȱanalysisȱandȱsynthesisȱofȱincomingȱinformationȱintoȱaȱmeaningfulȱstructure.ȱ Thus,ȱaȱbottomȬupȱmethodȱofȱanalysisȱmostȱcloselyȱresemblesȱtheȱhearingȱprocessȱofȱ theȱ humanȱ brain.ȱ W.ȱ Raible,ȱ “Languageȱ Universalsȱ andȱ Languageȱ Typology,”ȱ inȱ Languageȱ Typologyȱ andȱ Languageȱ Universals:ȱ Anȱ Internationalȱ Handbook,ȱ edsȱ M.ȱ HasȬ pelmathȱetȱal.ȱ(Berlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001),ȱ13.ȱ Aȱ clauseȬlevelȱ analysisȱ offersȱ benefitsȱ forȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ parallelism.ȱ Theȱ TDȱ clauseȬ levelȱanalysisȱoffersȱaȱvisuallyȱstackedȱdisplayȱwhichȱfacilitatesȱobservationȱofȱconstiȬ tuentȱorder,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱdefiningȱfeatureȱofȱvariousȱtypesȱofȱparallelism.ȱOtherȱstudiesȱ whichȱ employȱ aȱ clauseȬlevelȱ analysisȱ includeȱ Walterȱ Theophilusȱ Woldemarȱ Cloete,ȱ Versificationȱ andȱ Syntaxȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2Ȭ25:ȱ Syntacticalȱ Constraintsȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ Colometryȱ (Atlanta,ȱ Ga:ȱ Scholarsȱ Press,ȱ 1989);ȱ Terenceȱ Collins,ȱ LineȬFormsȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ Poetry:ȱ Aȱ GrammaticalȱApproachȱtoȱtheȱStylisticȱStudyȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱProphets,ȱStudiaȱPohl.ȱSeriesȱ Maior;ȱ 7ȱ (Rome:ȱ Biblicalȱ Instituteȱ Press,ȱ 1978);ȱ Michaelȱ Patrickȱ OȇConnor,ȱ Hebrewȱ VerseȱStructureȱ(WinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1980).ȱ TheȱconstructȱphraseȱisȱoneȱsuchȱpatternȱthatȱoccursȱwithȱregularityȱinȱBH.ȱSeeȱJ.ȱH.ȱ A.ȱ Kroeze,ȱ “Semanticȱ Relationsȱ inȱ Constructȱ Phrasesȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Aȱ FuncȬ tionalȱApproach,”ȱZAHȱ11ȱ(1998),ȱ27Ȭ41.ȱ Thisȱlevelȱofȱdetailȱisȱalsoȱrequiredȱforȱlanguageȱlearners.ȱVerheijȱutilisesȱsomeȱofȱtheȱ clauseȱsegmentationȱandȱpatternȱmatchingȱtechniquesȱinȱhisȱintroductoryȱgrammar.ȱ A.ȱJ.ȱC.ȱVerheij,ȱBasisgrammaticaȱVanȱHetȱBijbelsȱHebreeuwsȱ(Delft:ȱEburon,ȱ2002).ȱ

46ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

courseȱ levelsȱ asȱ well.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ clausesȱ mightȱ functionȱ asȱ sentenceȱ atomsȱandȱsentencesȱasȱdiscourseȱatoms.51ȱThisȱillustratesȱthatȱsingleȱlexȬ emesȱdoȱnotȱsimplyȱconnectȱasȱbeadsȱonȱaȱstring,ȱbutȱtheyȱdemonstrateȱ patternsȱ ofȱ combinationȱ whichȱ areȱ acceptableȱ atȱ eachȱ ofȱ severalȱ processingȱ levels.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ situationȱ isȱ moreȱ complicatedȱ whenȱ connectionsȱ atȱ theȱ sentenceȱ andȱ discourseȱ levelȱ areȱ involved.52ȱ LehȬ mannȱdemonstratesȱthatȱaȱnumberȱofȱintersectingȱfactorsȱcontributeȱtoȱ clauseȱlinkage.ȱTheseȱinclude:ȱ x

x

x

AutonomyȱversusȱIntegration;ȱ o

Hierarchicalȱdowngrading;ȱ

o

Syntacticȱlevelȱofȱsubordinateȱclause;ȱ

Expansionȱvs.ȱReduction;ȱ o

Sententialityȱvs.ȱnominalityȱofȱsubordinateȱclause;ȱ

o

Independentȱpredicateȱvs.ȱgrammaticalȱoperator;ȱ

Isolationȱvs.ȱLinkage;ȱ o

Interlacingȱofȱtwoȱclauses;ȱandȱ

o

Explicitnessȱofȱtheȱlinking53ȱȱ

Eachȱ ofȱ theseȱ parametersȱ involvesȱ twoȱ setsȱ ofȱ scalarȱ contrasts.ȱ LehȬ mann’sȱapproachȱtoȱclauseȱlinkageȱisȱconsideredȱtheȱmostȱanalyticalȱofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 51ȱȱ Talstraȱ proposesȱ patternsȱ ofȱ phraseȱ levelȱ connections,ȱ i.e.T clausesȱ andȱ infiniȬ tivesȱ connectȱ toȱ theȱ immediatelyȱ precedingȱ clause.ȱ Heȱ alsoȱ proposesȱ setsȱ ofȱ clauseȱ levelȱ connectionsȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ level,ȱ andȱ atȱ unequalȱ levels.ȱ Sameȱ levelȱ connectionsȱ tendȱ toȱ occurȱ betweenȱ wayyiqtol+subject/wayyiqtol+subjectȱ andȱ wayyiqtolȬ subject/wayyiqtolȬsubjectȱ clauses.ȱ Unequalȱ levelȱ connectionsȱ appearȱ betweenȱ wayyiqȬ tol+subject/wayyiqtolȬsubject;ȱwayyiqtolȬsubject/wayyiqtol+subject;ȱwayyiqtolȬsubject/weȬXȬ qatal.ȱE.ȱTalstra,ȱ“AȱHierarchyȱofȱClausesȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱNarrative,”ȱinȱNarrativeȱ SyntaxȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱBible,ȱed.ȱEllenȱvanȱWoldeȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2002),ȱ107.ȱȱ 52ȱȱ Forȱ theȱ VUȱ database,ȱ theȱ levelsȱ ofȱ connectionȱ areȱ basedȱ uponȱ computerȱ guidedȱ proposalsȱandȱareȱmodifiedȱbyȱoperatorȱfeedback.ȱTheȱprogrammesȱprocessȱinformaȬ tionȱinȱseveralȱstages.ȱTheȱfirstȱstageȱisȱanȱexaminationȱofȱtheȱtextȱforȱcoȬoccurrencesȱ ofȱwordsȱinȱaȱmannerȱsimilarȱtoȱthatȱofȱaȱtraditionalȱconcordance.ȱTheȱsecondȱstageȱ involvesȱexaminingȱtheȱtextȱforȱcombinationsȱofȱwordsȱandȱgrammaticalȱfeatures.ȱInȱ theȱ thirdȱ stage,ȱ theȱ beginningȱ andȱ endingȱ ofȱ individualȱ clausesȱ isȱ noted.ȱ Atȱ stageȱ fourȱlargerȱconstituentsȱareȱgrammaticallyȱparsedȱandȱtaggedȱasȱsubject,ȱpredicate,ȱadȬ junctȱandȱsoȱon.ȱAtȱstageȱfiveȱtheȱtextȱisȱpresentedȱasȱaȱlistingȱofȱclausesȱandȱclauseȱ types,ȱ indicatingȱ syntax,ȱ styleȱ andȱ textȱ structure.ȱ Atȱ stageȱ six,ȱ textȬtypesȱ suchȱ asȱ narrative,ȱ quotationȱ andȱ discursiveȱ areȱ noted,ȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ embeddingȱ eachȱ represents.ȱ Finally,ȱ clauseȱ connectionsȱ areȱ proposed.ȱ Talstra,ȱ “Textȱ Segmentationȱ andȱLinguisticȱLevels,”ȱ3Ȭ7.ȱ 53ȱȱ Christianȱ Lehmann,ȱ“Towardsȱ aȱ Typologyȱ ofȱClauseȱ Linkage,”ȱ inȱClauseȱ Combiningȱ inȱ Grammarȱ andȱ Discourse,ȱ edsȱ Johnȱ Haimanȱ andȱ Sandraȱ Thompsonȱ (Amsterdam:ȱ Benjamins,ȱ1988),ȱ217.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

47ȱ

theȱtypologicalȱapproachesȱandȱisȱaȱusefulȱtoolȱforȱcrossȬlinguisticȱanalȬ ysis.54ȱ Thisȱ isȱ noteworthy.ȱ Sinceȱ thereȱ areȱ noȱ nativeȱ speakersȱ ofȱ BH,ȱ anyoneȱ whoȱ approachesȱ theȱ ancientȱ textȱ doesȱ soȱ byȱ learningȱ theȱ lanȬ guage,ȱ whichȱ involvesȱ aȱ certainȱ amountȱ ofȱ translation,ȱ particularlyȱ atȱ theȱ earlyȱ stages.ȱ Theȱ complexityȱ ofȱ clauseȱ linkingȱ highlightsȱ bothȱ theȱ strengthsȱ andȱ limitationsȱ ofȱ computerisedȱ textȱ processing.ȱ Whileȱ reȬ searchȱ findingsȱ fromȱ theȱ VUȱ corpusȱ clarifyȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ BHȱ clauseȱ connections,ȱtheȱlinearȱanalysisȱrequiresȱhumanȱinterventionȱinȱorderȱtoȱ accountȱ forȱ featuresȱ suchȱ asȱ verbalȱ ellipsisȱ andȱ defectiveȱ clausesȱ thatȱ contributeȱtoȱirregularȱpatterns.ȱThisȱcomplexityȱalsoȱcontributesȱtoȱtheȱ insufficiencyȱofȱdescendentȱmodelsȱforȱanalysingȱpropheticȱtexts,ȱwhichȱ mayȱcontainȱsimilarȱsyntacticȱinformationȱatȱseveralȱhierarchicalȱlevels,ȱ i.e.ȱaȱseriesȱofȱwayyiqtolȱclausesȱwithȱvaryingȱsemanticȱcontent,ȱsuchȱasȱ theȱpresenceȱofȱverbsȱofȱspeakingȱandȱperception.ȱȱ Theȱ choiceȱ ofȱ clauseȱ levelȱ segmentsȱ isȱ significantȱ forȱ informationȱ structureȱinȱ twoȱways.ȱFirst,ȱtheȱinherentȱrelationȱbetweenȱaȱpredicateȱ andȱ itsȱ argumentsȱ affectsȱ clauseȱ structure.55ȱ Thisȱ feature,ȱ otherwiseȱ referredȱtoȱasȱverbalȱvalence,ȱaffectsȱtheȱnumberȱofȱargumentsȱinvolvedȱ inȱ aȱ particularȱ situation,ȱ whichȱ inȱ turnȱ affectsȱ theȱ construalȱ ofȱ topicalȱ entitiesȱ atȱ theȱ sentenceȱ andȱ paragraphȱ level.56ȱ Secondly,ȱ constituentȱ orderȱcontributesȱtoȱestablishingȱtheȱtypeȱofȱfocusȱindicatedȱbyȱaȱclauseȱ orȱsentence.ȱEachȱverbalȱpredicationȱhasȱaȱfocusȱelementȱsuchȱasȱaȱpreȬ dicate,ȱ argumentȱ orȱ sentence,ȱ whichȱ isȱ determinedȱ inȱ partȱ byȱ wordȱ orderȱandȱinȱpartȱbyȱprosody.57ȱMoreover,ȱaȱcomplementȱclauseȱmightȱ actȱ asȱ anȱ argument,ȱ takingȱ theȱ subjectȱ orȱ objectȱ roleȱ inȱ aȱ largerȱ senȬ tence.58ȱSuchȱclausesȱcontainȱaȱfocusȱelementȱofȱtheirȱown,ȱandȱinȱturnȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 54ȱȱ W.ȱ Raible,ȱ “Linkingȱ Clauses,”ȱ inȱ Languageȱ Typologyȱ andȱ Languageȱ Universals:ȱ Anȱ Internationalȱ Handbook,ȱ eds.ȱ M.ȱ Haspelmathȱ etȱ al.ȱ (Berlin:ȱ Walterȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ 2001),ȱ 614.ȱ 55ȱȱ Hereȱ theȱ termȱ argumentȱ isȱ usedȱ forȱ nouns/nounȱ phrasesȱ andȱ prepositionalȱ phrasesȱ withȱtheȱsyntacticȱfunctionȱofȱsubject,ȱdirectȱobjectȱorȱindirectȱobject.ȱTheȱtermȱprediȬ cateȱ“…expressesȱtheȱstateȱofȱaffairsȱthatȱtheȱreferentsȱofȱtheȱargumentsȱareȱinvolvedȱ in.”ȱRobertȱD.ȱVanȱValin,ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱSyntaxȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversiȬ tyȱPress,ȱ2001),ȱ9.ȱ 56ȱȱ Stativeȱandȱintransitiveȱverbsȱtakeȱaȱsubject,ȱmonoȬtransitiveȱverbsȱtakeȱaȱsubjectȱandȱ directȱobject,ȱandȱdiȬtransitiveȱverbsȱtakeȱaȱsubject,ȱdirectȱobjectȱandȱanȱindirectȱobȬ ject.ȱSomeȱverbsȱareȱcapableȱofȱtakingȱtwoȱdirectȱobjects,ȱresultingȱinȱaȱdoubleȱaccuȬ sativeȱconstruction.ȱ 57ȱȱ Itȱ isȱ widelyȱ assumedȱ thatȱ prosodyȱ isȱ unavailableȱ forȱ BH.ȱ Shimasakiȱ proposesȱ thatȱ prosodyȱ isȱ recoverable.ȱ Katsuomiȱ Shimasaki,ȱ Focusȱ Structureȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Aȱ StudyȱofȱWordȱOrderȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ(Bethesda,ȱMd:ȱCDLȱPress,ȱ2002),ȱ240.ȱ Theȱpresentȱauthorȱisȱreluctantȱtoȱmakeȱdefinitiveȱstatementsȱinȱthisȱregard,ȱasȱthereȱ areȱnoȱnativeȱspeakersȱtoȱprovideȱphonologicalȱdataȱforȱlinguisticȱanalysis.ȱȱ 58ȱȱ KaoruȱHorie,ȱ“ComplementȱClauses,”ȱinȱLanguageȱTypologyȱandȱLanguageȱUniversals,ȱ ed.ȱM.ȱHaspelmathȱ(Berlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001);ȱMichelȱNoonan,ȱ“ComplemenȬ

48ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

anȱ entireȱ complementȱ clauseȱ mightȱ actȱ asȱ theȱ focusȱ elementȱ withinȱ aȱ sentence.ȱ Theȱ TDȱ analysisȱ presentedȱ inȱ thisȱ volumeȱ isȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ aȱ manualȱprocess,ȱwhichȱinȱturnȱhasȱbeenȱcheckedȱagainstȱtheȱcomputerȬ generatedȱanalysisȱandȱadjustedȱatȱsomeȱpoints.59ȱAȱsampleȱanalysisȱofȱ Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ10ȱfollows:ȱ ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

Jerȱ

^GNG0CJ8JŽ
3.6aȱ bȱ

N HT o[JHDWO JHV H TG$  cȱ [KJ JHMNQJ  C+QDH*TCJNH.NC dȱ _ŽP$CTLNH.VCZC7NG Yȱ ]H[oP\K7hY ȱ

eȱ

ȱ Jerȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Focusȱ

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬXȱ

3sgMȱ

PREDȱ

bȱ

NQȱ

XȬQatalȱȱ

2sgMȱ

Interȱ

cȱ

NQPȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgFȱ

ARGUȱ

dȱ

NQPȱ

Qotelȱ

sgFȱ

PREDȱ

eȱ

NQPNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ

3sgFȱ

PREDȱ

3.6aȱ

MSCȱ Baseȱ SBȱforȱ M1ȱ M1ȱ Focusȱ

ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ2.2ȱȱȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ tation,”ȱ inȱ Languageȱ Typologyȱ andȱ Syntacticȱ Description,ȱ ed.ȱ Timothyȱ Schopenȱ (CamȬ bridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1985),ȱ181.ȱ 59ȱȱ Figureȱ2.2ȱusesȱaȱtextȬboxingȱsystemȱtoȱhighlightȱclauseȱconstituents.ȱThisȱisȱaȱusefulȱ methodȱforȱtrackingȱconstituentȱorder,ȱwhichȱinȱturnȱaffectsȱinformationȱstructure.ȱInȱ thisȱ example,ȱ verbalȱ formsȱ areȱ boxedȱ byȱ aȱ singleȱ line,ȱ grammaticalȱ subjectsȱ areȱ boxedȱ withȱ doubleȱ linesȱ andȱ theȱ prepositionalȱ phraseȱ isȱ boxedȱ withȱ aȱ dashedȱ line.ȱ Thisȱsystemȱprovidesȱanotherȱwayȱtoȱtrackȱanaphoricȱconnections,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱconȬ nectionȱbetweenȱtheȱsubjectȱinȱ3.6cȱandȱtheȱpronounȱinȱ3.6d.ȱTheȱsearchȱfunctionȱinȱ theȱSESBȱeditionȱofȱBHSȱutilisesȱcolourȱinȱaȱsimilarȱmanner.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

49ȱ

TheȱTDȱlinguisticȱanalysisȱconsistsȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱcategories:ȱTopȱbox:ȱ verseȱ identificationȱ andȱ analysedȱ text;ȱ Bottomȱ box:ȱ Columnȱ oneȱ conȬ tainsȱ theȱ verseȱ identification,ȱ Columnȱ twoȱ recordsȱ theȱ discourseȱ type:ȱ narrativeȱ –ȱ N;ȱ directȱ speechȱ –ȱ Q;ȱ perceptionȱ –ȱ P.60ȱ Columnȱ threeȱ presentsȱtheȱclauseȱtag,ȱwhichȱcontainsȱtheȱverbȱtypeȱ(wayyiqtol,ȱyiqtol,ȱ qatal,ȱ weȬqatal,ȱ participle,ȱ infinitive)ȱ andȱ basicȱ wordȱ orderȱ information.ȱ Columnȱ fourȱ containsȱ person,ȱ numberȱ andȱ genderȱ information.ȱ ColȬ umnȱ fiveȱ containsȱ informationȱ structureȱ notesȱ regardingȱ theȱ verbalȱ stemȱorȱtheȱtypeȱofȱfocus.ȱColumnȱsixȱcontainsȱpreliminaryȱobservationsȱ regardingȱ cognitiveȱ structuring.ȱ Variousȱ mentalȱ spacesȱ constructionȱ tagsȱwillȱappearȱinȱthisȱcolumn.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱfirstȱclauseȱsetsȱupȱtheȱ baseȱspace,ȱtaggedȱBase.ȱTheȱsecondȱclauseȱopensȱaȱmentalȱspaceȱforȱtheȱ thirdȱclause.ȱInȱtheȱthirdȱclauseȱthisȱspaceȱisȱtaggedȱM1.ȱInȱlaterȱexamȬ plesȱwhenȱperspectiveȱisȱassignedȱtoȱaȱnarrator,ȱtheȱtagȱwillȱbeȱNȱwithȱaȱ superscriptȱnumberȱidentifyingȱtheȱspeaker.ȱWhenȱperspectiveȱwithinȱaȱ spaceȱbelongsȱtoȱaȱcharacter,ȱtheȱtagȱwillȱbeȱCȱwithȱaȱsuperscriptȱnumȬ berȱ identifyingȱ theȱ character.ȱ Nȱ andȱ Cȱ tagsȱ identifyȱ theȱ entityȱ whoseȱ deicticȱcentreȱrepresentsȱprimaryȱviewpointȱwithinȱaȱspace.ȱCnstituentsȱ inȱthisȱexampleȱhaveȱbeenȱmarkedȱforȱclarity.ȱTheȱverbalȱformsȱhaveȱaȱ singleȬlinedȱ box,ȱ lexicalizedȱ subjectsȱ haveȱ aȱ doubleȬlinedȱ boxȱ andȱ theȱ directȱobjectȱasȱaȱdashedȱbox.ȱ a.

DifferentiatingȱBetweenȱNarrativeȱandȱDiscursiveȱTextȱ

Sinceȱ propheticȱ textȱ exhibitsȱ aȱ highȱ degreeȱ ofȱ complexityȱ dueȱ toȱ mulȬ tipleȱ shiftsȱ inȱ genreȱ andȱ theȱ highȱ degreeȱ ofȱ reportedȱ speech,ȱ theȱ TDȱ approachȱ proposesȱ thatȱ suitableȱ crossȬgenreȱ criteriaȱ beȱ utilisedȱ inȱ theȱ textȱanalysisȱprocess.ȱForȱexample,ȱinȱBHȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱmakeȱaȱprimaȬ ryȱdistinctionȱ betweenȱ discursiveȱ speechȱ andȱnarrativeȱ speech.ȱThisȱ isȱ largelyȱaȱsyntaxȬbasedȱdistinction,ȱasȱitȱdependsȱuponȱverbalȱformsȱandȱ wordȱorder.ȱThus,ȱitȱisȱaccountedȱforȱpriorȱtoȱsemanticȱanalysis.61ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 60ȱȱ TheȱfirstȱtwoȱofȱtheseȱcategoriesȱareȱproposedȱbyȱWolfgangȱSchneiderȱandȱareȱbasedȱ uponȱhisȱobservationsȱregardingȱsetsȱofȱverbalȱforms.ȱHeȱnotesȱthat,ȱfromȱtheȱpersȬ pectiveȱofȱsyntax,ȱdiscursiveȱsectionsȱofȱtextȱtendȱtoȱcontainȱyiqtol,ȱqatalȱandȱweȬqatalȱ forms,ȱ whileȱ narrativeȱ textsȱ tendȱ toȱ containȱ wayyiqtolȱ andȱ qatalȱ forms.ȱ Schneider,ȱ Grammatik,ȱ48.48.ȱTheȱperceptionȱcategoryȱisȱuniqueȱtoȱtheȱTDȱapproach.ȱItȱhasȱbeenȱ addedȱbecauseȱverbsȱofȱperceptionȱactȱasȱspaceȬbuilders,ȱinitiatingȱaȱvarietyȱofȱepisȬ temicȱspaces.ȱȱ 61ȱȱ ThisȱdistinctionȱstandsȱacrossȱgenresȱandȱisȱnotȱintendedȱtoȱmarkȱtextȬtypesȱsuchȱasȱ thoseȱobservedȱbyȱLongacre.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱdifferentiationȱ isȱsignificantȱforȱestabȬ lishingȱviewpointȱinȱtheȱtext,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱmatterȱofȱperspective.ȱTheȱHebrewȱverbalȱsysȬ temȱwillȱbeȱaddressedȱinȱChapterȱ4,ȱwhereȱCook’sȱsemanticallyȱorientedȱgrammaticaȬ lizationȱapproachȱwillȱbeȱincorporatedȱintoȱtheȱdiscussionȱ(Cook:ȱ2001).ȱ

50ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

Wolfgangȱ Schneiderȱ discussesȱ theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ narrativeȱ textȱandȱdiscursiveȱtextȱinȱhisȱgrammarȱofȱBiblicalȱHebrew.ȱHisȱunderȬ standingsȱderiveȱfromȱtheȱworkȱofȱGermanȱlinguistȱHaraldȱWeinrich.62ȱ Inȱ hisȱ volumeȱ Grammatikȱ desȱ biblischenȱ Hebräisch,ȱ Schneiderȱ describesȱ theȱ implicationsȱ ofȱtheȱ syntacticȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱ narrativeȱandȱdisȬ cursiveȱ text.63ȱ Heȱ states,ȱ “Erzählendeȱ Redeȱ lässtȱ demȱ Hörerȱ Freiheitȱ zurȱ Distanzierung.ȱ Besprechendeȱ Redeȱ engagiertȱ ihn:ȱ Sprecherȱ undȱ Hörerȱ habenȱ zuȱ agierenȱ undȱ zuȱ reagieren.“ȱ Clearly,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ significantȱ conceptualȱ distinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱtypes.ȱViewpointȱandȱperspectiveȱaccountȱ forȱthisȱdistinction:ȱwhileȱnarrativeȱspeechȱcreatesȱdistanceȱbetweenȱtheȱ readerȱ andȱ theȱ text,ȱ firstȱ andȱ secondȱ personȱ speechȱ drawsȱ theȱ readerȱ intoȱtheȱtext.ȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱatȱtheȱsyntacticȱlevel,ȱtheȱpersonȱandȱnumberȱ morphemesȱattachedȱtoȱtheȱBHȱverbȱformsȱactȱasȱprimaryȱindicatorsȱofȱ viewpointȱorȱperspectiveȱinȱBHȱtext.64ȱȱ SchneiderȱgoesȱonȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱseriesȱofȱverbalȱformsȱthatȱisȱpreȬ valentȱinȱnarrativeȱtext,ȱerzählendenȱTexten;ȱandȱtheȱseriesȱofȱformsȱpreȬ valentȱinȱdiscursiveȱtext,ȱbesprechendenȱTexten.ȱForȱSchneider,ȱtheȱmainȱ oppositionȱ betweenȱ Hebrewȱ verbalȱ formsȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ paradigmaticȱ disȬ tinctionȱ betweenȱ perfect/imperfect,ȱ theȱ qatalȱ /yiqtolȱ forms.ȱ Rather,ȱ theȱ distinctionȱisȱbetweenȱwayyiqtolȱforms,ȱwhichȱareȱtheȱmainȱformsȱfoundȱ inȱ narrative,ȱandȱyiqtolȱ forms,ȱwhichȱareȱtheȱ mainȱformsȱfoundȱinȱ disȬ cursiveȱsectionsȱofȱtext.ȱȱ Atȱthisȱpointȱcognitiveȱanalysisȱaddressesȱtheȱissueȱofȱtenseȱversusȱ aspectȱwithȱregardȱtoȱBHȱverbalȱforms.ȱTheȱdebateȱisȱlargelyȱaboutȱhowȱ muchȱ perspectiveȬinducingȱ informationȱ isȱ includedȱ inȱ aȱ givenȱ verbalȱ form.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ ifȱ verbȱ formsȱ areȱ viewedȱ asȱ tensed,ȱ theyȱ beȬ comeȱaȱsourceȱofȱinformationȱregardingȱtheȱperspectiveȬinducingȱoperȬ ationȱ ofȱ deixis,ȱ specificallyȱ temporalȱ deixis.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ ifȱ theȱ verbȱformsȱareȱviewedȱasȱaspectual,ȱtheyȱbecomeȱaȱsourceȱofȱinformaȬ tionȱ regardingȱ theȱ typeȱ ofȱ actionȱ inherentȱ inȱ theȱ verbalȱ form.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ verbalȱ aspectȱ isȱ associatedȱ moreȱ closelyȱ withȱ theȱ viewingȱ arȬ rangementȱofȱtheȱactivityȱinȱquestionȱthanȱwithȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱaction.65ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 62ȱȱ Haraldȱ Weinrich,ȱ Tempus:ȱ Besprocheneȱ undȱ Erzählteȱ Welt,ȱ 2ȱ ed.ȱ (Stuttgart:ȱ KohlhamȬ mer,ȱ1971:ȱ49).ȱȱ 63ȱȱ Importantly,ȱthisȱdistinctionȱisȱnotȱgenreȱbased;ȱratherȱtheȱtermsȱnarrativeȱandȱdiscurȬ siveȱareȱsyntacticȱcategories,ȱbasedȱuponȱparticipantȱreferenceȱinformationȱcontainedȱ inȱtheȱverbalȱforms:ȱperson/numberȱmorphemes.ȱ(Talstraȱ1978:ȱ170).ȱ 64ȱȱ Viewpointȱ isȱ definedȱ asȱ “…ȱ theȱ vantageȱ pointȱ (theȱ positionȱ fromȱ whichȱ aȱ sceneȱ isȱ viewed)ȱplusȱtheȱorientationȱofȱtheȱviewer.”ȱ(Langackerȱ1987:ȱ494).ȱ 65ȱȱ Inȱtermsȱofȱcognitiveȱgrammar,ȱaȱviewingȱarrangementȱmayȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱcanoniȬ cal,ȱ inȱ whichȱ caseȱ theȱ viewerȱ isȱ distinctȱ fromȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ perception,ȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ perceptionȱisȱsharplyȱdelimited,ȱandȱtheȱviewer’sȱattentionȱisȱdirectedȱoutward.ȱMostȱ importantly,ȱinȱthisȱviewingȱarrangement,ȱtheȱviewerȱconstruesȱtheȱperceivedȱobjectȱ

ȱ

51ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

Theȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱnarrativeȱandȱdiscursiveȱtextȱisȱparticularlyȱ significantȱforȱpropheticȱtext.ȱForȱthisȱreason,ȱtheȱsyntacticȱclauseȱanalyȬ sisȱdiagramsȱofȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱdocumentȱtheȱshiftsȱbetweenȱnarrativeȱ andȱ discursiveȱ text.ȱ Theseȱ containȱ theȱ notationȱ Nȱ forȱ narrative,ȱ Dȱ forȱ discursive,ȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ theȱ WIVUȱ database.ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ theȱ presentȱauthorȱhasȱincludedȱaȱPȱcategoryȱofȱspaceȱopenedȱbyȱtermsȱofȱ perceptionȱandȱcognition.ȱ b. Observationsȱ

1. Jeremiahȱ3.6aȱȱ Jerȱ

ClauseȱLayoutȱ

3.6aȱ

^GNG0CJ8JŽ
ȱ Lineȱ

3.6aȱ

initiatesȱ

theȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬSȱ

3sgMȱ

section.ȱ

Theȱ

clauseȱ

?NOJYJ[ [[O[D[N JYJ[TO [Y ȱ isȱ taggedȱ wayyiqtol+subject.ȱ Theȱ textȬ

typeȱcolumnȱcontainsȱanȱN,ȱindicatingȱthatȱthisȱlineȱbelongsȱtoȱaȱsectionȱ ofȱnarrative.ȱAtȱthisȱpointȱinȱtheȱdiscourse,ȱtheȱlexicalisedȱsubjectȱJYJ[ȱisȱ takenȱasȱtheȱtopicȱofȱtheȱsentence,ȱandȱtheȱperson,ȱnumberȱandȱgenderȱ ofȱtheȱverbȱisȱ3sgM.ȱWordȱorderȱis:ȱverb,ȱsubject,ȱindirectȱobject,ȱtimeȱmarȬ gin.ȱLikeȱotherȱverbsȱofȱspeaking,ȱTO [Yȱopensȱaȱquotationȱspace.ȱȱ

2. Jeremiahȱ3.6bȱ bȱ

V[K HT $Jȱ

NQȱ

XȬQatalȱ

2sgMȱ

ȱ Lineȱ 3.6bȱ consistsȱ ofȱ theȱ singleȱ phraseȱ V[K HT$J,ȱ taggedȱ XȬqatal.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ Xȱ representsȱ theȱ interrogativeȱ prefix,ȱ andȱ theȱ verbȱ formȱ isȱ qatal.ȱ TheȱtextȬtypeȱisȱNQ,ȱasȱthisȱisȱtheȱfirstȱquotedȱlineȱinȱtheȱnarrative.ȱTheȱ verbȱV[K HTȱderivesȱfromȱ¥J T.ȱItȱisȱaȱverbȱofȱperception,ȱinitiatingȱaȱnewȱ mentalȱspaceȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱline.ȱTheȱsubjectȱofȱthisȱclauseȱisȱimplicit,ȱ theȱ2sgMȱyouȱofȱtheȱaddresseeȱinȱtheȱspeechȱevent.ȱAlthoughȱnotȱexpliȬ citlyȱ mentionedȱ atȱ thisȱ point,ȱ theȱ largerȱ textualȱ contextȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ thisȱisȱJeremiah.ȱForȱfurtherȱinformation,ȱseeȱchapterȱ5,ȱsectionȱFȱwhichȱ addressesȱtheȱproblemȱofȱidentity.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ withȱ “…ȱ maximalȱ objectivityȱ andȱ construesȱ himselfȱ withȱ maximalȱ subjectivity.”ȱ (Langackerȱ2003:15).ȱ

52ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

3. Jeremiahȱ3.6cȱ cȱ

N HT o[JHDWO JHV H TG$ 

NQPȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgFȱ

ȱ Lineȱ 3.6c,ȱ N T[JDOJVT ,ȱ isȱ aȱ relativeȱ clause,ȱ asȱ indicatedȱ byȱ theȱinitialȱ T .TheȱtextȬtypeȱisȱNQP,ȱasȱthisȱclauseȱisȱtheȱcomplementȱ ofȱ theȱ perceptionȱ verb,ȱ V[K HT.ȱ Theȱ clauseȱ isȱ embeddedȱ inȱ aȱ quotation,ȱ whichȱinȱturnȱisȱpartȱofȱaȱnarrativeȱsection.ȱTheȱclauseȱtagȱisȱXȬQatal.ȱInȱ thisȱcase,ȱtheȱXȱrepresentsȱtheȱrelativeȱparticleȱT ,ȱwhichȱactsȱasȱaȱsynȬ tacticȱhingeȱtoȱtheȱprecedingȱclause.66ȱTheȱperson,ȱnumberȱandȱgenderȱ notationȱ isȱ 3sgF,ȱ inȱ agreementȱ withȱ theȱ explicitȱ subjectȱ N T[JDO.ȱ Threeȱdifferentȱreferentsȱareȱmentionedȱwithinȱthreeȱlines:ȱtwoȱexplicitȱ subjects,ȱtheȱfirstȱpersonȱJYJ[ȱandȱtheȱthirdȱpersonȱN T[JDO;ȱandȱtheȱ implicitȱmentionȱofȱtheȱsecondȱpersonȱaddressee,ȱJeremiah.ȱTheȱconcepȬ tualȱsignificanceȱofȱtheseȱentitiesȱwillȱbeȱtakenȱupȱinȱtheȱsectionȱonȱconȬ ceptualȱ metaphorȱ inȱ chapterȱ 5,ȱ sectionȱ B.ȱ Theirȱ significanceȱ asȱ topicalȱ referentsȱisȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱchapterȱ2,ȱsectionȱC.2.ȱ

4. Jeremiahȱ3.6dȱ  [KJ JHMNQJ  dȱ

C+QDH*TCJNH.NC

NQPȱ

Qotelȱ

sgFȱ

 _ŽP$CTLNH.VCZC7NG Yȱ

ȱ Lineȱ3.6dȱisȱanȱasyndeticȱparticipialȱclause,ȱwhichȱlinksȱtoȱtheȱprecedingȱ clauseȱwithȱaȱhighȱdegreeȱofȱembedding.ȱTheȱphraseȱ [JJMNJȱcontinȬ uesȱ theȱ perceptionȱ spaceȱ introducedȱ inȱ lineȱ 3.6bȱ andȱ isȱ inȱ VSȱ order.ȱ GivenȱthatȱSVȱisȱtheȱunmarkedȱorderȱforȱparticipialȱclauses,ȱthisȱphraseȱ isȱinȱmarkedȱwordȱorder,ȱindicatingȱargumentȱfocus.ȱȱ

5. Jeremiahȱ3.6eȱ eȱ

]H[oP\K7hY ȱ

NQPNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ

3sgFȱ

ȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.6eȱ isȱ aȱ wayyiqtolȬ0ȱ clause.ȱ Theȱ 0ȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ overtȱ subject.ȱ Theȱ wordȱ orderȱ isȱ VȬAdv.ȱ Theȱ 3sgFȱ formȱ continuesȱ theȱ participantȱreferenceȱestablishedȱinȱ3.6c,ȱwhereȱtheȱideaȱofȱtheȱdoingsȱofȱ turnableȱȱIsraelȱisȱintroducedȱtoȱtheȱdiscussion.ȱAtȱthisȱpointȱinȱtheȱanalȬ ysisȱ severalȱ keyȱ termsȱ andȱ conceptsȱ haveȱ beenȱ mentioned.ȱ Theseȱ inȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 66ȱȱ Thisȱ clauseȱ connectionȱ isȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ WIVUȱ database,ȱ whereȱ theȱ clauseȱ containingȱ T ȱjoinsȱimmediatelyȱtoȱtheȱprecedingȱclause.ȱTalstra,ȱ“AȱHierarchyȱofȱClausesȱinȱ BiblicalȱHebrewȱNarrative,”ȱ95.ȱȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

53ȱ

clude:ȱtopic,ȱfocusȱwordȱorder,ȱmaintainingȱreferenceȱandȱmentalȱspacȬ es.ȱ Topic,ȱ focus,ȱ andȱ wordȱ orderȱ areȱ informationȱ structureȱ categories,ȱ whichȱareȱintroducedȱinȱchapterȱ2,ȱsectionȱC.2,ȱbelowȱandȱdevelopedȱinȱ theȱ followingȱ section.ȱ Maintainingȱ referenceȱ andȱ mentalȱ spacesȱ areȱ conceptualȱcategories,ȱdiscussedȱinȱchapterȱ3ȱandȱbeyond.ȱ

2.

InformationȱStructureȱ a. Topicȱȱ

Returningȱ toȱ theȱ computerȱ programmeȱ metaphor,ȱ informationȱ strucȬ tureȱ involvesȱ theȱ semanticȱ andȱ pragmaticȱ layersȱ ofȱ theȱ text.67ȱ Justȱ asȱ clauseȱstructureȱisȱaffectedȱbyȱtheȱinherentȱrelationalityȱbetweenȱaȱsynȬ tacticȱ predicateȱ andȱ itsȱ arguments,ȱ informationȱ structureȱ involvesȱ theȱ inherentȱrelationalityȱbetweenȱtopicalȱreferentsȱandȱpropositionsȱaboutȱ theseȱ referents.ȱ Theȱ informationȱ structureȱ termȱ topicȱ hasȱ beenȱ definedȱ asȱfollows:ȱ“Topic…hasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱpragmaticȱrelationȱofȱaboutnessȱ betweenȱ discourseȱ referentsȱ andȱ propositionsȱ inȱ givenȱ discourseȱ conȬ texts.”ȱ 68ȱThisȱdefinitionȱreflectsȱtheȱlinguisticȱnotionȱofȱtopicȬcommentȱ articulation,ȱinȱwhichȱaȱsentenceȱisȱaboutȱsomething.69ȱTheȱidentificationȱ andȱ functionȱ ofȱ topicalȱ expressionsȱ isȱ anȱ importantȱ componentȱ ofȱ inȬ formationȱ structureȱ theory.ȱ Lambrechtȱ states,ȱ “Theȱ functionȱ ofȱ topicalȱ expressionsȱ isȱ eitherȱ toȱ nameȱ aȱ topicalȱ referentȱ inȱ theȱ discourseȱ orȱ toȱ expressȱ aȱ semanticȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ aȱ topicȱ referentȱ andȱ aȱ prediȬ cate.”70ȱȱ Pragmaticallyȱ speaking,ȱ theȱ stateȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ thatȱ aȱ speakerȱ asȬ sumesȱ thatȱ heȱ orȱ sheȱ sharesȱ withȱ theȱ hearerȱ orȱ readerȱ determines,ȱ inȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 67ȱȱ Lambrechtȱ discussesȱ informationȱ structureȱ underȱ fourȱ categories:ȱ pragmaticȱ preȬ suppositionȱandȱ pragmaticȱassertion;ȱidentifiabilityȱandȱactivation;ȱ topicȱ andȱ focus.ȱ Lambrecht,ȱInformationȱStructure,ȱxiii.ȱ 68ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱxiv.ȱ 69ȱȱ Heimerdingerȱ elaboratesȱ uponȱ Tomlin’sȱ definitionȱ ofȱ topicȱ byȱ introducingȱ theȱ conȬ ceptsȱofȱtopicalȱframeȱandȱtopicalȱelaboration.ȱHeimerdinger,ȱTopic,ȱFocusȱandȱForegroundȱ inȱAncientȱHebrewȱNarratives,ȱ106.ȱSeeȱalsoȱStephenȱH.ȱLevinsohn,ȱ“ReviewȱofȱTopic,ȱ Focusȱ andȱ Foregroundȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Hebrewȱ Narratives,ȱ byȱ JeanȬMarcȱ Heimerdinger,”ȱ JTTLȱ 14ȱ (2002);ȱ C.ȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merwe,ȱ “Reviewȱ ofȱ Topic,ȱ Focusȱ andȱ Foreground,ȱ byȱ JeanȬMarcȱHeimerdinger,”ȱBiblicaȱ81ȱ(1999).ȱTheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱtheȱintroductoryȱ functionȱofȱtheȱtopicalȱframeȱandȱtheȱdevelopmentalȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱtopicalȱelaboraȬ tionȱcorrelatesȱwithȱtheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱtheȱdeicticȱprocedureȱandȱtheȱanaphoricȱ procedure.ȱEhlich,ȱ“AnaphoraȱandȱDeixis:ȱSame,ȱSimilar,ȱorȱDifferent?”ȱ315Ȭ338.ȱ 70ȱȱ Lambrecht,ȱInformationȱStructure,ȱ335.ȱ

54ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

part,ȱtheȱinformationalȱstatusȱofȱtopicalȱreferentsȱinȱaȱdiscourse.71ȱThisȱisȱ anȱissueȱofȱidentifiabilityȱandȱactivation.ȱDueȱtoȱtheȱconstraintsȱofȱshortȬ termȱmemory,ȱtopicalȱreferentsȱmayȱbeȱinȱvariousȱstatesȱofȱactivationȱatȱ aȱgivenȱpointȱinȱaȱdiscourse.ȱThus,ȱidentifiabilityȱandȱactivationȱinvolveȱ bothȱ knowingȱ andȱ consciousness.ȱ Withȱ respectȱ toȱ knowing,ȱ aȱ referentȱ isȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ identifiableȱ ifȱ theȱ hearerȱ isȱ assumedȱ toȱ haveȱ aȱ mentalȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ referentȱ inȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ mind.72ȱ Inȱ similarȱ circumsȬ tances,ȱaȱproposition,ȱorȱstateȱofȱaffairs,ȱisȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱpresupposed.ȱ Withȱ regardȱ toȱ consciousness,ȱ aȱ referentȱ (orȱ proposition)ȱ thatȱ isȱ preȬ sentlyȱ inȱ theȱ hearer’sȱ mindȱ isȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ discourseȱ active.ȱ ImporȬ tantȱforȱtheȱTDȱanalysis,ȱdiscourseȱactiveȱreferentsȱareȱcognitivelyȱpreȬ ferredȱ topicsȱ andȱ unstressedȱ pronominalsȱ areȱ theȱ preferredȱ typeȱ ofȱ topicalȱexpression.73ȱȱIfȱaȱreferentȱorȱaȱpropositionȱisȱtoȱbeȱpartȱofȱaȱdisȬ course,ȱ itȱ mustȱ beȱ discourseȱ active.ȱ Thus,ȱ ifȱ aȱ referentȱ isȱ identifiableȱ (knownȱtoȱtheȱconceptualiser),ȱbutȱnotȱyetȱdiscourseȱactiveȱ(notȱinȱcurȬ rentȱconsciousness),ȱtheȱspeakerȱmayȱutiliseȱtopicȱpromotingȱconstrucȬ tions,ȱ suchȱ asȱ fronting,ȱ toȱ makeȱ theȱ referentȱ discourseȱ active.ȱ Topicalȱ referentsȱ mayȱ alsoȱ beȱ brandȱ newȱ andȱ unanchoredȱ inȱ discourse,ȱ orȱ brandȱnewȱbutȱinȱsomeȱwayȱanchoredȱtoȱtheȱdiscourse.ȱInȱtheseȱcases,ȱaȱ presentationalȱ constructionȱ suchȱ asȱ frontingȱ servesȱ anȱ identificationalȱ function.74ȱ InȱtheȱJeremiahȱexamplesȱmentionedȱabove,ȱYahwehȱandȱJeremiahȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ beenȱ introduced,ȱ soȱ theyȱ areȱ alreadyȱ discourseȱ activeȱ atȱ thisȱ pointȱ inȱ theȱ narrative.ȱ Atȱ thisȱ pointȱ theȱ relativeȱ clauseȱ N T[JDOJVT ȱisȱintroducedȱasȱaȱtopicalȱreferent.ȱInȱshort,ȱtheȱ narratorȱreports,ȱviaȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱJeremiah,ȱthatȱ“YahwehȱaskedȱmeȱifȱIȱ hadȱ seenȱ whatȱ N T[JDOȱ hadȱ done.”ȱ Threeȱ mainȱ referentsȱ areȱ inȬ volved:ȱ twoȱ interlocutors:ȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ Jeremiah;ȱ andȱ theȱ referentȱ inȱ theirȱdiscussion.ȱAtȱfirstȱglance,ȱitȱappearsȱthatȱtheȱreferentȱinȱtheȱdisȬ cussionȱisȱ N T[JDO,ȱbutȱthisȱisȱnotȱtheȱcase.ȱJeremiahȱisȱaskedȱifȱheȱ hasȱseenȱwhatȱN T[JDOȱhasȱdone.ȱSyntactically,ȱtheȱthirdȱclauseȱisȱtheȱ objectȱ ofȱ theȱ sentenceȱ Haveȱ youȱ seenȱ whatȱ turnableȱ Israelȱ hasȱ done?ȱ Asȱ such,ȱwhatȱTurnableȱIsraelȱhasȱdoneȱisȱanȱargumentȱwhichȱincludesȱbothȱ TurnableȱIsraelȱasȱanȱentityȱandȱherȱactionsȱasȱwell.ȱTheȱexactȱnatureȱofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 71ȱȱ Pragmaticallyȱ speaking,ȱ thisȱ informationȱ structureȱ componentȱ willȱ varyȱ dependingȱ uponȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱspeechȱeventȱasȱaȱprototypicalȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱinterchangeȱversusȱ thatȱofȱtheȱreadingȱprocessȱmodelledȱinȱFigureȱ2.1.ȱȱ 72ȱȱ Thisȱcorrelatesȱwithȱtheȱideaȱofȱencyclopaedicȱbackgroundȱknowledge.ȱȱ 73ȱȱ Lambrecht,ȱInformationȱStructure,ȱ335.ȱ 74ȱȱ Forȱ informationȱ regardingȱ extraposedȱ constructionsȱ acrossȱ aȱ rangeȱ ofȱ Semiticȱ lanȬ guages,ȱ seeȱ Geoffreyȱ Khan,ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Semiticȱ Syntax,ȱ Londonȱ Orientalȱ Series;ȱ V.ȱ 38ȱ (Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1988).ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

55ȱ

theȱbehaviourȱisȱnotȱknownȱatȱthisȱpointȱinȱtheȱnarrative,ȱalthoughȱthisȱ sectionȱ createsȱ aȱ certainȱ amountȱ ofȱ tensionȱ inȱ theȱ text.ȱ Thisȱ tensionȱ buildsȱthroughoutȱtheȱfollowingȱsections.ȱ Afterȱ identifyingȱ andȱ activatingȱ topicalȱ referents,ȱ identifyingȱ theȱ topicalȱ themeȱ ofȱ aȱ longerȱ discourseȱ isȱ alsoȱ possible.ȱ Asȱ Heimerdingerȱ demonstrates,ȱthereȱisȱoftenȱaȱtopicalȱframeȱinvolved.ȱAȱtopicalȱframeȱisȱ aȱ shortȱ summaryȱ statementȱ thatȱ introducesȱ aȱ discourseȱ topicalȱ theme,ȱ likeȱ theȱ phraseȱ N T[JDOJVT V[ TJ atȱ 3.6bȬc.ȱ Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ noteȱ thatȱ thisȱ topicalȱ frameȱ isȱ embeddedȱinȱ theȱquotativeȱ frameȱ esȬ tablishedȱatȱ3.6aȱwithȱtheȱsentenceȱ?NOJYJ[ [[O[D[N JYJ[TO [Y.ȱȱ Theȱ questionȱ N T[JDOJVT ȱ V[ TJȱ isaddressedȱ toȱ JereȬ miahȱandȱintroducesȱbothȱTurnableȱIsraelȱandȱherȱdoings.ȱAtȱthisȱpoint,ȱ Turnableȱ Israelȱ isȱ activatedȱ asȱ aȱ discourseȱ referentȱ andȱ herȱ doingsȱ asȱ theȱ topicalȱ theme.ȱ Theȱ introductoryȱ topicalȱ frameȱ isȱ followedȱ byȱ theȱ topicalȱelaborationȱinȱwhichȱtheȱtopicalȱthemeȱisȱdeveloped.ȱThisȱbeginsȱ withȱ theȱ clauseȱ _PTLNMVZVN YJDITJNMN [JJMNJ ȱ atȱ 3.6d,ȱ followedȱbyȱ][P\VYȱatȱ3.6e.ȱTheȱdoingsȱofȱTurnableȱIsraelȱinvolveȱgoingȱ uponȱ everyȱ highȱ hillȱ andȱ underȱ everyȱ greenȱ treeȱ andȱ committingȱ adulteryȱ there.ȱȱ b. Focusȱ Recentȱ studiesȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ BHȱ syntaxȱ haveȱ exploredȱ theȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ theȱ linearȱ orderingȱ ofȱ sentenceȱ constituentsȱ andȱ theȱ informaȬ tionȱstructureȱcomponentȱofȱfocus.75ȱEachȱofȱtheseȱstudiesȱmakesȱuseȱofȱ Lambrecht’sȱdiscussionȱofȱfocus,ȱinȱparticularȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱ constituentȱ orderȱ andȱ focusȱ type.76ȱ Regardingȱ focus,ȱ Lambrechtȱ states,ȱ “…theȱ focusȱ ofȱ aȱ propositionȱ isȱ thatȱ semanticȱ elementȱ (orȱ elements)ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 75ȱȱ Floor,ȱ“FromȱInformationȱStructure,ȱTopic,ȱandȱFocus,ȱtoȱThemeȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ Narrative;”ȱ E.ȱ R.ȱ Hayes,ȱ “Hearingȱ Jeremiah:ȱ Perceptionȱ andȱ Cognitionȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ2.2,”ȱ HSȱ 45ȱ (2004);ȱ Heimerdinger,ȱ Topic,ȱ Focusȱ andȱ Foregroundȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Hebrewȱ Narratives;ȱ Martinȱ Pröbstle,ȱ “Deixisȱ andȱ theȱ Linearȱ Orderingȱ ofȱ Sentenceȱ ConstituȬ ents”,ȱ SBL,ȱ Denverȱ ȱ (2001);ȱ Shimasaki,ȱ Focusȱ Structureȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ WordȱOrderȱandȱInformationȱStructure;ȱC.ȱH.ȱJ.ȱvanȱderȱMerwe,ȱJ.ȱA.ȱNaudéȱandȱJ.ȱH.ȱ A.ȱKroeze,ȱAȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱReferenceȱGrammarȱ(Sheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ 1999);ȱ C.ȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merweȱ andȱ Eepȱ Talstra,ȱ “Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Wordȱ Order:ȱ Theȱ InterfaceȱofȱInformationȱStructureȱandȱFormalȱFeatures,”ȱZAHȱ15/16ȱ(2001).ȱ 76ȱȱ ThisȱvolumeȱutilisesȱonlyȱLambrecht’sȱframeworkȱinȱorderȱtoȱavoidȱconfusingȱtermiȬ nologyȱandȱcompetingȱtheoreticalȱdiscussions.ȱInȱthisȱregard,ȱseeȱHolmstedt’sȱreviewȱ ofȱ Shimasaki,ȱ inȱ whichȱ Holmstedtȱ discussesȱ theȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ Lambrecht’sȱ frameworkȱandȱthatȱofȱSimonȱDik.ȱHeȱobservesȱthatȱaȱsynthesisȱofȱtheȱtwoȱresultsȱinȱ aȱ “theoreticallyȱ unfocusedȱ modelȱ ofȱ BHȱ informationȱ structure”.ȱ Robertȱ Holmstedt,ȱ “Reviewȱ ofȱFocusȱStructureȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrew:ȱAȱ StudyȱofȱWordȱOrderȱandȱInformationȱ Structure,ȱ byȱ Katsuomiȱ Shimasaki,”ȱ HSȱ 44ȱ (2003);ȱ Michaelȱ Rosenbaum,ȱ WordȬOrderȱ VariationȱinȱIsaiahȱ40Ȭ55:ȱAȱFunctionalȱPerspectiveȱ(Assen:ȱVanȱGorcum,ȱ1997).ȱȱ

56ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

whoseȱpresenceȱmakesȱtheȱpropositionȱintoȱanȱassertion,ȱi.e.ȱaȱpotentialȱ pieceȱ ofȱ information.”77ȱ Lambrechtȱ proposesȱ threeȱ basicȱ focusȱ categoȬ riesȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ syntaxȱ ofȱ theȱ sentence:ȱ predicateȱ focus;ȱ argumentȱ focusȱandȱsentenceȱfocus.ȱAtȱtheȱriskȱofȱprovokingȱtheȱsortȱofȱKugelianȱ responseȱ whichȱ occursȱ whenȱ studyingȱ BHȱ poetryȱ (thereȱ isȱ eitherȱ oneȱ typeȱofȱparallelismȱorȱoneȱhundred,ȱnotȱthree),ȱthisȱvolumeȱwillȱexpliȬ cateȱfocusȱunderȱtheseȱthreeȱmajorȱcategories.78ȱ Predicateȱfocusȱisȱtheȱdefault,ȱorȱunmarkedȱfocusȱtype,ȱandȱisȱassoȬ ciatedȱ withȱ theȱ topicȬcommentȱ function.ȱ Markedness,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Bussman,ȱ“…isȱconcernedȱwithȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱwhatȱisȱneutral,ȱ natural,ȱorȱexpected,ȱorȱunmarked,ȱandȱwhatȱdepartsȱfromȱtheȱneutral,ȱorȱ marked,ȱalongȱsomeȱspecificȱparameter.”79ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱfocus,ȱconstituȬ entȱorderȱisȱtheȱspecificȱparameterȱinvolvedȱinȱdeterminingȱfocusȱtypes,ȱ particularlyȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ irrecoverabilityȱ ofȱ BHȱ prosody.ȱ Thisȱ workȱ presupposesȱ thatȱ theȱ basic,ȱ unmarkedȱ constituentȱ orderȱ forȱ BHȱ senȬ tencesȱ isȱ VSO,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ constituentȱ orderȱ isȱ markedȱ whenȱ otherȱ constituentsȱareȱplacedȱbeforeȱtheȱverbalȱconstruction.80ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 77ȱȱ Lambrecht,ȱInformationȱStructure,ȱ336.ȱ 78ȱȱ Itȱisȱworthȱnotingȱthatȱfocusȱcategories,ȱlikeȱtheirȱLowthianȱcounterpartsȱinȱtheȱareaȱ ofȱparallelism,ȱareȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱdescriptiveȱratherȱthanȱprescriptive.ȱTheyȱareȱprimaryȱ levelȱ categories,ȱ subjectȱ toȱ elaborationȱ andȱ modificationȱ whenȱ usedȱ toȱ describeȱ acȬ tualȱsentences.ȱȱ 79ȱȱ Bussman,ȱH.ȱBussman,ȱDictionary,ȱ294.ȱ 80ȱȱ Thereȱareȱthreeȱreasonsȱforȱthis.ȱFirst,ȱseveralȱsourcesȱpresentȱVSOȱasȱtheȱunmarkedȱ order.ȱAmongȱtheseȱareȱC.ȱH.ȱJ.ȱvanȱderȱMerwe,ȱ“ExplainingȱFrontingȱinȱBiblicalȱHeȬ brew,”ȱ JNSLȱ 25ȱ (1996),ȱ 173Ȭ186;ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merweȱ andȱ Talstra,ȱ “Interface,”ȱ 68Ȭ108;ȱ Bruceȱ Waltkeȱ andȱ M.ȱ OȇConnor,ȱ Anȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Syntaxȱ (Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ Ind:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1990),ȱ694.ȱ However,ȱtheȱ subjectȱ isȱ complicatedȱandȱnotȱ allȱ scholarsȱ agree.ȱ Dissentingȱ voicesȱ includeȱ JMȱ §155k;ȱ Johnȱ A.ȱ Cook,ȱ “Theȱ Useȱ ofȱ WayyiqtolȱinȱHebrewȱPoetry,”ȱSBL,ȱAtlantaȱȱ(2003);ȱRobertȱHolmstedt,ȱ“WordȱOrderȱ andȱ Informationȱ Structureȱ inȱ Proverbs,”ȱ SBL,ȱ Atlantaȱ ȱ (2003),ȱ 1Ȭ20.ȱ Secondly,ȱ pragȬ maticsȱ researchȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ “…ȱ inȱ languageȱ comprehensionȱ theȱ privilegeȱ ofȱ primacyȱ arisesȱ fromȱ generalȱ cognitiveȱ processes,ȱ thoseȱ involvedȱ inȱ structureȱ buildȬ ing…ȱinitializedȱconceptsȱmustȱserveȱasȱtheȱfoundationȱforȱtheirȱsentenceȱlevelȱstrucȬ tures.”ȱMortonȱAnn,ȱandȱDavidȱHargreaves,ȱ“TheȱPrivilegeȱofȱPrimacy,”ȱinȱPragmatȬ icsȱofȱWordȱOrderȱFlexibility,ȱed.ȱDorisȱL.ȱPayneȱ(Amsterdam:ȱJohnȱBenjamins,ȱ1992),ȱ 83Ȭ116.ȱFinally,ȱlanguageȱ typologyȱ andȱ universalsȱresearchȱsupportsȱthisȱview.ȱJonȬ glingȱproposesȱaȱtypologicalȱapproachȱtoȱBHȱinȱK.ȱJongeling,ȱ“OnȱtheȱVSOȱCharacterȱ ofȱHebrew,”ȱinȱStudiesȱinȱHebrewȱandȱAramaicȱSyntax,ȱed.ȱK.ȱJongelingȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ 1991),ȱ 103Ȭ111.ȱ Forȱ languageȱ typologists,ȱ theȱ mainȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ languageȱ typesȱisȱtheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱVOȱlanguagesȱandȱOVȱlanguages.ȱAccordingȱtoȱPriȬ mus,ȱBHȱexhibitsȱconsistentȱheadȬinitialȱorderȱ(VO)ȱasȱopposedȱtoȱlanguagesȱthatȱexhiȬ bitȱ consistentȱ headȬfinalȱ orderȱ (OV).ȱ Theȱ mainȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ headȬinitialȱ andȱ headȬfinalȱlanguagesȱisȱbasedȱuponȱConsistentȱHeadȱSerializationȱorȱCHS,ȱasȱindicatedȱ byȱtheȱtendencyȱthatȱ“…forȱallȱphrasalȱcategoriesȱX,ȱtheȱheadȱofȱXȱeitherȱprecedesȱorȱ followsȱallȱdependents.”ȱConsistentȱheadȬinitialȱorderȱisȱdemonstratedȱinȱBHȱasȱfolȬ lows:ȱ verbȱ –ȱ objectȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ objectȱ –ȱ verb;ȱ prepositionȱ –ȱ nounȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

57ȱ

Aȱ sentenceȱ withȱ predicateȱ focusȱ presentsȱ newȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ stateȱ orȱ actionsȱ ofȱ aȱ knownȱ topicalȱ entity.ȱ Typicalȱ wordȱ orderȱ isȱ VSO.ȱItȱisȱnotȱsurprisingȱthatȱtheȱpredicateȱfocus,ȱBHȱwayyiqtolȱclause,ȱisȱ widelyȱ recognisedȱ asȱ havingȱ sequential,ȱ narrativeȱ qualities.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.6aȱ ?NOJYJ[ [[O[D[N JYJ[TO [Yȱ isȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ predicateȱ focus.ȱ TheȱsentenceȱgivesȱtheȱanswerȱtoȱtheȱdiagnosticȱquestionȱwhatȱdidȱYahȬ wehȱdo?ȱTheȱunderlyingȱpresupposition,ȱYahwehȱcommunicatesȱdirectȬ lyȱ withȱ Jeremiah,ȱ isȱ setȱ upȱ byȱ theȱ callȱ accountȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ chapterȱ ofȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Argumentȱfocusȱisȱaȱmarkedȱfocusȱtype,ȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱidentiȬ ficationȱ function.81ȱ Atȱ timesȱ inȱ BHȱ sentences,ȱ anȱ argumentȱ (orȱ nonȬ predicatingȱexpression)ȱwillȱoccurȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱverbȱinȱaȱsentence,ȱwhichȱ resultsȱinȱXVOȱwordȱorder.ȱInȱtheseȱcases,ȱanȱargumentȱmayȱbeȱfrontedȱ forȱ topicalisationȱ (identifyingȱ theȱ argumentȱ forȱ aȱ particularȱ proposiȬ tion),ȱorȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱfocus.ȱJeremiahȱ3.6bȱisȱanȱexampleȱofȱargumentȱ focus.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ dueȱ toȱ aȱ combinationȱ ofȱ factors.ȱ First,ȱ theȱ interrogativeȱ sentenceȱ itselfȱ isȱ intendedȱ toȱ elicitȱ informationȱ fromȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ mightȱ beȱ rephrasedȱ asȱ “Haveȱ youȱ seenȱ X?,”ȱ withȱ Xȱ representingȱ theȱ argumentȱ N T[JDOJVT .ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ sentenceȱ N T[JDOJVT ȱ V[ TJȱ carriesȱ theȱ presuppositionȱ thatȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱawareȱ ofȱ theȱ existenceȱofȱ N T[JDO,ȱ andȱperhapsȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ behaviourȱ asȱ well.ȱ Second,ȱ becauseȱ phraseȱ includesȱ aȱ verbȱ ofȱ perception,ȱtheȱpragmaticȱfocusȱshiftsȱtoȱtheȱinformationȱinȱtheȱrelativeȱ clauseȱdespiteȱtheȱVOȱwordȱorder.ȱTheȱfocusȱconstituentȱ(theȱassertion)ȱ isȱthatȱN T[JDOȱhasȱactedȱinȱaȱcertain,ȱasȱyetȱunexplicated,ȱway.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ nounȱ–ȱpostȬposition;ȱnounȱ–ȱpossessorȱasȱopposedȱtoȱpossessorȱ–ȱnoun;ȱadjectiveȱ–ȱ objectȱ ofȱ comparisonȱ versusȱ objectȱ ofȱ comparison;ȱ articleȱ –ȱ nounȱ versusȱ nounȱ –ȱ arȬ ticle;ȱetc.ȱMostȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱVSOȬSVOȱdebateȱforȱBHȱisȱtheȱfactȱthatȱ“…ȱtheȱsubjectȱ isȱaȱbadȱpattenerȱinȱVOȱlanguagesȱsinceȱitȱoftenȱprecedesȱVȱyieldingȱSVO.”ȱBeatriceȱ Primus,ȱ“Wordȱ OrderȱTypology,”ȱ inȱLanguageȱTypologyȱ andȱLanguageȱUniversals:ȱAnȱ Internationalȱ Handbook,ȱ ed.ȱ M.ȱ Haspelmathȱ (Berlin:ȱ Walterȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ 2001),ȱ 856.ȱ ConstituentȱorderȱinȱtheȱverblessȱclauseȱisȱanȱareaȱofȱfurtherȱresearchȱforȱtheȱTDȱapȬ proach.ȱ Seeȱ Randallȱ Buth,ȱ “Wordȱ Orderȱ inȱ theȱ Verblessȱ Clause:ȱ Aȱ Functionalȱ ApȬ proach,”ȱinȱTheȱVerblessȱClauseȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrew:ȱLinguisticȱApproaches,ȱed.ȱCynthiaȱL.ȱ Millerȱ(WinonaȱLake,ȱInd.:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1999),ȱȱ79Ȭ108;ȱLenartȱJ.ȱdeȱRegt,ȱ“MacrosynȬ tacticȱFunctionsȱofȱNominalȱClausesȱReferringȱtoȱParticipants,”ȱinȱTheȱVerblessȱClauseȱ inȱBiblicalȱHebrew,ȱed.ȱCynthiaȱL.ȱMillerȱ(WinonaȱLake,ȱInd.:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1999),ȱ273Ȭ 296.ȱForȱstudiesȱinȱpostȬverbalȱwordȱorderȱseeȱLarsȱLode,ȱ“PostverbalȱWordȱOrderȱinȱ BiblicalȱHebrew:ȱStructureȱandȱFunction,”ȱSemiticsȱ9ȱ(1984),ȱ113Ȭ164;ȱidem,ȱ“PostverȬ balȱWordȱOrderȱ inȱBiblicalȱHebrew:ȱStructureȱandȱFunction:ȱPartȱTwo,”ȱSemiticsȱ10ȱ (1985),ȱ24Ȭ39.ȱ 81ȱȱ FloorȱnotesȱthatȱargumentȱfocusȱappearsȱinȱclausesȱthatȱpresentȱunexpectedȱorȱconȬ trastiveȱ information,ȱandȱthatȱ suchȱinformationȱ oftenȱcontainsȱthemeȱ macroȬwords.ȱ Floor,ȱ“FromȱInformationȱStructure,ȱTopic,ȱandȱFocus,ȱtoȱThemeȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ Narrative.”ȱ4.ȱ

58ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

SentenceȱfocusȱisȱalsoȱaȱmarkedȱfocusȱtypeȱandȱisȱassociatedȱwithȱeiȬ therȱpresentationalȱorȱeventȱreportingȱfunction.82ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱsentenceȱ focus,ȱallȱofȱtheȱinformationȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱsentenceȱisȱinȱfocus.ȱSenȬ tenceȱfocusȱentailsȱpredicateȱfocus.ȱBHȱsentencesȱwithȱthisȱtypeȱofȱfocusȱ areȱ oftenȱ precededȱbyȱ aȱsentenceȱlevelȱmarker,ȱ suchȱ asȱhinneh.83ȱThereȱ areȱnoȱsentenceȱfocusȱclausesȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11.ȱWhileȱwordȱorderȱisȱ theȱbasicȱcriterionȱbyȱwhichȱinformationȱstructureȱisȱascertained,ȱLamȬ brechtȱalsoȱutilisesȱsemanticȱdomainȱinformationȱwhenȱassessingȱfocusȱ types,ȱasȱnotedȱinȱtheȱaboveȱquotation,ȱ“…theȱsemanticȱelement…whoseȱ presenceȱmakesȱtheȱpropositionȱintoȱanȱassertion.”84ȱThus,ȱaȱBHȱprediȬ cateȱ focusȱ clauseȱ withȱ aȱ verbȱ ofȱ speakingȱ andȱ aȱ quotationȱ asȱ compleȬ ment,ȱandȱaȱpredicateȱfocusȱclauseȱwithȱaȱtransitiveȱverbȱandȱaȱtopicalȱ entityȱasȱaȱdirectȱobjectȱbothȱshareȱsimilarȱsyntacticȱstructure.ȱHowever,ȱ dueȱ toȱ differingȱ semantics,ȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱ shareȱ theȱ sameȱ linguisticȱ conȬ strual.ȱBecauseȱofȱthis,ȱtheȱthreeȱbasicȱfocusȱtypesȱmightȱappearȱtoȱmulȬ tiply.85ȱAtȱthisȱpointȱnoȱfurtherȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱseriesȱofȱverbalȱformsȱisȱ necessary,ȱotherȱthanȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱthisȱexampleȱdemonstratesȱtheȱinsufȬ ficiencyȱ ofȱ verbalȱ formsȱ aloneȱ toȱ determineȱ hierarchicalȱ levelsȱ withinȱ theȱnarration.86ȱForȱthisȱanalysis,ȱbothȱtheȱinformationȱstructureȱofȱindiȬ vidualȱsentencesȱandȱtheirȱrelationshipȱtoȱoneȱanotherȱareȱpertinentȱtoȱ theȱconceptualȱorderingȱofȱtheȱtextȱandȱforȱestablishingȱtextȱhierarchy.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 82ȱȱ Toȱ theseȱ functions,ȱ Floorȱ addsȱ themeȬsupporting,ȱ redirectingȱ andȱ stateȬreporting.ȱ Ibid.ȱ 83ȱȱ vanȱderȱMerweȱandȱTalstra,ȱ“Interface.”ȱ 84ȱȱ Lambrecht,ȱInformationȱStructure,ȱ336.ȱ 85ȱȱ SuchȱanȱelaborationȱhasȱbeenȱproposedȱbyȱShimasaki,ȱwhoȱnotesȱthatȱpredicateȱfocusȱ mightȱhaveȱimplicationsȱforȱparticipantȱreferenceȱorȱambiguityȱresolutionȱandȱarguȬ mentȱ focusȱ mightȱ indicateȱ aȱ closingȱ formula.ȱ Forȱ Shimasaki,ȱ sentenceȱ focusȱ becomesȱ clauseȱfocus,ȱthusȱtheȱpragmaticȱfunctionȱofȱthisȱclauseȱtypeȱisȱconfinedȱtoȱtheȱclauseȬ level,ȱratherȱthanȱtoȱtheȱentireȱsentence.ȱClauseȱfocusȱfunctionsȱareȱproposedȱforȱthreeȱ levels:ȱ atȱ theȱ informationȱ level,ȱ aȱ brandȱ newȱ referentȱ isȱ introduced.ȱ Atȱ theȱ interȬ clausalȱ level,ȱ theȱ entireȱ clauseȱ mightȱ beȱ exclamatory,ȱ circumstantialȱ orȱ contrastive.ȱ Atȱ theȱ textȱ level,ȱ theȱ clauseȱ mightȱ exhibitȱ oneȱ ofȱ fourȱ onsetȱ functions:ȱ initialisation;ȱ topicalisation;ȱ introductoryȱ formula;ȱ orȱ contextualisation.ȱ Alternatively,ȱ theȱ clauseȱ mightȱ provideȱ backgroundȱ information.ȱ NoneȬtheȬless,ȱ theȱ threeȱ basicȱ focusȱ typesȱ provideȱtheȱinitialȱdepartureȱpointȱforȱhisȱinformationȱstructureȱanalysis.ȱShimasaki,ȱ Focusȱ Structureȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Wordȱ Orderȱ andȱ Informationȱ Structure,ȱ 241.ȱ 86ȱȱ Inȱ thisȱ regard,ȱ theȱ cognitivelyȱ orientedȱ TDȱ approachȱ differsȱ fromȱ theȱ discourseȱ analysisȱ approachȱ presentedȱ byȱ Longacre.ȱ Whileȱ Longacreȱ seesȱ verbalȱ formsȱ andȱ combinationsȱ ofȱ verbalȱ formsȱ asȱ macrostructuralȱ indicators,ȱ aȱ TDȱ approachȱ isȱ conȬ cernedȱ withȱ conceptualȱ structuringȱ basedȱ uponȱ constellationsȱ ofȱ syntacticȱ features.ȱ Thus,ȱaȱqatalȱformȱ thatȱLongacreȱassignsȱtoȱ backgroundȱinformationȱmayȱactuallyȱ beȱ usedȱtoȱpresentȱinformationȱthatȱisȱquiteȱimportantȱtoȱitsȱlargerȱcontext.ȱSuchȱinforȬ mationȱmightȱbeȱcuedȱbyȱaȱmetaȬlinguisticȱconstruction,ȱsuchȱasȱThusȱsaysȱtheȱLord.ȱȱ

ȱ

59ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

3.

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

Givenȱtheȱinformationȱproducedȱbyȱtheȱsyntaxȱanalysis,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱ topicȱ andȱ focusȱ information,ȱitȱisȱ nowȱpossibleȱ toȱ makeȱ someȱprelimiȬ naryȱ observationsȱ regardingȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ structuringȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.6Ȭ 3.11ȱbyȱexaminingȱlargerȱsegmentsȱofȱtext.ȱ

1. Jeremiahȱ3.6ȱ Jerȱ

ClauseȱLayoutȱ

3.6aȱ

^GNG0CJ8JŽ
bȱ

V[K HT$Jȱ

cȱ

N HT o[JHDWOJHV HTG$ 

dȱ

C+QDH*TCJNH.NC

ȱ

Focusȱȱ

MSCȱ

Nȱ

Predȱ

Baseȱ

NQȱ

ȱ

NQPȱ

Argȱ

NQPȱ

Argȱ

NQPȱ

Predȱ

SBȱȱ M1ȱ Focusȱ

[KJJHMNQJ _ŽP$CTLNH.VCZC7NG Yȱ eȱ

]H[oP\K7hYȱ

ȱ

ȱ Theȱclauseȱhierarchyȱforȱ3.6ȱreflectsȱtheȱnarrativeȬdiscursiveȱdisinctionȱ foundȱinȱtheȱWIVUȱdatabase,ȱwithȱtheȱadditionȱofȱtheȱthirdȱcategoryȱ–ȱ perception.ȱ Aȱ Pȱ inȱ theȱ clauseȱ tagȱ indicatesȱ this.ȱ Theȱ additionȱ ofȱ theȱ Pȱ categoryȱisȱsignificantȱforȱpropheticȱtext,ȱwhichȱinvolvesȱaȱhighȱconcenȬ trationȱofȱinterpersonalȱspeechȱactȱverbs.87ȱȱ AsȱRaibleȱnotes:ȱ Sinceȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ topicsȱ ofȱ humanȱ communicationȱ isȱ comȬ municationȱ itself,ȱ thereȱ existȱ aȱ lotȱ ofȱ verbsȱ expressing,ȱ byȱ theirȱ semanticȱ content,ȱ communicativeȱ orȱ relatedȱ activities:ȱ aboveȱ allȱ verbaȱ decendi,ȱ senȬ tiendiȱetȱsciendi,ȱencompassingȱallȱtheȱspeechȱactȱverbs.88ȱ

Thisȱ listȱ includesȱ verbsȱ ofȱ speaking,ȱ perceptionȱ andȱ knowing,ȱ whichȱ alsoȱactȱasȱmatrixȱverbsȱinȱspaceȬbuildingȱconstructionsȱ(seeȱchapterȱ4,ȱ sectionȱ B.2).ȱ Suchȱ verbsȱ doȱ notȱ takeȱ anȱ agentȱ asȱ grammaticalȱ subject,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ anȱ experiencer.89ȱ Often,ȱ whenȱ theseȱ verbsȱ occurȱ asȱ matrixȱ verbs,ȱ theyȱ takeȱ relativeȱ orȱ complementȱ clausesȱ asȱ theȱ grammaticalȱ object,ȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ caseȱ atȱ 3.6b.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ twoȱ examplesȱ demonȬ strateȱ theȱ differencesȱ inȱ clauseȱ hierarchyȱ whenȱ theȱ P categoryȱ isȱ inȬ cluded:ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 87ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.6Ȭ11ȱ containsȱ 22ȱ verbȱ forms,ȱ ofȱ whichȱ sixȱ areȱ communicationȱ andȱ expeȬ riencerȱverbs.ȱ 88ȱȱ Raible,ȱ“LinkingȱClauses,”ȱ599.ȱ 89ȱȱ Theȱissueȱofȱverbȱspecificȱsemanticȱrolesȱwillȱbeȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱchapters.ȱ

60ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

ȱ ClauseȱlinkingȱhierarchyȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6,ȱwithoutȱperceptionȱspaceȱ 1.

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬSȱ(3sgM)ȱȱ

2.

NQȱ

ȱ

XȬQatalȱ(2sgM)ȱ

3.

NQȱ

ȱ

XȬQatalȱ(3sgF)ȱ

4.

NQȱ

ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱQotelȱ(fs)—downgradedȱbyȱformȱ

5.

NQNȱ

ȱ

ȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ(3sgF).ȱ

ȱ ClauseȱlinkingȱhierarchyȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6,ȱincludingȱperceptionȱspaceȱ 6.

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬSȱ(3sgM)ȱȱ

7.

NQȱ

ȱ

XȬQatalȱ(2sgM)ȱ

8.

NQPȱ

ȱ

ȱ

XȬQatalȱ(3sgF)ȱ

9.

NQPȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱQotelȱ(fs)—downgradedȱbyȱformȱ

10. NQPNȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ(3sgF).ȱ

ȱ Becauseȱ clauseȱ 3.6dȱ isȱ downgradedȱ byȱ formȱ (participleȱ versusȱ fullyȱ declinedȱ verbalȱ form),ȱ thisȱ hierarchyȱ isȱ identicalȱ toȱ theȱ computationalȱ linguisticsȱ versionȱ inȱ theȱ VUȱ database.ȱ Theȱ differenceȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ slight.ȱ However,ȱ whenȱ combinedȱ withȱ focusȱ information,ȱ theȱ secondȱ hierarchyȱprovidesȱaȱmoreȱaccurateȱtemplateȱforȱtranslation.ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ3.6aȱisȱaȱquotationȱframeȱwhichȱactsȱasȱaȱspaceȬbuilderȱdueȱ toȱtheȱsemanticȱfieldȱofȱtheȱverb.90ȱItȱsetsȱupȱaȱtopicalȱframeȱforȱtheȱenȬ tireȱ section,ȱ andȱ isȱ theȱ baseȱ spaceȱ forȱ theȱ followingȱ information.ȱ JereȬ miahȱ3.6bȱalsoȱactsȱasȱaȱspaceȬbuilder,ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱsemanticȱfieldȱofȱtheȱ verb.ȱItȱopensȱaȱperceptionȱspace,ȱM1,ȱwhichȱisȱnowȱtheȱfocusȱspace.ȱItȱisȱ hereȱthatȱnewȱinformationȱisȱaccruingȱinȱtheȱcognitiveȱstructure.ȱInȱthisȱ case,ȱ aȱ topicalȱ frameȱ isȱ introducedȱ byȱ theȱ questionȱ Haveȱ youȱ seenȱ whatȱ Turnableȱ Israelȱ did?ȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.6dȬeȱ givesȱ aȱ topicalȱ elaborationȱ uponȱ theȱ topicalȱ frame.ȱ Theȱ asyndeticȱ participleȱ clauseȱ [JJMNJȱ joinsȱ theȱ preȬ viousȱ clauseȱ atȱ anȱ unequalȱ level,ȱ andȱ theȱ clauseȱ isȱ resumptiveȱ ofȱ theȱ topicalȱ referent/argumentȱ N T[JDOJVT inȱ theȱ previousȱ line.ȱ Bothȱofȱtheseȱfeaturesȱcontributeȱtoȱmaintainingȱreference.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 90ȱȱ SpaceȬbuildersȱinclude,ȱbutȱareȱnotȱlimitedȱto:ȱtemporalȱreferences;ȱverbsȱofȱspeakingȱ andȱperceptionȱandȱmentalȱstatesȱpredicates,ȱsuchȱasȱthink,ȱbelieveȱandȱhopeȱ(seeȱchapterȱ 4.B.2).ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

61ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

2. Jeremiahȱ3.7ȱ TCOQ ŽYȱ

3.7aȱ

JG/ NH.VG +HV2 $[T$ZC ȱ

bȱ

D8H7[CN ȱ

cȱ

JHDH QNYȱ

dȱ

JHF8J[+HV2Z$ JHF2IH% GT7hY

J GT7hY ȱ

eȱ

ȱ 3.7aȱ

NQNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ

Predȱ

SBȱforȱM2ȱ

bȱ

NQNPȱ

XȬQetolȱȱ

cȱ

NQNPȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

ȱ Argȱ

M2ȱ

dȱ

NQNȱ

WȬXȬQatalȱ

Predȱ

eȱ

NQNȱ

WayyiqtolȬXȱ

Predȱ

Baseȱ

ȱ Jeremiahȱ3.7aȱcontainsȱaȱconjugatedȱformȱofȱtheȱverbȱTO ,ȱwhichȱinȱthisȱ contextȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ verbaȱ sciendi.ȱ JYJ[ȱ isȱ reportedȱ toȱ haveȱ thought,ȱ ratherȱthanȱtoȱhaveȱsaid.ȱPhrasesȱcontainingȱverbsȱofȱspeaking,ȱpercepȬ tionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ allȱ actȱ asȱ spaceȬbuilders.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ spacesȱ openedȱbyȱtheseȱtermsȱdifferȱinȱoneȱkeyȱrespect.ȱTheȱnewȱspace,ȱM2,ȱisȱ anȱinternalȱcognitionȱspace,ȱ soȱitȱisȱaccessedȱonlyȱthroughȱtheȱfirstȱperȬ sonȱexperiencer.ȱThisȱinvolvesȱperspectiveȱasȱaȱlinguisticȱconstrualȱopȬ eration.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.7bȱ andȱ 3.7cȱ exhibitȱ irregularȱ wordȱ order.ȱ Theȱ objectȱ clauseȱ JN NMV ȱ atȱ 3.7bȱ containsȱ theȱ deicticȱ termȱ JN ,ȱ whichȱ pointsȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ activitiesȱ ofȱ Israelȱ presentedȱ inȱ 3.6.ȱ Deixisȱ contributesȱ toȱ maintainingȱreferenceȱandȱwillȱbeȱdiscussedȱatȱlengthȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱ chapters.ȱ Theȱ adjunctȱ clauseȱ atȱ 3.7cȱ connectsȱ directlyȱ toȱ theȱ followingȱ clause.ȱTheȱcomplementȱclauseȱDYV[N ȱatȱ3.7dȱcontainsȱaȱfrontedȱindiȬ rectȱ object.ȱ Theȱ OVȱ wordȱ orderȱ isȱ marked,ȱ andȱ theȱ termȱ DYȱ isȱ higȬ hlightedȱ asȱ aȱ themeȱ trace,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Floor.91ȱ Theȱ kethivȬqereȱ atȱ 3.7eȱ involvesȱtwoȱalternateȱspellingsȱforȱtheȱ3sFȱverbȱform.ȱAlthoughȱthisȱisȱ ofȱinterestȱforȱhistoricalȱlinguistics,ȱitȱisȱnotȱcrucialȱtoȱtheȱpresentȱanalyȬ sis,ȱ whichȱ usesȱ theȱ availableȱ person,ȱ numberȱ andȱ genderȱ informationȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ verbalȱ formȱ toȱ assessȱ participantȱ reference. ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 91ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ 3ȱ containsȱ nineȱ verbsȱ fromȱ ¥DY.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ 111ȱ instancesȱ inȱ theȱ entireȱ bookȱofȱJeremiah,ȱindicatingȱaȱlocalisationȱofȱthisȱthemeȱtrace.ȱFloor,ȱ“FromȱInformaȬ tionȱStructure,ȱTopic,ȱandȱFocus,ȱtoȱThemeȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱNarrative.”ȱ2.ȱ

62ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

3. Jeremiahȱ3.8ȱ GT ŽYȱ

3.8aȱ

V2FQ NH.NC[K.ȱ

bȱ

N HT o[JHDWOJHR$ oPTG$ 

cȱ

HJ[K7ZC/Kȱ

dȱ

HJ[GN HJ[GVWV[KT.TGRUVG _7G ŽYȱ

eȱ

+HV2Z$ JHF8J[JHFIQ%JH TŽ[ QNYȱ

fȱ

^GN7hYȱ

gȱ

[KJ]C*_m\K7hYȱ

hȱ

ȱ 3.8aȱ bȱ

NQNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱȱȱȱ

NQNPȱ

XȬPrepȱ

Predȱ

Sentȱ

cȱ

NQNPȱ

XȬQatalȱ

dȱ

NQNPȱ

0ȬQatalȱȱȱ

eȱ

NQNPȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ

Predȱ

fȱ

NQNȱ

WȬXȬQatalȱȱ

Predȱ

gȱ

NQNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ

Predȱ

hȱ

NQNȱ

WayyiqtolȬXȱ

Predȱ

SBȱforȱ M3ȱ

M3ȱ

Baseȱ

ȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.8aȱ consistsȱ ofȱ aȱ conjugatedȱ formȱ ofȱ ¥J T,ȱ aȱ verbaȱ sentiendiȱ thatȱopensȱaȱperceptionȱspace,ȱM3.ȱThereȱisȱsomeȱdiscussionȱregardingȱ theȱperson,ȱgenderȱandȱnumberȱofȱthisȱverb,ȱwhichȱaffectsȱtheȱidentityȱ ofȱtheȱperceiver.92ȱHowever,ȱaccessȱtoȱaȱperceptionȱspaceȱisȱpossibleȱforȱ multipleȱ experiencers,ȱ soȱ thisȱ typeȱ ofȱ spaceȱ isȱ notȱ asȱ restrictedȱ asȱ theȱ cognitionȱ spaceȱ addressedȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ example.ȱ Theȱ spaceȱ closesȱ withȱ theȱ shiftȱ inȱ addreseeȱ fromȱ Israelȱ toȱ Judahȱ inȱ clauseȱ 3.8f.ȱ Israel’sȱ sister,ȱJudah,ȱwasȱnotȱafraid,ȱinȱfact,ȱsheȱwentȱaway,ȱandȱinȱtheȱendȱherȱ doingsȱwereȱworseȱthanȱthoseȱofȱIsrael.ȱFromȱthisȱpointȱuntilȱ3.10c,ȱtheȱ narrativeȱlevelȱremainsȱtheȱsame.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 92ȱȱ LXX,ȱStatenvertalig,ȱASVȱuseȱfirstȱperson;ȱRSVȱusesȱ3f/s.ȱ

ȱ

63ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

4. Jeremiahȱ3.9Ȭ11ȱ +HV8P\NQ4KOJŽ[HJYȱ

3.9aȱ

LGTH HJVG XhP(ZG7hYȱ

bȱ

LHJVG Y_GDG HJVG XC PK7hYȱ

cȱ

[CN JHDH QNV v\NHM%]CIY +H%KNNHM%JHF8J[+HV2Z$ JHF2IH%

3.10aȱ

TGSG%]K [K.ȱ

bȱ

JŽYJ[]W Pȱ

cȱ

[CN JŽYJ[TGO v
3.11aȱ bȱ

ȱ 3.9aȱ

NQNȱ

WȬQatalȱ

Predȱ

bȱ

NQNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ

Predȱ

cȱ

NQNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ

Predȱ

3.10aȱ

NQNȱ

WȬXȬQatalȱ

Argȱ

bȱ

NQNȱ

Ellipȱ

ȱ

cȱ 3.11aȱ bȱ

NQNȱ

focusȱ

ȱ

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬSȱ

Predȱ

NQȱ

Qatalȱ

ȱ

Baseȱ

ȱ SBȱforȱM3ȱ M3ȱ

ȱ Inȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.10a,ȱ theȱ adjunctȱ clauseV \NMD]IYcontainsȱ theȱ deicticȱ termȱ V \,ȱ whichȱ refersȱ anaphoricallyȱ toȱ theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ immoralityȱ presentedȱ inȱ 3.9.ȱ Theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ offendingȱ partyȱ inȱ 3.9ȱ isȱ ambiȬ guous.ȱ Again,ȱ theȱ focusȱ ofȱ theȱ sentenceȱ highlightsȱ aȱ themeȱ trace[N JD Nbasedȱuponȱ¥DYȱ(seeȱ3.7c;ȱ3.7d).ȱ ThisȱanalysisȱdemonstratesȱthatȱbyȱobservingȱtheȱinterplayȱofȱaȱconȬ stellationȱ ofȱ features,ȱ suchȱ asȱ experiencerȱ verbsȱ andȱ shiftsȱ inȱ topicalȱ entities,ȱ itȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱobserveȱtheȱconceptualȱformatȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱAcȬ cordingly,ȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱreflectsȱtheȱfollowingȱstructure:ȱ ȱ 3.6.a:ȱBaseȱspaceȱȬȱreportȱofȱaȱspeechȱeventȱbyȱtheȱLordȱtoȱMEȱ(Jeremiah)ȱ 3.6.c:ȱȱ M1ȱ–ȱcontentȱofȱaddressȱ 3.7.a:ȱBaseȱ–ȱreportȱofȱcognitionȱeventȱbyȱtheȱLordȱ 3.7.b:ȱȱ M2ȱ–ȱcontentȱofȱcognitionȱ 3.7.d:ȱBaseȱ–ȱreportȱofȱnonȬeventȱ 3.8.a:ȱBaseȱ–ȱcontinuedȱreportȱofȱcognitionȱeventȱ 3.8.b:ȱȱ M3ȱ–ȱcontentȱofȱperception/cognitionȱspaceȱ 3.8.fȬ3.11b:ȱBaseȱ–ȱreportȱofȱnonȬeventȱ

64ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

4.ȱStructuringȱConceptualȱPackets:ȱSpeechȱFramesȱ OneȱeasilyȱrecognisableȱfeatureȱofȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱisȱtheȱcommunicaȬ tion/speechȱ actȱ frameȱ atȱ 3.6a?NOJYJ[ [[O[D[N JYJ[TO [Y,ȱ theȱ Lordȱ saidȱ toȱ meȱ inȱ theȱdaysȱ ofȱKingȱ Josiah.ȱ Forȱthisȱ sectionȱofȱ text,ȱ theȱ citationȱ formulaȱisȱasȱimportantȱforȱwhatȱitȱdoesȱnotȱmakeȱexplicitȱasȱforȱwhatȱitȱ does.ȱ Theȱ sentenceȱ identifiesȱ theȱ firstȱ interlocutorȱ inȱ theȱ reportedȱ speechȱ actȱ asȱ theȱ Lord,ȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ onlyȱ asȱ ME.ȱ Theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ speechȱ eventȱ isȱ expressedȱ asȱ theȱ daysȱ ofȱ Josiahȱ theȱ King.ȱ Inȱ theȱ comȬ municationȱ situationȱ setȱ upȱ byȱ theȱ text,ȱ theȱ narrator,ȱ ME,ȱ isȱ simultaȬ neouslyȱonstage,ȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱreportedȱspeechȱevent,ȱandȱoffstage,ȱasȱ theȱnarrator’sȱvoice.ȱȱ Whileȱ theȱ statementȱ ?NOJYJ[ [[O[D[N JYJ[TO [Ymentionsȱ aȱ speaker,ȱ anȱ addresseeȱ andȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ event,ȱ thisȱ reportedȱ speechȱ eventȱisȱfarȱfromȱprototypical.ȱRegardingȱprototypicalȱdialogue,ȱMillerȱ states:ȱ Aȱprototypicalȱdialogueȱinvolvesȱtwoȱparticipantsȱwhoȱalternateȱspeakingȱ andȱ listeningȱ inȱ pairedȱ turnsȱ ofȱ talk,ȱ orȱ adjacencyȱ pairs…theȱ dialogueȱ ocȬ cursȱwithȱtheȱtwoȱparticipantsȱspeakingȱfaceȬtoȬface,ȱandȱinȱtheȱsameȱlocaȬ tion,ȱnotȱacrossȱaȱdistance.93ȱ

Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ thereȱ areȱ twoȱ participantsȱ butȱ noȱ alternationȱ betweenȱ speakingȱ andȱ listening.ȱ Theȱ participantsȱ areȱ notȱ speakingȱ faceȬtoȬface,ȱ norȱ (presumably)ȱ areȱ theyȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ location.ȱ Fromȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ scienceȱperspective,ȱtheȱquestionȱN T[JDOJVT V[ TJȱandȱtheȱ continuingȱ referencesȱ toȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ serveȱ toȱ compressȱ theȱ complexitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ situationȱ toȱ humanȱ scale.ȱ Fauconnierȱ notes,ȱ “…humanȱ beingsȱ areȱ evolvedȱ andȱ culturallyȱ supportedȱ toȱ dealȱ withȱ realityȱ atȱ humanȱ scale,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ throughȱ directȱ actionȱ andȱ perceptionȱ insideȱ familiarȱ frames,ȱ typicallyȱ involvingȱ fewȱ participantsȱ andȱ directȱ intentionality.”94ȱ Theȱissueȱatȱhandȱisȱ enormous:ȱ Theȱ Lord’sȱdispleasureȱ withȱ Israelȱ andȱJudahȱisȱunmistakable.ȱHere,ȱviaȱconceptualȱblending,ȱtheȱoriginaȬ torȱ (speakingȱ fromȱ Jeremiah’sȱ pointȱ ofȱ view)ȱ hasȱ createdȱ aȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱ situationȱ whichȱ isȱ soȱ compressedȱ thatȱ theȱ humanȱ observerȱ hasȱ noȱ difficultyȱ inȱ understandingȱ theȱ enormityȱ ofȱ theȱ problem.ȱ Theȱ textȱ hasȱ becomeȱ aȱ materialȱ anchorȱ forȱ complexȱ projections.ȱ Theȱ Lordȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ prototypicalȱconversationȱpartner,ȱjustȱasȱIsraelȱandȱJudahȱareȱnotȱproȬ totypicalȱsiblings.ȱEvenȱJeremiahȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱanȱirregularȱhuman:ȱheȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 93ȱȱ Miller,ȱRepresentation,ȱ316.ȱ 94ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ322.ȱ

ȱ

CognitiveȱConstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ

65ȱ

isȱ ableȱ toȱ speakȱ withȱ theȱ LORD,ȱ andȱ isȱ susceptibleȱ toȱ actualȱ interȬ changes,ȱasȱdemonstratedȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.10.ȱ

D. CognitiveȱConstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ ThisȱshortȱanalysisȱofȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱprovidesȱaȱstartingȱpointȱforȱtheȱ examinationȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ constructionȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ networkȱ modelȱ asȱexplainedȱbyȱtheȱTDȱapproach.ȱTheȱanalysisȱdemonstratesȱthatȱJereȬ miahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱconsistsȱofȱseveralȱspaces,ȱallȱconnectedȱtoȱtheȱinitialȱbaseȱ space,ȱ orȱ ground.ȱ Theȱ cognitiveȱ configurationȱ beginsȱ withȱ theȱ initialȱ baseȱspace,ȱJeremiahȱ3.6a.ȱForȱmostȱofȱtheȱsection,ȱtheȱliteraryȱpointȱofȱ viewȱremainsȱwithȱJeremiah.ȱThisȱvariesȱwithȱtheȱspacesȱopenedȱatȱ1.3bȱ andȱ1.4b,ȱwhereȱliteraryȱpointȱofȱviewȱisȱassignedȱtoȱtheȱcharacter,ȱtheȱ Lord,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ toȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Theȱ shiftȱ toȱ theȱ propositionalȱ contentȱ spaceȱimmediatelyȱafterȱIȱthoughtȱthatȱatȱ3.7aȱshiftsȱtheȱcognitiveȱviewȬ pointȱ directlyȱ toȱ theȱ propositionȱ sheȱ wouldȱ comeȱ backȱ toȱ me,ȱ whileȱ theȱ literaryȱpointȱofȱviewȱremainsȱwithȱtheȱcharacter.ȱAȱglanceȱatȱtheȱconȬ ceptualȱ formatȱ ofȱ theȱ aboveȱ textsȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ theȱ conceptualȱ packetsȱ cuedȱ byȱ theȱ textȱ doȱ notȱ lineȱ upȱ asȱ beadsȱ onȱ aȱ string.ȱ Rather,ȱ theyȱ clusterȱ asȱ aȱ whole,ȱ againstȱ theȱ backdropȱ presentedȱ atȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.6a.ȱThisȱshortȱanalysisȱdemonstratesȱthatȱevenȱthoughȱreadingȱseemsȱ toȱbeȱaȱlinearȱprocessȱitȱactuallyȱentailsȱaȱrecursiveȱblendingȱprocessȱinȱ whichȱmeaningȱaccruesȱasȱtheȱtextȱisȱencountered.ȱ ȱ ConclusionsȱandȱDirectionsȱ Thisȱ chapterȱ introducesȱ theȱ theoryȱ andȱ methodȱ ofȱ theȱ TDȱ approach.ȱ Thisȱ approachȱ willȱ beȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ chaptersȱ toȱ analyseȱ andȱ describeȱtheȱpropheticȱtextȱofȱMTȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱItȱhasȱbeenȱdemonȬ stratedȱ thatȱ theȱ TDȱapproachȱ isȱcognitiveȱinȱnature,ȱdrawingȱfromȱtheȱ areasȱofȱcognitiveȱlinguistics,ȱcognitiveȱgrammarȱandȱcognitiveȱscienceȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ developȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ methodȱ forȱ understandingȱ proȬ pheticȱ text.ȱ Theȱ TDȱ methodȱ includesȱ aȱ recursiveȱ textȱ analysisȱ thatȱ beȬ ginsȱ withȱ aȱ clauseȱ levelȱ syntaxȱ analysis.ȱ Theȱ syntaxȱ analysisȱ providesȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ informationȱ structureȱ analysis,ȱ inȱ bothȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ topicȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ focus.ȱ Thisȱ informationȱ isȱ thenȱ analysedȱ forȱ theȱ linguisticȱ cuesȱ andȱ cluesȱ thatȱ actȱ asȱ spaceȬbuildersȱ forȱ cognitiveȱ construction.ȱ Mentalȱ spacesȱ openedȱ inȱ thisȱ mannerȱ areȱ thenȱ observedȱ forȱ linguisticȱ construalȱ operationsȱ thatȱ structureȱ andȱ linkȱ theȱ spaces.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ spacesȱareȱintegratedȱthroughȱaȱprocessȱofȱconceptualȱ blending.ȱInforȬ

66ȱ

ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyond:ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱTextȱDynamicsȱApproachȱ

mationȱ derivedȱ fromȱ thisȱ processȱ isȱ thenȱ availableȱ forȱ historicalȱ andȱ culturalȱanalysis.ȱȱ TheȱTDȱapproachȱhasȱseveralȱstrengths.ȱItȱisȱtextȱoriented;ȱitȱoffersȱaȱ wayȱtoȱmapȱcognitiveȱstructureȱthatȱoriginatesȱwithȱtheȱauthor;ȱitȱproȬ videsȱ theȱ readerȱ orȱ analystȱ withȱ aȱ wayȱ toȱ confirmȱ certainȱ intuitionsȱ aboutȱ theȱ mannerȱ inȱ whichȱ meaningȱ accruesȱ asȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ readȱ andȱ itȱ providesȱaȱfreshȱlookȱatȱanȱancientȱtextȱandȱtheȱintegrativeȱnatureȱofȱtheȱ methodȱ opensȱ theȱ wayȱ forȱ gatheringȱ andȱ synthesisingȱ informationȱ fromȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ linguisticȱ andȱ technologicalȱ studies.ȱ Eachȱ ofȱ theseȱ strengthsȱisȱrequiredȱforȱaȱcomprehensiveȱanalysisȱofȱpropheticȱtext.ȱ

ȱ

3. TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ toȱBHȱGrammarȱ ȱ Heȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱforeignȱlanguagesȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ doesȱnotȱknowȱanythingȱaboutȱhisȱown.ȱ ~JohannȱWolfgangȱvonȱGoetheȱ ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ TDȱ approach,ȱ grammarȱ isȱ aȱ significantȱ pointȱ ofȱ conȬ tactȱ forȱ theȱ authorȱ andȱ readerȱofȱanȱancientȱ textȱ(seeȱ chapterȱ2).ȱThus,ȱ understandingȱ BiblicalȱHebrewȱ grammarȱisȱ aȱ prerequisiteȱ forȱ successȬ fulȱanalysisȱofȱMTȱJeremiah.ȱSinceȱTDȱisȱaȱcognitiveȱapproach,ȱtheȱaimȱ ofȱthisȱchapterȱisȱtoȱexploreȱtraditionalȱandȱcognitiveȱapproachesȱtoȱBHȱ grammar.ȱTraditionalȱapproachesȱundergirdȱtheȱmoveȱtowardȱaȱcogniȬ tiveȱ grammarȱ ofȱ BH,ȱ providingȱ sharedȱ metaȬlanguageȱ andȱ standardȱ grammaticalȱcategories.ȱCognitiveȱGrammarȱprovidesȱaȱreorganisationȱ ofȱ traditionalȱ grammaticalȱ categories,ȱ accompaniedȱ byȱ newȱ metaȬ languageȱthatȱcontributesȱtoȱaȱfreshȱunderstandingȱofȱBHȱgrammar.ȱȱ Sinceȱ syntacticȱ structureȱ variesȱ acrossȱ languages,ȱ theȱ synchronicȱ analysisȱofȱtheȱsyntaxȱandȱsemanticsȱofȱMTȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱnecessariȬ lyȱ involvesȱ dealingȱ withȱ bothȱ BHȱ grammarȱ andȱ theȱ grammarȱ ofȱ theȱ receptorȱ language,ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ English.ȱ Takingȱ humanȱ cognitiveȱ processesȱasȱaȱstartingȱpointȱforȱtheȱstudyȱofȱBHȱgrammarȱisȱ anȱeffecȬ tiveȱmethodȱforȱaddressingȱtranslationȱissues.ȱPremperȱnotes:ȱȱ …theȱsemanticȱstructureȱofȱaȱcomplexȱsignȱ(forȱinstance,ȱaȱsentence)ȱdiffersȱ inȱ syntacticȱ structureȱ acrossȱ languages.ȱ Fromȱ aȱ conceptualȱ perspective,ȱ however,ȱexpressionsȱwithinȱaȱlanguageȱandȱacrossȱlanguagesȱcanȱbeȱcomȬ pared:ȱsentencesȱcanȱexpressȱtheȱsameȱproposition,ȱand,ȱinȱthisȱsense,ȱhaveȱ theȱsameȱmeaning.ȱThus,ȱtheȱconceptualȱlevelȱisȱoftenȱconsideredȱtheȱlocusȱ ofȱtertiaȱcomparationisȱandȱthereforeȱaȱpointȱofȱdepartureȱforȱlanguageȱcomȬ parisonȱandȱuniversalsȱresearch.1ȱ

Theseȱ commentsȱ underscoreȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ syntacticȱ structuresȱ forȱ textȱ analysisȱandȱreinforceȱtheȱchoiceȱofȱclauseȬlevelȱunitsȱasȱtheȱbasicȱunitȱ ofȱanalysisȱforȱtheȱTDȱapproach.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

Waldfriedȱ Premper,ȱ “Universalsȱ ofȱ theȱ Linguisticȱ Representationȱ ofȱ Situations,”ȱ inȱ Languageȱ Typologyȱ andȱ Languageȱ Universals:ȱ Anȱ Internationalȱ Handbook,ȱ ed.ȱ M.ȱ HasȬ pelmathȱ(Berlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001),ȱ478.ȱ

68ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

Thisȱ chapterȱ integratesȱ informationȱ fromȱ traditionalȱ sources,ȱ suchȱ asȱ introductoryȱ grammars,ȱ referenceȱ grammars,ȱ journalȱ articlesȱ andȱ monographs,ȱ withȱ informationȱ fromȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ grammar.2ȱ Thisȱ initialȱ andȱ necessarilyȱ elementaryȱ forayȱ intoȱ theȱ applicationȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ andȱ linguisticsȱ toȱ BHȱ textȱ touchesȱ uponȱ severalȱ interrelatedȱ issues.ȱ Sectionȱ A.ȱ discussesȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ BHȱ syntaxȱ andȱ grammaticalȱ constructions.ȱ Thisȱ sectionȱ introducesȱ theȱ grammaticalȱtheoryȱthatȱinformsȱtheȱTDȱapproach.ȱSectionȱB.,ȱCognitiveȱ ApproachesȱtoȱBHȱTerms,ȱintroducesȱtheȱideaȱofȱprototypicalȱsituationsȱ andȱ containsȱ aȱ shortȱ discussionȱ ofȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ termsȱ inȱ Jeremiah.ȱSectionȱC.ȱdiscussesȱtheȱcentralȱroleȱofȱtheȱBHȱverb.ȱThereȱisȱ significantȱdebateȱregardingȱwhetherȱtheȱverbȱindicatesȱtenseȱorȱaspect.ȱ Forȱ BH,ȱ theȱ binyanȱ systemȱ indicatesȱ situationȱ inȱ givenȱ verbalȱ form.ȱ Sectionȱ D.ȱ presentsȱ cognitiveȱ additionsȱ toȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ BHȱ gramȬ marȱ byȱ introducingȱ theȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ MOTIONȱ andȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱ conceptualȱ metaphors.ȱTheseȱmetaphorsȱhelpȱtoȱdescribeȱhowȱtheȱBHȱverbalȱformsȱ construeȱtheȱpresentationȱofȱsituations.ȱSectionȱE.ȱexplainsȱtheȱcontribuȬ tionsȱ thatȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱ theoryȱ canȱ makeȱ toȱ theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ BHȱsituationsȱatȱtheȱsentenceȱlevelȱandȱpresentsȱaȱbriefȱintroductionȱtoȱ cognitiveȱ constructionȱ atȱ theȱ discourseȱ level.ȱ Itȱ willȱ beȱ demonstratedȱ thatȱalthoughȱcognitiveȱapproachesȱcannotȱsolveȱtheȱtenseȱversusȱaspectȱ debate,ȱsuchȱapproachesȱhaveȱmuchȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱ theȱcognitiveȱconstrualȱofȱsituationsȱinȱBHȱtext.ȱ

A. GrammaticalȱTheories:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ SyntaxȱandȱGrammaticalȱConstructionsȱ Theȱ TDȱ approachȱ utilisesȱ selectedȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ threeȱ complementaryȱ grammaticalȱtheoriesȱtoȱaddressȱBHȱtext:ȱRoleȱandȱReferenceȱGrammarȱ (RRG);ȱCognitiveȱGrammarȱ(CG);ȱandȱConstructionȱGrammar.3ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱȱ

3ȱȱ

AnȱimportantȱintroductoryȱessayȱofȱparticularȱinterestȱtoȱBHȱscholarsȱ isȱLangacker,ȱ ”Context,ȱCognition,ȱandȱSemantics:ȱAȱUnifiedȱDynamicȱApproach,”ȱinȱJobȱ28:ȱCogȬ nitionȱinȱContext,ȱed.ȱE.ȱJ.ȱvanȱWoldeȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003),ȱ179Ȭ230.ȱ Roleȱ andȱ Referenceȱ Grammarȱ hasȱ itsȱ rootsȱ inȱ Transformationalȱ Grammar,ȱ GeneraȬ tiveȱ Semanticsȱ andȱ CaseȱGrammar.ȱForȱaȱsynopsisȱ ofȱtheȱ historicalȱ developmentȱofȱ RoleȱandȱReferenceȱGrammar,ȱseeȱVanȱValin,ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱSyntax,ȱ218.ȱ

ȱ

GrammaticalȱTheories:ȱSyntaxȱandȱGrammaticalȱConstructionȱ

1.

69ȱ

RoleȱandȱReferenceȱGrammarȱȱ

RRGȱ providesȱ aȱ detailedȱ accountȱ ofȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ syntax,ȱ semanticsȱ andȱ grammaticalȱ construction.ȱ Itsȱ emphasisȱ uponȱ languageȱ universalsȱ makesȱ itȱ especiallyȱ usefulȱ forȱ typologicalȱ comparisonȱ beȬ tweenȱlanguages.ȱTypologicalȱcomparisonsȱfacilitateȱtranslationȱasȱtheyȱ clarifyȱtheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱlanguagesȱthatȱfeatureȱVOȱ(verbȱ–ȱobject)ȱ constituentȱorderȱandȱthoseȱthatȱfeatureȱOVȱ(objectȱ–ȱverb)ȱconstituentȱ order.ȱ Someȱ basicȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱ Roleȱ andȱ Referenceȱ Grammarȱ include:ȱȱ x

Theȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱclauseȱasȱaȱlayeredȱstructure;ȱȱ

x

theȱconstructionȬspecificȱnatureȱofȱgrammaticalȱrelations;ȱ

x

theȱpresenceȱofȱlexicalȱmacroȬroles;ȱandȱ

x

anȱalgorithmȱforȱlinkingȱsyntax,ȱsemanticsȱandȱdiscourseȱpragmatȬ ics.ȱȱ

Additionally,ȱ RRGȱ presentsȱ aȱ highlyȱ developedȱ approachȱ toȱ languageȱ basedȱuponȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱoralȱorȱmanualȱgesturesȱandȱtheirȱ arrangement,ȱ morphosyntaxȱ andȱ meaning.ȱ RRGȱ elaboratesȱ uponȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ traditionalȱ grammaticalȱ categories,ȱ suchȱ asȱ subjectȱ andȱ directȱ object,ȱ byȱ includingȱ additionalȱ informationȱ underȱ theȱ termȱ relationalȱ structure.4ȱRelationalȱstructureȱaccountsȱforȱrelationalȱcharacteristicsȱofȱ NPs,ȱ suchȱ asȱ modifierȬmodifiedȱ andȱ possessorȬpossessed,ȱ amongȱ othȬ ers.ȱ Conceptsȱ drawnȱ fromȱ RRGȱ areȱ invaluableȱ forȱ dealingȱ withȱ techȬ nologicalȱdevelopmentsȱsuchȱasȱtheȱWIVUȱdatabase.ȱForȱexample,ȱrelaȬ tionalȱ structureȱ mayȱ beȱ usedȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ variousȱ phraseȱ atomsȱ createdȱ byȱ theȱ computerisedȱ database.ȱ Inȱ generalȱ syntacticȱ termsȱ theȱ phraseȱ atom,ȱ YJ[OT[[TDF,ȱ theȱ wordsȱ ofȱ Jeremiah,ȱ (Jeremiahȱ 1.1)ȱ mayȱ beȱ describedȱ asȱ aȱ NP.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ sameȱ phraseȱ atomȱ alsoȱ exhibitsȱ theȱ relationalȱ structureȱ ofȱ possessorȱ andȱ possessed,ȱ whichȱ providesȱ addiȬ tionalȱinformationȱforȱtheȱtranslatorȱorȱinterpreter.ȱ RRGȱ alsoȱ accountsȱ forȱ constituentȱ structureȱ byȱ systematicallyȱ deȬ scribingȱ “…theȱ nestingȱ ofȱ constituentsȱ withinȱ constituentsȱ inȱ aȱ senȬ tence.”ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ theȱ sentenceȱ Theȱ teacherȱ readȱ aȱ bookȱ inȱ theȱ libraryȱ consistsȱ ofȱ theȱ NP,ȱ theȱ library,ȱ whichȱ isȱ aȱ constituentȱ ofȱ theȱ PP,ȱ inȱ theȱ library,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱconstituentȱofȱtheȱVP,ȱreadȱaȱbookȱinȱtheȱlibrary.5ȱThisȱ assessmentȱ ofȱ constituentȱ nestingȱ demonstratesȱ theȱ interrelationshipsȱ thatȱholdȱbetweenȱcomputerȬgeneratedȱphraseȱatomsȱandȱclauseȱatomsȱ withinȱ aȱ sentence.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ theȱ NPȱ YJ[OT[[TDF,ȱ isȱ aȱ phraseȱ atomȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 4ȱȱ 5ȱȱ

Ibid.,ȱ4.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ3.ȱ

70ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

thatȱisȱalsoȱaȱconstituentȱofȱtheȱclauseȱatomȱJ[SNZ_DYJ[OT[[TDF,ȱwhichȱ inȱturnȱisȱconstituentȱofȱtheȱsentenceȱitself.6ȱAssessingȱconstituentȱstrucȬ tureȱisȱimportantȱforȱestablishingȱinformationȱstructureȱcategoriesȱsuchȱ asȱ topicȱ andȱ focus.ȱ Relationalȱ structureȱ andȱ constituentȱ structureȱ areȱ twoȱ interrelatedȱ waysȱ ofȱ describingȱ syntacticȱ structure,ȱ makingȱ thisȱ approachȱ congruentȱ withȱ andȱ helpfulȱ forȱ understandingȱ theȱ informaȬ tionȱcreatedȱbyȱtheȱrecursiveȱpatternȱmatchingȱprocessȱofȱtheȱcomputeȬ risedȱdatabaseȱ(seeȱchapterȱ2,ȱsectionȱC.1).ȱ

2.

CognitiveȱGrammarȱ

CGȱexploresȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱsyntax,ȱsemanticsȱandȱpragmaticsȱ asȱ aȱ continuum,ȱ orȱ asȱ Langackerȱ states,ȱ “…ȱ manifestationsȱ ofȱ aȱ singleȱ linguisticȱ symbolizationȱ process,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ itsȱ rootsȱ inȱ humanȱ cogniȬ tiveȱprocesses.”7ȱInȱconceptualisingȱaboutȱconceptualisingȱ(metaconcepȬ tualising),ȱLangackerȱhasȱdevelopedȱaȱcomprehensiveȱmethodȱforȱanaȬ lysingȱ andȱ describingȱ grammaticalȱ relationsȱ fromȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ perspective.ȱȱ a.

GrammarȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

Theȱ figureȬgroundȱ configurationȱ isȱ aȱ basicȱ featureȱ ofȱ perspectiveȱ inȱ humanȱcognitionȱandȱitȱplaysȱanȱimportantȱpartȱinȱ Langacker’sȱcogniȬ tiveȱ grammar.8ȱ Langackerȱ statesȱ “…theȱ prevalenceȱ ofȱ figureȬgroundȱ organizationȱinȱconceptualȱstructureȱentailsȱitsȱimportanceȱforȱsemanticȱ andȱgrammaticalȱstructure.”9ȱThisȱallowsȱLangackerȱtoȱspeakȱofȱaȱprofileȱ asȱ“Theȱentityȱdesignatedȱbyȱaȱsemanticȱstructureȱ…ȱitȱisȱaȱsubstructureȱ withinȱtheȱbaseȱthatȱisȱobligatorilyȱaccessed,ȱfunctionsȱasȱtheȱfocalȱpointȱ withinȱ theȱ objectiveȱ scene,ȱ achievesȱ aȱ specialȱ degreeȱ ofȱ prominenceȱ (resultingȱ inȱ oneȱ levelȱ ofȱ figureȬgroundȱ organization.”10ȱ Thus,ȱ aȱ proȬ filedȱentityȱwillȱexhibitȱsomeȱofȱtheȱcharacteristicsȱthatȱTalmyȱassignsȱtoȱ theȱfigureȱinȱtheȱfigureȬgroundȱconfiguration.11ȱTheȱfigureȬgroundȱconȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 6ȱȱȱ Theȱ constituentȱ structureȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ isȱ actuallyȱ moreȱ complicated,ȱ andȱ isȱ discussedȱatȱlengthȱinȱsectionȱ4.A.1.ȱȱ 7ȱȱ VanȱValin,ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱSyntax,ȱ223.ȱ 8ȱȱ Viewpoint,ȱ deixisȱ andȱ subjectivityȱ areȱ threeȱ additionalȱ featuresȱ ofȱ perspectiveȱ thatȱ haveȱbeenȱtakenȱupȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchapters.ȱSeeȱchapterȱ1,ȱsectionȱCȱandȱchapterȱ2,ȱ sectionsȱAȱandȱB.ȱ 9ȱȱ Langacker,ȱFoundationsȱofȱCognitiveȱGrammar,ȱ120.ȱ 10ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ490.ȱ 11ȱȱ Theȱlocationȱofȱtheȱfigureȱisȱlessȱknownȱthanȱthatȱofȱtheȱground;ȱitȱisȱsmallerȱthanȱtheȱ ground;ȱitȱisȱmoreȱmobileȱthanȱtheȱground;ȱitȱisȱstructurallyȱsimplerȱthanȱtheȱground;ȱ

ȱ

GrammaticalȱTheories:ȱSyntaxȱandȱGrammaticalȱConstructionȱ

71ȱ

figurationȱisȱalsoȱimportantȱtoȱLangacker’sȱdefinitionȱofȱrelationalȱstrucȬ ture,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱtrajectorȱisȱ“…theȱfigureȱwithinȱaȱrelationalȱprofile.”12ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ theȱ landmarkȱ isȱ “…aȱ salientȱ substructureȱ otherȱ thanȱ theȱ trajectorȱofȱaȱrelationalȱpredicationȱorȱtheȱprofileȱofȱaȱnominalȱpredicaȬ tion.”13ȱAȱdiscussionȱofȱrelationalȱstructureȱfollowsȱaȱshortȱdiscussionȱofȱ cognitiveȱgrammarȱcategories.ȱ b. CategoriesȱinȱCognitiveȱGrammarȱ Ratherȱ thanȱ subdividingȱ grammaticalȱ relationsȱ intoȱ rigidȱ categories,ȱ Langackerȱ arguesȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ continuumȱ betweenȱ thingsȱ andȱ relaȬ tions.14ȱImportantly,ȱtheȱtermȱthingȱ“…makesȱreferenceȱnotȱtoȱphysicalȱ objectsȱbutȱratherȱtoȱcognitiveȱevents.”15ȱThus,ȱtheȱtermȱthingȱindicatesȱ conceptualisationsȱthatȱfunctionȱasȱsubjectsȱorȱobjectsȱinȱaȱsentence.ȱTheȱ termȱ thingȱ includesȱ notȱ onlyȱ nounsȱ andȱ nounȱ phrases,ȱ butȱ participlesȱ andȱinfinitivesȱasȱwell.ȱInȱcertainȱcases,ȱanȱentireȱclauseȱmayȱbeȱtermedȱ aȱthing,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱobjectȱclauseȱthatȱfollowsȱaȱverbȱofȱperception.ȱRelaȬ tionsȱ mayȱ beȱ describedȱ asȱ atemporal,ȱ orȱ “…lackingȱ aȱ positiveȱ temporalȱ profile.”16ȱAtemporalȱrelationsȱareȱestablishedȱbyȱprepositionalȱphrases,ȱ adverbȱphrases,ȱappositionalȱnounȱphrasesȱandȱstativeȱverbs.ȱAtemporȬ alȱ relationsȱ areȱ importantȱ toȱ mentalȱ spacesȱ constructionȱ sinceȱ theseȱ relationsȱ areȱ oftenȱ utilisedȱ asȱ spaceȬbuilders.ȱ Alternatively,ȱ relationsȱ mayȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱprocesses.ȱTheseȱareȱindicatedȱbyȱactiveȱverbs.ȱȱ TheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱatemporalȱrelationsȱandȱprocessesȱisȱaȱfuncȬ tionȱofȱtheȱcontrastingȱmodesȱofȱcognitiveȱprocessesȱinvolvedȱinȱassessȬ ingȱtheȱconceptualisation.ȱThingsȱandȱatemporalȱrelationsȱareȱprocessedȱ byȱ summaryȱ scanning,ȱ inȱ whichȱ aȱ relationȱ isȱ conceptuallyȱ scannedȱ toȱ formȱaȱsingleȱpicture.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱ“…allȱfacetsȱofȱtheȱcomplexȱsceneȱareȱ simultaneouslyȱavailableȱandȱthroughȱtheirȱcoȬactivation…theyȱconstiȬ tuteȱaȱcoherentȱgestalt.”ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱprocessesȱareȱobservedȱbyȱ sequentialȱ scanning,ȱ inȱ whichȱ aȱ relationȱ isȱ conceptuallyȱ scannedȱ asȱ aȱ movingȱ picture.ȱ Sequentialȱ scanningȱ “…involvesȱ theȱ successiveȱ transȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 12ȱȱ 13ȱȱ 14ȱȱ

15ȱȱ 16ȱȱ

itȱ isȱ moreȱ salientȱ thanȱ theȱ ground;ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ moreȱ recentlyȱ inȱ awarenessȱ thanȱ theȱ ground.ȱCroftȱandȱCruse,ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics,ȱ42.ȱ Langacker,ȱFoundationsȱofȱCognitiveȱGrammar,ȱ494.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ490.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ actuallyȱ aȱ simplificationȱ ofȱ Langacker’sȱ definitionȱ ofȱ aȱ thingȱ asȱ “aȱ regionȱ inȱ someȱ domainȱ ofȱ conceptualȱ space.”ȱ Ibid.,ȱ 494.ȱ Langackerȱ isȱ carefulȱ notȱ toȱ limitȱ theȱ definitionȱofȱaȱthingȱtoȱsubstantialȱphysicalȱobjects,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱaccommodateȱabstractȱ entities.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ183.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ486.ȱ

72ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

formationsȱofȱoneȱconfigurationȱintoȱanother.ȱTheȱcomponentȱstatesȱareȱ processedȱinȱseriesȱratherȱthanȱinȱparallel.”17ȱȱ Langackerȱusesȱ theȱ termsȱtrajectorȱandȱlandmarkȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱinȬ terconnectednessȱbetweenȱprofiledȱparticipantsȱinȱaȱrelationalȱstructure.ȱ TheȱtermȱtrajectorȱimpliesȱmotionȱandȱtheȱtrajectorȱinȱaȱrelationalȱstrucȬ tureȱ hasȱ specialȱ statusȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ profiledȱ asȱ theȱ figureȱ againstȱ ground.ȱ Theȱ landmarkȱ providesȱ aȱ pointȱ ofȱ referenceȱ forȱ locatingȱ theȱ trajector.ȱ Thisȱ resultsȱ inȱ anȱ asymmetryȱ betweenȱ theȱ profiledȱ particiȬ pantsȱ inȱ aȱ givenȱ expression.ȱ Consequently,ȱ Langackerȱ isȱ ableȱ toȱ deȬ scribeȱtheȱcognitiveȱstatusȱofȱgrammaticalȱterms.ȱForȱexample,ȱanȱadjecȬ tiveȱrepresentsȱanȱatemporalȱrelationȱwithȱaȱthingȱasȱaȱtrajector,ȱasȱinȱtheȱ relationalȱpredication,ȱTheȱcarȱisȱred.ȱInȱthisȱpredication,ȱtheȱthingȱcarȱisȱ theȱtrajector,ȱtheȱcolourȱtermȱredȱisȱtheȱlandmark.ȱTheȱentireȱredȱcarȱisȱ perceivedȱasȱaȱfigureȱagainstȱground.ȱLikewise,ȱanȱadverbȱrepresentsȱanȱ atemporalȱ relationȱwithȱaȱrelationȱasȱaȱtrajector,ȱasȱinȱtheȱphrase,ȱgoingȱ fast.ȱInȱtheȱphrase,ȱgoingȱfast,ȱtheȱtermȱgoingȱisȱtheȱtrajector;ȱtheȱadverbȱ fastȱ isȱ theȱ landmark.ȱ Inȱ theȱ relationalȱ predication,ȱ Theȱ redȱ carȱ isȱ goingȱ fast,ȱtheȱphraseȱtheȱredȱcarȱisȱtheȱtrajectorȱandȱtheȱphraseȱgoingȱfastȱisȱtheȱ landmark.ȱ Inȱ theȱ relationalȱ predication,ȱ Theȱ redȱ carȱ hitȱ theȱ wallȱ theȱ phraseȱ theȱ redȱ carȱ isȱ theȱ trajectorȱ andȱ theȱ wallȱ isȱ theȱ directȱ object,ȱ orȱ “…nominalȱ whoseȱ profileȱ correspondsȱ toȱ theȱ primaryȱ landmarkȱ ofȱ aȱ relation.”18ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ Langackerȱ accountsȱ forȱ theȱ cohesionȱ inherentȱ withinȱ phrases,ȱ withinȱ clausesȱ andȱ withinȱ sentences.ȱ Likeȱ RRGȱ disȬ cussedȱabove,ȱtheseȱfacetsȱofȱCGȱsupportȱtheȱideaȱ(presentedȱinȱchapterȱ 2)ȱ thatȱ phraseȱ atomsȱ combineȱ toȱ formȱ clauses,ȱ andȱ thatȱ clauseȱ atomsȱ combineȱ toȱ formȱ sentences,ȱ makingȱ thisȱ approachȱ helpfulȱ forȱ underȬ standingȱtheȱcomputerisedȱdatabaseȱ(seeȱsectionȱ2.C.1).ȱ c.

BHȱGrammaticalȱCategoriesȱ

Theȱinterrelationshipȱbetweenȱphrase,ȱclauseȱandȱsentenceȱlevelȱtrajecȬ torsȱ andȱ landmarksȱ contributesȱ towardsȱ aȱ reȬevaluationȱ ofȱ BHȱ gramȬ maticalȱcategories.ȱThisȱisȱactuallyȱaȱsimpleȱcategoryȱshiftȱawayȱfromȱaȱ bifurcationȱ betweenȱ nounsȱ andȱ verbsȱ towardsȱ aȱ scaleȱ fromȱ nounȱ toȱ verb.ȱ Theȱ mainȱ pointsȱ onȱ theȱ scaleȱ areȱ Langacker’sȱ things,ȱ atemporalȱ relationsȱ andȱ processes.ȱ Theȱ thingȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ scaleȱ beginsȱ withȱ nouns,ȱ appositionalȱnounȱphrases,ȱadjectiveȱphrases,ȱinfinitivesȱandȱparticiplesȱ (whenȱ usedȱ asȱ nouns).ȱ Followingȱ this,ȱ theȱ atemporalȱ relationȱ pointȱ beȬ ginsȱ withȱ adverbȱ phrases,ȱ followedȱ byȱ prepositionsȱ andȱ stativeȱ verbs.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ processesȱ pointȱ beginsȱ withȱ participlesȱ (usedȱ asȱ verbs),ȱ inȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 17ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ248.ȱ 18ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ217Ȭ219.ȱ

ȱ

CognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱTermsȱofȱPerceptionȱandȱCognitionȱ

73ȱ

transitiveȱ verbs,ȱ singlyȱ transitiveȱ verbsȱ andȱ doublyȱ transitiveȱ verbs.ȱ Verbsȱareȱcategorisedȱbyȱtheȱbinyanȱofȱaȱgivenȱformȱinȱtheȱareasȱofȱforceȱ dynamics,ȱdiathesisȱandȱverbȱspecificȱsemanticȱroles.19ȱȱ Langackerȱ hasȱ developedȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ diagramsȱ andȱ descriptiveȱ symbolsȱ asȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ shorthandȱ forȱ theseȱ termsȱ andȱ concepts.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ these,ȱ theȱ canonicalȱ viewingȱ arrangementȱ diagramȱ presentedȱ inȱ chapȬ tersȱ1ȱandȱ2,ȱhasȱbeenȱadaptedȱforȱuseȱinȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱTDȱanalytiȬ calȱcategories.ȱ

3.

ConstructionȱGrammarȱ

Constructionȱ Grammarȱfocusesȱuponȱtheȱnotionȱofȱ grammaticalȱ strucȬ tures.ȱItȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱcognitiveȱgrammar.ȱConstructionȱgrammarȱisȱhelpȬ fulȱ forȱ understandingȱ theȱ BHȱ verbalȱ system,ȱ inȱ particularȱ theȱ variousȱ optionsȱ representedȱ byȱ theȱ binyanȱ system.ȱ Furtherȱ discussion,ȱ basedȱ uponȱMandelblit’sȱworkȱwithȱtheȱMHȱbinyanȱsystem,ȱpavesȱtheȱwayȱforȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ constructionȱ grammarȱ principlesȱ inȱ theȱ TDȱ approach.ȱ Seeȱ sectionȱ3.E.2,ȱbelow.ȱȱ

B. CognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱTermsȱofȱPerceptionȱ andȱCognitionȱ Becauseȱlinguisticȱtermsȱrelatingȱtoȱperceptionȱandȱcognitionȱareȱatȱtheȱ heartȱ ofȱ thisȱ volume,ȱ itȱ isȱ rewardingȱ toȱ investigateȱ theseȱ verbsȱ fromȱ aȱ cognitiveȱgrammarȱperspective.ȱJustificationȱforȱgroupingȱverbsȱofȱperȬ ceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ comesȱ fromȱ twoȱ sources:ȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ semanticȱ domainsȱ andȱ theȱ RRGȱ assessmentȱ ofȱ verbȬspecificȱ semanticȱ roles.ȱ AcȬ cordingȱ toȱ LouwȬNida’sȱ studyȱ ofȱ semanticȱ domains,ȱ verbsȱ ofȱ percepȬ tionȱareȱincludedȱinȱdomainȱ24,ȱSensoryȱEventsȱandȱStates.ȱVerbsȱofȱcogȬ nitionȱ areȱ includedȱ inȱ domainȱ 28,ȱ Know.ȱ Theȱ interveningȱ categoriesȱ includeȱAttitudesȱandȱEmotionsȱ(25),ȱPsychologicalȱFacultiesȱ(26)ȱandȱLearnȱ (27).ȱCategoriesȱthatȱfollowȱverbsȱofȱcognitionȱinclude:ȱRecallȱ(28),ȱThinkȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 19ȱȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ veryȱ basicȱ continuum,ȱ whichȱ theȱ authorȱ plansȱ toȱ developȱ byȱ additionalȱ researchȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ languageȱ typologyȱ andȱ languageȱ universalsȱ model.ȱ Similarȱ scalesȱareȱdiscussedȱinȱgreaterȱdepthȱinȱH.ȱJ.ȱSasse,ȱ“ScalesȱbetweenȱNouninessȱandȱ Verbiness,”ȱinȱLanguageȱTypologyȱandȱLanguageȱUniversals:ȱAnȱInternationalȱHandbook,ȱ ed.ȱM.ȱHaspelmathȱ(Berlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001).ȱ

74ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

(29),ȱ Holdȱ aȱ Viewȱ (30),ȱBelieve,ȱ Trustȱ (31),ȱandȱ Understandȱ (32).ȱ Verbsȱ ofȱ speakingȱfollowȱinȱdomainȱ33,ȱCommunication.20ȱȱ

1.

RoleȱandȱReferenceȱGrammarȱ

RRGȱisȱusefulȱforȱunderstandingȱtheȱcharacteristicsȱofȱgroupsȱofȱtermsȱ thatȱ occurȱ inȱ variousȱ semanticȱ domains.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ studyȱ ofȱ syntax,ȱ Vanȱ ValinȱdelimitsȱaȱcontinuumȱwithȱverbȬspecificȱsemanticȱrolesȱatȱoneȱendȱ andȱgrammaticalȱrelationsȱatȱtheȱother.ȱThisȱcontinuumȱisȱmarkedȱbothȱ byȱincreasingȱgeneralisationȱandȱbyȱincreasingȱneutralisationȱofȱsemanȬ ticȱ contrasts.21ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ termsȱ describingȱ semanticȱ rolesȱ suchȱ asȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ areȱ highlyȱ specificȱ andȱ indicateȱ aȱ highȱ degreeȱ ofȱ semanticȱ contrast.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ termsȱ describingȱ grammaticalȱ relationsȱ suchȱ asȱ subjectȱ andȱ objectȱ areȱ highlyȱ generalȱ andȱ indicateȱ aȱ lowȱdegreeȱofȱsemanticȱcontrast.ȱVanȱValinȱ beginsȱwithȱanȱanalysisȱ ofȱ verbȬspecificȱ semanticȱ roles,ȱ suchȱ asȱ someoneȱ whoȱ speaks,ȱ someoneȱ whoȱthinks,ȱhearsȱorȱlikes,ȱsomeoneȱwhoȱisȱgivenȱto,ȱsomeoneȱorȱsomeȬ thingȱthatȱisȱseen,ȱsomeoneȱorȱsomethingȱthatȱisȱlocatedȱandȱsomethingȱ thatȱ isȱ broken.ȱ Heȱ observesȱ thatȱ theseȱ rolesȱ formȱ aȱ group,ȱ whichȱ heȱ describesȱ asȱ thematicȱ relations.ȱ Oneȱ whoȱ speaksȱ isȱ anȱ agent;ȱ oneȱ whoȱ thinksȱ isȱ aȱ cogniser;ȱ oneȱ whoȱ hearsȱ isȱ aȱ perceiver;ȱ oneȱ whoȱ likesȱ isȱ anȱ emoter;ȱoneȱwhoȱisȱgivenȱtoȱisȱaȱreceiver;ȱsomethingȱthatȱisȱseenȱisȱaȱstiȬ mulus;ȱ somethingȱthatȱisȱlocatedȱisȱaȱtheme;ȱandȱsomethingȱthatȱisȱ broȬ kenȱisȱaȱpatient.ȱAdditionally,ȱcognisers,ȱperceiversȱandȱemotersȱformȱaȱ group,ȱtheȱthematicȱrelationȱofȱexperiencer.ȱThematicȱrelations,ȱsuchȱasȱ agent,ȱ experiencer,ȱ recipient,ȱ stimulus,ȱ themeȱ andȱ patientȱ formedȱ groupsȱ calledȱ semanticȱ macroȬroles.ȱ Twoȱ majorȱ semanticȱ macroȬrolesȱ areȱ actorȱ andȱ undergoer.ȱ Importantly,ȱ actorȱ andȱ undergoerȱ areȱ notȱ grammaticalȱ relations,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ areȱ aȱ moreȱ generalȱ typeȱ ofȱ semanticȱ role.22ȱForȱthisȱreasonȱbothȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱanȱactiveȱvoiceȱtransitiveȱverbȱ andȱtheȱobjectȱofȱtheȱprepositionȱbyȱareȱactors,ȱwhileȱtheȱdirectȱobjectȱofȱ anȱactiveȱvoiceȱtransitiveȱverbȱandȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱaȱpassiveȱverbȱareȱunȬ dergoers.ȱNoteȱtheȱfollowingȱsentences:ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 20ȱȱ J.ȱP.ȱLouwȱandȱE.ȱA.ȱNida,ȱGreekȬEnglishȱLexiconȱofȱtheȱNewȱTestament:ȱBasedȱonȱSemanȬ ticȱDomains,ȱ2ndȱed.,ȱ2ȱvols.ȱ(NewȱYork:ȱUnitedȱBibleȱSocieties,ȱ1989).ȱThisȱcategorisaȬ tionȱspecificallyȱcoversȱGreek,ȱbutȱdueȱtoȱtheȱcrossȬlinguisticȱnatureȱofȱsemanticȱdoȬ mains,ȱ theȱ categoriesȱ areȱ relevantȱ forȱ BHȱ asȱ well.ȱ Studiesȱ areȱ underwayȱ forȱ aȱ HebrewȬspecificȱdatabase.ȱSeeȱT.ȱMuraoka,ȱStudiesȱinȱAncientȱHebrewȱSemantics,ȱAbrȬ Nahrain.ȱSupplementȱSeries,ȱvol.ȱ4ȱ(Louvain:ȱPeetersȱPress,ȱ1995);ȱidem,ȱSemanticsȱofȱ AncientȱHebrew,ȱAbrȬNahrain.ȱSupplementȱSeries,ȱvol.ȱ6ȱ(Louvain:ȱPeeters,ȱ1998).ȱ 21ȱȱ VanȱValin,ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱSyntax,ȱ30.ȱ 22ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ28.ȱ

ȱ

CognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱTermsȱofȱPerceptionȱandȱCognitionȱ

x

Johnȱateȱtheȱdogȱbiscuit.ȱ

x

TheȱdogȱbiscuitȱwasȱeatenȱbyȱJohn.ȱ

75ȱ

Inȱ theȱ firstȱ sentence,ȱ theȱ grammaticalȱ subjectȱ Johnȱ isȱ anȱ actorȱ andȱ theȱ grammaticalȱdirectȱobjectȱtheȱdogȱbiscuitȱisȱanȱundergoer.ȱInȱtheȱsecondȱ sentence,ȱ theȱ grammaticalȱ subjectȱ theȱ dogȱ biscuitȱ isȱ anȱ undergoerȱ andȱ John,ȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ theȱ prepositionȱ by,ȱ isȱ anȱ actor.ȱ Theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ seȬ manticȱmacroȬrolesȱisȱaȱmajorȱreasonȱthatȱactiveȱandȱpassiveȱconstrucȬ tionsȱ induceȱ differentȱ construalsȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ situation.ȱ Thisȱ inȱ turnȱ playsȱ intoȱ theȱ informationȱ structureȱ categoryȱ ofȱ focus.23ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ theȱ reasonȱ thatȱ purelyȱ syntaxȱ drivenȱ notionsȱ ofȱ focusȱ areȱ insufficientȱ forȱ identifyingȱ theȱ focalȱ elementȱ inȱ aȱ sentenceȱ orȱ clause,ȱ fromȱ aȱ syntacticȱ perspective,ȱ theȱ twoȱ examplesȱ areȱ nearlyȱ identicalȱ SVOȱ sentences,ȱ yetȱ theȱ construalȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ isȱ ratherȱ different.ȱ Finally,ȱ semanticȱ macroȬ rolesȱ formȱ aȱ groupȱ calledȱ grammaticalȱ relations:ȱ bothȱ anȱ actorȱ andȱ anȱ undergoerȱ mayȱ beȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ aȱ sentence,ȱ asȱ theȱ exampleȱ aboveȱ deȬ monstrates.ȱȱ Vanȱ Valinȱ notesȱ thatȱ someȱ overlapȱ existsȱ betweenȱ theȱ groupȱ ofȱ thematicȱrelationsȱthatȱcanȱserveȱasȱactorȱandȱtheȱgroupȱthatȱcanȱserveȱ asȱundergoer.ȱHeȱintroducesȱbothȱanȱactorȱhierarchyȱandȱanȱundergoerȱ hierarchy,ȱasȱfollows:ȱ ActorȱHierarchy:ȱȱ Agentȱ>ȱInstrumentȱ>ȱExperiencerȱ>ȱRecipientȱ UndergoerȱHierarchy:ȱȱ Patient>ȱThemeȱ>ȱStimulusȱ>ȱExperiencerȱ>ȱRecipient/Source/Goal/Locationȱ

Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ assessment,ȱ theȱ prototypicalȱ actorȱ argumentȱ wouldȱ beȱ anȱ agentȱ (Johnȱ choppedȱ downȱ theȱ tree),ȱ andȱ ifȱ noȱ agentȱ isȱ present,ȱ theȱ actorȱargumentȱ wouldȱ beȱ anȱ instrumentȱ (Theȱ windȱ blewȱ downȱ theȱ tree).ȱ Likewise,ȱ ifȱ noȱ instrumentȱ isȱ present,ȱ theȱ actorȱ argumentȱwouldȱ beȱanȱexperiencerȱ (Johnȱsawȱtheȱ treeȱ blowȱ down)ȱandȱsoȱon.ȱNoteȱthatȱ experiencerȱ andȱ recipientȱ areȱ presentȱ inȱ bothȱ hierarchies.ȱ Theȱ roleȱ ofȱ experiencerȱisȱlessȱthanȱprototypicalȱinȱbothȱhierarchies,ȱindicatingȱthatȱ sentencesȱ whichȱ includeȱ experiencerȱ verbsȱ areȱ lessȱ prototypicalȱ thanȱ sentencesȱthatȱcontainȱcommunicationȱverbs,ȱsuchȱasȱtoȱsayȱorȱtoȱspeak.ȱ Thisȱleadsȱtoȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱlinguisticȱexpressionȱofȱprototypicalityȱ inȱsituations/propositions.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 23ȱȱ Asȱ thisȱ exampleȱ demonstrates,ȱ wordȱ orderȱ aloneȱ inȱ insufficientȱ forȱ determiningȱ focus:ȱ bothȱ ofȱ theseȱ sentencesȱ areȱ SVO,ȱ yetȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ perceivedȱ differenceȱ inȱ conȬ strual.ȱ

76ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

2.

PrototypicalȱSituationsȱ

Inȱaȱprototypicalȱsituation,ȱtheȱsubjectȱargumentȱappearsȱasȱtheȱagent,ȱorȱ theȱdoerȱofȱanȱaction,ȱwhileȱtheȱobjectȱargumentȱappearsȱasȱtheȱpatient,ȱ orȱtheȱreceiverȱofȱtheȱaction.ȱTheseȱprototypicalȱrolesȱareȱcolouredȱbyȱtheȱ verbȬspecificȱsemanticȱroleȱofȱaȱgivenȱlexeme,ȱwhichȱisȱevaluatedȱbyȱtheȱ prototypicalityȱscalesȱmentionedȱabove.ȱȱ Asȱ demonstratedȱ above,ȱ theȱ hierarchicalȱ positionsȱ ofȱ theȱ verbȬ specificȱ semanticȱ rolesȱ ofȱ theȱ subjectȱ andȱ objectȱ argumentsȱareȱ imporȬ tantȱ forȱ establishingȱ prototypicality.ȱ However,ȱ establishingȱ prototypiȬ calityȱoccursȱonȱotherȱlevelsȱasȱwell.ȱPremperȱnotesȱthatȱsituationsȱexhiȬ bitȱ bothȱ internalȱ relationalityȱ betweenȱ entitiesȱ andȱ dynamicityȱ asȱ oneȱ entityȱactsȱuponȱanother.ȱThus,ȱprototypicalityȱisȱevaluatedȱbothȱbyȱtheȱ animacyȱ hierarchyȱ andȱ byȱ theȱ degreeȱ ofȱ dynamicityȱ inȱ aȱ givenȱ situaȬ tion.ȱTheȱanimacyȱhierarchyȱisȱaȱscaleȱinȱwhichȱSpeechȱActȱParticipantȱ1ȱ (SAPȱ1)ȱappearsȱatȱtheȱtopȱandȱmassȱnouns,ȱsuchȱasȱrockȱorȱsalt,ȱappearȱ atȱtheȱbottom,ȱasȱfollows:ȱȱ AnimacyȱHierarchyȱ SAPȱ1ȱ>ȱSAPȱ2ȱ>ȱSAPȱ3ȱ>ȱPNȱ>ȱhumanȱ>ȱanimateȱ>ȱinanimateȱ>ȱmass.24ȱȱ

Asȱ mentionedȱ above,ȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ aȱ sentenceȱ isȱ mostȱ likelyȱ toȱ beȱ seȬ lectedȱfromȱtheȱtopȱofȱtheȱanimacyȱhierarchy.ȱ Inȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱlinguisticȱexpressionȱofȱsituations,ȱPremperȱ illustratesȱ thisȱsituationȱusingȱseveralȱexamplesȱ fromȱvariousȱ scholars.ȱ Heȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱsentence,ȱTheȱfarmerȱkilledȱtheȱduckling,ȱisȱdynamicȱandȱ thatȱ itȱ containsȱ twoȱ animateȱ entities,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ whichȱ causesȱ aȱ dramaticȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱother.ȱThisȱisȱfollowedȱ byȱtheȱsentence,ȱTheȱducksȱateȱ theȱ oldȱ bread,ȱ whichȱ containsȱ aȱ nonȬhuman,ȱ animateȱ entityȱ andȱ anȱ inaniȬ mateȱaffectedȱentity.ȱTheȱsentenceȱManȱisȱjustȱisȱstatic,ȱprovidingȱinforȬ mationȱregardingȱaȱpermanentȱpropertyȱofȱaȱsingleȱentity.25ȱTheȱexamȬ plesȱ highlightȱ theȱ twoȬfoldȱ natureȱ ofȱ prototypicality,ȱ whichȱ isȱ determinedȱbothȱbyȱtheȱpositionȱofȱtheȱrespectiveȱentitiesȱonȱtheȱanimaȬ cyȱscaleȱandȱbyȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱdynamicityȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱsituation.ȱȱ Inȱotherȱwords,ȱtheȱprimaryȱspeakerȱinȱaȱdialogueȱisȱtheȱmostȱlikelyȱ candidateȱforȱsubject,ȱwhereasȱaȱmassȱnounȱsuchȱasȱsaltȱisȱleastȱlikelyȱtoȱ appearȱasȱsubjectȱ(andȱ moreȱ likelyȱtoȱappearȱasȱanȱobject).ȱ Theȱ reasonȱ thatȱtheȱexampleȱsentencesȱJohnȱateȱtheȱdogȱbiscuitȱandȱTheȱdogȱbiscuitȱwasȱ eatenȱbyȱJohnȱareȱnotȱequallyȱprototypicalȱisȱnowȱclear.ȱWhileȱtheȱentitiesȱ maintainȱ identicalȱ semanticȱ macroȬrolesȱ andȱ theȱ verbsȱ carryȱ aȱ similarȱ degreeȱ ofȱ dynamicity,ȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ theȱ entitiesȱ onȱ theȱ animacyȱ hieȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ 25ȱȱ Premper,ȱ“UniversalsȱofȱtheȱLinguisticȱRepresentationȱofȱSituations,”ȱ489.ȱ

ȱ

CognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱTermsȱofȱPerceptionȱandȱCognitionȱ

77ȱ

rarchyȱcontributesȱtoȱdissimilarȱprototypicality.ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱexample,ȱtheȱ animateȱsubjectȱ isȱhigherȱonȱ theȱ animacyȱscaleȱthanȱtheȱinanimateȱobȬ ject,ȱ whichȱ indicatesȱ aȱ higherȱ degreeȱ ofȱ prototypicalityȱ thanȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ example,ȱ whichȱ containsȱ anȱ inanimateȱ subjectȱ andȱ anȱ aniȬ mateȱ objectȱ ofȱ theȱ preposition.ȱ Thus,ȱ althoughȱ theȱ sentencesȱ areȱ idenȬ ticalȱwithȱregardȱtoȱwordȱorder,ȱtheȱpassiveȱconstructionȱinȱtheȱsecondȱ sentenceȱinducesȱaȱlessȬprototypicalȱconstrualȱthanȱtheȱactiveȱconstrucȬ tionȱ inȱ theȱ first.ȱ Prototypicalityȱ andȱ theȱ animacyȱ hierarchyȱ areȱ imporȬ tantȱ forȱ understandingȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ whereȱ grammaticalȱ subjectsȱ occurȱ atȱ dissimilarȱ pointsȱ onȱ theȱ animacyȱ hierarchy,ȱ resultingȱ inȱ lessȱ thanȱprototypicalȱsituationsȱthroughoutȱtheȱsection.ȱ Itȱ isȱ nowȱ possibleȱ toȱ makeȱ someȱ generalȱ observationsȱ regardingȱ prototypicalityȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ situationsȱ ofȱ perception,ȱ cognitionȱ andȱ communication.ȱ First,ȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ termsȱ areȱ groupedȱ withinȱtheȱthematicȱrelationshipȱofȱexperiencerȱandȱareȱlessȱthanȱprotoȬ typicalȱinȱtwoȱways:ȱtheȱsubjectȱargumentȱisȱanȱexperiencerȱratherȱthatȱ anȱ agentȱ andȱ theseȱ verbsȱ tendȱ toȱ takeȱ complementȱ clausesȱ asȱ objectȱ arguments,ȱ soȱ aȱ secondȱ situationȱ mightȱ beȱ embeddedȱ withinȱ theȱ first.ȱ Second,ȱ communicationȱ termsȱ occurȱ withȱ theȱ thematicȱ relationshipȱ ofȱ agent,ȱ whichȱ isȱ highlyȱ prototypical.ȱ However,ȱ communicationȱ verbsȱ alsoȱ tendȱ toȱ takeȱ complementȱ clausesȱ orȱ evenȱ wholeȱ paragraphsȱ asȱ objectȱandȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱdynamicityȱisȱlessȱthanȱthatȱofȱanȱactiveȱvoice,ȱ transitiveȱverbȱsuchȱasȱ“throw”.ȱMillerȱhasȱdemonstratedȱthatȱcommuȬ nicationȱ verbsȱ alsoȱ differȱ inȱ degreeȱ ofȱ prototypicalityȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ markednessȱ ofȱ theȱ grammaticalȱ constructionsȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ occur.26ȱ Doubtless,ȱ thisȱ isȱ alsoȱ theȱ caseȱ forȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ verbsȱ asȱ well.ȱ Furtherȱ research,ȱ usingȱ Miller’sȱ stringentȱ analyticalȱ process,ȱ isȱ surelyȱinȱorder.ȱ

3.ȱPerceptionȱandȱCognitionȱTermsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ Termsȱ ofȱ communication,ȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ aboundȱ inȱ MTȱ JeȬ remiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ thusȱ grammaticalȱ subjectsȱ fromȱ theȱ highȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ animacyȱhierarchyȱareȱprevalentȱinȱthisȱsection.ȱTheȱgeneralityȱthatȱtheȱ subjectȱofȱaȱsentenceȱisȱmostȱlikelyȱtoȱcomeȱfromȱtheȱtopȱofȱtheȱanimacyȱ hierarchyȱ isȱ bornȱ outȱ inȱ Jeremiah’sȱ reportȱ ofȱ theȱ interactionȱ betweenȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ himselfȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ chapterȱ 1.ȱ Throughoutȱ thisȱ report,ȱ Yahwehȱ isȱ SAPȱ 1ȱandȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱSAPȱ2,ȱtheseȱbeingȱ theȱtwoȱ highestȬ rankingȱpositionsȱonȱtheȱhierarchy.ȱTheȱproperȱnounsȱIsraelȱandȱJudahȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 26ȱȱ Miller,ȱRepresentation.ȱ

78ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

alsoȱ occur,ȱ againȱ inȱ aȱ highȬrankingȱ slotȱ onȱ theȱ hierarchy.ȱ Termsȱ ofȱ communication,ȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ showȱ aȱ strongȱ tendencyȱ toȱ takeȱcomplementȱclausesȱasȱobjects,ȱthusȱcreatingȱsentencesȱthatȱexpressȱ moreȱ thanȱ oneȱ situation/proposition.ȱ Theȱ embeddingȱ ofȱ oneȱ situationȱ withinȱanotherȱisȱaȱprimeȱreasonȱthatȱthisȱgroupȱofȱverbsȱactȱasȱspaceȬ builders.ȱTheseȱcharacteristicsȱcontributeȱtoȱestablishingȱtheȱprototypiȬ calityȱofȱaȱgivenȱsituation,ȱwhichȱmanifestsȱitselfȱinȱaȱgrammaticalȱconȬ struction.ȱ

C. TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ TheȱsyntaxȱportionȱofȱtheȱTDȱclauseȱlevelȱanalysisȱfollowsȱanȱascendant,ȱ recursiveȱmodel,ȱoriginallyȱdevelopedȱbyȱtheȱWIVUȱ(seeȱchapterȱ2.C.1).ȱȱ Theȱ verbȱ isȱ centralȱ toȱ thisȱ analysis.ȱ Initially,ȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ dividedȱ intoȱ clauseȬlevelȱ units,ȱ asȱ oneȱ clauseȱ comprisesȱ oneȱ predication.ȱ Aȱ clauseȱ mayȱbeȱeitherȱverbalȱorȱnominal.ȱAtȱminimum,ȱaȱverbalȱclauseȱconsistsȱ ofȱaȱverbalȱformȱ(inflectedȱorȱparticipial)ȱplusȱaȱsubjectȱ(eitherȱimplicitȱ orȱexplicit).ȱAȱnominalȱclauseȱconsistsȱofȱaȱsubjectȱplusȱpredicate.ȱ Theȱselectionȱofȱaȱclauseȱlevelȱanalysisȱisȱsignificantȱonȱthreeȱcounts.ȱ First,ȱaȱgivenȱclauseȱisȱtheȱlinguisticȱrepresentationȱofȱaȱparticularȱsituaȬ tion.ȱ Basedȱ uponȱ theȱ centreȬperipheryȱ imageȱ schema,ȱ theȱ wholenessȱ presentedȱ byȱ suchȱ linguisticȱ representationsȱ subsumesȱ bothȱ centralȱ elementsȱandȱperipheralȱelements.ȱTheȱverbȱitselfȱisȱtheȱcentralȱelementȱ becauseȱ theȱ verbalȱ formȱ controlsȱ theȱ occurrenceȱ ofȱ otherȱ elements.ȱ Premperȱdescribesȱthisȱasȱtheȱinherentȱrelationalityȱofȱtheȱverb.27ȱInȱotherȱ words,ȱtheȱinherentȱrelationality,ȱorȱtransitivity,ȱofȱtheȱverbȱestablishesȱ theȱnumberȱofȱargumentsȱthatȱmayȱbeȱincludedȱinȱaȱgivenȱpredication.28ȱ Second,ȱ Binnickȱ notesȱ thatȱ tenseȱ andȱ aspectȱ areȱ sentenceȬlevelȱ semanȬ ticsȱ categories.29ȱ Person/gender/numberȱ informationȱ associatedȱ withȱ aȱ givenȱ verbȱ helpsȱ toȱ establishȱ participantȱ referenceȱ forȱ variousȱ arguȬ mentsȱthatȱareȱrelationallyȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱverb.ȱFinally,ȱdynamiciȬ ty,ȱvoiceȱandȱtransitivityȱrepresentȱtheȱinternalȱstructureȱofȱtheȱverb.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 27ȱȱ Premper,ȱ“UniversalsȱofȱtheȱLinguisticȱRepresentationȱofȱSituations,”ȱ480.ȱ 28ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ490.ȱ 29ȱȱ Robertȱ I.ȱ Binnick,ȱ Timeȱ andȱ theȱ Verb:ȱ Aȱ Guideȱ toȱ Tenseȱ andȱ Aspectȱ (Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ Oxford:ȱOUP,ȱ1991),ȱ456.ȱTenseȱandȱaspectȱareȱalsoȱdiscourseȱlevelȱphenomenon.ȱSeeȱ PaulȱHopper,ȱ“AspectȱandȱForegroundingȱinȱDiscourse,”ȱinȱSyntaxȱandȱSemanticsȱ12:ȱ DiscourseȱandȱSyntax,ȱed.ȱT.ȱGivonȱ(NewȱYork:ȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1979),ȱ213Ȭ241ȱ(216);ȱ Stephenȱ Wallace,ȱ “Figureȱ andȱ Ground:ȱ Theȱ Interrelationshipȱ ofȱ Linguisticȱ CategoȬ ries,”ȱinȱTenseȬAspect:ȱBetweenȱSemanticsȱandȱPragmatics,ȱed.ȱPaulȱJ.ȱHopperȱ(AmsterȬ dam:ȱJohnȱBenjamins,ȱ1982).ȱ

ȱ

TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ

79ȱ

1. Overviewȱ Providingȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ analysisȱ andȱ solutionȱ toȱ theȱ problemsȱ ofȱ theȱBHȱverbalȱsystemȱisȱnotȱtheȱgoalȱofȱthisȱvolume,ȱasȱitȱwouldȱbeȱpreȬ sumptuous,ȱindeed,ȱtoȱproposeȱaȱradicalȱnewȱsolutionȱtoȱtheȱproblemsȱ ofȱtheȱ“enigmatic”ȱBHȱverbalȱsystem.30ȱNonetheless,ȱitȱisȱinevitableȱthatȱ anyȱ approachȱ thatȱ takesȱ seriouslyȱ theȱ interrelationshipsȱ betweenȱ theȱ syntax,ȱsemanticsȱandȱpragmaticsȱofȱtheȱtextȱatȱhandȱmustȱaccountȱforȱ theȱmorphologicalȱandȱsemanticȱinformationȱincludedȱinȱtheȱBHȱverbalȱ forms,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱinterrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱverbalȱformsȱandȱtheȱ informationȱindicatedȱbyȱotherȱlexicalȱelementsȱinȱaȱgivenȱpredication.ȱ Therefore,ȱ whetherȱ theȱ stateȱ ofȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ BHȱ verbȱ isȱ aȱ quagmire,ȱanȱenigmaȱorȱsimplyȱaȱbafflingȱpuzzle,ȱitȱisȱvitalȱtoȱarriveȱatȱaȱ workingȱhypothesisȱthatȱwillȱmoveȱtheȱTDȱanalysisȱandȱdescriptionȱofȱ propheticȱtextȱforward.ȱ Theȱfollowingȱsectionȱcontainsȱdefinitionsȱforȱtheȱrelevantȱlinguisticȱ terms.ȱAȱshortȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱtense/aspectȱdebateȱfollows.ȱFinally,ȱsomeȱ cognitiveȱ linguisticȱ additionsȱ areȱ presented.ȱ Theseȱ includeȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ metaphorȱ toȱ describeȱ verbalȱ aspectȱ andȱ anȱ introductionȱ ofȱ conceptualȱblendingȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱbinyanȱsystem.ȱȱ

2. Terminologyȱ Becauseȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱtense,ȱaspectȱandȱmoodȱisȱimportantȱforȱunȬ derstandingȱtheȱHebrewȱverbalȱsystem,ȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱreviewȱtheȱuseȱ ofȱ theseȱ termsȱ bothȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ linguisticȱ discussionsȱ andȱ inȱ BHȱ studies.31ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 30ȱȱ Forȱ aȱ reviewȱ ofȱ majorȱ historicalȱ trends,ȱ seeȱ Leslieȱ McFall,ȱ Theȱ Enigmaȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ VerbalȱSystem:ȱSolutionsȱfromȱEwaldȱtoȱtheȱPresentȱDay,ȱHistoricȱTextsȱandȱInterpretersȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Scholarship;ȱ 2ȱ (Sheffieldȱ Southȱ Yorkshire:ȱ Almondȱ Press,ȱ 1982);ȱTryggveȱ N.ȱD.ȱMettinger,ȱ“TheȱHebrewȱVerbȱSystem:ȱAȱSurveyȱ ofȱRecentȱResearch,ȈȱASTIȱ9ȱ (1974),ȱ 64Ȭ84.ȱ Specificȱ studiesȱ includeȱ C.ȱ Brockelmann,ȱ ȇDieȱ ȈTemporaȈȱ desȱ Semitischenȇ,ȱ ZPȱ 3ȱ (1951),ȱ 10Ȭ154;ȱ Diethelmȱ Michel,ȱ Temporaȱ undȱ Satzstellungȱ inȱ Denȱ Psalmen,ȱAbhandlungenȱzurȱEvangelischenȱTheologieȱ(Bonn:ȱH.ȱBouvier,ȱ1960).ȱ 31ȱȱ Binnickȱ hasȱ createdȱ aȱ significantȱ resourceȱ forȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ theȱ verb.ȱ Seeȱ Robertȱ I.ȱ Binnick,ȱProjectȱonȱAnnotatedȱBibliographyȱofȱContemporaryȱResearchȱinȱTense,ȱGrammatiȬ calȱ Aspect,ȱ Aktionsart,ȱ andȱ Relatedȱ Areas.ȱ (2002,ȱ accessed);ȱ availableȱ fromȱ http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~binnick/TENSE.ȱȱ

80ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

a.

Tenseȱ

Tenseȱ isȱ definedȱ asȱ “…ȱ aȱ deicticȱ deviceȱ byȱ whichȱ aȱ situationȱ isȱ evaȬ luatedȱ asȱ before,ȱ overlappingȱ with,ȱ orȱ afterȱ aȱ temporalȱ position.”32ȱ ComrieȱnotesȱthatȱthreeȱtenseȱcategoriesȱoccurȱcrossȬlinguistically.ȱFirst,ȱ absoluteȱtense,ȱwhichȱisȱ“…ȱaȱtenseȱthatȱrefersȱtoȱtimeȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱ momentȱofȱutterance.”ȱSecondly,ȱrelativeȱtense,ȱwhichȱisȱ“…ȱaȱtenseȱthatȱ refersȱtoȱaȱtimeȱinȱrelationȱtoȱaȱcontextuallyȱdeterminedȱreferenceȱpoint,ȱ regardlessȱofȱtheȱlatter’sȱtemporalȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱmomentȱofȱutterance.”ȱ Finally,ȱabsoluteȬrelativeȱtense,ȱwhichȱisȱ“…ȱaȱtenseȱthatȱrefersȱtoȱtimeȱinȱ relationȱ toȱ aȱ temporalȱ referenceȱ point,ȱ thatȱ inȱ turnȱ isȱ referredȱ toȱ inȱ aȱ relationȱ atȱ theȱ momentȱ ofȱ utterance.”33ȱ Somewhatȱ moreȱ helpfulȱ isȱ theȱ followingȱdefinitionȱbyȱBhat,ȱwhoȱarguesȱforȱaȱcontrastȱbetweenȱdeicticȱ tenseȱandȱnonȬdeicticȱtense.ȱHeȱstates:ȱȱ Weȱmayȱuseȱtheȱtermsȱ‘deictic’ȱandȱ‘nondeictic’ȱinȱorderȱtoȱdifferentiateȱbeȬ tweenȱ (i)ȱ tensesȱwhichȱ haveȱ theȱ utteranceȱ timeȱ asȱ theȱ referenceȱ pointȱ andȱ (ii)ȱtheȱonesȱthatȱhaveȱsomeȱotherȱeventȱasȱtheȱreferenceȱpoint,ȱrespectively.ȱ Traditionallyȱ theseȱ areȱ calledȱ ‘absolute’ȱ andȱ ‘relative’ȱ tenses…butȱ theȱ difȬ ferenceȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱdoesȱnotȱdependȱuponȱoneȱofȱthemȱbeingȱrelativeȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ nonȬrelativeȱ (orȱ absolute);ȱ bothȱ areȱ relativeȱ toȱ aȱ referenceȱ point;ȱtheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱisȱonlyȱthatȱtheȱformerȱusesȱaȱdeicticȱ eventȱ(anȱeventȱthatȱisȱconnectedȱwithȱtheȱspeechȱact)ȱasȱtheȱreferenceȱpointȱ whereasȱtheȱlatterȱuseȱsomeȱotherȱeventȱforȱthatȱpurpose.34ȱȱ

Thus,ȱtheȱcrucialȱdifferenceȱisȱnotȱrelativeȱtenseȱasȱopposedȱtoȱabsoluteȱ tense,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ theȱ specificȱ referenceȱ pointȱ involved:ȱ isȱ theȱ referenceȱ pointȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱspeechȱactȱitself,ȱorȱisȱitȱassociatedȱwithȱsomeȱ otherȱevent?ȱWhileȱmanyȱscholarsȱagreeȱthatȱBHȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱtenseȱinȱ aȱstrictȱsense,ȱaȱrelativeȱtenseȱmodelȱthatȱusesȱcontextȱinducedȱreferenceȱ pointsȱforȱdeterminingȱtheȱtemporalȱ orderingȱofȱstatesȱandȱ eventsȱisȱaȱ possibleȱ optionȱ forȱ describingȱ tenseȱ inȱ BH.ȱ However,ȱ aȱ relativeȱ tenseȱ theoryȱdoesȱnotȱaccountȱforȱallȱofȱtheȱdetailsȱpresentȱinȱtheȱbinyanȱsysȬ tem.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 32ȱȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ123.ȱ 33ȱȱ Bernardȱ Comrie,ȱ Tense,ȱ Cambridgeȱ Textbooksȱ inȱ Linguisticsȱ (Cambridge:ȱ CUP,ȱ 1985),ȱ36.ȱ 34ȱȱ D.ȱN.ȱBhat,ȱTheȱProminenceȱofȱTense,ȱAspect,ȱandȱMoodȱ(Amsterdam:ȱJohnȱBenjamins,ȱ 1999),ȱ14.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ

81ȱ

b. Aspectȱ Theȱ linguisticȱ assessmentȱ ofȱ aspectȱ takesȱ placeȱ underȱ twoȱ headings:ȱ viewpointȱ aspectȱ andȱ situationȱ aspect,ȱ orȱ aktionsart.35ȱ Viewpointȱ aspectȱ isȱ concernedȱ withȱ theȱ variousȱ viewpointsȱ ofȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ aȱ situation,ȱ andȱsituationȱaspectȱdescribesȱtheȱuniversalȱdistinctionsȱbetweenȱsituaȬ tionȱtypes,ȱsuchȱasȱstates,ȱactivities,ȱaccomplishmentsȱandȱachievements.36ȱInȱ theȱcaseȱofȱviewpointȱaspect,ȱthereȱisȱanȱoppositionȱbetweenȱimperfectiveȱ aspectȱandȱperfectiveȱaspect.ȱRegardingȱthisȱdistinction,ȱBhatȱstates:ȱ …Theȱmostȱimportantȱaspectualȱdistinctionȱthatȱoccursȱinȱtheȱgrammarsȱofȱ naturalȱ languagesȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ betweenȱ perfectiveȱ andȱ imperfective.ȱ Itȱ priȬ marilyȱindicatesȱtwoȱdifferentȱwaysȱofȱviewingȱorȱdescribingȱaȱgivenȱevent.ȱ PerfectiveȱprovidesȱtheȱviewȱofȱanȱeventȱasȱaȱwholeȱfromȱtheȱoutsideȱwheȬ reasȱimperfectiveȱprovidesȱtheȱviewȱfromȱtheȱinside.ȱTheȱformerȱisȱunconȬ cernedȱ withȱ internalȱ temporalȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ eventȱ whereasȱ theȱ latterȱ isȱ cruciallyȱ concernedȱ withȱ suchȱ aȱ structure.ȱ Theȱ formerȱ viewsȱ theȱ situationȱ asȱbounded,ȱandȱformingȱaȱunifiedȱentityȱwhereasȱtheȱlatterȱviewsȱitȱasȱonȬ goingȱorȱhabitual.37ȱ

BHȱscholarsȱofȱtheȱaspectualȱschool,ȱincludingȱCook,ȱwhoȱviewsȱBHȱasȱ anȱaspectȱprominentȱlanguage,ȱareȱinȱagreementȱwithȱBhat’sȱconclusionȱ thatȱtheȱprimaryȱoppositionȱbetweenȱperfectiveȱandȱimperfectiveȱisȱtheȱ mostȱimportantȱaspectualȱdistinctionȱinȱBH.ȱHowever,ȱitȱisȱnotȱtheȱonlyȱ distinction.ȱAsȱWaltkeȱandȱO’Connorȱobserve,ȱtheȱcentralȱroleȱofȱprediȬ cationȱ inȱ BHȱ isȱ sharedȱ betweenȱ theȱ verbalȱ formsȱ (perfectȱ –ȱ imperfect)ȱ andȱ theȱ verbalȱ stems,ȱ orȱ binyanim,ȱ (i.e.ȱ qal,ȱ pielȱ andȱ hiphil).ȱ Theȱ verbalȱ formsȱ contributeȱ viewpointȱ aspectȱ informationȱ regardingȱ theȱ contourȱ ofȱtheȱsituationȱinȱtimeȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱform,ȱwhileȱtheȱbinyanȱsystemȱ contributesȱaktionsartȱinformation,ȱregardingȱtheȱkindȱofȱsituationȱindiȬ catedȱbyȱtheȱverb.ȱBecauseȱtheȱbinyanȱsystemȱisȱaȱrichȱsourceȱofȱmorphoȬ logicallyȱmarkedȱaspectualȱinformation,ȱitȱisȱsomewhatȱsurprisingȱthatȱ discussionsȱ ofȱ theȱ BHȱ verbȱ oftenȱ downplayȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ biȬ nyanim.ȱTheȱaspectualȱsubclassesȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱBHȱbinyanȱsystemȱareȱ discussedȱinȱchapterȱ5,ȱsectionȱA,ȱbelow.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 35ȱȱ Seeȱ Carlȱ Bache,ȱ “Aspectȱ andȱ Aktionsart:ȱ Towardsȱ aȱ Semanticȱ Distinction,”ȱ JLȱ 18ȱ (1982),ȱ57Ȭ72.ȱ 36ȱȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ124.ȱ 37ȱȱ Bhat,ȱTheȱProminenceȱofȱTense,ȱAspect,ȱandȱMood,ȱ46.ȱ

82ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

3. CategoriesȱandȱtheȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱVerb:ȱTenseȱversusȱAspectȱ TenseȱorȱAspect?ȱTheȱdebateȱisȱongoing,ȱwithȱscholarsȱarguingȱthatȱtheȱ BHȱ verbalȱ systemȱ isȱ aȱ tenseȱ system,ȱ counteredȱ byȱ otherȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ argueȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ anȱ aspectȱ system.ȱ Hendelȱ notesȱ thatȱ bothȱ tenseȱ aloneȱ andȱ aspectȱ aloneȱ theoreticalȱ modelsȱ workȱ passablyȱ wellȱ andȱ haveȱ exȬ istedȱ sideȱ byȱ sideȱ forȱ overȱ aȱ century.38ȱ Theȱ aspectualȱ theoryȱ hasȱ flouȬ rishedȱsinceȱtheȱGermanȱscholarȱHeinrichȱEwaldȱproducedȱhisȱSyntaxȱofȱ theȱHebrewȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱinȱ1835/1870.ȱTheȱworkȱofȱBritȬ ishȱscholarȱS.R.ȱDriverȱfollowed.ȱDriverȱwroteȱhisȱTreatiseȱonȱtheȱUseȱofȱ theȱ Tensesȱ inȱ 1874/1892.39ȱ Modernȱ scholarsȱ continueȱ toȱ discussȱ theȱ BHȱ verbȱutilisingȱtheȱparadigmaticȱperfectȬimperfectȱaspectualȱdistinction,ȱ whichȱEwaldȱdescribedȱasȱcompletedȱandȱincompleted,ȱandȱDriverȱtermedȱ asȱcompleteȱandȱnascent.40ȱAlthoughȱlinguistsȱuseȱtheȱtermsȱperfectiveȱandȱ imperfectiveȱtoȱdescribeȱtheseȱprimaryȱaspectualȱcategories,ȱ theȱ distincȬ tionȱ isȱ effectivelyȱ theȱ same.ȱ Theȱ perfect/perfectiveȱ BHȱ verbȱ formȱ deȬ scribesȱ aȱ completedȱ actionȱ orȱ stateȱ whileȱ theȱ imperfect/imperfectiveȱ formȱdescribesȱanȱongoingȱactionȱorȱstate.ȱȱ ScholarsȱinterestedȱinȱanalysingȱBHȱtextȱfromȱaȱdiscourseȱperspecȬ tive,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Longacreȱ andȱ Niccacci,ȱ tendȱ toȱ utiliseȱ verbalȱ formsȱ asȱ structuralȱ markers,ȱ orȱ signalsȱ thatȱ indicateȱ aȱ particularȱ typeȱ ofȱ disȬ course.41ȱThisȱcreatesȱtwoȱdifficulties.ȱFirst,ȱasȱCookȱnotes,ȱtheȱargumentȱ forȱcategorisingȱtextȬtypesȱbasedȱuponȱverbalȱformsȱisȱinherentlyȱcircuȬ lar:ȱ oneȱ mustȱ decideȱ whichȱ discourseȱ typeȱ isȱ presentȱ inȱ aȱ textȱ beforeȱ decidingȱwhichȱverbalȱformsȱareȱcharacteristicȱofȱtheȱtype.42ȱHowever,ȱitȱ isȱ worthȱ mentioningȱ thatȱ Longacre’sȱ textȬtypesȱ areȱ descriptiveȱ ratherȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 38ȱȱ Ronaldȱ S.ȱ Hendel,ȱ “Inȱ theȱ Marginsȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Verbalȱ System:ȱ Situation,ȱ Tense,ȱ Aspect,ȱMood,”ȱZAHȱ9ȱ(1996),ȱ152.ȱ 39ȱȱ J.ȱA.ȱEmerton,ȱ“SamuelȱRollesȱDriver,ȱ1846Ȭ1914,”ȱinȱAȱCenturyȱofȱBritishȱOrientalistsȱ 1902Ȭ2001,ȱed.ȱC.ȱE.ȱBosworthȱ(Oxford:ȱOUP,ȱ2001),ȱ130.ȱ 40ȱȱ S.ȱ R.ȱ Driverȱ andȱ W.ȱ Randallȱ Garr,ȱ Aȱ Treatiseȱ onȱ theȱ Useȱ ofȱ theȱ Tensesȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ SomeȱOtherȱSyntacticalȱQuestionsȱ(GrandȱRapids,ȱMich.:ȱWilliamȱB.ȱEerdmans,ȱ1998),ȱ xxxix;ȱEmerton,ȱȇSamuelȱRollesȱDriver,ȱ1846Ȭ1914ȇ,ȱ131;ȱHeinrichȱEwald,ȱSyntaxȱofȱtheȱ Hebrewȱ Languageȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testament,ȱ trans.ȱ Jamesȱ Kennedyȱ (Edinburgh:ȱ Tȱ andȱ Tȱ Clark,ȱ1881;ȱreprint,ȱGeorgiasȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱ2.ȱ 41ȱȱ Alvieroȱ Niccacci,ȱ “Essentialȱ Hebrewȱ Syntax,”ȱ inȱ Narrativeȱ andȱ Comment,ȱ ed.ȱ Eepȱ Talstraȱ (Amsterdam:ȱ Societasȱ Hebraicaȱ Amstelodamensis,ȱ 1995),ȱ 111Ȭ125;ȱ Alvieroȱ NiccacciȱandȱW.ȱG.ȱE.ȱWatson,ȱTheȱSyntaxȱofȱtheȱVerbȱinȱClassicalȱHebrewȱProse,ȱJSOTȱ Supȱ86ȱ(Sheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1990).ȱ 42ȱȱ Cookȱ isȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ termȱ textȬtypeȱ asȱ usedȱ byȱ Longacre,ȱ whoȱ distinguishesȱ beȬ tweenȱtheȱsetsȱofȱverbalȱformsȱusedȱinȱhortatoryȱtext,ȱnarrativeȱtext,ȱandȱsoȱon.ȱThisȱ volumeȱusesȱtheȱtermȱtextȬtypeȱdifferently,ȱasȱtheȱtermȱisȱusedȱtoȱcategoriseȱstretchesȱ ofȱ textȱ basedȱ onȱ Schneider’sȱ differentiationȱ betweenȱ narrativeȱ andȱ discursiveȱ text.ȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ117.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ

83ȱ

thanȱprescriptive.ȱThisȱisȱalsoȱtheȱcaseȱwithȱSchneider’sȱdistinctionȱbeȬ tweenȱ narrativeȱ andȱ discursiveȱ text.ȱ Hebrewȱ scholarsȱ inȱ generalȱ apȬ proachȱ theȱ verbȱ formsȱ fromȱ aȱ discourseȱ perspectiveȱ whenȱ discussingȱ theȱ wawȬconversiveȱ theory,ȱ asȱ thisȱ theoryȱ movesȱ theȱ discussionȱ toȱ theȱ relationshipȱbetweenȱmultipleȱpredications.43ȱȱ ȱȱSecondly,ȱtheȱperfectiveȬimperfectiveȱinflectionȱ ofȱverbalȱformsȱisȱ notȱsufficientȱforȱestablishingȱtheȱstructureȱofȱaȱtext,ȱnorȱdoesȱthisȱdisȬ tinctionȱexhaustȱtheȱquantitiesȱofȱmorphologicallyȱmarkedȱinformationȱ availableȱ inȱ theȱ verbalȱ forms.ȱ Thisȱ volumeȱ arguesȱ thatȱ conceptuallyȱ blendedȱsyntacticȱandȱsemanticȱinformation,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱspaceȱbuildingȱ termsȱ describedȱ inȱ MST,ȱ provesȱ toȱ beȱ moreȱ usefulȱ inȱ determiningȱ boundariesȱ andȱ connectionsȱ inȱ aȱ text.ȱ Informationȱ Structureȱ findingsȱ areȱ alsoȱ significant.ȱ Primarilyȱ aȱ sentenceȱ levelȱ phenomenon,ȱ informaȬ tionȱstructureȱisȱtheȱproductȱofȱtheȱinterrelationshipȱbetweenȱtopicȱandȱ focusȱ informationȱ inȱ aȱ givenȱ predication.ȱ Atȱ theȱ discourseȱ level,ȱ thisȱ sentenceȱlevelȱinformationȱcombinesȱwithȱotherȱtextȱlevelȱfeatures,ȱsuchȱ asȱtextȬdeicticȱparticlesȱandȱanaphoricȱtermsȱtoȱindicateȱcognitiveȱstrucȬ turingȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱTheȱverbalȱformsȱareȱcrucial,ȱyetȱnotȱtheȱonlyȱdeterȬ minativeȱfactorȱforȱtextualȱstructuring.ȱ

4. TheȱTDȱApproach:ȱMappingȱtheȱSyntaxȬSemanticsȱInterfaceȱ Asȱpreviouslyȱexplained,ȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱbeginsȱwithȱaȱsyntacticȱanalȬ ysisȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱTheȱsyntacticȱanalysisȱprovidesȱaȱblueprintȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱ whichȱ isȱ thenȱ realisedȱviaȱconceptualȱ blendingȱofȱinformationȱ derivedȱ fromȱ semanticȱ andȱ pragmaticȱ textȱ analyses.ȱ Nowhereȱ isȱ thisȱ multiȬ stagedȱanalyticalȱapproachȱmoreȱimportantȱthanȱwhenȱdealingȱwithȱtheȱ BiblicalȱHebrewȱverbalȱformsȱandȱtheirȱroleȱinȱBHȱtext.ȱ TheȱTDȱapproachȱsharesȱTalstra’sȱinterestȱinȱexhaustingȱtheȱsyntacȬ ticȱinformationȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱBHȱtextȱbeforeȱproceedingȱwithȱfurtherȱ analysis.ȱ However,ȱ evenȱ inȱ theȱ syntaxȱ drivenȱ WIVUȱ databaseȱ andȱ itsȱ realisationȱinȱtheȱSESBȱformat,ȱsemanticȱinformationȱisȱincludedȱatȱtheȱ distributionalȱlevel.ȱTwoȱsemanticȱfieldsȱareȱmarked:ȱverbsȱofȱspeakingȱ andȱ formsȱ ofȱ theȱ verbȱ J[J.ȱ Followingȱ Schneider,ȱ Talstraȱ utilisesȱ verbsȱ fromȱtheȱsemanticȱfieldȱofȱspeakingȱtoȱdifferentiateȱbetweenȱnarrative,ȱ discursiveȱandȱquotedȱlevelsȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 43ȱȱ Inȱherȱreviewȱ ofȱGoldfajn,ȱZewiȱstatesȱ“…ȱverbalȱformsȱandȱdiscourseȱfunctionsȱgoȱ togetherȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱtoȱcreateȱtheȱcompleteȱpatternȱofȱtheȱverbalȱsentenceȱinȬ volvingȱcertainȱverbalȱformsȱandȱaȱcertainȱwordȱorderȱincapableȱofȱbeingȱseparated.ȱ Thus,ȱdiscourseȱfactorsȱdoȱplayȱanȱimportantȱroleȱinȱtheȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱverbalȱsysȬ tem.”ȱTamarȱZewi,ȱ“ReviewȱofȱWordȱOrderȱandȱTime,ȱbyȱTalȱGoldfajn,”ȱJSSȱ46.ȱ

84ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

Semanticȱ informationȱ isȱ alsoȱ importantȱ forȱ Informationȱ Structureȱ analyses,ȱ asȱ indicatedȱ byȱ Lambrecht’sȱ foundationalȱ statement:ȱ “Theȱ focusȱ ofȱ aȱ propositionȱ isȱ thatȱ semanticȱ elementȱ (orȱ elements)ȱ whoseȱ presenceȱ makesȱ theȱ propositionȱ intoȱ anȱ assertion,ȱ i.e.ȱ intoȱ aȱ potentialȱ pieceȱ ofȱ information.”44ȱ Theȱ roleȱ ofȱ semanticsȱ inȱ determiningȱ spaceȱ buildingȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱinȱMSTȱisȱillustratedȱbyȱtheȱexamplesȱ inȱchapterȱ4,ȱsectionȱB.2,ȱwhereȱspaceȬbuildersȱareȱindicatedȱbyȱsemanȬ ticȱdomainȱinformation.ȱ SeveralȱrecentȱstudiesȱutiliseȱbothȱmorphologicalȱandȱsemanticȱcatȬ egoriesȱforȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱBHȱverb.45ȱCook’sȱgrammaticalisationȱ approach,ȱwhichȱomitsȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱbinyanȱsystem,ȱdoesȱincludeȱaȱ strongȱ semanticȱ component.46ȱ Hendel’sȱ studyȱ ofȱ theȱ “margins”ȱ ofȱ theȱ verbalȱ systemȱ includesȱ discussionȱ aboutȱ theȱ binyanȱ systemȱ andȱ introȬ ducesȱtheȱcategoriesȱofȱsituationȱandȱmoodȱasȱwell.ȱTheȱfollowingȱsecȬ tionȱ presentsȱ findingsȱ fromȱ Cook’sȱ approachȱ andȱ Hendel’sȱ lexicalizaȬ tionȱ andȱ grammaticalisationȱ study.ȱ Theseȱ studiesȱ helpȱ toȱ clarifyȱ theȱ categoriesȱutilisedȱbyȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱBHȱverb.ȱȱ a. Cook:ȱTheȱGrammaticalisationȱApproachȱ InȱTheȱHebrewȱVerb:ȱAȱGrammaticalizationȱApproach,ȱCookȱaddressesȱtwoȱ issuesȱ thatȱ alsoȱ motivateȱ theȱ TDȱ approach:ȱ theȱ asymmetricalȱ relationȬ shipȱ betweenȱformȱandȱmeaningȱandȱtheȱproblemȱofȱlanguageȱchangeȱ overȱtime.ȱTheȱasymmetryȱbetweenȱformȱandȱmeaning,ȱwhereȱaȱparticȬ ularȱformȱmayȱrepresentȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱfunctionȱandȱwhereȱaȱparticularȱ functionȱmightȱbeȱfulfilledȱbyȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱform,ȱisȱaddressedȱinȱtheȱ discussionȱofȱspaceȱbuildingȱtermsȱ(seeȱchapterȱ4.II.B).ȱTheȱsecondȱissueȱ isȱquiteȱimportantȱforȱsynchronicȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱTDȱapproach,ȱbecauseȱ theȱ realitiesȱofȱlanguageȱchangeȱoverȱtimeȱimpingeȱuponȱaȱsynchronicȱ readingȱ atȱ theȱ lexicalȱ andȱ syntacticȱ levels.ȱ Sinceȱ Cook’sȱ approachȱ isȱ effectiveȱinȱaddressingȱbothȱofȱtheseȱquestions,ȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱadoptsȱ andȱelaboratesȱuponȱhisȱdiscoveries.ȱAȱbriefȱsummaryȱofȱtheȱgrammatiȬ calisationȱapproachȱisȱinȱorder.ȱ Cookȱ notesȱ thatȱ linguistsȱ employȱ theȱ termȱ grammaticalisationȱ inȱ twoȱdifferentȱways:ȱitȱdescribesȱbothȱgrammaticalisationȱphenomenaȱandȱ grammaticalisationȱ theory.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Cook,ȱ grammaticalisationȱ pheȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 44ȱȱ Lambrecht,ȱInformationȱStructure,ȱ336.ȱ 45ȱȱ BillȱT.ȱArnoldȱandȱJohnȱH.ȱChoi,ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntaxȱ(Cambridge:ȱCUP,ȱ 2003);ȱGaliaȱHatav,ȱTheȱSemanticsȱofȱAspectȱandȱModality:ȱEvidenceȱfromȱEnglishȱandȱBibȬ licalȱ Hebrew,ȱ SLCS,ȱ vol.ȱ 34ȱ (Amsterdam:ȱ Johnȱ Benjamins,ȱ 1997);ȱ Waltkeȱ andȱ OȇConȬ nor,ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax.ȱ 46ȱȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ121.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ

85ȱ

nomenaȱareȱ“…changesȱthatȱresultȱinȱincreasedȱgrammaticalityȱofȱitemsȱ –ȱ eitherȱ lexicalȱ >ȱ grammaticalȱ orȱ grammaticalȱ >ȱ moreȱ grammatical’,ȱ whileȱ grammaticalisationȱ theoryȱ “…refersȱ toȱ claimsȱ madeȱ aboutȱ gramȬ maticalisationȱ phenomenon,ȱ suchȱ asȱ unidirectionality.”47ȱ Sinceȱ certainȱ linguistsȱ viewȱ grammaticalisationȱ theoryȱ asȱ derivative,ȱ Cookȱ utilisesȱ theȱtermȱgrammaticalisationȱapproachȱforȱhisȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱdescriptionȱ ofȱchangesȱinȱtheȱBHȱverbalȱsystemȱoverȱtime.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ discussionȱ ofȱ formȬmeaningȱ asymmetry,ȱ Cookȱ employsȱ twoȱ grammaticalisationȱ principles:ȱ First,ȱ heȱ notes,ȱ “…theȱ grammaticalisaȬ tionȱ processȱ isȱ cyclical.”48ȱ Languageȱ changeȱ occursȱ asȱ aȱ multiȬlayeredȱ processȱinȱwhichȱnewȱlayersȱemergeȱandȱmayȱinteractȱwithȱolderȱlayersȱ stillȱ inȱ existence.49ȱ Heȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ layeringȱ effectȱ combinesȱ withȱ aȱ secondȱprinciple,ȱtheȱpersistenceȱofȱmeaning,ȱwhichȱdescribesȱtheȱtendenȬ cyȱ forȱ tracesȱ ofȱ theȱ originalȱ meaningȱ toȱ remainȱ asȱ longȱ asȱ theȱ formȱ isȱ grammaticallyȱviable.ȱȱȱ Finally,ȱregardingȱtheȱproblemȱofȱlanguageȱchangeȱoverȱtime,ȱCookȱ notes,ȱ “…universalȱ pathsȱ existȱ withinȱ broadȱ semanticȱ domainsȱ alongȱ whichȱ relevantȱ formsȱ develop.”50ȱ Theseȱ universalȱ pathsȱ areȱ reflectedȱ crossȬlinguisticallyȱandȱareȱunidirectional;ȱifȱaȱformȱexhibitsȱchange,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ revertȱ toȱ aȱ formerȱ stage,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ willȱ stayȱ theȱ sameȱ orȱ progressȱtoȱtheȱnextȱstageȱofȱchange.51ȱTheseȱcharacteristicsȱofȱlanguageȱ changeȱ constrainȱ possibilities,ȱ thusȱ theȱ grammaticalisationȱ processȱ isȱ notȱhaphazard.52ȱȱ Cookȱpositsȱgrammaticalisationȱpathsȱforȱtheȱwayyiqtol,ȱqatal,ȱyiqtol,ȱ participle,ȱ imperativeȱandȱjussiveȱforms.ȱTheȱ(purported)ȱoriginȱofȱ theȱ wayyiqtolȱ formȱ wasȱ theȱ pronounȱ +ȱ *q(u)tulȱ (infinitive).ȱ Inȱ PreȬBH,ȱ theȱ formȱmovedȱfromȱresultativeȱ>ȱperfectȱaspectȱ>ȱperfectiveȱaspect.ȱInȱBHȱ theȱformȱrepresentsȱpastȱtense.ȱTheȱoriginȱofȱtheȱqatalȱformȱwasȱ*qatilȱ+ȱ pronoun.ȱThisȱformȱmovedȱfromȱresultativeȱ>ȱperfectȱaspect.ȱInȱBH,ȱtheȱ formȱrepresentsȱperfectiveȱaspect.ȱTheȱoriginȱofȱtheȱyiqtolȱformȱwasȱtheȱ pronounȱ +ȱ *q(u)tulȱ (infinitive)ȱ +ȱ locativeȱ u.ȱ Inȱ PreȬBHȱ theȱ formȱ representedȱprogressiveȱaspect,ȱwhileȱinȱBHȱtheȱformȱrepresentsȱimperȬ fectiveȱaspect.ȱTheȱoriginȱofȱtheȱparticipleȱwasȱtheȱ*q(u)tulȱformȱandȱtheȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 47ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ119.ȱ 48ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ120.ȱ 49ȱȱ RegardingȱtheȱprocessȱofȱlanguageȱchangeȱinȱBH,ȱseeȱJ.ȱA.ȱNaudé,ȱ“TheȱTransitionsȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew,”ȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Chronologyȱ andȱ Typology,ȱ ed.ȱ Ianȱ Young,ȱJSOTȱSupȱ(Sheffield:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ2003).ȱ 50ȱȱ Cook,ȱȇGrammaticalizationȇ,ȱ121.ȱ 51ȱȱ Forȱaȱcompleteȱtheoreticalȱdiscussion,ȱseeȱJoanȱL.ȱBybee,ȱRevereȱPerkinsȱandȱWilliamȱ Pagliuca,ȱTheȱEvolutionȱofȱGrammar:ȱTense,ȱAspect,ȱandȱModalityȱinȱtheȱLanguagesȱofȱtheȱ Worldȱ(Chicago:ȱUCP,ȱ1994),ȱ1Ȭ26.ȱ 52ȱȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ121.ȱ

86ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

formȱindicatesȱprogressiveȱaspectȱinȱbothȱPreȬBHȱandȱBH.ȱTheȱoriginȱofȱ theȱ imperativeȱ wasȱ *q(u)tulȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ jussiveȱ wasȱ pronounȱ +ȱ *q(u)tulȱ(imperative),ȱbothȱofȱwhichȱindicatedȱdeonticȱmodalityȱinȱPreȬ BHȱ andȱ BH.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ analysis,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ basicȱ meaningȱ disȬ cernibleȱforȱeachȱformȱandȱthereȱisȱaȱcertainȱamountȱofȱsemanticȱoverȬ lapȱ betweenȱ formsȱ asȱ well.ȱ Someȱ secondaryȱ meaningsȱ mightȱ persistȱ fromȱearlierȱstagesȱinȱtheȱgrammaticalisationȱprocess.ȱMeaningsȱthatȱdoȱ notȱshareȱanyȱofȱtheȱsemanticȱparametersȱofȱtheȱbasicȱmeaningȱareȱtheȱ resultȱofȱ“contextȱinducedȱreinterpretations.”53ȱCookȱnotesȱthatȱthereȱisȱ anȱobviousȱdiscourseȱpragmaticȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱqatalȱandȱwayyiqtolȱ forms,ȱinȱthatȱwayyiqtolȱformsȱexpressȱforegroundedȱnarrativeȱevents.54ȱ Itȱ isȱ significantȱ forȱ theȱ TDȱ approachȱ thatȱ Cookȱ concludesȱ thatȱ HeȬ brewȱisȱanȱaspectȱprominentȱlanguage.ȱAtȱtheȱtimeȱofȱBH,ȱtheȱwayyiqtolȱ formȱfunctionedȱasȱtheȱnarrativeȱtenseȱverb,ȱindicatingȱsequential,ȱpastȱ timeȱaction.ȱQatalȱformsȱdevelopedȱalongȱtheȱsameȱgrammaticalisationȱ path.ȱ Theyȱ indicateȱ perfectiveȱ aspect.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ theȱ yiqtolȱ andȱ participleȱformsȱdevelopedȱalongȱaȱgrammaticalisationȱpathȱfromȱproȬ gressiveȱ toȱ imperfect,ȱ resultingȱ inȱ formsȱ thatȱ expressedȱ imperfectiveȱ action.ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ imperfectiveȱ actionȱ exhibitsȱ aȱ past:ȱ nonȬpastȱ opposiȬ tion.55ȱȱ Thisȱ analysisȱ isȱ compellingȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ accountsȱ forȱ bothȱ diachronicȱ changeȱandȱtheȱsynchronicȱnatureȱofȱtheȱformsȱasȱtheyȱappearȱinȱtheȱBHȱ text.ȱInȱanalysingȱandȱdescribingȱtheȱinformationȱstructureȱofȱtheȱJereȬ miahȱtext,ȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱwillȱdrawȱuponȱCook’sȱconclusionsȱregardȬ ingȱBHȱverbalȱformsȱasȱfollows.ȱTheȱmainȱuseȱofȱeachȱofȱtheȱformsȱisȱinȱ boldȱtypeȱandȱselectedȱsubsidiaryȱusesȱareȱinȱnormalȱtype.56ȱȱ wayyiqtolȱ

pastȱtense,ȱnarrativeȱverb:ȱsimpleȱpast;ȱcounterfactualȱȱ

qatalȱ

perfectiveȱaspect:ȱperfect;ȱimmediateȱfuture;ȱperformativeȱ

yiqtolȱ

imperfectiveȱaspect:ȱgeneralȱfuture;ȱfutureȱinȱpast;ȱdirectiveȱȱ

Participleȱ

progressiveȱaspect:ȱexpectedȱfuture;ȱpresent/pastȱprogressiveȱ

Imperativeȱ deonticȱmodality:ȱdirective;ȱvolitiveȱ Jussiveȱ

deonticȱmodality:ȱdirective;ȱvolitiveȱ

Cook’sȱapproachȱdoesȱnotȱaddressȱtheȱbinyanȱsystem,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱmainȱ meansȱofȱestablishingȱtransitivityȱandȱasȱaȱresultȱisȱquiteȱimportantȱforȱ determiningȱtheȱrelationsȱthatȱ holdȱbetweenȱ topicalȱentitiesȱ inȱaȱgivenȱ predication.ȱ However,ȱ Hendelȱ doesȱ makeȱ someȱ veryȱ helpfulȱ prelimiȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 53ȱȱ 54ȱȱ 55ȱȱ 56ȱȱ

Ibid.,ȱ122.ȱ ThisȱanalysisȱisȱinȱaccordȱwithȱthatȱofȱSchneiderȱandȱadoptedȱbyȱTalstra.ȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ137.ȱ Forȱtheȱcompleteȱrangeȱofȱuses,ȱseeȱIbid.,ȱ136.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ

87ȱ

naryȱ observationsȱthatȱ includeȱ bothȱtheȱsemanticsȱ ofȱ theȱ BHȱ verbȱ andȱ theȱinfluenceȱofȱtheȱbinyanȱsystemȱasȱwell.ȱȱ b. Hendel:ȱLexicalizationȱandȱtheȱBinyanimȱ HendelȱexaminesȱtheȱmarginsȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱverbalȱsystem,ȱasȱ“…ȱitȱisȱ oftenȱ inȱ theȱ domainȱ ofȱ marginalȱ phenomenaȱ thatȱ theȱ rightȱ –ȱ orȱ moreȱ analyticallyȱ preciseȱ–ȱdistinctionsȱcanȱbeȱmade.”57ȱInȱ doingȱso,ȱHendelȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ accurateȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ verbalȱ formsȱ isȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ bothȱ morphologicalȱ formȱ andȱ semanticȱ function.58ȱ Hendelȱ sidestepsȱ theȱ tense/aspectȱ debateȱ byȱ advocatingȱ forȱ aȱ relativeȱ tenseȱ modelȱthatȱinteractsȱwithȱtheȱcategoriesȱofȱsituation,ȱaspectȱandȱmood.59ȱ Heȱstates:ȱ Theȱ systemȱ ofȱ relativeȱ tense,ȱ asȱ withȱ anyȱ tenseȱ system,ȱ involvesȱ theȱ relaȬ tionshipsȱ amongȱ threeȱ temporalȱ points:ȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ speaker,ȱ orȱ speechȬactȱ (S),ȱtheȱeventȱ(E),ȱandȱtheȱreferenceȱpointȱ(R)…Inȱanȱabsoluteȱtenseȱsystem,ȱ theȱreferenceȱpointȱisȱalwaysȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱspeakerȱorȱspeechȬactȱ(R=S).ȱInȱ aȱrelativeȱtenseȱsystem,ȱRȱmayȱorȱmayȱnotȱcoincideȱwithȱS.ȱRȱmayȱbeȱpastȱtoȱ theȱspeakerȱ(R<S),ȱitȱmayȱbeȱsimultaneousȱ(R=S),ȱorȱitȱmayȱbeȱfutureȱ(R>S).ȱ Asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ thisȱ nonȬidentityȱ ofȱ Rȱ andȱ Sȱ inȱ aȱ relativeȱ tenseȱ system,ȱ theȱ eventȱ(E)ȱmayȱbeȱinȱaȱdifferentȱtemporalȱrelationshipȱtoȱRȱandȱS.ȱȱ

Inȱthisȱdefinition,ȱtheȱtermȱrelativeȱtenseȱ correlatesȱwithȱBhat’sȱdescripȬ tionȱ ofȱ nonȬdeicticȱ tense.ȱ Importantly,ȱ thisȱ definitionȱ ofȱ relativeȱ tenseȱ holdsȱatȱtheȱlevelȱofȱtheȱsingleȱpredication;ȱnoȱexplicitȱclaimsȱareȱmadeȱ forȱ discourseȱ levelȱ sequencingȱ ofȱ multipleȱ predications.60ȱ Establishingȱ discourseȬlevelȱ temporalȱ referenceȱ inȱ propheticȱ literatureȱ wouldȱ presentȱdifficultiesȱforȱanȱabsoluteȱtenseȱmodel,ȱbecauseȱtheȱtimeȱframeȱ ofȱtheȱtext,ȱtheȱmetaȬlinguisticȱ“speechȬact,”ȱisȱinȱcompetitionȱwithȱemȬ beddedȱtimeȱframes.ȱItȱmayȱbeȱpossibleȱthatȱaȱrelativeȱtenseȱtheoryȱtakȬ enȱtoȱtheȱdiscourseȱlevelȱwouldȱofferȱadditionalȱoptionsȱforȱtheȱanalysisȱ ofȱsuchȱaȱtext,ȱwhichȱopensȱaȱdoorȱforȱfurtherȱresearch.ȱ HendelȱthenȱaddressesȱthreeȱsignificantȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱBHȱverb,ȱallȱ ofȱ whichȱ areȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ binyanȱ system:ȱ situation;ȱ transitivity;ȱ andȱvoice.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 57ȱȱ Ronaldȱ S.ȱ Hendel,ȱ “Inȱ theȱ Marginsȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Verbalȱ System:ȱ Situation,ȱ Tense,ȱ Aspect,ȱMood,”ȱZAHȱ9ȱ(1996),ȱ152.ȱ 58ȱȱ ThisȱisȱalsoȱtheȱcaseȱforȱTalstra,ȱforȱwhomȱestablishingȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱsyntaxȱisȱaȱmainȱ goal.ȱ Heȱ stillȱ findsȱ itȱ necessaryȱ toȱ includeȱ notationȱ ofȱ verbsȱ fromȱ theȱ semanticȱ doȬ mainȱofȱdirectȱspeechȱinȱtheȱsyntaxȱorientedȱWIVUȱdatabase.ȱȱ 59ȱȱ Hendel’sȱ relativeȱ tenseȱ modelȱ followsȱ thatȱ ofȱ Reichenbachȱ withȱ modificationsȱ byȱ BernardȱComrieȱ(Comrieȱ1985;ȱBinnickȱ1991:ȱ109Ȭ116).ȱ 60ȱȱ Goldfajnȱ hasȱ developedȱ theȱ relativeȱ tenseȱ modelȱ forȱ theȱ discourseȱ levelȱ analysisȱ ofȱ narrativeȱ textȱ withȱ goodȱ results.ȱ Goldfajn,ȱ Wordȱ Orderȱ andȱ Timeȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Narrative.ȱ

88ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

Situationȱ Theȱintroductionȱofȱtheȱlinguisticȱcategoryȱsituationȱintoȱtheȱdiscussionȱ ofȱ theȱ BHȱ verbȱ isȱ quiteȱ helpful.61ȱ Premper,ȱ speakingȱ ofȱ situationȱ asȱ aȱ linguisticȱcategoryȱstates,ȱ“Inȱtypicalȱsituationsȱsomethingȱisȱhappeningȱ andȱ oneȱ orȱ moreȱ entitiesȱ areȱ involved.ȱ Thusȱ aȱ situationȱ isȱ somethingȱ whichȱisȱinternallyȱrelational,ȱimplyingȱatȱleastȱtwoȱentitiesȱ(inȱaȱwiderȱ sense).”62ȱSituationsȱmayȱbeȱmoreȱorȱlessȱtypical,ȱbasedȱuponȱtheȱdegreeȱ ofȱdynamicityȱinvolvedȱandȱuponȱtheȱtypesȱofȱentitiesȱinvolved.63ȱȱForȱ Hendel,ȱtheȱtermȱsituationȱrefersȱtoȱ“…theȱinherentȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱcirȬ cumstanceȱsignifiedȱbyȱtheȱverb.”64ȱHeȱnotesȱthatȱdynamicityȱisȱmorphoȬ logicallyȱ markedȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Qal,ȱ whereȱ theȱ dynamicȱ versusȱ staticȱ oppositionȱisȱmostȱclearlyȱobserved.ȱSomeȱscholarsȱperceiveȱdynamicityȱ asȱ aȱ gradualȱ concept,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ anȱ opposition.ȱ Consequently,ȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱtoȱdevelopȱaȱscaleȱfromȱmoreȱstaticȱtoȱmoreȱdynamicȱactions.65ȱ Theseȱ additionalȱ gradationsȱ areȱ foundȱ atȱ theȱ lexicalȱ levelȱ forȱ theȱ BHȱ verb.ȱ Exploringȱ situationȱ asȱ aȱ linguisticȱ categoryȱ hasȱ implicationsȱ forȱ theȱ informationȱ structureȱ componentȱ ofȱ theȱ TDȱ analysis,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ semanticȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ aȱ dynamic,ȱ orȱ fientiveȱ verb,ȱ andȱ aȱ stativeȱ verbȱmayȱbeȱsignificant.66ȱȱȱ Transitivityȱ Theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ situationȱ inȱ Qalȱ andȱ situationȱ inȱ theȱ deȬ rivedȱ conjugations,ȱ i.e.ȱ theȱ stativeȱQalȱandȱ theȱ factitiveȱPiel;ȱ asȱwellȱasȱ theȱdynamicȱQalȱandȱtheȱcausativeȱHiphil,ȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱissueȱofȱtranȬ sitivity.ȱ Theȱ contrastsȱ foundȱ betweenȱ transitiveȱ andȱ intransitiveȱ conȬ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 61ȱȱ Seeȱ F.ȱ W.ȱ DobbsȬAllsop,ȱ “Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Stativesȱ andȱ Situationȱ Aspect,”ȱ JSSȱ XLVȱ (2000),ȱ21Ȭ52.ȱ 62ȱȱ Premper,ȱ“UniversalsȱofȱtheȱLinguisticȱRepresentationȱofȱSituations,”ȱ478.ȱ 63ȱȱ Comrieȱ describesȱ dynamicity,ȱ orȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ statesȱ andȱ processes,ȱ asȱ folȬ lows:ȱ “Statesȱ areȱ static,ȱ i.e.ȱ continueȱ asȱ beforeȱ unlessȱ changed,ȱ whereasȱ eventsȱ andȱ processesȱareȱdynamic,ȱi.e.ȱrequireȱaȱcontinualȱinputȱofȱenergyȱifȱtheyȱareȱnotȱtoȱcomeȱ toȱanȱend.”ȱBernardȱComrie,ȱAspect:ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱStudyȱofȱVerbalȱAspectȱandȱ Relatedȱ Problems,ȱ Cambridgeȱ Textbooksȱ inȱ Linguisticsȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ UniȬ versityȱPress,ȱ1976),ȱ13.ȱSeeȱalsoȱBinnick,ȱTimeȱandȱtheȱVerb:ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱTenseȱandȱAsȬ pect,ȱ170Ȭ197.ȱ 64ȱȱ Hendel,ȱ “Inȱ theȱ Marginsȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Verbalȱ System:ȱ Situation,ȱ Tense,ȱ Aspect,ȱ Mood,”ȱ154.ȱ 65ȱȱ Premper,ȱ“UniversalsȱofȱtheȱLinguisticȱRepresentationȱofȱSituations,”ȱ495.ȱ 66ȱȱ Inȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱtermȱ dynamic,ȱ theȱtermȱ fientiveȱisȱusedȱ forȱverbsȱ thatȱ describeȱacȬ tion,ȱmotionȱorȱchangeȱofȱstate,ȱsinceȱtheȱtermȱactiveȱisȱusedȱtoȱdenoteȱvoiceȱ(Arnoldȱ 2003:ȱ38).ȱ

ȱ

89ȱ

TheȱBHȱVerbȱinȱContextȱ

structionsȱinȱQalȱandȱthoseȱinȱtheȱderivedȱconjugationsȱareȱalsoȱsignifiȬ cant.67ȱHendelȱsummarisesȱasȱfollows:ȱ Qalȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱPielȱ

ȱ

Hiphilȱ

x

Stative>ȱ ȱ

ȱ

factitive>ȱ

intransitiveȱ

x

Dynamic/intransitive>ȱ

frequentative>ȱ

causative/singlyȱtransitiveȱȱ

x

Dynamic/transitive>ȱ tiveȱ

resultative>ȱ

causative/doublyȱ transiȬ

Theȱ choiceȱ ofȱ aȱ verbalȱ formȱ willȱ affectȱ theȱ numberȱ ofȱ argumentsȱ inȱ aȱ givenȱpredication.ȱEvaluationȱofȱtheȱverbalȱformsȱfromȱtheȱperspectiveȱ ofȱ quantitativeȱ valenceȱ providesȱ theȱ followingȱ information:ȱ aȱ stativeȱ verbȱrequiresȱoneȱargument:ȱTheȱboyȱisȱyoung.ȱAȱdynamic,ȱintransitiveȱ verbȱalsoȱrequiresȱoneȱargument:ȱTheȱboyȱfell.ȱAȱdynamic,ȱsinglyȱtransiȬ tiveȱ verbȱ requiresȱ twoȱ arguments:ȱ Theȱ boyȱ kickedȱ theȱ ball.ȱ Aȱ doublyȱ transitiveȱ verbȱ requiresȱ threeȱ arguments:ȱ Theȱ boyȱ gaveȱ Maryȱ theȱ ball.68ȱ Forȱthisȱreason,ȱtheȱnumberȱandȱidentityȱofȱtopicalȱentitiesȱinȱaȱBHȱpreȬ dicationȱwillȱinteractȱwithȱtheȱnumberȱandȱtypeȱofȱargumentsȱrequiredȱ byȱ aȱ particularȱ verbalȱ form.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ aȱ Qalȱ stativeȱ formȱ requiresȱ oneȱ argument,ȱ asȱ doesȱ aȱ Qalȱ intransitiveȱ form.ȱ Aȱ Qalȱ transitiveȱ formȱ requiresȱ twoȱ arguments.ȱ Aȱ dynamic,ȱ singlyȱ transitiveȱ Hiphilȱ formȱ reȬ quiresȱ twoȱ arguments,ȱ andȱ aȱ dynamic,ȱ doublyȱ transitiveȱ Hiphilȱ formȱ requiresȱthree.ȱȱ Thisȱ summaryȱ hasȱ implicationsȱ forȱ sentenceȬlevelȱ Informationȱ Structureȱ analysis,ȱ becauseȱ aȱ particularȱ conjugationȱ willȱ constrainȱ theȱ relationshipȱthatȱholdsȱbetweenȱaȱverbȱandȱitsȱarguments.ȱForȱInformaȬ tionȱStructureȱanalysis,ȱargument(s)ȱmayȱfunctionȱasȱtopicalȱentities,ȱsoȱ theȱuseȱofȱaȱparticularȱverbalȱformȱwillȱaffectȱtrackingȱofȱsuchȱentities.ȱ Voiceȱ Theȱ secondȱ issueȱ isȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ situationȱ inȱ theȱ Qalȱ andȱ theȱsemanticsȱofȱvoice,ȱorȱdiathesis.ȱForȱexample,ȱtheȱniphalȱ“…effectsȱaȱ changeȱofȱvoiceȱandȱsituationȱforȱdynamic/transitiveȱverbs.”69ȱThisȱmayȱ beȱsummarisedȱasȱfollows:ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 67ȱȱ Theȱmostȱrecentȱelaborationȱ ofȱthisȱmaterialȱisȱ ArnoldȱandȱChoi,ȱ AȱGuideȱtoȱBiblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Syntax,ȱ 193.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ Expandedȱ Stemȱ Chart,ȱ Arnoldȱ andȱ Choi,ȱ Aȱ Guideȱ toȱ BiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax,ȱ194.ȱ 68ȱȱ Quantitativeȱvalenceȱisȱaȱwidelyȱacceptedȱmeansȱofȱevaluatingȱtransitivity.ȱAȱsecondȱ meansȱofȱevaluatingȱtransitivityȱisȱtheȱsemanticȱdecompositionȱofȱverbs,ȱwhichȱmayȱbeȱ doneȱ byȱ analysingȱ theȱ internalȱ timeȱ structure,ȱ orȱ inherentȱ aspectualȱ propertiesȱ ofȱ theȱ verbalȱform,ȱi.e.ȱdynamicityȱ–ȱwhichȱresultsȱinȱtheȱdynamicȬstativeȱopposition.ȱPremȬ per,ȱ“UniversalsȱofȱtheȱLinguisticȱRepresentationȱofȱSituations,”ȱ495.ȱ 69ȱȱ Hendel,ȱ “Inȱ theȱ Marginsȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Verbalȱ System:ȱ Situation,ȱ Tense,ȱ Aspect,ȱ Mood,”ȱ157.ȱ

90ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

Qalȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Dynamic/transitiveȱ Niphalȱ Reflexive/transitiveȱ Orȱmiddle/intransitiveȱ Orȱpassive/intransitiveȱ Resultative/stativeȱ

TheȱniphalȱsignalsȱanȱintransitiveȱconstructionȱandȱtheȱformȱisȱundersȬ pecifiedȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱcausalȱforce,ȱsourceȱofȱenergyȱorȱagent.70ȱTheȱ niphalȱ formȱ givesȱ riseȱ toȱ oneȱ mappingȱ configuration,ȱ butȱ atȱ leastȱ twoȱ typesȱ ofȱ pragmatic,ȱ contextȬinducedȱ elaboration.ȱ Inȱ theȱ firstȱ elaboraȬ tion,ȱtheȱcausalȱforceȱisȱassociatedȱwithȱanȱexternalȱagent.ȱThisȱisȱaȱpasȬ sive,ȱ agentȬorientedȱ understanding.71ȱ Oftenȱ theȱ agentȱ isȱ encodedȱ asȱ aȱ prepositionalȱ phrase,ȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ sentenceȱ Theȱ ballȱ wasȱ thrownȱ byȱ Harry.ȱ Harryȱ causedȱ theȱ motionȱ ofȱ theȱ ball.ȱ Inȱ theȱ secondȱ elaboration,ȱ theȱ causalȱforceȱhasȱsomethingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱinternalȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱ theme.ȱThisȱcontributesȱtoȱaȱmiddle,ȱorȱnonȱagentȬoriented,ȱunderstandȬ ing.72ȱ Theȱ sentence:ȱ Theȱballȱrolledȱfromȱtheȱ tableȱandȱbouncedȱ onȱ theȱfloorȱ illustratesȱthis.ȱTheȱballȱisȱnoȱlongerȱonȱtheȱtable,ȱbutȱwhetherȱtheȱballȱ wasȱ pushedȱ offȱ byȱ Harry,ȱ orȱ wasȱ setȱ inȱ motionȱ byȱ aȱ breezeȱ fromȱ theȱ window,ȱorȱbyȱvibrationsȱfromȱtheȱstreetȬrepairersȱbelow,ȱisȱnotȱspeciȬ fied.ȱ ThisȱmarginalȱissueȱmightȱhaveȱsignificantȱconsequencesȱforȱexegeȬ sis,ȱ asȱ Keithȱ Grünebergȱ demonstratesȱ inȱ hisȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ Genesisȱ 12.3.ȱGrünebergȱdifferentiatesȱbetweenȱthreeȱpossibleȱtranslationsȱofȱtheȱ niphalȱ ?TDȱ inȱ Genesisȱ 12.3,ȱ offeringȱ optionsȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ passiveȱ beȱ blessed;ȱ theȱ middleȱ findȱ blessing;ȱ andȱ theȱ reflexiveȱ blessȱ themselves.ȱ Theȱ passiveȱoption,ȱbeȱblessed,ȱaccordsȱwithȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱexplicitȱagentȱ inȱtheȱprepositionalȱphraseȱbyȱyou,ȱandȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱbestȱchoice.73ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 70ȱȱ 71ȱȱ 72ȱȱ 73ȱȱ

Mandelblit,ȱ“GrammaticalȱMarking,”ȱ229.ȱ WaltkeȱandȱOȇConnor,ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax,ȱ383.ȱ Mandelblit,ȱ“GrammaticalȱMarking,”ȱ229.ȱ Grünebergȱproposesȱthatȱmiddleȱniphalsȱcomeȱfromȱrootsȱderivedȱfromȱseveralȱ semanticȱdomains,ȱsuchȱasȱactionȱforȱone’sȱownȱbenefit,ȱreciprocalȱactivities,ȱgroomȬ ing,ȱselfȬmovement,ȱseparation,ȱperformativeȱspeechȱandȱsoȱon.ȱHeȱincludesȱtheȱrootȱ ]ZN,ȱtoȱfightȱinȱtheȱcategoryȱofȱreciprocalȱactivity,ȱthusȱhavingȱaȱ“middle”ȱnuance.ȱ SoȱtheȱEnglishȱclauseȱtheyȱfoughtȱmightȱappearȱinȱHebrewȱasȱanȱintransitiveȱconstrucȬ tionȱwithȱaȱniphalȱverbȱform.ȱKeithȱGrüneberg,ȱAbraham,ȱBlessingȱandȱtheȱNations:ȱAȱ PhilologicalȱandȱExegeticalȱStudyȱofȱGenesisȱ12:3ȱinȱItsȱNarrativeȱContextȱ(Berlin:ȱWalterȱ deȱGruyter,ȱ2003).

ȱ

SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBHȱTexts:ȱCognitiveȱAdditionsȱ

91ȱ

Again,ȱ theseȱ categoryȱ shiftsȱ willȱ affectȱ theȱ topicalȱ entitiesȱ (arguȬ ments)ȱ involvedȱ inȱ aȱ text,ȱ potentiallyȱ alteringȱ theȱ relationshipsȱ estabȬ lishedȱviaȱfunctionalȱrolesȱinȱaȱgivenȱdiscourse.ȱForȱexample,ȱtheȱarguȬ mentȱinȱtheȱ positionȱofȱgrammaticalȱsubjectȱoftenȱholdsȱtheȱfunctionalȱ roleȱofȱagent,ȱorȱ“…theȱinstigatorȱofȱtheȱaction”ȱinȱaȱgivenȱpredication.ȱ Likewise,ȱtheȱargumentȱinȱtheȱpositionȱofȱgrammaticalȱdirectȱobjectȱwillȱ oftenȱ holdȱ theȱ functionalȱ roleȱ ofȱ patient,ȱ whoȱ isȱ “…theȱ entityȱ underȬ goingȱtheȱeffectȱofȱtheȱaction”ȱinȱaȱgivenȱpredication.ȱ74ȱTheȱroleȱofȱagentȱ isȱoftenȱencodedȱasȱtheȱgrammaticalȱsubject,ȱwhereasȱtheȱroleȱofȱpatientȱ isȱ oftenȱ encodedȱ asȱ theȱ grammaticalȱ indirectȱ object,ȱmakingȱ theȱ entityȱ inȱtheȱroleȱofȱagentȱmoreȱsalientȱthanȱtheȱentityȱinȱtheȱroleȱofȱpatientȱ .75ȱ Duringȱ theȱ readingȱ process,ȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ agentȱandȱ thatȱofȱpatientȱ mightȱ shiftȱbetweenȱentitiesȱasȱdiscourseȱprogresses.ȱAlternatively,ȱoneȱentityȱ mightȱretainȱtheȱroleȱofȱsubject,ȱtheȱotherȱofȱobjectȱoverȱseveralȱpredicaȬ tions.ȱȱ TheȱlatterȱsituationȱoccursȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ1.10,ȱinȱwhichȱbothȱJereȬ miahȱandȱYahwehȱareȱactiveȱdiscourseȱtopicalȱentities.ȱJeremiahȱreportsȱ theȱinterchange,ȱbutȱYahwehȱoccursȱasȱtheȱsubject,ȱorȱagent,ȱinȱmanyȱofȱ theȱfollowingȱclauses,ȱwhileȱJeremiahȱisȱrepresentedȱasȱtheȱdirectȱobject,ȱ orȱpatient,ȱinȱtheȱsameȱclausesȱ(seeȱJeremiahȱ1.4a;ȱ1.5a,ȱb,ȱd,ȱe;ȱ1.7a,ȱd,ȱf;ȱ 1.9a,ȱb,ȱc,ȱd;ȱ1.10b).ȱȱClearly,ȱwhileȱthisȱsectionȱincludesȱbothȱdiscourseȱ topicalȱ entitiesȱ inȱ nearlyȱequalȱproportions,ȱYahwehȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱ moreȱactiveȱofȱtheȱtwo.ȱHeȱisȱtheȱinitiatorȱofȱmostȱofȱtheȱactionȱandȱJeȬ remiahȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱlessȱactiveȱinterlocutorȱasȱheȱisȱtheȱrecipientȱofȱ muchȱofȱtheȱaction.ȱ

D. SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱText:ȱȱȱȱȱȱ CognitiveȱAdditionsȱ Asȱ previouslyȱ noted,ȱ oneȱ difficultyȱ withȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ verbalȱ systemȱ isȱ determiningȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ variousȱ verbalȱ formsȱ inȱ theȱ mappingȱ ofȱ temȬ poralȱ information.ȱ 76ȱ Thisȱ difficultyȱ arisesȱ forȱ twoȱ reasons.ȱ First,ȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 74ȱȱ Finchȱ describesȱ theseȱ asȱ thetaȱ roles.ȱ Geoffreyȱ Finch,ȱ Linguisticȱ Termsȱ andȱ Conceptsȱ (Basingstoke:ȱPalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2000),ȱ120.ȱ 75ȱȱ Theȱreverseȱisȱalsoȱtheȱcase.ȱPremperȱstates,ȱ“Thereȱisȱaȱuniversalȱtendencyȱsuchȱthatȱ theȱlessȱ‘salient’ȱorȱanimated,ȱorȱindividuatedȱaȱparticipantȱis,ȱtheȱlessȱlikelyȱitȱisȱtoȱbeȱ codedȱ asȱ subject.”ȱ Premper,ȱ “Universalsȱ ofȱ theȱ Linguisticȱ Representationȱ ofȱ SituaȬ tions,”ȱ489.ȱ 76ȱȱ Amongȱ others,ȱ Waltkeȱ andȱ O’Connorȱ note,ȱ “Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ hasȱ noȱ tensesȱ inȱ theȱ strictȱ sense:ȱ itȱ usesȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ otherȱ meansȱ toȱ expressȱ timeȱ relations.”ȱ Waltkeȱ andȱ OȇConnor,ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax,ȱ347.ȱ

92ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

HebrewȱverbȱisȱnotȱtheȱprimaryȱsourceȱofȱtemporalȱinformationȱinȱBHȱ text,ȱwhereȱtemporalȱadverbs,ȱsuchȱasȱ ]TD,ȱbefore,ȱand[TZ ,ȱafter,ȱandȱ constructionsȱ suchȱ asȱ ?NOJYJ[ [[O[D,inȱ theȱ daysȱ ofȱ Kingȱ Josiahȱ (JereȬ miahȱ 3.6),ȱ contributeȱ toȱ timeȱ reference.77ȱ Second,ȱ theȱ verbȱ containsȱ farȱ moreȱ informationȱ thanȱ simpleȱ timeȱ reference.ȱ Theȱ verbȱ indicatesȱ theȱ typeȱ ofȱ activityȱ representedȱ byȱ aȱ particularȱ lexicalȱ choice.ȱ Itȱ alsoȱ proȬ videsȱinformationȱ regardingȱitsȱadjunctsȱ(subjectȱandȱ object)ȱ andȱtheirȱ functionalȱrolesȱinȱtheȱsentence.78ȱȱ

1. CognitiveȱMetaphorȱandȱTime:ȱTIMEȱISȱMOTIONȱ ȱSomeȱ freshȱ insightȱ intoȱ theȱ expressionȱ ofȱ timeȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ isȱ gainedȱwhenȱtheȱissueȱisȱexaminedȱfromȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱtheȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ MOTIONȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ becauseȱ thisȱ metaphorȱ underliesȱ muchȱ discussionȱ ofȱ thisȱ widelyȱ debatedȱ subject.ȱ Asȱ discussedȱ inȱ chapterȱ 5,ȱ sectionȱ B.4,ȱ aȱ conceptualȱmetaphorȱ isȱnotȱ inȱ itselfȱ aȱ literaryȱ metaphor,ȱ althoughȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ hasȱ aȱ roleȱ inȱ establishingȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ literaryȱ metaphor.ȱ Rather,ȱ aȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ isȱ anȱ experientiallyȱ derivedȱ cognitiveȱ construction.ȱ Theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ motionȱ isȱ experiential:ȱ humansȱexperienceȱaȱwideȱvarietyȱofȱmotion,ȱsuchȱasȱwalking,ȱrunning,ȱ carryingȱ andȱbeingȱ carried.ȱSimilarly,ȱ humansȱregularlyȱobserveȱ otherȱ kindsȱofȱmotion,ȱsuchȱasȱflowingȱrivers,ȱflyingȱbirdsȱandȱtheȱshiftingȱofȱ heavenlyȱ bodies.ȱ Thisȱ commonȱ experienceȱ makesȱ theȱ sourceȱ domain,ȱ MOTION,ȱ availableȱ forȱ understandingȱ theȱ targetȱ domain,ȱ TIME,ȱ inȱ theȱ conceptualȱmetaphorȱ TIMEȱISȱMOTION.ȱTheȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱ TIMEȱISȱ MOTIONȱisȱaȱstructuralȱmetaphor.79ȱTheȱsourceȱdomain,ȱMOTION,ȱisȱaȱrichȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 77ȱȱ Otherȱ featuresȱ thatȱ mapȱ temporalȱ relationsȱ areȱ expressionsȱ headedȱ byȱ nouns,ȱ adȬ verbs,ȱadjectivesȱandȱprepositions.ȱSeeȱC.ȱH.ȱJ.ȱvanȱderȱMerwe,ȱ“ReconsideringȱBibliȬ calȱHebrewȱTemporalȱExpressions,”ȱZAHȱ10ȱ(1997),ȱ42Ȭ59.ȱ 78ȱȱ CategoriesȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱBHȱverbȱinclude:ȱperson,ȱnumberȱandȱ gender;ȱtense;ȱmodality;ȱvoice;ȱaspect,ȱi.e.ȱperfectiveȬimperfective;ȱandȱaspectȱ(aktionȬ sart),ȱi.e.ȱvoice,ȱfientivityȬtransitivityȱandȱcausation.ȱWaltkeȱandȱOȇConnor,ȱAnȱIntroducȬ tionȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax,ȱ344.ȱ 79ȱȱ Conceptualȱmetaphorsȱperformȱthreeȱbasicȱfunctions.ȱStructuralȱmetaphorsȱincludeȱ “…ȱaȱsourceȱthatȱisȱaȱrichȱsourceȱofȱknowledgeȱforȱtheȱtarget.”ȱAȱstructuralȱmetaphorȱ “…ȱenablesȱspeakersȱtoȱunderstandȱtargetȱAȱbyȱmeansȱofȱtheȱstructureȱofȱsourceȱ B,”(i.e.ȱtimeȱisȱmotion).ȱOntologicalȱmetaphorsȱ“…ȱprovideȱlessȱconceptualȱstructureȱ thanȱaȱstructuralȱmetaphor,”ȱwhileȱ“…ȱgivingȱontologicalȱstatusȱtoȱgeneralȱcategoȬ riesȱofȱabstractȱconcepts”ȱ(i.e.ȱsocietyȱisȱaȱperson).ȱOrientationalȱmetaphorsȱprovideȱ evenȱlessȱconceptualȱstructureȱwhileȱ“…ȱmakingȱaȱsetȱofȱtargetȱconceptsȱcoherentȱinȱ ourȱconceptualȱsystem,ȱbasedȱuponȱcoordinatesȱestablishedȱbyȱbasicȱhumanȱspatialȱ orientation”ȱ(i.e.ȱmoreȱisȱup).ȱKövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ33Ȭ35.ȱ

ȱ

SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBHȱTexts:ȱCognitiveȱAdditionsȱ

93ȱ

sourceȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ forȱ understandingȱ theȱ targetȱ domain,ȱ TIME.ȱ LinȬ guisticȱ expressionsȱ suchȱ asȱ timeȱ flowsȱ by,ȱ timeȱ flies,ȱ timesȱ change;ȱ heȱ isȱ runningȱoutȱofȱtime,ȱtheȱdaysȱaheadȱwillȱbeȱchallengingȱareȱaȱfewȱexamplesȱ ofȱthisȱstructuralȱmetaphor.ȱTheȱsourceȱdomain,ȱ MOTION,ȱalsoȱgivesȱriseȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱ amountȱ ofȱ confusion,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ motionȱ inherentȱ inȱ thisȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ mayȱ beȱ construedȱ inȱ twoȱ quiteȱ differentȱ ways.ȱ Theȱfirstȱwayȱofȱconstruingȱtheȱ TIMEȱISȱMOTIONȱmetaphorȱisȱtimeȱpassingȱ isȱ theȱ motionȱ ofȱ anȱ object.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ construalȱ theȱ observerȱ isȱ fixed,ȱ whileȱ timeȱ isȱ anȱ objectȱ movingȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ theȱ observer.ȱ Linguisticȱ exȬ pressionsȱsuchȱasȱtimeȱflowsȱby,ȱtimeȱfliesȱandȱtimesȱchangeȱareȱovertȱexȬ amplesȱofȱthisȱconstrual.ȱTheȱsecondȱwayȱofȱconstruingȱtheȱ TIMEȱISȱMOȬ TIONȱmetaphorȱisȱtimeȱpassingȱisȱanȱobserverȇsȱmotionȱoverȱaȱlandscape.ȱInȱ thisȱcase,ȱtimeȱisȱfixedȱandȱtheȱobserverȱisȱmovingȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtime.ȱ Linguisticȱexpressionsȱsuchȱasȱheȱisȱrunningȱoutȱofȱtimeȱandȱtheȱdaysȱaheadȱ willȱbeȱ challengingȱareȱ examplesȱ ofȱ theȱ second.ȱ Lakoffȱ andȱ Johnsonȱ seeȱ theȱtwoȱoptionsȱasȱreversalsȱofȱtheȱfigureȬgroundȱconfiguration,ȱasȱtwoȱ relatedȱ ideas.ȱ Talmyȱ listsȱ theȱ followingȱ featuresȱ thatȱ characteriseȱ theȱ figureȱandȱgroundȱopposition:ȱ Figureȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Groundȱ

locationȱlessȱknownȱ ȱ

ȱ

locationȱmoreȱknownȱ

smallerȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

largerȱ

moreȱmobileȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

moreȱstationaryȱ

structurallyȱsimplerȱ ȱ

ȱ

structurallyȱmoreȱcomplexȱ

moreȱsalientȱ ȱ

ȱ

moreȱbackgroundedȱ

ȱ

earlierȱonȱscene;ȱinȱmemory80ȱ

ȱ

moreȱrecentlyȱinȱawarenessȱ

Thisȱinformationȱinformsȱtheȱconstrualȱofȱtheȱ TIMEȱISȱMOTIONȱmetaphorȱ inȱtheȱfollowingȱways:ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱconstrual,ȱtimeȱpassingȱisȱtheȱmotionȱofȱ anȱobject,ȱtimeȱisȱmovingȱtowardȱaȱfixedȱobserver.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱfixedȱ observerȱ isȱ theȱ ground:ȱ hisȱlocationȱ isȱmoreȱknown,ȱ heȱ isȱmoreȱ statioȬ naryȱ andȱ isȱ backgrounded.ȱ Timeȱ isȱ theȱ figure.ȱ Theȱ locationȱ ofȱ timeȱ isȱ lessȱ known,ȱ itȱ isȱ moreȱ mobile,ȱ itȱ isȱstructurallyȱ simplerȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ moreȱ salient.ȱInȱthisȱconstrual,ȱtimeȱisȱinȱfocus.ȱȱInȱtheȱsecondȱconstrual,ȱtimeȱ passingȱ isȱ anȱ observerȇsȱ motionȱ overȱ aȱ landscape,ȱ timeȱ isȱ theȱ ground:ȱ itsȱ locationȱ isȱ known,ȱ itȱ isȱ moreȱ stationaryȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ backgrounded.ȱ Theȱ observerȱ isȱ theȱ figure.ȱ Hisȱ locationȱ isȱ lessȱ known,ȱ heȱ isȱ smaller,ȱ moreȱ mobile,ȱstructurallyȱsimplerȱandȱmoreȱsalient.ȱTheȱobserverȱisȱinȱfocus.ȱ Forȱ bothȱ ofȱ theseȱ understandings,ȱ timeȱ isȱ movingȱ inȱ aȱ linear,ȱ oneȬ dimensionalȱmanner.ȱTheȱmetaphorsȱmakeȱfullȱuseȱofȱtheȱhumanȱcogniȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 80ȱȱ

CroftȱandȱCruse,ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics,ȱ42.ȱ

94ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

tiveȱabilityȱtoȱmanipulateȱabstractȱstructureȱinȱmentalȱspace.81ȱBecauseȱ theȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtimeȱandȱtheȱobserverȱisȱrelational,ȱratherȱthanȱ absolute,ȱ theseȱ metaphoricalȱ understandingsȱ areȱ compatibleȱ withȱ theȱ relativeȱtenseȱviewȱofȱtheȱBHȱverb.ȱTheyȱareȱalsoȱcompatibleȱwithȱmapȬ pingȱ temporalȱ orderingȱ alongȱ aȱ timeȱlineȱ basedȱ uponȱ alternativeȱ temȬ poralȱ indicators,ȱ suchȱ asȱ adverbsȱandȱ temporalȱ constructions.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ reason,ȱitȱisȱimportantȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱobserverȱinȱorderȱ toȱ mapȱ theȱ temporalȱ contoursȱ ofȱ aȱtext.ȱInȱ termsȱofȱMST,ȱ thisȱwillȱ deȬ termineȱwhichȱspaceȱisȱtheȱviewpointȱspace.ȱInȱtermsȱofȱcognitiveȱgramȬ mar,ȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ observerȱ willȱ interactȱ withȱ theȱ viewingȱ arȬ rangement:ȱ inȱ firstȱ andȱ secondȱ personȱ speech,ȱ theȱ readerȱ isȱ broughtȱ intoȱ theȱ situation,ȱ perhapsȱ identifyingȱ withȱ theȱ observer,ȱ whereasȱ inȱ thirdȱ personȱ narration,ȱ theȱ readerȱ willȱ mostȱ likelyȱ viewȱ theȱ situationȱ fromȱ afar.ȱ Itȱ isȱ thenȱ importantȱ toȱ observeȱ theȱmannerȱ inȱ whichȱverbalȱ forms,ȱ inȱ combinationȱ withȱ otherȱ linguisticȱ cues,ȱ areȱ usedȱ toȱ construeȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ time:ȱ Isȱ timeȱ movingȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ theȱ observerȱ (viewȬ pointȱspace),ȱorȱisȱtheȱobserverȱ(viewpointȱspace)ȱmovingȱwithȱrespectȱ toȱ time?ȱ Whatȱ linguisticȱ cuesȱ allowȱ theȱ readerȱ toȱ trackȱ timeȱ fromȱ theȱ observerȇsȱperspectiveȱ(viewpointȱspace)ȱinȱeitherȱconstrual?ȱAreȱtheseȱ cuesȱtheȱsameȱorȱdifferentȱinȱeachȱcase?ȱȱ

2. ExtendingȱAspectualȱBoundaries:ȱTIMEȱISȱSPACEȱ Asȱdiscussedȱinȱchapterȱ4,ȱsectionȱA.3,ȱtheȱcognitiveȱmetaphorȱTIMEȱISȱAȱ CONTAINERȱ structuresȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3.ȱTheȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ Aȱ CONTAINERȱ metaȬ

phorȱisȱaȱsubsetȱofȱtheȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱTIMEȱISȱSPACEȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱ metaphoricalȱ associationȱ ofȱ timeȱ withȱ matter,ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ aȱ container.ȱ Forȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱ theȱ seriesȱ ofȱ temporalȱ referencesȱ atȱ 1.2b,ȱ YJ[ [[O[D;ȱ 1.2d,ȱ YMNONJPJTNDȱandȱatȱ1.3a,ȱ ][S[YJ[[O[D,ȱindiȬ cateȱtheȱextentȱofȱtheȱcontainer’sȱmetaphoricȱboundaries.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 81ȱȱ JohnsonȱnotesȱthatȱLakoff’sȱimageȱschemaȱtransformationsȱareȱ“…moreȱgeneralȱandȱ abstractȱthatȱparticularȱmentalȱimages.”ȱFourȱimageȱschemaȱtransformationsȱareȱreȬ levantȱtoȱthisȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱBHȱverb.ȱPathȬfocusȱtoȱendȬpointȱfocusȱisȱtheȱtransforȬ mationȱ byȱ whichȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ forȱ oneȱ toȱ follow,ȱ inȱ theȱ imagination,ȱ theȱ pathȱ ofȱ aȱ movingȱ object,ȱ thenȱ toȱ focusȱ uponȱ theȱ pointȱ whereȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ rest.ȱ Multiplexȱ toȱ massȱisȱtheȱtransformationȱbyȱwhichȱoneȱisȱableȱtoȱimagineȱaȱgroupȱofȱseveralȱobject,ȱ thenȱmoveȱawayȱ(inȱtheȱmind)ȱuntilȱtheȱclusterȱturnsȱintoȱaȱsingleȱhomogenousȱmass,ȱ thenȱ toȱ moveȱ backȱ untilȱ theȱ massȱ turnsȱ intoȱ aȱ cluster.ȱ Followingȱ aȱ trajectoryȱ isȱ theȱ transformationȱbyȱwhichȱoneȱisȱableȱmentallyȱtoȱtraceȱtheȱpathȱtraversedȱbyȱaȱcontiȬ nuouslyȱ movingȱ object,ȱ andȱ superimpositionȱ isȱ theȱtransformationȱ byȱ whichȱ oneȱ isȱ ableȱtoȱmanipulateȱabstractȱstructureȱinȱmentalȱspace.ȱJohnson,ȱTheȱBodyȱinȱtheȱMind:ȱ TheȱBodilyȱBasisȱofȱMeaning,ȱImagination,ȱandȱReason,ȱ24Ȭ25.ȱȱ

ȱ

SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBHȱTexts:ȱCognitiveȱAdditionsȱ

95ȱ

Theȱ timeȱ isȱ aȱ containerȱ metaphorȱ isȱ anȱ orientationalȱ metaphor.ȱ Orientationalȱ metaphorsȱ areȱ cognitiveȱ metaphorsȱ thatȱ provideȱ lessȱ conceptualȱstructureȱthanȱdoȱstructuralȱmetaphors,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱtimeȱisȱ motionȱmetaphorȱmentionedȱabove.ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱtheȱ metaphoricalȱ containerȱ setsȱ theȱ majorȱ parametersȱ forȱ locatingȱ theȱ eventsȱinȱ timeȱ andȱspace,ȱbutȱ theȱ containerȱitselfȱ isȱ relativelyȱ unstrucȬ tured.ȱȱ However,ȱ theȱ metaphorȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱ isȱ aȱ structuralȱ metaphorȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ source,ȱ SPACE,ȱ enablesȱ speakersȱ toȱ underȬ standȱ theȱ target,ȱ TIME.ȱ Whileȱ spaceȱ mightȱ seemȱ evenȱ lessȱ structuredȱ thanȱ theȱ aforementionedȱ container,ȱ thisȱ isȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ theȱ case.ȱ Inȱ herȱstudyȱonȱSlavicȱaspect,ȱJandaȱnotes:ȱ Spaceȱisȱoccupiedȱbyȱmatter.ȱIfȱspaceȱconsistedȱmerelyȱofȱemptyȱdimension,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ provideȱ littleȱ (ifȱany)ȱ structureȱ forȱmetaphoricalȱ imagination.ȱ InȬ deed,ȱ spatialȱ metaphorsȱ almostȱ invariablyȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ parametersȱ ofȱ maȬ terialȱobjectsȱofȱvariousȱsorts.ȱAspectȱrefersȱveryȱspecificallyȱtoȱtheȱphysicalȱ formsȱofȱmatterȱandȱmapsȱthisȱparameterȱtoȱtheȱdomainȱofȱspace.82ȱ

InȱorderȱtoȱaccountȱforȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱofȱSlavicȱaspect,ȱJandaȱproposesȱ “…ȱ aȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱ universalȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱ metaphor,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ SITUATIONSȱ AREȱ MATERIALȱ ENTITIESȱ and,ȱ moreȱ specifically,ȱ PERȬ FECTIVEȱ ISȱ Aȱ DISCRETEȱ SOLIDȱ OBJECTȱ versusȱ IMPERFECTIVEȱ ISȱ Aȱ FLUIDȱ SUBȬ STANCE.”83ȱ Inȱ thisȱ assessment,ȱ perfectiveȱ situationsȱ areȱ objectsȱ thatȱ ocȬ cupyȱ timeȱ asȱ discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ occupyȱ space,ȱ whileȱ imperfectiveȱ situationsȱ areȱ objectsȱ thatȱ occupyȱ timeȱ asȱ fluidȱ substancesȱ occupyȱ space.ȱ Jandaȱ dividesȱ theȱ propertiesȱ ofȱ matterȱ intoȱ threeȱ groups:ȱ inheȬ rentȱproperties,ȱinteractionalȱpropertiesȱandȱhumanȱinteractionalȱpropȬ erties.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ scheme,ȱ inherentȱ properties,ȱ suchȱ asȱ edges,ȱ shapeȱ andȱ integrity,ȱcorrespondȱtoȱinherentȱsituationȱaspect.ȱInteractionalȱproperȬ ties,ȱ suchȱ asȱ dynamismȱ andȱ salience,ȱ correspondȱ toȱ discourseȱ phenoȬ menaȱ ofȱ aspect.ȱ Humanȱ properties,ȱ suchȱ asȱ graspingȱ andȱ impact,ȱ corȬ respondȱ toȱ pragmaticȱ phenomenaȱ ofȱ aspect.ȱ Inherentȱ propertiesȱ areȱ defaultȱmotivators,ȱwhileȱtheȱinteractionalȱpropertiesȱ“…canȱbeȱusedȱtoȱ motivateȱsubjectiveȱconstrual.”84ȱȱ Janda’sȱassessmentȱofȱSlavicȱaspectȱisȱexperientialist.ȱSheȱnotes,ȱ“…ȱ theȱ humanȱ bodyȱ isȱ theȱ instrumentȱ throughȱ whichȱ (theȱ above)ȱ properȬ tiesȱareȱexploredȱandȱitȱalsoȱplaysȱaȱroleȱonȱtheȱlocationȱofȱsituationsȱinȱ time.”ȱ Regardingȱ herȱ Russianȱ examples,ȱ Jandaȱ states,ȱ “…ȱ theȱ solidȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 82ȱȱ LauraȱA.ȱJanda,ȱ“AȱMetaphorȱinȱSearchȱofȱaȱSourceȱDomain,”ȱCLȱ15ȱ(2004),ȱ485.ȱ 83ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ471.ȱ 84ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ

96ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

bodyȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱobserverȱhelpsȱtoȱdisambiguateȱtheȱtense.”85ȱ Asȱinȱ theȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ MOTIONȱ examplesȱ discussedȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ section,ȱ theȱ presenceȱofȱtheȱhumanȱobserverȱinȱtheȱtimelineȱhasȱanȱeffectȱuponȱtemȬ poralȱconstrual,ȱinȱthatȱtheȱobserverȱbecomesȱtheȱdeicticȱcentreȱforȱtheȱ construalȱ ofȱ theȱ situation.86ȱ Additionally,ȱ Marmaridouȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ TIMEȱASȱAȱMOVINGȱOBJECTȱmetaphorȱgivesȱtimeȱ“…ȱaȱfrontȬbackȱorientaȬ tionȱ facingȱ theȱ directionȱ ofȱ motion.ȱ Inȱ theseȱ termsȱ theȱ futureȱ isȱ facingȱ towardȱusȱwhileȱitȱisȱmovingȱtowardȱus…whenȱtimeȱisȱconstructedȱasȱaȱ movingȱobject,ȱitȱisȱalsoȱmovingȱtowardȱorȱawayȱfromȱtheȱspeaker.ȱFuȬ ture,ȱ present,ȱ pastȱ areȱ calculatedȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ speakȬ er/observer.”87ȱȱAdditionally,ȱ“…ȱtheȱtenseȱdistinctionȱresultsȱformȱtheȱ factȱ thatȱ twoȱ solidȱ objectsȱ (theȱ humanȱ bodyȱ ofȱ theȱ observerȱ andȱ theȱ discreteȱ solidȱ ofȱ theȱperfectiveȱsituation)ȱ cannotȱ occupyȱ theȱ sameȱ spotȱ onȱ theȱ timeline.ȱ Aȱ solidȱ objectȱ (theȱ humanȱ bodyȱ ofȱ theȱ observer)ȱ can,ȱ however,ȱbeȱenvelopedȱinȱaȱfluidȱsubstanceȱ(theȱimperfectiveȱsituation),ȱ permittingȱtheȱtwoȱtoȱcoȬexistȱatȱtheȱsameȱmoment.”88ȱȱ

3. BiblicalȱHebrew:ȱTIMEȱISȱSPACEȱ ExaminingȱtheȱHebrewȱverbalȱsystemȱviaȱtheȱcognitiveȱmetaphorȱ TIMEȱ ISȱSPACEȱprovidesȱinsightȱintoȱtheȱcognitiveȱconstrualȱinherentȱinȱeachȱofȱ

theȱverbalȱformsȱandȱintoȱdiscourseȬconditionedȱcognitiveȱconstrualȱasȱ well.ȱAȱsynthesisȱofȱJanda’sȱmetphoricalȱdescriptionȱofȱ PERFECTIVEȱ ISȱ Aȱ DISCRETEȱ SOLIDȱ OBJECTȱ versusȱ IMPERFECTIVEȱ ISȱ Aȱ FLUIDȱ SUBSTANCEȱ withȱ Cook’sȱfindingsȱregardingȱtheȱaspectȱprominentȱnatureȱofȱBHȱmakesȱitȱ isȱpossibleȱtoȱexploreȱtheȱimplicationsȱofȱtheȱcognitiveȱmetaphorȱ TIMEȱISȱ SPACE.ȱȱ Cookȱhasȱobservedȱthatȱbothȱtheȱwayyiqtolȱ(pastȱtenseȱform)ȱandȱtheȱ qatalȱ(perfectiveȱaspectȱform)ȱdevelopedȱalongȱtheȱresultativeȱ>ȱperfectȱ>ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 85ȱȱ Atȱanyȱgivenȱpointȱinȱaȱdiscourse,ȱtheȱobserverȱhasȱaȱplaceȱinȱtheȱcanonicalȱviewingȱ arrangementȱ forȱ aȱ givenȱ predication,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ observerȱ isȱ notȱ physicallyȱ presentȱinȱtheȱevent.ȱIbid.,ȱ490.ȱ 86ȱȱ Fromȱanȱexperientialistȱperspective,ȱMarmaridouȱproposesȱthatȱdeixisȱisȱanȱIdealizedȱ Cognitiveȱ Model,ȱ anȱ ICM,ȱ andȱ thatȱ thisȱ ICMȱ “…givesȱ riseȱ toȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ theȱ CENTREȱvs.ȱPERIPHERYȱimageȱschema.”ȱAdditionally,ȱsheȱstates,ȱ“…theȱproposedȱconȬ strualȱofȱtheȱICMȱofȱdeixisȱstructuresȱallȱcategoriesȱofȱdeixis.ȱInȱthisȱanalysis,ȱpersonȱ andȱplaceȱdeixisȱmutuallyȱcoȬevolve,ȱwhereasȱsocialȱdeixisȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱmetaphorȬ icalȱunderstandingȱofȱsocialȱspaceȱasȱphysicalȱspace,ȱtimeȱdeixisȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱmeȬ taphoricalȱunderstandingȱofȱtimeȱasȱspace,ȱandȱdiscourseȱdeixisȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱmeȬ taphoricalȱ understandingȱ ofȱ discourseȱ asȱ time,ȱ andȱ timeȱ asȱ space.”ȱ Marmaridou,ȱ PragmaticȱMeaningȱandȱCognition,ȱ97.ȱ 87ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ102.ȱ 88ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ491.ȱ

ȱ

SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBHȱTexts:ȱCognitiveȱAdditionsȱ

97ȱ

perfectiveȱ>ȱsimpleȱpastȱgrammaticalisationȱpath,ȱwhileȱtheȱyiqtolȱ(imperȬ fectiveȱaspectȱform)ȱandȱtheȱparticipleȱ(progressiveȱaspectȱform)ȱdevelȬ opedȱalongȱtheȱprogressiveȱ>ȱimperfectiveȱgrammaticalisationȱpath.ȱWhenȱ approachedȱaccordingȱtoȱJanda’sȱcategories,ȱtheȱfirstȱsetȱofȱformsȱindiȬ catesȱsituationsȱthatȱoccupyȱtimeȱasȱdiscreteȱsolidȱobjectsȱoccupyȱspace,ȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ setȱ ofȱ formsȱ indicatesȱ situationsȱ thatȱ occupyȱ timeȱ asȱ fluidȱsubstancesȱoccupyȱspace.ȱȱ

4. InherentȱPropertiesȱofȱMatterȱandȱBHȱAspect:ȱSentenceȱLevelȱ Thisȱ sectionȱpresentsȱthreeȱcharacteristicsȱ regardingȱinherentȱaspectȱinȱ BHȱ verbalȱ forms.ȱ Theseȱ characteristicsȱ dealȱ withȱ individualȱ forms,ȱ soȱ theyȱ concernȱ sentenceȱ levelȱ predications.ȱ (Forȱ discourseȱ levelȱ characteristics,ȱseeȱsectionȱD.5,ȱbelow.)89ȱȱ 1.

Edges:ȱ Discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ haveȱ edges,ȱ thusȱ perfectiveȱ situationsȱ (wayyiqtol,ȱ qatal)ȱ exhibitȱ boundedness.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ fluidȱ subȬ stancesȱhaveȱnoȱinherentȱedges,ȱsoȱimperfectiveȱsituationsȱ(yiqtol,ȱparȬ ticiple)ȱ tendȱ toȱ exhibitȱ unboundednessȱ andȱ aȱ lackȱ ofȱ referenceȱ toȱ beȬ ginningȱandȱend.90ȱȱ

2.

Homogeneityȱvs.ȱHeterogeneity:ȱAȱdiscreteȱsolidȱobjectȱhasȱintegrityȱasȱaȱ whole,ȱ soȱ perfectiveȱ situationsȱ (wayyiqtol,ȱ qatal)ȱ mayȱ beȱ characterisedȱ asȱ single,ȱ oneȬtimeȱ accomplishmentsȱ andȱ achievements,ȱ exhibitingȱ wholeness,ȱ definitenessȱ andȱ totality.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ fluidȱ subȬ stancesȱ tendȱ toȱbeȱ uniform,ȱ continuousȱandȱ divisible,ȱ soȱimperfectiveȱ situationsȱ(yiqtol,ȱparticiple)ȱmayȱbeȱcharacterisedȱasȱongoingȱactivitiesȱ andȱ statesȱ thatȱ haveȱ temporalȱ stabilityȱ andȱ sometimesȱ exhibitȱ indefiȬ niteness.ȱ

3.

Penetrability:ȱ Aȱ discreteȱ solidȱ objectȱ isȱ impenetrableȱ andȱ onlyȱ expeȬ riencedȱfromȱtheȱexterior,ȱsoȱperfectiveȱsituationsȱ(wayyiqtol,ȱqatal)ȱareȱ perceivedȱfromȱtheȱoutside.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱtheȱobserverȱcanȱreach,ȱ seeȱ orȱ beȱ insideȱ aȱ fluidȱ substance,ȱ soȱ imperfectiveȱ situationsȱ (yiqtol,ȱ participle)ȱmayȱbeȱviewedȱfromȱtheȱinside.ȱ

Theȱ aboveȱ characteristicsȱcorrelateȱ withȱ Bhat’sȱ definition,ȱhighlightingȱ theȱ conceptualȱ natureȱ ofȱ aspectȱ asȱ aȱ linguisticȱ category.ȱ Toȱ reiterate,ȱ Bhatȱstates:ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 89ȱȱ Theȱ relevantȱ characteristicsȱ areȱ renumberedȱ fromȱ Janda’sȱ alphabeticalȱ list,ȱ whereȱ theyȱoccurȱasȱA,ȱCȱandȱF.ȱJanda,ȱ“AȱMetaphorȱinȱSearchȱofȱaȱSourceȱDomain.”ȱ 90ȱȱ Theȱparticipleȱisȱincludedȱwithȱtheȱyiqtolȱinȱtheȱimperfectiveȱcategoryȱbecause,ȱaccordȬ ingȱtoȱBinnick,ȱ“Perfectiveȱandȱimperfectiveȱareȱuniversallyȱacceptedȱasȱaspects;ȱtheȱ progressiveȱ isȱ widelyȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ theȱ imperfect”ȱ (Binnick:ȱ 2001,ȱ 563).ȱ

98ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

…perfectiveȱ providesȱ theȱ viewȱ ofȱ anȱ eventȱ asȱ aȱ wholeȱ fromȱ theȱ outsideȱ whereasȱimperfectiveȱprovidesȱtheȱviewȱfromȱtheȱinsideȱ(seeȱpointȱ2,ȱabove).ȱ Theȱ formerȱ isȱ unconcernedȱ withȱ internalȱ temporalȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ eventȱ whereasȱtheȱlatterȱisȱcruciallyȱconcernedȱwithȱsuchȱaȱstructureȱ(seeȱpointȱ3,ȱ above).ȱ Theȱ formerȱ viewsȱ theȱ situationȱ asȱ boundedȱ andȱ formingȱ aȱ unifiedȱ entityȱ whereasȱ theȱ latterȱ viewsȱ itȱ asȱ onȬgoingȱ orȱ habitualȱ (seeȱ pointȱ 1,ȱ above).91ȱ

TheȱthreeȱcharacteristicsȱalsoȱhaveȱpointsȱinȱcommonȱwithȱCook’sȱscopeȱ andȱdistanceȱmetaphor.ȱHeȱusesȱtheȱideaȱofȱaȱcameraȱtoȱexplainȱthatȱaȱ perfectiveȱ formȱ (qatal)ȱ indicatesȱ theȱ entireȱ intervalȱ ofȱ aȱ situation,ȱ asȱ viewedȱfromȱaȱdistance.ȱAȱperfectȱformȱ(wayyiqtol)ȱprovidesȱaȱresultantȱ viewȱofȱsituation,ȱwhileȱpresumingȱaȱpriorȱeventȱnucleus.ȱAnȱimperfecȬ tiveȱ formȱ (yiqtol)ȱ providesȱ aȱ closeȬupȱ viewȱ withoutȱ endpointsȱ andȱ aȱ progressiveȱ formȱ (participle)ȱ indicatesȱ anȱ agentȱ inȱ theȱ midstȱ ofȱ aȱ situaȬ tionȱ atȱ referenceȱ time.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ theseȱ characteristicsȱ doȱ notȱ requireȱ theȱ distanceȱ factorȱ employedȱ byȱ Cook.ȱ Aȱ situationȱ describedȱ usingȱ aȱ yiqtolȱ formȱ mayȱ beȱ perceivedȱ asȱ eitherȱ closeȱ upȱ orȱ farȱ awayȱ fromȱtheȱperceiver;ȱ beingȱ fluid,ȱitȱsimplyȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱ endpoints.ȱSiȬ milarly,ȱaȱsituationȱdescribedȱusingȱaȱqatalȱformȱmayȱalsoȱbeȱperceivedȱ asȱeitherȱcloseȱupȱorȱfarȱawayȱfromȱtheȱperceiver;ȱbeingȱsolid,ȱitȱsimplyȱ isȱaȱboundedȱwhole.ȱȱ Fourȱ additionalȱ propertiesȱ relateȱ toȱ sentenceȱ levelȱ verbalȱ forms.ȱ Theseȱareȱshape,ȱcountability,ȱstreamabilityȱandȱconvertibility.92ȱ 1.

Shape:ȱAȱdiscreteȱsolidȱobjectȱcanȱhaveȱvariousȱshapesȱandȱcanȱbeȱperȬ ceivedȱasȱthinȱstableȱslices,ȱsoȱperfectiveȱsituationsȱ(wayyiqtol,ȱqatal)ȱcanȱ haveȱvariousȱdurations.ȱTheyȱmayȱalsoȱbeȱpunctiliar.ȱFluidȱsubstancesȱ doȱnotȱexhibitȱshape,ȱalthoughȱtheyȱdoȱhaveȱthickness,ȱsoȱimperfectiveȱ situationsȱ(yiqtol,ȱparticiple)ȱmustȱhaveȱsomeȱdurationȱandȱcanȱextendȱ indefinitely.ȱ

2.

Countability:ȱ Discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ areȱ countable,ȱ whileȱ fluidȱ subȬ stancesȱ areȱ uncountableȱ massesȱ thatȱ canȱ fillȱaȱ space,ȱ soȱ imperfectivesȱ (yiqtol,ȱ participle)ȱ occurȱ withȱ indefiniteȱ timeȱ reference,ȱ orȱ withȱ referȬ encesȱthatȱformȱboundaries.ȱ

3.

Streamability:ȱ Discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ doȱ notȱ stream,ȱ fluidȱ substancesȱ stream.ȱȱ

4.

Convertibility:ȱ Discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ canȱ convertȱ toȱ substancesȱ whenȱ manyȱareȱviewedȱfromȱaȱdistance,ȱwhileȱfluidȱsubstancesȱcanȱbeȱconȬ vertedȱintoȱsolids.ȱȱ

TheȱfirstȱtwoȱofȱtheseȱfourȱcategoriesȱshowȱsomeȱpromiseȱforȱBHȱverbalȱ aspect,ȱ whileȱ theȱ secondȱ twoȱ areȱ notȱ availableȱ forȱ BHȱ asȱ theyȱ areȱ forȱ Slavicȱaspect.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 91ȱȱ Bhat,ȱTheȱProminenceȱofȱTense,ȱAspect,ȱandȱMood,ȱ46.ȱ 92ȱȱ Janda,ȱ“AȱMetaphorȱinȱSearchȱofȱaȱSourceȱDomain.”ȱ

ȱ

SpaceȱandȱTimeȱinȱBHȱTexts:ȱCognitiveȱAdditionsȱ

5.

99ȱ

InteractionȱofȱMatterȱandȱDiscourseȱStructureȱinȱBHȱ

Theȱ aforementionedȱ inherentȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱ matterȱ areȱ associatedȱ withȱindividualȱforms,ȱwhileȱtheȱfollowingȱfourȱcategoriesȱgiveȱinsightȱ intoȱtheȱinteractionȱofȱmatterȱwithȱdiscourseȱstructure.ȱTheseȱcategoriesȱ functionȱwhenȱtwoȱorȱmoreȱpredicationsȱcombineȱatȱtheȱdiscourseȱlevel.ȱ Atȱ thisȱ point,ȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ wawȱ becomesȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ discussion.ȱ Talstraȱhasȱobservedȱthatȱclausesȱtendȱtoȱformȱhierarchiesȱ basedȱuponȱ variousȱsetsȱofȱclauseȱconnections.ȱDiscourseȱapproaches,ȱsuchȱasȱthoseȱ ofȱLongacreȱandȱNiccacci,ȱalsoȱutiliseȱsomeȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱcharacteriȬ sations.ȱȱ Fourȱ characteristicsȱ interactȱ metaphoricallyȱ withȱ discourseȱ strucȬ ture.ȱTheseȱareȱcompatibility,ȱdynamicity,ȱsalienceȱandȱcontiguity.ȱȱ 1.

Compatibility:ȱDiscreteȱsolidȱobjectsȱcannotȱshareȱspaceȱwithȱotherȱsolȬ ids.ȱThisȱresultsȱinȱsequencingȱofȱperfectivesȱ(wayyiqtol,ȱqatal)ȱwithȱeachȱ otherȱ andȱ withȱ theȱ humanȱ observerȱ (aȱ solid)ȱ inȱ theȱ presentȱ moment.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ fluidȱ substancesȱ canȱ shareȱ spaceȱ withȱ bothȱ subȬ stancesȱ andȱ solids,ȱ soȱ imperfectiveȱ situationsȱ (yiqtol,ȱ participle)ȱ oftenȱ demonstrateȱsimultaneityȱwithȱeachȱother,ȱwithȱtheȱhumanȱobserverȱinȱ theȱpresentȱmomentȱ(particularlyȱparticiples).ȱȱ

Thisȱ featureȱ contributesȱ toȱ Schneider’sȱ bifurcationȱ betweenȱ theȱ solidȱ wayyiqtolȱ forms,ȱ whichȱ predominateȱ inȱ narrativeȱ speech,ȱ andȱ liquidȱ yiqtolȱforms,ȱwhichȱpredominateȱinȱdiscursiveȱspeech.ȱTheȱimperfectiveȱ situationȱenvelopsȱtheȱsolidȱbodyȱofȱtheȱobserver.ȱThusȱfirstȱandȱsecondȱ personȱ speechȱ situationsȱ thatȱ featureȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱutiliseȱmanyȱyiqtolȱforms,ȱwhileȱthirdȱpersonȱnarrationȱdistancesȱ theȱobserverȱandȱutilisesȱmanyȱwayyiqtolȱforms.ȱȱ 2.

Dynamicity:ȱDiscreteȱsolidȱobjectsȱcanȱprovideȱaȱfirmȱpathȱofȱsteppingȱ stones,ȱsoȱperfectivesȱ(wayyiqtol,ȱqatal)ȱareȱdynamicȱandȱmoveȱtheȱnarrȬ ativeȱalong,ȱwhileȱimperfectivesȱ(yiqtol,ȱparticiple)ȱareȱessentiallyȱstaticȱ andȱencourageȱdwellingȱonȱcharacteristicsȱandȱsetting.ȱ

Thisȱ featureȱ accordsȱ withȱ Goldfajn’sȱ relativeȱ timeȱ theory.ȱ Sheȱ states,ȱ “Bothȱ weȬqatalȱ andȱ wayyiqtolȱ verbȱ formsȱ seemȱ toȱ haveȱ theȱ temporalȱ functionȱofȱcontinuity,ȱthatȱis,ȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱadvancingȱtheȱRȱtimesȱinȱ theȱBHȱtext…ȱThereȱisȱaȱcloseȱcorrespondenceȱbetweenȱtheȱspecificȱlocaȬ tionȱ functionȱ andȱ theȱ evidentȱ bounded,ȱ telicȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ situationsȱ describedȱbyȱtheseȱtwoȱverbȱforms.”93ȱ 3.

Salience:ȱ Discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ areȱ perceptuallyȱ salient,ȱ soȱ perfectivesȱ (wayyiqtol,ȱ qatal)ȱ canȱ actȱ asȱ figureȱ orȱ foregroundȱ inȱ narration.ȱ Fluidȱ substancesȱ areȱ perceptuallyȱ diffuseȱ masses,ȱ soȱ imperfectivesȱ (yiqtol,ȱ participle)ȱmightȱactȱasȱground,ȱorȱbackground,ȱinȱnarration.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 93ȱGoldfajn,ȱWordȱOrderȱandȱTimeȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱNarrative,ȱ140.ȱ

100ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

Thisȱ discussionȱ ofȱ salienceȱ isȱ insufficientȱ onȱ twoȱ counts.ȱ First,ȱ asȱ wasȱ observedȱ inȱ theȱ metaphorsȱ forȱ time,ȱ theȱ foregroundȬbackgroundȱ disȬ tinctionȱmayȱexperienceȱaȱreversal.ȱItȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱSchneider’sȱoppoȬ sitionȱ betweenȱ wayyiqtolȱ andȱ yiqtol,ȱ inȱnarrativeȱ andȱ discursiveȱ speechȱ respectively,ȱ reflectsȱ suchȱ aȱ reversal.ȱ Thus,ȱ ifȱ perfectiveȱ formsȱ wereȱ foreȬgroundedȱinȱnarrative,ȱtheyȱwouldȱbeȱbackgroundedȱinȱdiscursiveȱ speech.ȱ Itȱ wouldȱ follow,ȱ then,ȱ thatȱ ifȱ theȱ imperfectivesȱ wereȱ backȬ groundedȱinȱnarrativeȱspeech,ȱtheyȱwouldȱbeȱforeȬgroundedȱinȱdiscurȬ siveȱspeech.ȱThisȱisȱ(slightly)ȱplausible,ȱbutȱsimplistic.ȱSecond,ȱsalienceȱ asȱanȱinformationȱstructureȱcategoryȱisȱaffectedȱnotȱbyȱtheȱverbalȱformȱ alone,ȱ butȱ byȱ theȱ amalgamationȱ ofȱ theȱ specificȱ verbalȱ formȱ andȱ theȱ wordȱorderȱinȱaȱgivenȱclause.ȱTheȱcomplexitiesȱthatȱdevelopȱdueȱtoȱtheȱ interactionȱbetweenȱverbalȱformsȱandȱtheȱbinyanimȱwillȱfollow.ȱ 4.

Contiguity:ȱ Discreteȱ solidȱ objectsȱ canȱ serveȱ asȱ barriers,ȱ whileȱ fluidȱ substancesȱ canȱ beȱ boundedȱ byȱ solidsȱ orȱ mixedȱ withȱ otherȱ substancesȱ (notȱapplicableȱforȱBH).ȱȱ

Whileȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ aspectȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ doesȱ notȱ solveȱ theȱ problemsȱ ofȱ theȱ BHȱ verbalȱ system,ȱitȱdoesȱprovideȱsomeȱnewȱvocabularyȱforȱdiscussingȱtheȱverbalȱ formsȱatȱbothȱtheȱsentenceȱandȱdiscourseȱlevels.ȱ Threeȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱmatterȱ(edges;ȱ homogeneityȱ versusȱ heteroȬ geneity;ȱ andȱ penetrability)ȱ areȱ alreadyȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ definitionȱ ofȱ aspectȱandȱareȱapplicableȱtoȱBHȱpredications.ȱTwoȱadditionalȱqualitiesȱ (shapeȱ andȱ countability)ȱ showȱ someȱ promiseȱ andȱ suggestȱ anȱ areaȱ ofȱ furtherȱ research.ȱ Discourseȱ levelȱ discussionȱ ofȱ aspectȱ fromȱ theȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ demonstratesȱ aȱ mixedȱ result.ȱ BHȱ scholarsȱ discussȱ theȱ categoriesȱ ofȱ compatibility,ȱ dynamicityȱ andȱ salienceȱ inȱ aȱ limitedȱ way.ȱ Compatibilityȱ andȱ dynamicityȱ haveȱ provenȱ toȱ beȱ usefulȱ categoriesȱ forȱ discussingȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ verbȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ discourse.ȱ Thisȱ metaphorȱ doesȱ notȱ sufficientlyȱ describeȱ saliency,ȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ foregroundȬbackgroundȱdistinction.ȱ Theȱ primaryȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ perfectiveȱ andȱ imperfectiveȱ aspecȬ tualȱcategoriesȱisȱsyntaxȱbasedȱandȱtheȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱconceptualȱmetaȬ phorȱ providesȱ aȱ richȱ setȱ ofȱ conceptsȱ forȱ understandingȱ theȱ temporalȱ contoursȱ ofȱ theȱ verbalȱ formsȱ inȱ BHȱ sentencesȱ andȱ discourse.ȱ Thisȱ disȬ tinctionȱ providesȱ aȱ certainȱ amountȱ ofȱ structuralȱ information,ȱ butȱ doesȱ notȱ takeȱ intoȱ accountȱ theȱ entireȱ rangeȱ ofȱ informationȱ indicatedȱ byȱ theȱ verbalȱ formsȱ inȱ aȱ particularȱ communicationȱ event,ȱ whereȱ eachȱ verbalȱ formȱisȱmarkedȱforȱviewpointȱaspectȱ(perfective,ȱimperfective,ȱprogresȬ sive),ȱforȱparticipantȱreferenceȱ(person/gender/number)ȱandȱforȱfeaturesȱ thatȱdelineateȱsituationȱaspectȱ(dynamicity,ȱvoice,ȱtransitivityȱandȱcauȬ

ȱ

ReturningȱtoȱtheȱMargins:ȱTheȱBinyanȱSystemȱ

101ȱ

sality).ȱSituationȱaspectȱisȱaȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱbinyanȱsystem,ȱthusȱitȱisȱtimeȱ toȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱmargins.ȱ

E. ReturningȱtoȱtheȱMargins:ȱTheȱBinyanȱSystemȱ TDȱisȱaȱcognitivelyȱbasedȱapproachȱtoȱtext,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱauthor/speakerȱ andȱ theȱ readerȱ areȱ engagedȱ inȱ aȱ cooperative,ȱ constructiveȱ process.ȱ Inȱ hisȱdiscussionȱofȱcentralityȱandȱpredication,ȱPremperȱproposesȱthatȱtheȱ decisionȱasȱtoȱwhatȱisȱcentralȱinȱaȱgivenȱpredicationȱdependsȱuponȱtheȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ speaker.ȱ Theȱ speakerȱ decidesȱ uponȱ whatȱ heȱ orȱ sheȱ mayȱleaveȱoutȱwhenȱexpressingȱaȱsituationȱ(valence);ȱwhatȱperspectiveȱ orȱorientationȱheȱorȱsheȱgivesȱtoȱtheȱexpressionȱofȱtheȱsituationȱ(pointȱofȱ view);ȱtheȱoptionȱofȱinducingȱvalenceȱchangeȱbyȱshiftingȱvoice;ȱandȱtheȱ choiceȱ ofȱ selectingȱ aȱ predicate.94ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ aȱ givenȱ predicationȱ isȱ aȱ partialȱ representationȱ ofȱ aȱ givenȱ situation,ȱ andȱ theȱ speaker’sȱ choicesȱ provideȱ theȱ hearer/readerȱ withȱ informationȱ forȱ reconstructingȱ theȱ reȬ presentation.ȱȱ BHȱverbsȱareȱhighlyȱmarkedȱandȱtheȱchoiceȱofȱaȱparticularȱBHȱverȬ balȱ formȱ contributesȱ threeȱ importantȱ typesȱ ofȱ information:ȱ viewpointȱ aspectȱ (perfective,ȱ imperfective,ȱ progressive),ȱ participantȱ referenceȱ (perȬ son/gender/number)ȱ andȱ situationȱ aspectȱ (dynamicity,ȱ voice,ȱ transitivityȱ andȱ causality).ȱ Traditionalȱ categoriesȱ areȱ reviewedȱ belowȱ andȱ theȱ folȬ lowingȱ sectionȱ willȱ introduceȱ conceptualȱ integrationȱ asȱ aȱ productiveȱ meansȱforȱelaboratingȱuponȱtheȱlinguisticȱcategoriesȱofȱsituation,ȱtransiȬ tivityȱandȱvoiceȱ(seeȱsectionȱ5.2,ȱbelow).ȱȱ

1. TraditionalȱCategoriesȱ ArnoldȱandȱChoi,ȱcitingȱWaltkeȱandȱO’ConnorȱandȱassistedȱbyȱLawsonȱ Stone,ȱhaveȱproducedȱanȱexpandedȱstemȱchart,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱusefulȱstartȬ ingȱ placeȱ forȱ discussingȱ theȱ binyanȱ system.95ȱ Theȱ contentsȱ ofȱ theȱ chartȱ appearȱonȱtwoȱaxes:ȱtheȱaxisȱofȱvoice,ȱpresentedȱvertically;ȱandȱtheȱaxisȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 94ȱȱ Premper,ȱ“UniversalsȱofȱtheȱLinguisticȱRepresentationȱofȱSituations,”ȱ480.ȱ 95ȱȱ ArnoldȱandȱChoi,ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax,ȱ194.ȱRecentȱtechnicalȱstudiesȱ inȱ theȱareaȱofȱtheȱBHȱbinyanȱsystemȱincludeȱErnstȱJenni,ȱDasȱHebräischeȱPiȇel:ȱSyntaktischȬ Semasiologischeȱ Untersuchungȱ Einerȱ Verbalformȱ Imȱ Altenȱ Testamentȱ (Zürich:ȱ EVZȬ Verlag,ȱ1968);ȱP.ȱA.ȱSiebsma,ȱTheȱFunctionȱofȱtheȱNiphȇalȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ(Assen,ȱNL:ȱ VanȱGorcum,ȱ1991);ȱArianȱJ.ȱC.ȱVerheij,ȱBits,ȱBytes,ȱandȱBinyanim:ȱAȱQuantitativeȱStudyȱ ofȱ Verbalȱ Lexemeȱ Formationsȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,ȱ Orientaliaȱ Lovaniensiaȱ Analecta;ȱ 93ȱ (Leuven:ȱPeeters;ȱDepartementȱOosterseȱStudies,ȱ2000).ȱ

102ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

ofȱ causation,ȱ presentedȱ horizontally.ȱ Theȱ axisȱ ofȱ voiceȱ comprisesȱ threeȱ mainȱsections:ȱactive,ȱpassiveȱandȱmiddle.ȱTheȱactiveȱvoiceȱcomprisesȱtheȱ stativeȱ andȱ fientiveȱ (dynamic).ȱ Fientiveȱ comprisesȱ intransitiveȱ andȱ transitive.ȱ Theȱ axisȱ ofȱ causationȱ alsoȱ comprisesȱ threeȱ sections:ȱ noȱ causaȬ tionȱ (qal,ȱ niphal);ȱ bringsȱ aboutȱ aȱ stateȱ (piel,ȱ pual,ȱ hithpael);ȱ andȱ causesȱ anȱ actionȱ(hiphil,ȱhophalȱandȱhishtaphal).ȱȱ Withinȱtheȱaxisȱofȱcausation,ȱtheȱfirstȱsection,ȱnoȱcausation,ȱhasȱthreeȱ divisions.ȱ Qalȱ isȱ theȱ activeȱ voiceȱ andȱ niphalȱ isȱ bothȱ theȱ passiveȱ voiceȱ andȱtheȱmiddleȱvoice.ȱTheȱmiddleȱvoiceȱdividesȱintoȱmiddleȱandȱreflexȬ iveȬreciprocal.ȱ Theȱsecondȱsection,ȱbringsȱaboutȱ aȱ state,ȱhasȱ divisionsȱ inȱ theȱ activeȱ voiceȱ betweenȱ factitiveȱ (1ȱ makesȱ 2ȱ beȱ X)ȱ andȱ resultativeȱ (1ȱ makesȱ 2ȱ beȱ XȬed),ȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ transitiveȱ constructions.ȱ Pualȱ isȱ theȱpassiveȱvoice.ȱHithpael,ȱtheȱmiddleȱvoice,ȱisȱreflexiveȬreciprocal.ȱTheȱ thirdȱsection,ȱcausesȱanȱaction,ȱisȱmostȱcomplex.ȱStativeȱhiphilȱformsȱmayȱ beȱtwoȬplaceȱingressiveȱ(1ȱmakesȱ2ȱbecomeȱX),ȱorȱoneȬplaceȱinternalȱ(1ȱ makesȱ selfȱ do/becomeȱ X).ȱ Fientive,ȱ intransitiveȱ constructionsȱ areȱ twoȬ placeȱ causativeȱ (1ȱ makesȱ 2ȱ doȱ X).ȱ Fientiveȱ transitiveȱ constructionsȱ areȱ threeȬplaceȱcausativeȱ(1ȱmakesȱ2ȱdoȱXȱtoȱ3).ȱHophalȱisȱtheȱpassiveȱvoice.ȱ Eachȱ ofȱ theseȱ categoriesȱ representsȱ aȱ basicȱ clauseȱ structureȱ construcȬ tion,ȱ soȱ eachȱ formȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱaȱ certainȱ typeȱ ofȱ eventȱ structure.ȱ Thisȱcontributesȱtoȱtheȱconceptualȱblendingȱprocessȱasȱdescribedȱinȱtheȱ followingȱsection.ȱ

2. CognitiveȱAdditions:ȱConceptualȱBlendingȱ TheȱprecedingȱsectionsȱofȱthisȱchapterȱhaveȱestablishedȱthreeȱpresuppoȬ sitionsȱregardingȱclauseȱlevelȱpredications:ȱ x

Oneȱpredicationȱdesignatesȱoneȱsituation.ȱ

x

Aȱpredicationȱincludesȱbothȱtheȱverbȱandȱassociatedȱentities.ȱ

x

Theȱverbȱisȱcentral,ȱasȱitȱcontrolsȱtheȱnumberȱofȱentitiesȱinvolved.ȱ

Theseȱ presuppositionsȱ formȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ theȱ followingȱ discussion,ȱ whichȱ examinesȱNiliȱ Mandelblit’sȱworkȱonȱtheȱModernȱ Hebrewȱ (MH)ȱ verbalȱsystemȱandȱitsȱimplicationsȱforȱBH.ȱInȱherȱarticleȱ“TheȱGrammatiȬ calȱMarkingȱofȱConceptualȱIntegration”,ȱNiliȱMandelblitȱoffersȱaȱprincipledȱ methodologyȱ forȱ describingȱ theȱ conceptualȱ integrationȱ process.ȱ Thisȱ processȱoccursȱasȱaȱspeakerȱselectsȱtheȱelementsȱofȱaȱconceptualisationȱ thatȱheȱorȱsheȱwishesȱtoȱarticulateȱandȱmapsȱtheseȱontoȱanȱappropriateȱ linguisticȱconstruction.ȱMandelblit’sȱinsightsȱareȱparticularlyȱusefulȱforȱ trackingȱ BHȱ verbalȱ formsȱfromȱaȱ cognitiveȱ perspective.ȱ Herȱ argumentȱ isȱasȱfollows:ȱ

ȱ

ReturningȱtoȱtheȱMargins:ȱTheȱBinyanȱSystemȱ

103ȱ

x

Languagesȱpossessȱbasicȱclauseȱstructureȱconstructions.ȱ

x

Eachȱ constructionȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱ aȱ genericȱ conceptualȱ eventȱ schema.ȱ

x

TheseȱconstructionsȱserveȱasȱintegratingȱframesȱforȱexpressingȱsitȬ uations.ȱ

x

Speakersȱ projectȱ partialȱ informationȱ fromȱ anȱ initialȱ (conceptual)ȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ situationȱ ontoȱ anȱ integrationȱ construction,ȱ therebyȱhighlightingȱsomeȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱeventȱoverȱothers.ȱ

x

Theȱ binyanimȱ provideȱ aȱ grammaticalȱ formalismȱ toȱ markȱ concepȬ tualȱintegrationȱoperations.ȱDifferentȱgrammaticalȱmeaningsȱassoȬ ciatedȱwithȱdifferentȱbinyanim,ȱsuchȱasȱcausative,ȱpassive,ȱmiddleȱ orȱreflexiveȱareȱproducedȱdirectlyȱbyȱtheȱprojectionȱschemes.96ȱ

Theȱ TDȱ clauseȱ analysisȱ allowsȱ accessȱ toȱ clauseȱ levelȱ informationȱ fromȱ MTȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ whichȱ mayȱ beȱ approachedȱ fromȱ theȱ sameȱ conȬ ceptualȱ integrationȱ perspective.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Mandelblit’sȱ argument,ȱ eachȱ clauseȱ representsȱ aȱ novelȱ conceivedȱ eventȱ mappedȱ ontoȱ aȱ basicȱ syntacticȱstructureȱandȱitsȱgenericȱeventȱschema.ȱTheȱauthor/speakerȱhasȱ projectedȱ partialȱ informationȱ fromȱ novelȱ conceptualȱ eventsȱ onȱ toȱ anȱ appropriateȱ construction,ȱ suchȱ asȱ causative,ȱ passive,ȱ middleȱ orȱ reflexȬ ive,ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ assistȱ theȱ readerȱ inȱ reconstructingȱ theȱ originalȱ novelȱ conceivedȱ event.ȱ Significantly,ȱ theȱ syntaxȱ andȱ morphologyȱ ofȱ aȱ givenȱ clauseȱ constructionȱ “…formallyȱ marksȱ theȱ speaker’sȱ subjectiveȱ conȬ strualȱofȱtheȱcommunicatedȱevent.”97ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 96ȱȱ Mandelblit,ȱ“GrammaticalȱMarking,”ȱ197.ȱ 97ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ233.ȱ

104ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

MappingȱConceptualȱIntegrationȱofȱBHȱBinyanimȱ Althoughȱ Mandelblitȱ utilizesȱ biȬscopeȱ blendingȱ diagramsȱ toȱ mapȱ theȱ variablesȱofȱtheȱMHȱclauseȱconstructions,ȱthisȱmethodȱisȱusefulȱforȱsortȬ ingȱandȱmappingȱtheȱvariablesȱofȱtheȱBHȱbinyanimȱasȱwell.98ȱAȱblendingȱ configurationȱconsistsȱofȱtwoȱinputȱspacesȱandȱaȱspaceȱrepresentingȱtheȱ blend.ȱForȱtheȱspeaker,ȱallȱthreeȱspacesȱareȱactiveȱwhenȱaȱgivenȱclauseȱisȱ articulated.ȱ Aȱ clauseȱ inȱ writtenȱ textȱ representsȱ theȱ blendedȱ space,ȱ whichȱactsȱasȱaȱsetȱofȱinstructionsȱthatȱallowȱtheȱreaderȱtoȱrecreateȱtheȱ conceivedȱevent.99ȱTheȱconceptualȱintegrationȱoperationȱforȱrepresentaȬ tionsȱofȱtheȱBHȱclauseȱisȱsimilar.ȱInputȱ1ȱcontainsȱelementsȱofȱtheȱconȬ ceivedȱsituation.ȱInputȱ2ȱcontainsȱtheȱintegratingȱsyntacticȱconstruction.ȱ ElementsȱundergoȱcrossȬspaceȱmapping,ȱwithȱcommonȱelementsȱoccurȬ ringȱinȱtheȱblendedȱspace.ȱȱ TheȱfollowingȱschematicȱdiagramȱrepresentsȱaȱBHȱintransitiveȱconȬ struction.ȱInputȱ1ȱcontainsȱelementsȱofȱtheȱconceptualisation;ȱtheȱsingleȱ starȱrepresentsȱtheȱNP,ȱorȱsubject,ȱwhileȱtheȱdoubleȱstarsȱrepresentȱtheȱ verb.ȱ Emptyȱ boxesȱ representȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ situationȱ thatȱ areȱ notȱ linȬ guisticallyȱcodedȱbutȱareȱpartȱofȱtheȱconceptualisation.ȱȱInputȱ2ȱcontainsȱ theȱelementsȱofȱanȱintransitiveȱconstruction,ȱinȱtheȱtypicalȱwordȱorder:ȱ Verbȱ andȱ Nounȱ Phrase.ȱ CrossȬspaceȱ mappingȱ connectsȱ theȱ singleȱ starȱ withȱtheȱNPȱandȱtheȱdoubleȱstarsȱwithȱV,ȱtheȱverb.ȱTheȱblendedȱspaceȱ mapsȱtheȱelementsȱofȱtheȱconceivedȱeventȱontoȱtheȱintransitiveȱsyntacticȱ structure:ȱVȱ–ȱNP,ȱresultingȱinȱtheȱlinguisticȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱsituaȬ tion.ȱȱ Mandelblitȱ observes,ȱ “…sinceȱ theȱ conceptualȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ conȬ ceivedȱeventȱtoȱbeȱblendedȱisȱtypicallyȱricherȱ(hasȱmoreȱpredicatesȱandȱ argumentsȱthanȱtheȱtargetȱconstruction),ȱthereȱareȱaȱprioriȱaȱlargeȱnumȬ berȱ ofȱ possibleȱ blends,ȱ dependingȱ onȱ whichȱ crossȬspaceȱ mappingȱ isȱ selected.”100ȱ Theȱ schematicȱ diagramȱ presentedȱ belowȱ mapsȱ anȱ autoȬ nomousȱpredicateȱandȱaȱsingleȱargument,ȱsuchȱasȱJackȱateȱquickly.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 98ȱȱ Forȱ aȱ conciseȱ explanationȱ ofȱ theȱdiagrammingȱ methodȱ proposedȱ inȱ thisȱ sectionȱ seeȱ G.ȱ Fauconnierȱ andȱ Markȱ Turner,ȱ “Blendingȱ asȱ aȱ Centralȱ Processȱ ofȱ Grammar,”ȱ inȱ ConceptualȱStructure,ȱDiscourseȱandȱLanguage,ȱed.ȱAdeleȱE.ȱGoldbergȱ(Stanford:ȱCSLI,ȱ 1996),ȱ113Ȭ129.ȱ 99ȱȱ Mandelblit’sȱ diagrammingȱ methodȱ isȱ illuminatingȱ forȱ languageȱ learners,ȱ asȱ itȱ isoȬ latesȱfeaturesȱthatȱtheȱverbalȱformsȱmayȱobscure,ȱ suchȱasȱtheȱmissingȱagentȱinȱaȱniȬ phalȱclause.ȱ 100ȱȱ Mandelblit,ȱ“GrammaticalȱMarking,”ȱ206.ȱ

ȱ

ReturningȱtoȱtheȱMargins:ȱTheȱBinyanȱSystemȱ

105ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ3.1ȱȱȱIntransitiveȱConstructionȱBlendȱ

TheȱdiagramȱbelowȱpresentsȱBHȱconstituentȱorderȱforȱaȱcausedȱmotion,ȱ hiphilȱconstruction.ȱȱ

106ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

Jeremiahȱ 1.10,ȱ VYMNOOJNY][YIJNJ\J]Y[J?[VFSRJ ,ȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱaȱNP’ȱmightȱappearȱasȱanȱobjectȱsuffixȱinȱsuchȱaȱclause.101ȱ ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ3.2ȱȱȱTransitiveȱCausedȱMotionȱBlendȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 101ȱȱ Thisȱ exampleȱ isȱ notȱ strictlyȱ aȱ causedȱ motionȱ construction,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ constructionȱ involvesȱaȱperformativeȱspeechȱactȱthatȱchangesȱJeremiah’sȱstatus.ȱȱ

ȱ

ReturningȱtoȱtheȱMargins:ȱTheȱBinyanȱSystemȱ

107ȱ

TheȱcausalȱeventȱsequenceȱisȱillustratedȱbyȱtheȱEnglishȱsentenceȱRachelȱ sneezedȱ theȱ napkinȱ offȱ theȱ table.ȱ Thisȱ sentenceȱ containsȱ threeȱ principleȱ semanticȱ predicates.ȱ Rachel’sȱ sneezeȱ isȱ theȱ causingȱ predicate,ȱ theȱ napkin’sȱmotionȱoffȱtheȱtableȱisȱtheȱeffectedȱmotionȱpredicateȱandȱtheȱcausȬ alȱ linkȱ isȱ theȱ impliedȱ predicate.102ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ integratingȱ constructionȱ (NP1,ȱV,ȱ NP2ȱPP)ȱ containsȱonlyȱoneȱverbalȱslotȱtoȱexpressȱtheȱsemanticȱ predication,ȱ theȱ speakerȱ mustȱ chooseȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ predicatesȱ fromȱ theȱ causalȱ eventȱ sequenceȱ toȱ mapȱ ontoȱ theȱ verbalȱ slotȱ ofȱ theȱ integratingȱ construction.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱitȱisȱtheȱcausingȱpredicate.ȱInȱaȱsentenceȱsuchȱ asȱ Sheȱ trottedȱ theȱ horseȱ intoȱ theȱ stable,ȱ theȱ effectedȱ motionȱ predicateȱ isȱ mappedȱ ontoȱ theȱ integratingȱ construction.ȱ Finally,ȱ thereȱ areȱ certainȱ verbsȱsuchȱasȱthrew,ȱinȱaȱsentenceȱsuchȱasȱSheȱthrewȱhayȱtoȱtheȱhorse,ȱthatȱ integrateȱtheȱthreeȱpredicates,ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱlexicalȱsemanticsȱofȱtheȱverb.ȱ Thus,ȱwhileȱtheȱsyntacticȱconstructionsȱareȱtheȱsameȱforȱallȱthreeȱofȱtheȱ exampleȱsentences,ȱtheȱunderlyingȱcrossȬspaceȱmappingȱisȱdifferentȱforȱ each.ȱMandelblitȱhasȱisolatedȱthreeȱtypesȱofȱpredicateȱmapping:ȱ x

Theȱcausingȱpredicateȱwithinȱaȱcausalȱevent;ȱ

x

theȱeffectedȱpredicateȱwithinȱanȱeffectedȱevent;ȱȱandȱ

x

theȱautonomousȱpredicate.ȱ

Additionally,ȱthereȱareȱthreeȱtypesȱofȱparticipantȱmapping:ȱ x

Theȱcausalȱagentȱwithinȱaȱcausalȱeventȱȱ(activeȱvoice);ȱ

x

theȱaffectedȱentityȱwithinȱaȱcausalȱeventȱ(passiveȱvoice);ȱandȱ

x

theȱautonomousȱentityȱ(middleȱvoice).ȱ

WhileȱitȱisȱnotȱpracticalȱtoȱmapȱeachȱindividualȱclauseȱinȱMTȱJeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱcreatingȱconceptualȱintegrationȱdiagramsȱforȱselectedȱexamplesȱ wouldȱillustrateȱsomeȱofȱtheȱ“hidden”ȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱBHȱpredications,ȱ suchȱ asȱ whichȱ ofȱ theȱ threeȱ predicatesȱ isȱ mappedȱ byȱ aȱ transitiveȱ form,ȱ andȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ theȱ “absent”ȱ agentȱ inȱ theȱ passiveȱ voiceȱ forms.ȱ Thisȱ wouldȱbeȱanȱeffectiveȱteachingȱtoolȱandȱisȱanȱareaȱforȱfurtherȱresearchȱ andȱdocumentation.ȱ ȱ Conclusionȱ ThisȱinitialȱforayȱintoȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱcognitiveȱgrammarȱandȱlinguisȬ ticsȱ toȱ BHȱ contributesȱ towardȱ understandingȱ BHȱ propheticȱ text.ȱ First,ȱ grammatically,ȱRRGȱprovidesȱadditionalȱmetalanguageȱforȱbridgingȱtheȱ gapȱ betweenȱ traditionalȱ grammaticalȱ descriptionȱ andȱ theȱ freshȱ termiȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 102ȱMandelblit,ȱ“GrammaticalȱMarking,”ȱ202.ȱ

108ȱȱ

TraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ

nologyȱemployedȱ inȱcognitiveȱgrammar.ȱBecauseȱhumanȱperceptionȱisȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ cognitiveȱ grammar,ȱ CGȱ bringsȱ greaterȱ understandingȱ toȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ perspectiveȱ inȱ BHȱ grammar.ȱ Second,ȱ theȱ presentationȱ ofȱ situationsȱ asȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ prototypicalȱ assistsȱ inȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ speechȱ framesȱ thatȱ includeȱ bothȱ humanȱ andȱ divineȱ characters.ȱ Third,ȱ theȱBHȱverbȱhasȱaȱcentralȱroleȱinȱaȱgivenȱsituation.ȱThereȱisȱsignificantȱ debateȱregardingȱwhetherȱtheȱverbȱindicatesȱtenseȱorȱaspect,ȱhowever.ȱ Theȱ TDȱ approachȱ followsȱ Cook’sȱ assessmentȱ thatȱ theȱ verbȱ isȱ aspectȱ prominent.ȱ Fourth,ȱ cognitiveȱ additionsȱ toȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ BHȱ gramȬ mar,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ MOTIONȱ andȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱ conceptualȱ metaȬ phorsȱ provideȱ additionalȱ metalanguageȱ forȱ discussingȱ thisȱ complexȱ issue.ȱ Fifth,ȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱ theoryȱ isȱ aȱ valuableȱ toolȱ forȱ theȱ deȬ scriptionȱ ofȱ BHȱ situationsȱ atȱ theȱ sentenceȱ level.ȱ Cognitiveȱ approachesȱ haveȱmuchȱtoȱofferȱforȱtheȱBHȱtextȱanalystȱandȱinterpreter.ȱ ȱ

4. CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ Dreams,ȱbooks,ȱareȱeachȱaȱworld;ȱ booksȱweȱknow,ȱareȱaȱsubstantialȱworld,ȱbothȱpureȱandȱgood.ȱ ȱ ~ȱWilliamȱWordsworthȱ ȱ AsȱdescribedȱinȱChapterȱ1,ȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱutilisesȱaȱnetworkȱmodelȱtoȱ describeȱ theȱ interactionȱ betweenȱ theȱ author/originatorȱ ofȱ aȱ text,ȱ theȱ writtenȱ textȱ andȱ theȱ reader/hearerȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Theȱ dynamicȱ mappingsȱ proposedȱbyȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱareȱmappingsȱofȱcognitiveȱactivityȱonȱtheȱ partȱofȱtheȱoriginatorȱandȱtheȱreaderȱalike.ȱTheȱmappingȱprocessȱtakesȱ placeȱatȱtheȱcognitiveȱlevel,ȱlevelȱC.ȱ1ȱInȱthisȱvolume,ȱsuchȱmappingsȱareȱ representedȱ byȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ figures,ȱ eachȱ utilisingȱ nestedȱ Chineseȱ boxȱ diagramsȱ toȱ modelȱ theȱ emergentȱ cognitiveȱ network.ȱ Cognitiveȱ conȬ structionȱ involvesȱ opening,ȱ structuringȱ andȱ linkingȱ mentalȱ spaces.ȱ SpaceȬbuildersȱareȱgrammaticalȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱthatȱsetȱupȱnewȱ spaces,ȱ andȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ networkȱ isȱ extendedȱ asȱ theȱ newȱ spacesȱ areȱ structuredȱ andȱ linked.ȱ Informationȱ structure,ȱ framesȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ modelsȱ structureȱ mentalȱ spaces.2ȱ Asȱ discussedȱ inȱ Chapterȱ 2,ȱ informaȬ tionȱstructureȱisȱanȱintegralȱpartȱofȱtheȱTDȱclauseȱanalysis.ȱPerspective,ȱ theȱspaceȬbuildingȱandȱstructuringȱdeviceȱthatȱencompassesȱviewpoint,ȱ deixisȱ andȱ subjectivityȬobjectivityȱ isȱ foundationalȱ forȱ understandingȱ propheticȱtext.ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱexhibitsȱthreeȱmajorȱbreaks,ȱbasedȱuponȱtextȬlevelȱ shiftsȱinȱtextȬtype:3ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

2ȱȱ 3ȱȱ

Accordingȱ toȱ Fauconnier,ȱ constructionsȱ atȱ levelȱ Cȱ areȱ distinctȱ fromȱ theȱ languageȱ structureȱ(theyȱmayȱbeȱimagistic),ȱalthoughȱtheyȱrelateȱlanguageȱstructureȱtoȱtheȱrealȱ world.ȱ Additionally,ȱ suchȱ constructionsȱ areȱpartial,ȱ inȱ thatȱtheyȱareȱ notȱ representaȬ tionsȱ ofȱ modelsȱ ofȱ theȱ world,ȱ orȱ representationsȱ ofȱ possibleȱ worlds.ȱ Rather,ȱ suchȱ structuresȱ areȱ highlyȱ schematicȱ andȱ areȱ subjectȱ toȱ furtherȱ elaboration.ȱ Fauconnier,ȱ Mappings,ȱ36.ȱ Forȱanȱextendedȱlistȱofȱlinguisticȱconstrualȱoperationsȱthatȱincludesȱtheȱworkȱofȱbothȱ LangackerȱandȱLeonardȱTalmy,ȱseeȱCroftȱandȱCruse,ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics,ȱ46.ȱȱ Discernedȱ byȱ VUȱ databaseȱ information,ȱ whichȱ reflectsȱ Schneider’sȱ categoriesȱ meȬ diatedȱbyȱTalstra.ȱ

110ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

A. Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭȱ3.25;ȱȱ

B.

C.

1.

Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.1:ȱNȱwithȱembeddedȱQȱandȱP;ȱ

2.

Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.25:ȱQȱatȱ3.1Ȭ3.5;ȱNȱwithȱembeddedȱQȱandȱPȱ3.6Ȭ3.25;ȱ

Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭȱ4.31;ȱ 1.

Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.9:ȱDȱwithȱembeddedȱQ;ȱȱ

2.

Jeremiahȱ4.10:ȱȱNȱwithȱembeddedȱQ;ȱ

3.

Jeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.31:ȱNȱwithȱembeddedȱD;ȱandȱ

Jeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱQ.ȱ

ȱ SectionȱAȱisȱlargelyȱnarrative,ȱwithȱembeddedȱquotationȱandȱperceptionȱ spaces.ȱ Sectionȱ Bȱ isȱ mainlyȱ discursive,ȱ withȱ embeddedȱ quotationȱ andȱ narrativeȱspaces.ȱSectionȱCȱcomprisesȱquotationȱwithȱembeddedȱquotaȬ tionȱspaces.ȱChapterȱ4ȱinȱthisȱvolumeȱcoversȱexamplesȱfromȱsectionȱA.1,ȱ Chapterȱ5ȱcoversȱexamplesȱfromȱsectionȱA.2,ȱandȱChapterȱ6ȱcoversȱexȬ amplesȱfromȱsectionsȱBȱandȱC.ȱ Thisȱ chapterȱ containsȱ anȱ analysisȱ andȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ aȱ perceptibleȱ cognitiveȱ networkȱ inȱ sectionȱ A.1,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ2.1.ȱ Thisȱ analysisȱ andȱ descriptionȱwillȱfollowȱtheȱpatternȱsetȱinȱChapterȱ2,ȱwhereȱtheȱnetworkȱ modelȱisȱexplainedȱusingȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱasȱaȱsampleȱtext.ȱAsȱinȱthatȱ analysis,ȱ observationsȱ willȱ beȱ madeȱ regardingȱ theȱ syntax,ȱ semanticsȱ andȱpragmaticsȱofȱeachȱsectionȱofȱtextȱ(seeȱsectionsȱA.1ȱandȱB.1,ȱbelow).ȱ Anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ structuringȱ inȱ theȱ textȱ follows,ȱ withȱ specialȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ linguisticȱ construalȱ operationȱ ofȱ perspectiveȱ (seeȱ secȬ tionsȱ A.2ȱ andȱ A.3,ȱ below).ȱ Theȱ examinationȱ ofȱ perspectiveȬinducingȱ spaceȱ buildingȱ termsȱ fromȱ theȱ semanticȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ deixis,ȱ communicaȬ tion,ȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ isȱ anȱ importantȱ aspectȱ ofȱ thisȱ processȱ (seeȱ sectionȱ B.2,ȱ below).ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ interfaceȱ betweenȱ conceptualȱ meȬ taphorȱ andȱ literaryȱ metaphorȱ willȱ beȱ examinedȱ (seeȱ sectionȱ 4B.3,ȱ beȬ low).ȱ ȱ

ȱ

111ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3:ȱEstablishingȱTextȬLevelȱPerspectiveȱ

A. Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3:ȱEstablishingȱTextȬLevelȱPerspectiveȱ 1.

PerspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ

Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ3ȱ hasȱ beenȱ describedȱ asȱ aȱ prologue,ȱ aȱ superscriptionȱ andȱ aȱ rubric.4ȱ Eachȱofȱtheseȱ termsȱ reflectsȱtheȱ introductoryȱnatureȱofȱ theȱ maȬ terial.ȱTheȱtermsȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱthisȱsectionȱareȱalsoȱindicativeȱofȱtheȱ perspectiveȬinducingȱnatureȱofȱtheȱtextȱasȱpresentedȱinȱFigureȱ1,ȱbelow.ȱ Atȱ thisȱ pointȱ inȱ theȱ analysis,ȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ originator,ȱ textȱ andȱreaderȱisȱasȱfollows:ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ4.1ȱȱȱPerspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ

Figureȱ4.1ȱpresentsȱtheȱscopeȱofȱconceptualisationȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3.ȱ TheȱtextȱisȱinȱtheȱonȬstage,ȱobjectiveȱposition.ȱTheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱviewȬ er,ȱ V,ȱ isȱ determinedȱ byȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ consistsȱ ofȱ thirdȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 4ȱȱ

Carrollȱisȱamongȱthoseȱwhoȱdescribeȱthisȱsectionȱasȱaȱprologue,ȱwhileȱMcKaneȱusesȱ theȱ termȱ superscription,ȱ andȱ Meierȱ utilisesȱ theȱ termȱ rubric.ȱ Robertȱ P.ȱ Carroll,ȱ JereȬ miah:ȱ Aȱ Commentary,ȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ Libraryȱ (Philadelphia:ȱ Westminster,ȱ 1986),ȱ 89;ȱ Williamȱ McKane,ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ andȱ Exegeticalȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ Jeremiah,ȱ 2ȱ vols.,ȱ InternaȬ tionalȱCriticalȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱHolyȱScripturesȱofȱtheȱOldȱandȱNewȱTestamentsȱ (Edinburgh:ȱ T.ȱ &ȱ T.ȱ Clark,ȱ 1986),ȱ 1;ȱ Samuelȱ A.ȱ Meier,ȱ Speakingȱ ofȱ Speaking:ȱ Markingȱ DirectȱDiscourseȱinȱtheȱHebrewȱBible,ȱVTȱSupȱ46ȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1992),ȱ21.ȱ

112ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

personȱnarrationȱorȱindirectȱspeechȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱnarrativeȱsentences.ȱ5ȱ Theȱspeaker/narratorȱandȱhearer/readerȱcorrespondȱtoȱVȱinȱtheȱcanoniȬ calȱ viewingȱ arrangement.ȱ Thisȱ simplifiedȱ representationȱ conflatesȱ theȱ sharedȱ gazeȱ ofȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearer,ȱ whichȱ appearsȱ asȱ aȱ singleȱ dashedȱ line.ȱ Asȱ viewers,ȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ hearerȱ areȱ whollyȱ distinctȱ fromȱtheȱobjectȱofȱperception,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱtext.ȱTheȱobjectȱofȱperceptionȱ isȱ sharplyȱ delineatedȱ andȱ “perceivedȱ withȱ fullȱ acuity.”6ȱ Thus,ȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱ theȱ narratorȱ andȱ theȱ readerȱ shareȱ theȱ Vȱ posiȬ tion,ȱandȱtheȱtextȱisȱclearlyȱperceived.7ȱThisȱconfigurationȱofȱcommuniȬ cationȱparticipantsȱandȱtextȱhasȱbeenȱtaggedȱN1.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 5ȱȱ

6ȱȱ 7ȱȱ

Vanȱ Woldeȱ observesȱ thatȱ aȱ narratorȱ mayȱ speakȱ directlyȱ orȱ indirectlyȱ toȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ audience.ȱTwoȱtypesȱofȱsentencesȱresult:ȱdirectȱspeechȱtakesȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱcommenȬ taryȱ sentence,ȱ whereasȱ indirectȱ speechȱ takesȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ aȱ narrativeȱ sentence.ȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱWolde,ȱRuthȱandȱNaomiȱ(London:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱ146.ȱ Langacker,ȱ“DeixisȱandȱSubjectivity,”ȱ15.ȱ Atȱ firstȱ glance,ȱ theȱ TDȱ diagramsȱ resembleȱ Kamp’sȱ cognitivelyȱ oriented,ȱ worldȬ buildingȱdiagram.ȱKampȱpresentsȱaȱdiagramȱofȱtheȱnestedȱworldsȱinȱtheȱbookȱofȱJob.ȱ TheȱOuterȱWorldȱrepresentsȱtheȱrealityȱofȱtheȱreader.ȱWithinȱthis,ȱtheȱdiscourseȱworldȱ representsȱtheȱcontextȱofȱcommunication,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱnarrativeȱworldȱrepresentsȱtheȱ BookȱofȱJob,ȱandȱtheȱembeddedȱdiscourseȱworldȱrepresentsȱJobȱ28,ȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱKamp’sȱ article.ȱKampȱnotesȱthatȱthreeȱtypesȱofȱsubȬworldsȱmightȱbeȱfoundȱwithinȱtheȱembedȬ dedȱdiscourseȱworld.ȱTheseȱareȱbasedȱuponȱbelief,ȱprobabilityȱandȱtemporalȱalteration,ȱ whichȱareȱallȱfeaturesȱthatȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱrecognisesȱasȱspaceȬbuilders.ȱHowever,ȱ Kamp’sȱ worldsȱ areȱ somewhatȱ lessȱ fluidȱ thanȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ spacesȱ proposedȱ byȱ theȱ TDȱapproach,ȱandȱKamp’sȱaccountȱofȱtheȱlinguisticȱspecificsȱthatȱopenȱandȱstructureȱ spacesȱisȱsomewhatȱlimited.ȱKampȱbasesȱhisȱanalysisȱuponȱtheȱworkȱofȱPaulȱWerth.ȱ Werth,ȱinȱturn,ȱbasesȱhisȱworldȬbuildingȱanalysisȱuponȱFauconnier’sȱspaceȬbuildingȱ terms.ȱHowever,ȱWerthȱpopulatesȱhisȱconceptualȱworldsȱbyȱmeansȱofȱPossibleȱWorldsȱ philosophyȱ asȱ understoodȱ byȱ Saulȱ Kripkeȱ andȱ Davidȱ Lewis.ȱ Theȱ TDȱ approachȱ avoidsȱ aȱ closeȱ associationȱ withȱ thisȱ philosophyȱ forȱ twoȱ reasons.ȱ First,ȱ Fauconnierȱ himselfȱ dissociatesȱ hisȱ MSTȱ properȱ fromȱ Possibleȱ Worldsȱ philosophy.ȱ Secondly,ȱ beȬ causeȱ ofȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ MST.ȱ Thisȱ theoryȱ proposesȱ thatȱ humanȱ conceptualisationȱ isȱ similarȱ forȱ aȱ rangeȱ ofȱ communicationȱ processes.ȱ Thus,ȱ Possibleȱ Worldsȱ philosophyȱ mayȱbeȱsaidȱtoȱrepresentȱaȱspecificȱinstantiationȱofȱmentalȱspacesȱconstructionȱthatȱisȱ exceptionallyȱ detailedȱ andȱ operatesȱ withoutȱ explicitȱ referenceȱ toȱ framesȱ andȱ cogniȬ tiveȱmodels.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱbecauseȱmentalȱspacesȱandȱconceptualȱblendingȱareȱ featuresȱofȱhumanȱcommunicationȱthatȱoperateȱonȱmanyȱlevels,ȱtheȱTDȱanalysisȱisȱalȬ soȱaȱspecificȱinstantiationȱofȱtheseȱconceptualȱtheoriesȱbutȱincludesȱexplicitȱreferenceȱ toȱspaceȱstructuringȱfeatures,ȱspecificallyȱwithȱregardȱtoȱframesȱandȱcognitiveȱmodȬ els.ȱSeeȱAlbertȱKamp,ȱ“WorldȱBuildingȱinȱJobȱ28,”ȱinȱJobȱ28:ȱCognitionȱinȱContext,ȱed.ȱ EllenȱVanȱWoldeȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003),ȱ309;ȱWerth,ȱ“HowȱtoȱBuildȱaȱWorldȱ(inȱaȱLotȱ LessȱThanȱSixȱDays,ȱUsingȱOnlyȱWhatȇsȱinȱYourȱHead),”ȱ53.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3:ȱEstablishingȱTextȬLevelȱPerspectiveȱ

113ȱ

Figureȱ4.2ȱȱȱViewingȱArrangementȱN1ȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ

Fromȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ perspective,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ presentsȱ theȱ groundȱ ofȱ theȱ textȬlevelȱ communicationȱ event.8ȱ Inȱ termsȱ ofȱ MST,ȱ thisȱ sectionȱrepresentsȱtheȱbaseȬspace,ȱtheȱspaceȱfromȱwhichȱfurtherȱcognitiveȱ constructionȱ occurs.ȱ Theȱ immediateȱ circumstancesȱ ofȱ theȱ communicaȬ tionȱeventȱareȱindicatedȱbyȱaȱseriesȱofȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱindicatȬ ingȱatemporalȱrelations.ȱSchweizerȱusesȱtheȱtermȱRelationswörterȱtoȱdeȬ scribeȱ theȱ trajectorȱ termsȱ forȱ thisȱ setȱ ofȱ atemporalȱ relationsȱ (seeȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ definitionsȱ inȱ chapterȱ 3,ȱ sectionȱ A.2).ȱ Heȱ includesȱ prepositionsȱ andȱ theȱ relativeȱ particleȱ withinȱ thisȱ groupȱ ofȱ BHȱ terms.9ȱ Theȱatemporalȱrelationshipsȱindicatedȱbyȱtheseȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱ delineateȱsocial,ȱlocativeȱandȱtemporalȱcoordinatesȱforȱestablishingȱtheȱ baseȬspaceȱ inȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ networkȱ thatȱ extendsȱ throughoutȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ MTȱJeremiah.ȱInȱtheȱfollowingȱclauseȱanalysisȱdiagram,ȱboxesȱsurroundȱ theȱrelationalȱterms.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 8ȱȱ

9ȱȱ

Forȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ howȱ deicticȱ expressionsȱ invokeȱ alternateȱ groundsȱ inȱ speechȱ situationsȱseeȱJoȱRubba,ȱ“AlternateȱGroundsȱinȱtheȱInterpretationȱofȱDeicticȱExpresȬ sions,”ȱinȱSpaces,ȱWorlds,ȱandȱGrammar,ȱedsȱG.ȱFauconnierȱandȱE.ȱSweetserȱ(Chicago:ȱ UCP,ȱ1996),ȱ227Ȭ261.ȱ Schweizer,ȱ Metaphorischeȱ Grammatik:ȱ Wegeȱ zurȱ Integrationȱ vonȱ Grammatikȱ undȱ TextinterpretationȱinȱderȱExegese,ȱ236Ȭ237.ȱ

114ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

][oP$JQ.CJ_KO8JŽ
ȱ JERȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Focusȱ

MSCȱ

1.1aȱ

?ȱ

NmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

BASEȱȱ

bȱ

?ȱ

XȬNmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1.2aȱ

?ȱ

XȬQatalȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

3sgMȱ

Predȱ

ȱ VP=ȱ N1ȱ

bȱ

?ȱ

PrePȱ

ȱ

ȱ

cȱ

?ȱ

NmClȱ NmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

dȱ

?ȱ

XȬQetolȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1.3aȱ

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬXȱ

3sgMȱ

Predȱ

bȱ

Nȱ

NmClȱ NmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

cȱ

Nȱ

XȬQetolȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Nȱ

NmClȱȱ NmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

eȱȱȱ Nȱ

+Qetolȱ

ȱ

ȱ

dȱ

ȱ Figureȱ4.3ȱȱȱClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3:ȱEstablishingȱTextȬLevelȱPerspectiveȱ

a.

115ȱ

Syntaxȱ

TheȱsyntaxȱofȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱcontributesȱtoȱtheȱintroductoryȱcharacterȱ ofȱtheseȱverses.ȱTheȱthreeȱversesȱareȱwrittenȱinȱtheȱthirdȱperson,ȱcuingȱ theȱ narrator’sȱ viewpointȱ andȱ viewpointȱ perspectiveȱ (MSCȱ column,ȱ above).ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1ȱ isȱ devoidȱ ofȱ verbalȱ forms,ȱ containingȱ insteadȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ constructȱ andȱ prepositionalȱ phrases,ȱ orȱ clauseȱ atoms.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ conjugatedȱ verbalȱ form,ȱ J[J,ȱ appearsȱ inȱ theȱ relativeȱ clauseȱ Y[N JYJ[TDFJ[JT ȱ atȱ 1.2a.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ conjugatedȱ form,ȱ [J[Y,ȱ apȬ pearsȱ inȱ theȱ wayyiqtolȱ clauseȱ ][S[YJ[[O[D[J[Yȱ atȱ 1.3a.ȱ Anotherȱ seriesȱ ofȱ constructȱandȱprepositionalȱphrasesȱfollowsȱthisȱverbalȱclause.ȱȱ Aȱ fewȱ shortȱ commentsȱ regardingȱ theȱ functionsȱ ofȱ theȱ XȬqatalȱ andȱ wayyiqtolȱformsȱareȱappropriateȱhere.ȱFirst,ȱaccordingȱtoȱSchneider,ȱtheȱ functionȱ ofȱ XȬqatalȱ clausesȱ inȱ eitherȱ narrativeȱ orȱ discursiveȱ textȱ isȱ toȱ provideȱ backgroundȱ information.10ȱ Thisȱ isȱ indeedȱ theȱ caseȱ inȱ 1.2a,ȱ whereȱJeremiahȱisȱidentifiedȱasȱtheȱoneȱtoȱwhomȱ JYJ[TDFȱ came.ȱFromȱ Cook’sȱgrammaticalisationȱperspective,ȱqatalȱformsȱrepresentȱperfectiveȱ action,ȱ whichȱ isȱ notȱ inappropriateȱ inȱ 1.2a.ȱ Secondly,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Schneiderȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱwayyiqtolȱformsȱisȱtoȱprovideȱforegroundȱ informationȱ inȱ narrativeȱ text.ȱ Forȱ bothȱ Cookȱ andȱ Goldfajn,ȱ wayyiqtolȱ formsȱ indicateȱ sequential,ȱ pastȱ tenseȱ events.11ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ wayyiqtolȱ clauseȱ atȱ 1.3aȱ doesȱ giveȱ sequentialȱ pastȱ tenseȱ information,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ appearȱthatȱtheȱverbȱformȱcontributesȱtoȱforegroundingȱinȱthisȱcase.ȱ b. InformationȱStructureȱ TheȱInformationȱStructureȱcategoriesȱofȱtopicȱandȱfocusȱprovideȱinsightȱ intoȱthisȱsectionȱofȱtext.ȱTopic,ȱaccordingȱtoȱLambrecht,ȱisȱ“…theȱthingȱ whichȱtheȱpropositionȱexpressedȱbyȱtheȱsentenceȱisȱabout.”12ȱOftenȱtheȱ topicalȱentityȱisȱtheȱgrammaticalȱsubjectȱofȱtheȱsentence,ȱbutȱthisȱisȱnotȱ alwaysȱ theȱ case.ȱ Onȱ aȱ scaleȱ ofȱ pragmaticȱ acceptability,ȱ topicalȱ entitiesȱ rangeȱfromȱaccessible,ȱtoȱunusedȱbutȱavailable,ȱtoȱbrandȱnewȱandȱanchoredȱ withinȱtheȱdiscourse,ȱtoȱbrandȱnewȱandȱunanchored.ȱTheȱpreferredȱtopicȱ expressionȱisȱanȱunaccentedȱpronominal.13ȱInȱorderȱtoȱengageȱfullyȱwithȱ theȱ categoryȱ ofȱ topic,ȱ oneȱ mustȱ alsoȱ engageȱ withȱ anotherȱ ofȱ LamȬ brecht’sȱ categories,ȱ thatȱ ofȱ identifiabilityȱ andȱ activation.ȱ Becauseȱ mostȱ hearersȱhaveȱlimitedȱshortȬtermȱmemory,ȱtheȱtopicalȱentitiesȱmayȱbeȱinȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 10ȱȱ Schneider,ȱGrammatik,ȱ186.ȱ 11ȱȱ Cook,ȱ“Grammaticalization;”ȱGoldfajn,ȱWordȱOrderȱandȱTimeȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱNarraȬ tive,ȱ146.ȱ 12ȱȱ Lambrecht,ȱInformationȱStructure,ȱ119.ȱ 13ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ165.ȱ

116ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

variousȱ statesȱ ofȱ activationȱ atȱ anyȱ givenȱ pointȱ inȱ aȱ discourse.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ reason,ȱ whenȱ initiatingȱ aȱ discourse,ȱ theȱ topicalȱ entitiesȱ mustȱ firstȱ beȱ activated,ȱorȱmadeȱidentifiable.ȱLikeȱotherȱlanguages,ȱBHȱdoesȱuseȱtopicȬ promotingȱ devices,ȱ suchȱ asȱ frontingȱ andȱ presentationalȱ constructions,ȱ toȱintroduceȱnewȱtopicalȱentities.14ȱTopicalȱentitiesȱmayȱalsoȱbeȱpartȱofȱ theȱinterlocutors’ȱsharedȱinformationȱatȱaȱgivenȱpointȱinȱtheȱdiscourse,ȱ needingȱonlyȱtoȱbeȱactivated.ȱ BecauseȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱstandsȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱbookȱofȱJeȬ remiah,ȱ appropriateȱ topicalȱ entitiesȱ mustȱ beȱ identified.ȱ Thisȱ processȱ beginsȱatȱ1.1a,ȱwithȱtheȱpresentationȱofȱseveralȱsignificantȱtermsȱwithinȱ theȱseriesȱofȱconstructȱphrases.ȱTheȱclauseȱ YJ[SNZ_DYJ[OT[[TDFȱatȱ1.1aȱ introducesȱ bothȱ theȱ wordsȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ and,ȱ byȱ extension,ȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Theȱ relativeȱclauseȱY[N JYJ[TDFJ[JT ȱatȱ1.2aȱintroducesȱbothȱtheȱwordȱofȱ Yahwehȱand,ȱbyȱextension,ȱYahweh.ȱThisȱisȱrepresentedȱschematicallyȱinȱ theȱfollowingȱfigure.15ȱ ȱ JYJ[TDF  YJ[OT[[TDF JYJ[ YJ[OT[ 1.1aȱ 1:2aȱ 1:2bȱ 1:3aȱ

1ȱ 2ȱ 3ȱ 4ȱ

1.00ȱ 0.50ȱ 0.33ȱ 0.25ȱ

ȱ 0.50ȱ 0.66ȱ 0.50ȱ

ȱ 0.50ȱ 0.33ȱ 0.50ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ4.4ȱȱȱCumulativeȱReferentialȱDensityȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ

Inȱ thisȱ diagram,ȱ eachȱ timeȱ aȱ topicalȱ entityȱ appears,ȱ itȱ isȱ recordedȱ byȱ line.ȱThen,ȱtheȱtotalȱnumberȱisȱdividedȱbyȱtheȱmostȱrecentȱlineȱnumberȱ andȱaȱpercentageȱisȱcalculated.ȱTheȱpercentageȱindicatesȱtheȱcumulativeȱ densityȱ forȱ eachȱ entity,ȱ allowingȱ forȱ anȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ bothȱ frequencyȱ andȱdensityȱasȱtheȱdiscourseȱunfoldsȱ(forȱfullȱanalysesȱofȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ 2.2,ȱseeȱtheȱchartȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱcurrentȱchapter).ȱWhenȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ 1.3ȱisȱ evaluatedȱinȱthisȱway,ȱtheȱfollowingȱhierarchyȱ ofȱtopicalȱentitiesȱ emerges:ȱ YJ[OT[[TDF,ȱ theȱ words/deedsȱ ofȱ Jeremiah,ȱ withȱ mentionsȱ inȱ 25ȱ percentȱofȱtheȱlinesȱanalysed;ȱ YJ[OT[,ȱJeremiah,ȱwithȱmentionsȱinȱ50ȱperȬ centȱofȱtheȱlinesȱanalysed;JYJ[TDF,ȱtheȱwordȱofȱYahweh,ȱwithȱmentionsȱ inȱ50ȱpercentȱofȱtheȱlinesȱanalysed;ȱandȱYahweh,ȱbutȱonlyȱbyȱextensionȱ here.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 14ȱȱ ForȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱextraposedȱconstructionsȱinȱBHȱandȱotherȱSemiticȱlanguages,ȱseeȱ Khan,ȱStudies.ȱ 15ȱȱ HeimerdingerȱhasȱadaptedȱthisȱmethodologyȱfromȱtheȱworkȱofȱRussellȱTomlin.ȱSeeȱ Heimerdinger,ȱTopic,ȱFocusȱandȱForegroundȱinȱAncientȱHebrewȱNarratives,ȱ105.ȱȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3:ȱEstablishingȱTextȬLevelȱPerspectiveȱ

117ȱ

Afterȱ identifyingȱ andȱ activatingȱ theȱ topicalȱ entitiesȱ involvedȱ inȱ aȱ stretchȱofȱtext,ȱidentifyingȱtheȱtopicalȱthemeȱofȱaȱlongerȱdiscourseȱisȱalsoȱ possible.ȱ Asȱ Heimerdingerȱ demonstrates,ȱ thereȱ isȱ frequentlyȱ aȱ topicalȱ frameȱ involved.16ȱ Aȱ topicalȱ frameȱ isȱ aȱ shortȱ summaryȱ statementȱ thatȱ introducesȱaȱdiscourseȱtopicalȱthemeȱsuchȱasȱ…ȱandȱGodȱtestedȱAbrahamȱ inȱGenesisȱ22:1.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱGodȱandȱAbrahamȱareȱreȬintroducedȱasȱtopiȬ calȱentitiesȱandȱtestedȱisȱintroducedȱasȱtheȱtopicalȱtheme.ȱInȱtheȱMT,ȱthisȱ shortȱstatementȱexhibitsȱmarkedȱwordȱorder,ȱasȱbothȱaȱtemporalȱclauseȱ andȱaȱproperȱnounȱphraseȱprecedeȱtheȱverb.ȱThisȱwordȱorderȱshiftȱindiȬ catesȱsentenceȱfocus.ȱTheȱentireȱsentenceȱisȱimportantȱtoȱwhatȱfollows,ȱ settingȱ upȱ topicalȱ interestsȱ toȱ beȱ discussedȱ asȱ theȱ discourseȱ unfolds.ȱȱ Theȱ introductoryȱ topicalȱ frameȱ isȱ followedȱ byȱ theȱ topicalȱ elaborationȱ inȱ whichȱtheȱidentifiedȱtopicalȱconcernsȱareȱdeveloped.ȱȱ ȱTheȱ mannerȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ topicalȱ entitiesȱ areȱ introducedȱ andȱ actiȬ vatedȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱprovidesȱtheȱfirstȱindicationȱthatȱthisȱsectionȱisȱ actingȱ asȱ aȱ topicalȱ frameȱ forȱ theȱ followingȱ discourse.ȱ Examiningȱ theȱ sectionȱ fromȱ theȱ informationȱ structureȱcategoryȱ ofȱ focusȱ contributesȱ toȱ thisȱassessment.ȱ Focus,ȱaccordingȱtoȱLambrecht,ȱisȱ“theȱsemanticȱcomȬ ponentȱofȱaȱpragmaticallyȱstructuredȱpropositionȱwherebyȱtheȱassertionȱ differsȱfromȱtheȱpresupposition.”ȱInȱBHȱsentencesȱfocusȱisȱaȱfunctionȱofȱ bothȱ verbalȱ formsȱ andȱ wordȱ order.17ȱ ȱ Asȱ notedȱ above,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1ȱ isȱ devoidȱ ofȱ verbalȱ forms.ȱ Instead,ȱ theȱ concatenationȱ ofȱ constructȱ andȱ prepositionalȱphrasesȱinȱ1.1ȱisȱ“usedȱtoȱestablishȱ(promote)ȱidentifiableȱ butȱnonȬactiveȱentitiesȱtoȱaȱstateȱofȱdiscourseȱactivenessȱ(topicȱframe)ȱasȱ farȱasȱaȱsubsequentȱutteranceȱisȱconcerned.”18ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱactivatedȱ referentȱ isȱ YJ[OT[[TDF,ȱ theȱ wordsȱ ofȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Constituentȱ orderȱ indiȬ catesȱthatȱ1.2aȱ(XȬVSO)ȱandȱ1.3aȱ(VO)ȱareȱexamplesȱofȱpredicateȱfocus.19ȱ Likeȱ theȱ topicȬcommentȱ articulation,ȱ thisȱ sentenceȱ typeȱ predicatesȱ aȱ propertyȱ ofȱ theȱ subject.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ subjectȱ forȱ eachȱ formȱ isȱ JYJ[TDF,ȱwhichȱisȱexplicitȱatȱ1.2aȱandȱimplicitȱatȱ1.3a.ȱȱ c.

CognitiveȱConstructionȱ

CognitiveȱstructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱbeginsȱwithȱtheȱseriesȱofȱconȬ structȱ andȱ prepositionalȱ phrasesȱ atȱ 1.1a.ȱ Thisȱ seriesȱ ofȱ spaceȬbuildingȱ termsȱinitiatesȱaȱcascadeȱofȱatemporalȱrelationshipsȱbasedȱuponȱsocial,ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 16ȱȱ 17ȱȱ 18ȱȱ 19ȱȱ

Ibid.,ȱ106.ȱ vanȱderȱMerweȱandȱTalstra,ȱ“Interface,”ȱ78.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ86.ȱ Regardingȱ BHȱ constituentȱ order,ȱ thisȱ volumeȱ followsȱ theȱ viewȱ thatȱ BHȱ isȱ aȱ VSOȱ language.ȱ Thisȱ decisionȱ isȱ basedȱ uponȱ severalȱ factors.ȱ Seeȱ chapterȱ 2,ȱ n.82ȱ forȱ aȱ fullȱ discussion.ȱ

118ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

locativeȱandȱtemporalȱcues.ȱTheȱatemporalȱrelationshipsȱareȱcuedȱbyȱaȱ varietyȱ ofȱ Relationswörter,ȱ orȱ trajectors,ȱ includingȱ theȱ relativeȱ particleȱ T ȱ(1.1b;ȱ1.2a)ȱandȱtheȱprepositionsȱ _Oȱ(1.1a),ȱ Dȱ(1.1b;ȱ1.1b;ȱ1.2b;ȱ1.2d;ȱ 1.3a),ȱ N ȱ (1.2a)ȱ andȱ Fȱ (1.3c;ȱ 1.3e).ȱ Theȱ resultingȱ phraseȱ atomsȱ contriȬ buteȱ toȱ theȱ formationȱ ofȱ relativeȱclausesȱ andȱ prepositionalȱ phrases,ȱ orȱ clauseȱ atoms.ȱ Theȱ relationsȱ establishedȱ betweenȱ entitiesȱ provideȱ theȱ social,ȱspatialȱandȱtemporalȱcoordinatesȱthatȱcueȱtheȱtopicalȱframe,ȱandȱ formȱtheȱparametersȱofȱtheȱbaseȬspaceȱforȱtheȱJeremiahȱtext.ȱ Atȱ firstȱglance,ȱtheȱtermȱ T ȱ(atȱ1.bȱandȱ2.a)ȱappearsȱtoȱneedȱlittleȱ explanationȱbeyondȱthatȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱstandardȱgrammars.20ȱSyntacȬ tically,ȱ theȱ relativeȱ particleȱ T ȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ clauseȬlevelȱ relationalȱ word,ȱ whichȱ connectsȱ theȱ givenȱ clauseȱ toȱ theȱ immediatelyȱ precedingȱ clause.21ȱ However,ȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ threeȱ clausesȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.2,ȱ thisȱ relationshipȱisȱmoreȱthanȱaȱmatterȱofȱaddition.ȱWhileȱtheȱ T ȱclauseȱinȱ 1.2bȱdoesȱreferȱtoȱtheȱtermȱ ][PJMJȱinȱ theȱimmediatelyȱprecedingȱclauseȱ atȱ 1.1a,ȱ theȱ clauseȱ Y[N JYJ[TDFJ[JT atȱ 1.2aȱ doesȱ notȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ phraseȱ_O[PDLT Dȱatȱ1.1b,ȱbutȱtoȱtheȱtermȱ YJ[OT[ȱinȱ1.1a,ȱasȱindicatedȱbyȱ theȱm/sȱpronominalȱsuffixȱonȱY[N .ȱȱ Cognitiveȱstudiesȱhaveȱmuchȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱ theȱprepositionsȱD;ȱ_O;ȱN ;ȱandȱF.ȱGKCȱcontainsȱanȱexplanationȱforȱthisȱ grammaticalȱ categoryȱ thatȱ movesȱ theȱ discussionȱ inȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ direcȬ tion,ȱstating,ȱ“Inȱtheȱcaseȱofȱmostȱprepositions,ȱsomeȱideaȱofȱaȱrelationȱ ofȱspaceȱunderliesȱtheȱconstruction,ȱwhichȱthen,ȱinȱaȱwiderȱsense,ȱisȱexȬ tendedȱtoȱtheȱideasȱofȱtime,ȱmotive,ȱorȱotherȱrelationsȱconceivedȱinȱtheȱ mind.”22ȱ However,ȱ evenȱ moreȱ canȱ beȱ saidȱ regardingȱ theȱ mannerȱ inȱ whichȱ theseȱ termsȱ actȱ asȱ promptsȱ forȱ establishingȱ relationshipsȱ byȱ evokingȱparticularȱimageȱschemata.ȱForȱexample,ȱtheȱtermsȱN ȱandȱFȱactȱ asȱ promptsȱ forȱ relationshipsȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ pathȱ schema.ȱ Thisȱ schemaȱ “…involvesȱ physicalȱ orȱ metaphoricalȱ movementȱ fromȱ placeȱ toȱ placeȱ andȱincludesȱaȱstartingȱpoint,ȱaȱgoalȱandȱintermediateȱpoints.”23ȱInȱthisȱ way,ȱ aȱ metaphoricalȱ trajectory,ȱ orȱ path,ȱ underliesȱ theȱ statementȱ Y[N JYJ[TDFJ[JT ȱ atȱ 1.2a.ȱ Theȱ pathȱincludesȱ Yahwehȱ asȱ theȱ startȬ ingȱ pointȱ andȱ Jeremiahȱ asȱ theȱ goal,ȱ withȱ JYJ[TDFȱ movingȱ acrossȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 20ȱȱ Thisȱ term,ȱ whichȱ introducesȱ aȱ relativeȱ clause,ȱ wasȱ originallyȱ aȱ demonstrativeȱ proȬ noun.ȱAccordingȱtoȱGKC,ȱaȱrelativeȱclauseȱisȱimmediatelyȱdependentȱuponȱtheȱsubsȬ tantivalȱideaȱtoȱbeȱdefined,ȱwhichȱisȱinȱtheȱsameȱcase,ȱthusȱitȱbelongsȱsyntacticallyȱtoȱ theȱmainȱclauseȱ(GKC:ȱ138).ȱAccordingȱtoȱJMȱtheȱtermȱisȱaȱrelativeȱconjunctionȱmeanȬ ingȱ“that”ȱ(JM:ȱ536).ȱTheȱtermȱisȱaȱrelativeȱpronoun.ȱItȱalsoȱintroducesȱobjectȱclauses,ȱ especiallyȱafterȱverbsȱofȱobservationȱandȱmentalȱprocessȱ(BHRG:ȱ296).ȱ 21ȱȱ Talstra,ȱ“AȱHierarchyȱofȱClausesȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱNarrative,”ȱ95Ȭ96.ȱ 22ȱȱ GKC:ȱ§ȱ377.ȱ 23ȱȱ Johnson,ȱ Theȱ Bodyȱ inȱ theȱ Mind:ȱ Theȱ Bodilyȱ Basisȱ ofȱ Meaning,ȱ Imagination,ȱ andȱ Reason,ȱ 115.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3:ȱEstablishingȱTextȬLevelȱPerspectiveȱ

119ȱ

pointsȱ ofȱ theȱ trajectoryȱ conceptualisedȱ betweenȱ theȱ two.ȱ Inȱthisȱ examȬ ple,ȱ oneȱ mayȱ easilyȱ recogniseȱ tracesȱ ofȱ theȱ conduitȱ metaphorȱ forȱ comȬ munication.ȱTheȱimmediateȱproblemȱis,ȱofȱcourse,ȱthatȱYahwehȱhimselfȱ isȱnonȬlocalised.ȱThus,ȱtheȱreaderȱisȱleftȱwithoutȱtheȱspatialȱcoordinatesȱ forȱtheȱstartingȱpointȱofȱtheȱtrajectory.ȱToȱmakeȱaȱclaimȱforȱtheȱpresenceȱ ofȱYahwehȱinȱtheȱTempleȱhighlightsȱtheȱturmoilȱpresentȱinȱtheȱhistoricalȱ setting,ȱ asȱJeremiahȱspeaksȱoutȱagainstȱtheȱTempleȱeliteȱ inȱJeremiahȱ7.ȱ Thus,ȱwhileȱJeremiahȱclaimsȱ toȱhaveȱheardȱfromȱYahweh,ȱthereȱisȱsigȬ nificantȱ ambiguityȱ asȱ toȱ theȱmannerȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ communicationȱ wasȱ received.ȱThisȱpersistsȱthroughoutȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱTheȱmainȱemphaȬ sisȱ isȱ uponȱ theȱ factȱ ofȱ Jeremiah’sȱ perception,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ modeȱ ofȱ perception.ȱ

2.

TheȱContainmentȱSchemaȱ

Grammaticalȱ constructionsȱ thatȱ includeȱ theȱ termsȱ Dȱ andȱ _Oȱ evokeȱ theȱ containmentȱ schema.24ȱ Thisȱ schemaȱ isȱ basic,ȱ rootedȱ inȱ theȱ everyȬdayȱ humanȱ experienceȱ ofȱ containers,ȱ suchȱ asȱ pails,ȱ bowls,ȱ buckets,ȱ openȱ mouthsȱandȱholesȱinȱtheȱground.ȱTheȱcontainmentȱschemaȱisȱcharacteȬ risedȱbyȱaȱphysicalȱorȱmetaphoricalȱboundary,ȱanȱenclosedȱareaȱorȱvoȬ lume,ȱ orȱ anȱ excludedȱ areaȱorȱ volume.ȱ Theȱ transitivityȱ ofȱ enclosureȱprinȬ cipleȱ isȱ anȱ optionalȱ propertyȱ ofȱ theȱ containmentȱ schema.ȱ Inȱ brief,ȱ ifȱ objectȱAȱisȱenclosedȱinȱcontainerȱBȱandȱcontainerȱBȱisȱenclosedȱinȱconȬ tainerȱC,ȱobjectȱAȱisȱalsoȱenclosedȱinȱcontainerȱC.25ȱThisȱisȱessentiallyȱaȱ spatialȱ versionȱ ofȱ aȱ modusȱ ponensȱ argument,ȱ demonstratingȱ thatȱ suchȱ argumentsȱmightȱhaveȱanȱembodiedȱcorrelate.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 24ȱȱ Jenniȱ arguesȱ thatȱ prepositionsȱ operateȱ atȱ threeȱ levelsȱ ofȱ generality:ȱ theȱ prefixedȱ prepositionsȱD,ȱNȱandMȱareȱtheȱmostȱgeneral.ȱBecauseȱthisȱisȱtheȱcase,ȱitȱisȱimportantȱ toȱconsiderȱtheȱatemporalȱrelationshipȱasȱaȱwholeȱ–ȱbothȱtheȱtrajectorȱandȱtheȱlandȬ markȱ functionȱ together.ȱ Seeȱ Ernstȱ Jenni,ȱ Dieȱ Hebräischenȱ Präpositionen,ȱ vol.ȱ 1ȱ (StuttȬ gart:ȱKohlhammer,ȱ1992),ȱ18.ȱ 25ȱȱ Johnson,ȱTheȱBodyȱinȱtheȱMind:ȱTheȱBodilyȱBasisȱofȱMeaning,ȱImagination,ȱandȱReason,ȱ21Ȭ 22.ȱ

120ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Aȱrichȱimageȱexampleȱofȱtheȱtransitivityȱprincipleȱallowsȱtheȱhearerȱ toȱ throwȱ outȱ theȱ bathȱ waterȱ (grammatically)ȱ andȱ stillȱ leaveȱ theȱ babyȱ soakingȱinȱtheȱtubȱ(conceptually).ȱOneȱmightȱimagineȱthatȱHappyȱBabyȱ (objectȱ A)ȱ isȱsittingȱinȱbathȱwaterȱ(containerȱB),ȱwhichȱ isȱenclosedȱ inȱaȱ babyȱ bathtubȱ (containerȱ C).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ oneȱ mightȱ correctlyȱ observe,ȱ “Theȱbabyȱisȱinȱtheȱbathtub.”ȱTheȱfluidityȱofȱtheȱbathȱwaterȱ(containerȱ B),ȱinȱcombinationȱwithȱtheȱtransitivityȱprinciple,ȱallowsȱtheȱbathwaterȱ toȱbeȱthrownȱoutȱofȱtheȱstatementȱ(grammatically),ȱwhileȱremainingȱinȱ theȱ richȱ imageȱ promptedȱ byȱ theȱ statement:ȱ baby,ȱ water,ȱ rubberȱ duck,ȱ tubȱandȱall.ȱ InȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱtheȱcontainmentȱschemaȱisȱevokedȱbyȱtheȱatemȬ poralȱ relationshipȱ establishedȱ byȱ theȱ trajectory,ȱ theȱ prefixedȱ preposiȬ tionD,ȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ itsȱ landmark.ȱ Thisȱ occursȱ atȱ 1.1bVYVPD;ȱ 1.1bȱ _O[PDLT D;ȱ 1.2bȱ YJ[ [[O[D;ȱ 1.2dȱ YMNONJPJTND;ȱ andȱ atȱ 1.3aȱ ][S[YJ[[O[D.ȱTheȱpartialȱnatureȱofȱtheȱevocationȱisȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ relationsȱ areȱ conceptuallyȱ dependent.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Langacker,ȱ “…oneȱ cannotȱconceptualizeȱinterconnectionsȱ withoutȱ alsoȱ conceptuaȬ lizingȱtheȱentitiesȱtheyȱinterconnect.”26ȱThus,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱmakeȱsenseȱofȱ theȱatemporalȱrelationsȱinvokedȱbyȱtermsȱsuchȱasȱD,ȱ_O,ȱN ȱandȱF,ȱallȱofȱ theȱentitiesȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱrelationȱmustȱbeȱincluded:ȱtheȱtrajectorȱandȱ landmarkȱofȱtheȱatemporalȱrelationship,ȱandȱtheȱelementsȱinȱtheȱlargerȱ clauseȱofȱwhichȱtheȱPP/phraseȱatomȱisȱaȱpart.ȱThisȱwillȱbeȱdemonstratedȱ byȱtheȱexamplesȱbelow,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱpreviouslyȱidentifiedȱtopicalȱentiȬ tiesȱplayȱaȱlargeȱpart.ȱȱ Eachȱ instanceȱ ofȱ Dȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ indicatesȱ anȱ atemporalȱ relaȬ tionȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ containmentȱ schema.ȱ Inȱ 1.1b,ȱ VYVPD,ȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Anathothȱisȱconstruedȱasȱaȱcontainerȱwithȱaȱphysicalȱboundaryȱandȱtheȱ priestsȱ areȱ construedȱ asȱ physicalȱ objectsȱ foundȱ insideȱ theȱ container.ȱ Jeremiah’sȱ father,ȱ Hilkiah,ȱ isȱ selectedȱ fromȱ thisȱ groupȱ (alsoȱ construedȱ asȱaȱcontainerȱofȱsorts)ȱbyȱtheȱprepositionȱ_Oȱinȱtheȱphraseȱ][PJMJ_O.ȱInȱ 1.1bȱtheȱlandȱofȱBenjaminȱisȱconstruedȱasȱaȱcontainer,ȱandȱAnathothȱisȱ construedȱ asȱ anȱ objectȱ containedȱ inȱ theȱ landȱ ofȱ Benjamin.ȱ Dueȱ toȱ theȱ transitivityȱ ofȱ containmentȱ principle,ȱ theȱ priestsȱ areȱ alsoȱ containedȱ inȱ theȱlandȱofȱBenjamin.ȱBecauseȱtheȱpriesthoodȱwasȱanȱinheritedȱposition,ȱ Jeremiah,ȱrelatedȱtoȱhisȱfatherȱtheȱpriest,ȱisȱalsoȱlocalised.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 26ȱȱ Langacker,ȱFoundationsȱofȱCognitiveȱGrammar,ȱ215.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3:ȱEstablishingȱTextȬLevelȱPerspectiveȱ

3.

121ȱ

ConceptualȱMetaphor:ȱTIMEȱISȱAȱCONTAINERȱ

Inȱ theȱ followingȱ threeȱ instances,ȱ theȱ prepositionDȱ alsoȱ indicatesȱ theȱ containmentȱschema.27ȱHowever,ȱtheȱentitiesȱinȱtheȱphrasesȱ YJ[ [[O[D,ȱ inȱ theȱ daysȱ ofȱ Josiah,ȱ YMNONJPJTND,ȱ inȱ theȱ thirteenthȱ yearȱ ofȱ hisȱ reign,ȱ andȱ ][S[YJ[[O[D,ȱ inȱ theȱ daysȱ ofȱ Jehoiakim,ȱ allȱ containȱ informationȱ fromȱtheȱsemanticȱdomainȱofȱtime.ȱThisȱindicatesȱthatȱtheȱTIMEȱISȱAȱCONȬ TAINERȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱisȱtheȱstructuringȱdeviceȱforȱtheseȱphrases.ȱ Inȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱcontainmentȱschemaȱisȱmetaphoric,ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱabstractȱ natureȱofȱtheȱboundaries.ȱTwoȱtemporalȱboundariesȱareȱinitiatedȱbyȱtheȱ introductionȱofȱsegmentsȱofȱtimeȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱreignsȱofȱJosiahȱandȱ Jehoiakim,ȱ andȱ areȱ extendedȱtoȱ includeȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱZedekiahȱ andȱ theȱ dateȱ ofȱ theȱ exileȱ toȱ Babylon,ȱ asȱ indicatedȱ byȱ theȱ phrasesȱ YJ[SFENJPJT[V]VF ȱatȱ1.3c.ȱandȱ[OZJFZD]NYT[VYNIFȱ atȱ1.3e.ȱJeremiah’sȱreceptionȱofȱtheȱwordȱofȱtheȱLordȱbecomesȱanȱobjectȱ containedȱ withinȱ thisȱ boundary.ȱ Thisȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ isȱ someȬ whatȱ moreȱ elaborateȱ thatȱ theȱ imageȱ schematicȱ construalȱ presentedȱ inȱ theȱfirstȱthreeȱexamples.ȱȱȱ WhileȱtheȱinterfaceȱbetweenȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱandȱliteraryȱmeȬ taphorȱ willȱ beȱ discussedȱ laterȱ inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ aȱ briefȱ introductionȱ toȱ conceptualȱmetaphorȱisȱrelevantȱatȱthisȱpoint.28ȱKövecsesȱstates:ȱ Whenȱoneȱconceptualȱdomainȱisȱunderstoodȱinȱtermsȱofȱanotherȱconceptualȱ domain,ȱ weȱ haveȱ aȱ conceptualȱ metaphor.ȱ Thisȱ understandingȱ isȱ achievedȱ byȱseeingȱaȱsetȱofȱsystematicȱcorrespondences,ȱorȱmappings,ȱbetweenȱtwoȱ domains.29ȱ

Twoȱ conceptualȱ domainsȱ areȱ involvedȱ inȱ aȱ conceptualȱ metaphor.ȱ Theȱ domainsȱ areȱ labelledȱ asȱ eitherȱ theȱ sourceȱ domain,ȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ domainȱ thatȱ isȱ usedȱ toȱ understandȱ anotherȱ domain,ȱ orȱ asȱ theȱ targetȱ domain,ȱ whichȱisȱtheȱdomainȱthatȱrequiresȱunderstanding.ȱTypically,ȱtheȱsourceȱ domainȱ isȱ lessȱ abstractȱ orȱ lessȱ complexȱ thanȱ theȱ targetȱ domain.ȱ ConȬ versely,ȱ theȱ targetȱ domainȱ isȱ moreȱ abstractȱ andȱ subjectiveȱ thanȱ theȱ sourceȱdomain.30ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱ ofȱtheȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱ TIMEȱISȱAȱCONȬ TAINERȱ theȱ sourceȱ domainȱ isȱ theȱ containmentȱ schema,ȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ whichȱ areȱusedȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱtargetȱdomain,ȱ TIME.ȱMappingsȱbetweenȱtheȱ sourceȱ andȱ targetȱ domainsȱ occurȱ asȱ theȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱ TIMEȱ inȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 27ȱȱ Inȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ studies,ȱ establishedȱ cognitiveȱ metaphorsȱ areȱ indicatedȱ byȱ smallȱcapitalȱletters.ȱȱ 28ȱȱ Theȱchoiceȱofȱtheȱtermȱmetaphorȱinȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱstudiesȱisȱunfortunate,ȱasȱtheȱ termȱ isȱ mostȱ commonlyȱ understoodȱ asȱ aȱ literaryȱ device,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ aȱ descriptiveȱ termȱforȱaȱmodelȱofȱcognitiveȱprocessing.ȱȱ 29ȱȱ Kövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ248.ȱ 30ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ252.ȱ

122ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

targetȱdomainȱareȱassociatedȱwithȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱcontainmentȱschema,ȱ suchȱasȱ boundary,ȱ inside,ȱoutsideȱandȱobjectsȱ withinȱtheȱboundary,ȱ inȱ theȱsourceȱdomain.31ȱȱ Thisȱ exampleȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ utilisingȱ theȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ Aȱ CONTAINERȱ allowsȱ forȱ theȱ locationȱ ofȱ anȱ object,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ receptionȱofȱ JYJ[TDF,ȱtoȱbeȱmappedȱbyȱestablishingȱaȱseriesȱofȱtemporȬ alȱ coordinates,ȱ muchȱ asȱ theȱ locationȱ ofȱ anȱ objectȱ inȱ spaceȱ mayȱ beȱ mappedȱbyȱaȱseriesȱofȱspatialȱcoordinates.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱcoordinatesȱ areȱ indicatedȱ byȱ theȱ prepositionsȱ Dȱ andȱ F,ȱ andȱ theȱ temporalȱ unitsȱ ofȱ dayȱandȱyearȱareȱusedȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱboundaryȱthatȱcontainsȱinstancesȱ ofȱ Jeremiah’sȱ receptionȱofȱ JYJ[TDF.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ temporalȱ coordinatesȱ areȱ addedȱ toȱ theȱ socialȱ andȱ locativeȱ informationȱ thatȱ contributesȱ toȱ cognitiveȱ constructionȱ inȱ MTȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Theȱ seriesȱ ofȱ relationshipsȱ inȬ volvedȱinȱtheseȱexamplesȱprovidesȱaȱclusterȱofȱsocialȱandȱlocativeȱcoorȬ dinatesȱandȱparametersȱgivenȱbyȱtheȱauthorȱtoȱassistȱtheȱreaderȱinȱconȬ ceptualisingȱtheȱsettingȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱThisȱsectionȱofȱtextȱalsoȱprovidesȱanȱ exampleȱ ofȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ thatȱ isȱ completelyȱ dissociatedȱ fromȱ literaryȱ metaphor.ȱ Theȱ conceptualȱ constructionȱ demonstratesȱ inȱ partȱ thatȱwhileȱliteraryȱmetaphorȱisȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱconceptualȱmetaphor,ȱ conceptualȱmetaphorȱmayȱbeȱobservedȱinȱaȱvarietyȱofȱnonȬliteraryȱconȬ textsȱ andȱ isȱ inȱ factȱ muchȱ moreȱ widelyȱ usedȱ inȱ everydayȱ speechȱ andȱ thoughtȱthanȱisȱoftenȱrecognised.ȱ Inȱ theȱ TDȱ analysisȱ forȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱ thisȱ sectionȱ representsȱ theȱ startingȱ point,ȱ theȱ baseȬspace,ȱ inȱ theȱ mentalȱ spaceȱ configuration.ȱ Thus,ȱ topicalȱentitiesȱandȱotherȱelementsȱofȱtheȱsettingȱthatȱhaveȱbeenȱestabȬ lishedȱ areȱ availableȱ forȱ cognitiveȱ constructionȱ forȱ theȱ followingȱ text.ȱ Theseȱ includeȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Yahweh,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ spatioȬtemporalȱ situationȱ thatȱ hasȱ beenȱ established.ȱ Significantly,ȱ theȱ elementsȱ inȱ thisȱ sectionȱ areȱ presentedȱ atȱ normalȱ scale.ȱ Whetherȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ isȱ deȬ scribedȱ asȱ anȱ introduction,ȱ aȱ superscriptionȱ orȱ aȱ rubric,ȱ theȱ sectionȱ isȱ indeedȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱsomething.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 31ȱȱ Thisȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ metaphorȱ hasȱ affinitiesȱ withȱ Fauconnier’sȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱ theory,ȱ specificallyȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ spacesȱ andȱ crossȬspaceȱ mapping.ȱ However,ȱ conceptualȱblendingȱisȱaȱmoreȱsophisticatedȱtheory,ȱinȱthatȱitȱincludesȱbothȱaȱgenericȱ inputȱ spaceȱ andȱ aȱ newlyȱ formedȱ blendedȱ space.ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ doesȱ theȱ newlyȱ formedȱ blendȱdrawȱfromȱtheȱinputȱspaces,ȱbutȱitȱalsoȱhasȱitsȱownȱlogicȱasȱwell.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ

123ȱ

B. Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ 1. PerspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3ȱ Thereȱisȱaȱshiftȱinȱperspectiveȱatȱ1.4,ȱwhereȱtheȱfirstȱpersonȱpronominalȱ suffixȱonȱtheȱtermȱ [N ȱinȱtheȱphraseȱ [N JYJ[TDF[J[Yȱshiftsȱparticipantȱ referenceȱ fromȱ theȱ unidentifiedȱ narratorȱ toȱ Jeremiahȱ asȱ speakȬ er/narrator.ȱJeremiah’sȱvoiceȱreplacesȱthatȱofȱtheȱanonymousȱthirdȱperȬ sonȱ narratorȱ inȱ theȱ subjectiveȱ Originator,ȱ orȱ Oȱ space.ȱ Consequently,ȱ JeremiahȱisȱsimutaneouslyȱpresentȱbothȱinȱtheȱsubjectiveȱviewingȱposiȬ tion,ȱwhichȱisȱnowȱsharedȱbyȱJeremiahȱandȱtheȱreader,ȱandȱinȱtheȱonsȬ tage,ȱobjectiveȱpositionȱinȱtheȱviewingȱarrangement.ȱThisȱconfigurationȱ ofȱcommunicationȱparticipantsȱhasȱbeenȱtaggedȱasȱN2.ȱ ȱȱ

ȱ Figureȱ4.5ȱȱViewingȱArrangementȱN2ȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.2ȱ

Someȱofȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱthisȱshiftȱwillȱbeȱexploredȱinȱthisȱsection.ȱ CognitiveȱconstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱoccursȱviaȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱ thatȱfunctionȱatȱvariousȱlevels,ȱorȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱcomputerȱprogrammeȱ metaphor,ȱ variousȱ layers.ȱ Asȱ previouslyȱ discussed,ȱ computerȱ proȬ grammesȱuseȱaȱseriesȱofȱlayersȱtoȱbuildȱupȱaȱunifiedȱimage.ȱTwoȱimporȬ tantȱfeaturesȱemerge:ȱfirst,ȱeachȱadditionalȱlayerȱaddsȱdetailȱtoȱtheȱfinalȱ product.ȱThisȱisȱaȱsequentialȱprocessȱinȱwhichȱlayersȱareȱaddedȱfromȱtheȱ bottomȱ up.ȱ Thus,ȱ whileȱ theȱ finalȱ productȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ completeȱ whole,ȱtheȱlayersȱthemselvesȱhaveȱaȱsequentialȱcharacterȱ–ȱreflectingȱtheȱ

124ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

creativeȱprocessesȱevidentȱinȱvisualȱartȱandȱinȱwriting,ȱwhereȱtheȱorigiȬ natorȱmustȱplanȱforȱtheȱfinalȱeffectȱandȱworkȱinȱanȱorderlyȱfashion.ȱSeȬ condly,ȱlikeȱtheȱfocusȱspaceȱinȱaȱmentalȱspacesȱnetwork,ȱonlyȱoneȱlayerȱ mayȱbeȱactiveȱatȱaȱgivenȱtime.ȱNewȱinformationȱmayȱbeȱaddedȱtoȱspacȬ esȱ thatȱ areȱ alreadyȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ image,ȱ butȱ onlyȱ oneȱ spaceȱ mayȱ beȱ seȬ lectedȱ forȱ thisȱ taskȱ atȱ aȱ time.ȱ Thisȱ reflectsȱ theȱ readingȱ process,ȱ whichȱ mayȱbeȱeitherȱlinearȱorȱrecursive.ȱ(Inȱactuality,ȱitȱisȱmostȱlikelyȱboth,ȱasȱ aȱ readerȱ mayȱreferȱbackȱinȱ orderȱtoȱreȬfocusȱonȱaȱpreviouslyȱreadȱ secȬ tionȱ ofȱ textȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ textȱ atȱ hand.)ȱ Thus,ȱ cognitiveȱ constructionsȱevokedȱbyȱaȱtextȱmayȱbeȱmodelledȱasȱaȱseriesȱorȱsequenceȱ ofȱmentalȱspacesȱwhichȱcoalesceȱtoȱformȱaȱwhole.32ȱCognitiveȱspaces,ȱorȱ conceptualȱpackets,ȱmayȱcompriseȱtheȱinformationȱofȱaȱsingleȱsentenceȱ orȱofȱlargerȱclustersȱofȱsentences.33ȱSpacesȱareȱopenedȱbyȱspaceȬbuilders,ȱ andȱmeaningȱaccruesȱasȱtheȱspacesȱareȱstructuredȱbyȱvariousȱlinguisticȱ construalȱ operations.ȱ SpaceȬbuildersȱ fromȱ theȱ semanticȱ domainsȱ ofȱ perception,ȱcognition,ȱcommunicationȱandȱepistemicȱmodalityȱareȱparȬ ticularlyȱ importantȱ inȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ constructionȱ becauseȱ theseȱ termsȱ areȱ experiencerȬorientedȱ andȱopenȱspacesȱthatȱ areȱembedȬ dedȱ toȱ aȱ particularȱ character.ȱ Suchȱ spacesȱ areȱ constrainedȱ byȱ theȱ chaȬ racter’sȱdeicticȱcentre,ȱandȱaccessȱtoȱtheseȱspacesȱisȱthusȱrestrictedȱtoȱtheȱ character’sȱperspective.ȱ

2. SpaceȬbuildersȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱ PerspectiveȬinducingȱ spaceȬbuildersȱ includeȱ textȬdeicticȱ termsȱ andȱ constructionsȱ (seeȱ theȱ Deicticȱ Termsȱ chartȱ onȱ pageȱ 41)ȱ andȱ termsȱ fromȱ theȱ semanticȱ domainsȱ ofȱ communication,ȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognition.ȱ Theseȱwillȱbeȱexaminedȱinȱturnȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱsections.ȱȱ a. TextȱDeicticȱTermsȱ AccordingȱtoȱEhlich,ȱcertainȱBHȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱareȱusedȱtextȬ deictically.ȱ Theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ deixisȱ perȱ seȱ andȱ textȬdeixisȱ hasȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ theȱ differentȱ deicticȱ spacesȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ deicticȱ procedureȱ isȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 32ȱȱ Inȱthisȱinstance,ȱtheȱtermȱcoalesceȱisȱshorthandȱforȱconceptualȱblending.ȱAccordingȱtoȱ conceptualȱblendingȱtheory,ȱthisȱprocessȱisȱubiquitousȱinȱhumanȱcognition.ȱȱ 33ȱȱ Fauconnierȱutilisesȱbothȱterms.ȱHeȱusesȱspacesȱinȱhisȱearlierȱworkȱandȱcognitiveȱpacketsȱ inȱhisȱlaterȱwork.ȱThisȱvolumeȱutilisesȱtheȱtermȱspaces,ȱasȱitȱisȱfoundationalȱtoȱMST.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ termȱ cognitiveȱ packetȱ isȱ slightlyȱ moreȱ sophisticated.ȱ Importantly,ȱ inȱ keepingȱ withȱ theȱ networkȱ metaphor,ȱ suchȱ packetsȱ areȱ createdȱ inȱ theȱ mindȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptualizerȱasȱdiscourseȱisȱprocessed.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtheyȱareȱnotȱconvenientȱenȬ velopesȱforȱsendingȱandȱreceivingȱinformation,ȱasȱinȱtheȱconduitȱmetaphor.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ

125ȱ

related.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ forȱ textȱ deixis,ȱ theȱ deicticȱ spaceȱ isȱ theȱ textȱ itȬ self.34ȱUnderȱ certainȱcircumstances,ȱBHȱtermsȱsuchȱas J[JYȱand [J[Yȱ areȱ usedȱtextȱdeictically.35 ThisȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱcaseȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4,ȱ1.11,ȱ 1.13ȱ andȱ 2.1,ȱ whereȱ theȱ termȱ appearsȱ inȱ theȱ repeatedȱ phraseȱ TO N[N JYJ[TDF[J[Y .36ȱHowever,ȱtheȱtermȱ [J[YȱaloneȱisȱnotȱresponsiȬ bleȱ forȱ creatingȱ theȱ structuringȱ effect.ȱ Rather,ȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ functionȱ ofȱ theȱ entireȱ construction.ȱ Miller,ȱ inȱ herȱ studyȱ ofȱ reportedȱ speech,ȱ notesȱ thatȱ thisȱtypeȱofȱphraseȱisȱaȱ“metapragmaticȱphrasalȱexpression.”37ȱTheȱsynȬ taxȱofȱtheȱsentenceȱisȱwayyiqtol+subject,ȱindirectȱobject,ȱcomplementiser.ȱ Theȱ VSOȱ wordȱ orderȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ sentenceȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ withoutȱtheȱcomplementiserȱTO Nȱtheȱsentenceȱwouldȱbeȱanȱexampleȱofȱ unmarked,ȱpredicateȱfocus.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱcomplemenȬ tiserȱindicatesȱthatȱtheȱsentenceȱisȱaȱmarkedȱconstruction,ȱfunctioningȱatȱ theȱmetapragmaticȱlevel.ȱ ȱTheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱaȱmarkedȱtermȱorȱconstructionȱandȱanȱunȬ markedȱ termȱ orȱ constructionȱ isȱ significant.ȱ Markednessȱ itselfȱ mayȱ beȱ understoodȱ inȱ twoȱ quiteȱ differentȱ ways.38ȱ First,ȱ thereȱ isȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ aȱ polarȱopposition:ȱifȱoneȱtermȱisȱmarked,ȱtheȱunmarkedȱformȱimpliesȱitsȱ polarȱopposite.ȱAlternatively,ȱthereȱisȱanȱasymmetricalȱprivativeȱopposiȬ tion.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱaȱmarkedȱtermȱdemonstratesȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱaȱfeature,ȱ whileȱanȱunmarkedȱtermȱdoesȱnotȱimplyȱitsȱlogicalȱoppositeȱ–ȱitȱsimplyȱ isȱnotȱstated.ȱȱTheȱphraseȱTO N[N JYJ[TDF[J[YȱisȱmarkedȱinȱtheȱprivȬ ativeȱ sense.ȱ Thus,ȱ whileȱ theȱ phraseȱ marksȱ theȱ followingȱ speechȱ actȱ asȱ nonȬprototypical,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ followȱ thatȱ theȱ unmarkedȱ conjugatedȱ formsȱofȱ TO ȱinȱtheȱremainderȱofȱtheȱspeechȱsituationȱareȱprototypical.ȱ Inȱtheseȱcases,ȱitȱisȱsimplyȱnotȱindicated.ȱȱ Whatȱ mayȱ beȱ saidȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ phraseȱ TO N[N JYJ[TDF[J[Yȱ isȱ aȱ markedȱmetapragmaticȱphrasalȱexpression;ȱthusȱeachȱrepetitionȱofȱthisȱ clauseȱ opensȱ aȱ newȱ mentalȱ spaceȱ atȱ theȱ metaȬlinguisticȱ level.ȱ Theseȱ spacesȱ mightȱ beȱ labelledȱ asȱ speechȱ domains.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ domainȱ extendsȱ fromȱ 1.4Ȭ1.10.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ isȱ 1.11Ȭ1.12,ȱ andȱ theȱ thirdȱ isȱ 1.13Ȭ1.19.ȱ Theȱ fourthȱbeginsȱatȱ2.1ȱandȱextendsȱintoȱchapterȱ2.ȱTheȱsameȱphraseȱlinksȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 34ȱȱ Ehlich,ȱ“AnaphoraȱandȱDeixis:ȱSame,ȱSimilar,ȱorȱDifferent?”ȱ331.ȱ 35ȱȱ Thisȱ correlatesȱ withȱ findingsȱ ofȱ vanȱ derȱ Merwe.ȱ Seeȱ C.ȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merwe,ȱ “Theȱ ElusiveȱBiblicalȱTermȱWHYH:ȱAȱ Perspectiveȱ inȱTermsȱofȱItsȱ Syntax,ȱSemantics,ȱandȱ PragmaticsȱinȱIȱSamuel,”ȱHSȱ15ȱ(1999),ȱ99.ȱ 36ȱȱ Parunakȱ includesȱ theȱ phraseȱ inȱ hisȱ clineȱ ofȱ disjunctiveȱ structuralȱ markersȱ inȱ theȱ Jeremiahȱ text.ȱ Seeȱ H.ȱ Vanȱ Dykeȱ Parunak,ȱ “Someȱ Discourseȱ Functionsȱ ofȱ Propheticȱ QuotationȱFormulasȱinȱJeremiah,”ȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱandȱDiscourseȱLinguistics,ȱed.ȱRoȬ bertȱD.ȱBergenȱ(Dallas:ȱSIL,ȱ1994).ȱ 37ȱȱ Miller,ȱRepresentation,ȱ240.ȱ 38ȱȱ AȱfullȱdiscussionȱofȱmarkednessȱisȱfoundȱinȱEdwinȱL.ȱBatistella,ȱTheȱLogicȱofȱMarkedȬ nessȱ(NewȱYork:ȱOUP,ȱ1996).ȱ

126ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

theȱspacesȱtoȱoneȱanother,ȱdueȱtoȱrepetition.ȱConnectionsȱareȱalsoȱestabȬ lishedȱbetweenȱeachȱofȱtheseȱsectionsȱandȱtheȱintroductoryȱmaterialȱinȱ Jeremiah1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱrepetitionȱofȱtheȱtermȱJ[OT[[TDFȱatȱ1.1a,ȱandȱ theȱphraseȱY[N JYJ[TDFJ[JT ȱatȱ1.1c.ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.4Ȭ2.3ȱ providesȱ anȱ illustrationȱ ofȱ scalarȱ adjustment.39ȱ Atȱ thisȱ pointȱ inȱ theȱ construction,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ recedesȱ toȱ theȱ backȬ groundȱ andȱ theȱ speechȱ domainsȱformȱlayersȱ inȱ theȱforeground.ȱ AddiȬ tionally,ȱ asȱ newȱ informationȱ comesȱ intoȱ view,ȱ itȱ isȱ perceivedȱ asȱ beingȱ moreȱdetailed,ȱorȱmoreȱfinelyȬgrained,ȱwhileȱcertainȱdetailsȱdiminishȱasȱ previousȱinformationȱrecedes.ȱThisȱmayȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱsomethingȱofȱaȱ visualȱ dopplerȱ effect.ȱ Onlyȱ selectedȱ detailsȱ fromȱ previousȱ spacesȱ willȱ remainȱ activatedȱ withinȱ theȱ currentȱ focusȱ space.ȱ However,ȱ previousȱ informationȱ willȱ remainȱ availableȱ forȱ reactivationȱ asȱ discourseȱ progresses.40ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 39ȱȱ Alongȱwithȱfocusȱandȱscope,ȱscalarȱadjustmentȱisȱaȱsubȬcategoryȱofȱattention.ȱTheȱtermȱ focusȱisȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱlocusȱofȱattention,ȱtheȱtermȱscopeȱisȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱ limitsȱofȱattentionȱandȱtheȱtermȱscalarȱadjustmentȱisȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱanȱadjustmentȱ inȱtheȱscaleȱofȱattention.ȱTheseȱthreeȱtermsȱdescribeȱstaticȱconstrualsȱofȱaȱscene.ȱCroftȱ andȱCruse,ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics,ȱ52.ȱ 40ȱȱ Langackerȱ proposesȱ thatȱ aȱ processȱ ofȱ consolidationȱ alsoȱ occursȱ asȱ discourseȱ isȱ processed.ȱHeȱstates,ȱ“Whileȱtheȱessentialȱcontentȱmayȱbeȱretained,ȱmemoryȱofȱhowȱ itȱwasȱpresentedȱlinguisticallyȱwillȱsoonȱbeȱlost.ȱWeȱcanȱusefullyȱspeakȱofȱaȱprocessȱ ofȱ consolidation,ȱ wherebyȱ theȱ essentialȱ contentȱ isȱ abstractedȱ fromȱ theȱ specificsȱ ofȱ itsȱ linguisticȱ presentation…ȱ itȱ isȱ simplyȱ anȱ apprehensionȱ ofȱ theȱ overallȱ situationȱ deȬ scribedȱ inȱ itsȱ ownȱ terms,ȱ asȱ anȱ integratedȱ conceptualȱ structure…ȱ theȱ consolidatedȱ structureȱ continuesȱ toȱ growȱ orȱ beȱ otherwiseȱ modified,ȱ evenȱ asȱ theȱ discourseȱ strucȬ tureȱ effectingȱ itsȱ earlierȱ evolutionȱ fadesȱ fromȱ memory.ȱ Itȱ isȱ theȱ consolidatedȱ strucȬ tureȱthatȱweȱretainȱfromȱearlierȱstagesȱinȱtheȱdiscourseȱandȱstoreȱinȱlongȬtermȱmemoȬ ry.”ȱRonaldȱW.ȱLangacker,ȱ“DiscourseȱinȱCognitiveȱGrammar,”ȱCLȱ12ȱ(2001),ȱ180.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ

127ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ4.6ȱȱȱSpeechȱDomainsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.3ȱ

Asȱ demonstratedȱ inȱ Figureȱ 4.6,ȱ theȱ speechȱ domainsȱ standȱ outȱ againstȱ theȱgroundȱcreatedȱbyȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3.ȱThisȱbasicȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱ figureȬgroundȱ configurationȱ detailsȱ howȱ theȱ degreeȱ ofȱ granularityȱ changesȱasȱnewȱinformationȱcomesȱintoȱview.ȱ b. Communicationȱ ȱTheȱ secondȱ semanticȱ domainȱ thatȱ cuesȱ spaceȬbuildingȱ includesȱ verbsȱ ofȱspeaking.ȱTheȱLouwȬNidaȱDictionaryȱofȱSemanticȱDomainsȱincludesȱ theseȱtermsȱinȱdomainȱ33,ȱCommunication.ȱTheȱcommunicationȱdomainȱ isȱfamiliarȱterritory.ȱEnglishȱconventionȱdelineatesȱcognitiveȱspacesȱthatȱ areȱ cuedȱ byȱ verbsȱ ofȱ speakingȱ byȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ invertedȱ commas,ȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱofȱUKȱEnglish,ȱorȱbyȱquotationȱmarks,ȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱUSȱEnglish.ȱȱ Verbsȱ ofȱ speaking,ȱ suchȱ asȱ conjugatedȱ formsȱ ofȱ theȱ BHȱ termȱ TO ,ȱ mayȱbeȱusedȱtoȱindicateȱinstancesȱofȱdirectȱspeechȱonȱtheȱpartȱofȱcharacȬ tersȱ withinȱ theȱ text,ȱ thusȱ actingȱ asȱ spaceȬbuildersȱ forȱ linguisticȱ levelȱ embeddedȱquotationȱspacesȱwithinȱaȱprimaryȱspeechȱdomain.41ȱAȱquoȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 41ȱȱ Similarly,ȱ otherȱ citationȱ formulaeȱ mightȱ actȱ asȱ conceptualȱ spaceȬbuildersȱ asȱ well.ȱ Thus,ȱ phrasesȱ suchȱ asȱ “Asȱ itȱ isȱ written”ȱ mightȱ indicateȱ newȱ cognitiveȱ constructionȱ

128ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

tationȱ spaceȱ mightȱ introduceȱ anȱ alternateȱ groundȱ thatȱ includesȱ preȬ viouslyȱ unknownȱ characters,ȱ theirȱ speechȱ eventsȱ andȱ newȱ spatioȬ temporalȱ circumstancesȱ asȱ well.ȱ Becauseȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ case,ȱ instancesȱ ofȱ directȱspeechȱintroduceȱaȱdegreeȱofȱcomplexityȱintoȱtheȱtext.42ȱȱTheȱseȬ riesȱ ofȱ verbalȱformsȱ withinȱtheȱquotationȱspaceȱmayȱbeȱquiteȱdifferentȱ fromȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ seriesȱ ofȱ verbalȱ formsȱ thatȱ setȱ upȱ theȱ primaryȱ speechȱ domains,ȱandȱthusȱmustȱbeȱanalysedȱatȱaȱdifferentȱlevelȱ–ȱasȱaȱdifferentȱ layer,ȱinȱotherȱwords.43ȱ Theȱmetapragmaticȱphrasalȱexpression,ȱ TO N[N JYJ[TDF[J[Y,ȱesȬ tablishesȱ theȱ primaryȱ speechȱ domainsȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.4Ȭ2.2.ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ occursȱ atȱ 1.4a,ȱ 1.11a,ȱ 1.13aȱ andȱ 2.1a.ȱ Thisȱ wayyiqtolȱ clauseȱ initiatesȱ theȱ reportedȱ conversationȱ betweenȱ theȱ adjacencyȱ pairȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Yahweh.ȱ Verbsȱ ofȱ speakingȱ actȱ asȱ spaceȬbuilders,ȱ openingȱ subspacesȱ withinȱ theȱ speechȱ domains.ȱ Theseȱ includeȱ TO Y,ȱ aȱ wayyiqtolȬ0ȱ clauseȱ thatȱappearsȱatȱ1.6aȱandȱ1.11d;ȱandȱ [N JYJ[TO [Y,ȱ aȱwayyiqtolȬXȱclauseȱ thatȱappearsȱatȱ1.7a,ȱ1.9c,ȱ1.11a,ȱ1.12aȱandȱ1.14a.ȱ Theȱ primaryȱ cognitiveȱ domainȱ forȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.4Ȭ2.2ȱ isȱ aȱ discursiveȱ speechȱ domain,ȱ inȱ whichȱ Jeremiahȱ actsȱ asȱ narrator.ȱ Embeddedȱ quotaȬ tionsȱ openȱ subspacesȱ withinȱ theseȱ domains.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ diagramȱ zoomsȱinȱonȱtheȱinformationȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.2,ȱbringingȱitȱintoȱsharperȱ focus,ȱ andȱ addingȱ additionalȱ detailsȱ toȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ constructionȱ inȱ thisȱsection.ȱTheȱN2ȱviewingȱarrangementȱremainsȱinȱplaceȱatȱthisȱpointȱ inȱtheȱconstruction.44ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ whenȱreadȱinȱcontext.ȱSeeȱKevinȱSpawn.ȱȈAsȱItȱIsȱWrittenȈȱandȱOtherȱCitationȱFormulaeȱ inȱtheȱOldȱTestament,ȱed.ȱOttoȱKaiser,ȱBZAWȱ(Berlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2002).ȱ 42ȱȱ Someȱ haveȱ proposedȱ thatȱ BHȱ alsoȱ exhibitsȱ freeȱ directȱ discourse.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ seeȱ GaliaȱHatav,ȱ“(Free)ȱDirectȱDiscourseȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrew,”ȱHSȱ41ȱ(2000),ȱ7Ȭ30.ȱWhileȱ thisȱ questionȱ isȱ beyondȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ thisȱ volume,ȱ theȱ conceptualȱ roleȱ ofȱ freeȱ directȱ discourseȱisȱdiscussedȱinȱSandersȱandȱRedeker,ȱ“PerspectiveȱandȱtheȱRepresentationȱ ofȱSpeechȱandȱThoughtȱinȱNarrativeȱDiscourse,”ȱ290Ȭ317.ȱ 43ȱȱ DeȱRegtȱproposesȱaȱsimilarȱideaȱinȱLenartȱJ.ȱdeȱRegt,ȱ“DomainsȱandȱSubdomainsȱinȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew,”ȱ inȱ Narrativeȱ andȱ Comment:ȱ Contributionsȱ toȱ Discourseȱ Grammarȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew,ȱ ed.ȱ Eepȱ Talstraȱ (Amsterdam:ȱ Societasȱ Hebraicaȱ Amstelodamensis,ȱ 1995),ȱ147Ȭ161.ȱ 44ȱȱ Langackerȱproposesȱanȱelaborateȱ accountȱofȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱatȱtheȱdiscourseȱ levelȱinȱhisȱ2001ȱarticleȱDiscourseȱinȱCogntiveȱGrammar.ȱInȱthisȱaccount,ȱLangackerȱlaȬ belsȱtheȱspaceȱthatȱisȱcurrentlyȱinȱfocusȱasȱtheȱCurrentȱDiscourseȱSpace,ȱorȱCDS.ȱHeȱ discussesȱ theȱ mannerȱ inȱ whichȱ newȱ informationȱ updatesȱ theȱ CDSȱ asȱ discourseȱ isȱ processed.ȱSignificantly,ȱheȱutilisesȱattentionȱframesȱthatȱcompriseȱtheȱscopeȱofȱconȬ ceptualisation,ȱandȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱhearer.ȱLangackerȱordersȱtheȱseriesȱofȱframesȱinȱ aȱlinearȱfashion,ȱincludingȱaȱzeroȱframeȱandȱtheȱCDSȱinȱanyȱgivenȱdiagram.ȱTheȱTDȱ modelȱofȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱisȱpresentedȱasȱaȱseriesȱofȱverticalȱframes,ȱandȱisȱpreȬ sentedȱatȱaȱlowerȱdegreeȱofȱgranularityȱthanȱthatȱofȱLangacker,ȱwhoȱbeginsȱwithȱsenȬ tenceȬlevelȱsegments.ȱLangacker,ȱ“DiscourseȱinȱCognitiveȱGrammar.”ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ

129ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ4.7ȱȱȱSecondaryȱSpeechȱDomainsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.2ȱ

Figureȱ 4.7ȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱtheȱproductionȱofȱ newȱ mentalȱspacesȱviaȱ verbsȱofȱspeakingȱcanȱbeȱaȱrecursiveȱprocess,ȱrepresentingȱmanyȱlayersȱ ofȱ embedding.ȱ Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ recogniseȱ thatȱ anyȱ newȱ spaceȱ mightȱ introduceȱ aȱ shiftȱ inȱ ground,ȱ withȱ newȱ characters,ȱ newȱ conversationsȱ andȱ newȱspatiotemporalȱ parameters.ȱ Verbsȱofȱ speaking,ȱ then,ȱprovideȱ perspectiveȱwithinȱaȱtextȱbyȱregisteringȱtheȱidentityȱ ofȱvariousȱcharacȬ tersȱ asȱ speakers.ȱ Thisȱ inȱ turnȱ affectsȱ theȱ construalȱ ofȱ theȱ situationȱ ofȱ speaking,ȱ whichȱ isȱ deicticallyȱ indexedȱ relativeȱ toȱ theȱ characterȱ asȱ speaker.ȱ Thisȱ cognitiveȱ analysisȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ2.2ȱ demonstratesȱ theȱ highȱ degreeȱofȱsalienceȱproducedȱbyȱtheȱuseȱofȱspaceȱbuildingȱtermsȱderivedȱ fromȱtheȱsemanticȱdomainȱofȱspeaking.ȱThisȱhasȱimplicationsȱforȱhistorȬ icalȬcriticalȱstudyȱofȱpropheticȱtext.ȱInȱhisȱarticle,ȱTheȱ“WordȱOfȱYahweh”:ȱ AȱTheologicalȱ Conceptȱ inȱtheȱBookȱ ofȱJeremiah,ȱ ChristophȱLevinȱ examinesȱ thisȱ sectionȱ fromȱ anȱ historicalȬcriticalȱ perspectiveȱ andȱ developsȱ aȱ soȬ phisticatedȱ argumentȱ forȱ aȱ “wordȱ ofȱYahweh”ȱ revisionȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Heȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ thisȱ termȱ isȱ aȱ relativelyȱ lateȱ develȬ opment,ȱbasedȱ uponȱtheȱ factȱ thatȱtheȱ termȱ “wordȱ ofȱ Yahweh”ȱ isȱ usedȱ mostȱ heavilyȱ inȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Ezekiel.ȱ ȱ Additionally,ȱ heȱ claimsȱthatȱ“…ȱtheȱconceptȱ‘wordȱofȱYahweh’ȱisȱderived,ȱnotȱfromȱtheȱ divineȱ addressȱ itself,ȱbutȱ fromȱsubsequentȱ reflectionȱonȱ thatȱaddress”.ȱ Heȱarguesȱthatȱthisȱthoughtȱprocessȱisȱreflectedȱinȱtheȱliteraryȱgrowthȱofȱ

130ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

theȱ bookȱandȱthatȱoneȱofȱtheȱearliestȱ redactionsȱofȱ theȱ bookȱdependedȱ uponȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ“Yahweh’sȱword”.45ȱ ȱLevin’sȱargumentȱisȱofȱinterestȱforȱtwoȱreasons.ȱFirst,ȱheȱbasesȱ hisȱ partitioningȱofȱtheȱtextȱuponȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱmetapragmaticȱphrasalȱexȬ pressionȱTO N[N JYJ[TDF[J[Y.46ȱThus,ȱLevin’sȱargumentȱconfirmsȱtheȱ salientȱ natureȱ ofȱ spaceȱ buildingȱ termsȱ fromȱ theȱ semanticȱ domainȱ ofȱ speaking.ȱ Secondly,ȱ heȱ seesȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ “Yahweh’sȱ word”ȱ asȱ theȱ earliestȱ stageȱ inȱ theȱ literaryȱ developmentȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ buildsȱaȱcompellingȱargumentȱforȱaȱredactionȱofȱtheȱbookȱthatȱisȱbasedȱ uponȱtheologicalȱreflectionȱuponȱthisȱmotif.47ȱ c.

TheȱIntersectionȱofȱVerbsȱofȱCommunicationȱandȱCumulativeȱ ReferentialȱDensityȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2ȱ

Accordingȱtoȱtheȱaboveȱanalysis,ȱtheȱmetapragmaticȱphrasalȱexpressionȱ TO N[N JYJ[TDF[J[Y ȱ establishesȱ theȱ primaryȱ speechȱ domainsȱ inȱ JeȬ remiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.2ȱatȱ1.4a,ȱ1.11a,ȱ1.13aȱandȱ2.1a.ȱEachȱinstanceȱofȱthisȱphraseȱ introducesȱreportedȱconversationȱbetweenȱJeremiahȱandȱYahweh,ȱwhoȱ areȱ theȱ mainȱ interlocutorsȱ throughoutȱ thisȱ section.ȱ Anȱ examinationȱ ofȱ theȱcumulativeȱreferentialȱdensityȱofȱtopicalȱentitiesȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2ȱ providesȱ additionalȱ confirmationȱ regardingȱ theirȱ statusȱ asȱ primaryȱ topicalȱentities.ȱJeremiahȱisȱmentionedȱinȱ86ȱpercentȱofȱtheȱclauses,ȱandȱ Yahwehȱinȱ34ȱpercentȱofȱtheȱclauses.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 45ȱȱ

Christophȱ Levin,ȱ ȈTheȱ ȇWordȱ ofȱ Yahwehȇ:ȱ Aȱ Theologicalȱ Conceptȱ inȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Jeremiah,ȈȱinȱProphets,ȱProphecy,ȱandȱPropheticȱTextsȱinȱSecondȱTempleȱJudaism,ȱed.ȱMiȬ chaelȱH.ȱFloydȱandȱRobertȱD.ȱHaak,ȱLibraryȱofȱHebrewȱBible/OldȱTestamentȱStudiesȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ T&Tȱ Clark,ȱ 2006),ȱ 43.ȱ Forȱ Levin’sȱ earlierȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ thisȱ sectionȱ see:ȱ Christophȱ Levin,ȱ Dieȱ Verheissungȱ Desȱ Neuenȱ Bundes:ȱ Inȱ Ihremȱ Theologiegeschichtlichenȱ ZusammenhangȱAusgelegtȱ(Göttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ1985),ȱ150Ȭ153.ȱ 46ȱȱ Levinȱ includesȱ explanationsȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.4Ȭ10,ȱ (Jeremiah’sȱ call);ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.11Ȭ14,ȱȱ (theȱvisionsȱofȱtheȱalmondȱbranchȱandȱboilingȱpot);ȱ2.1ȱ(transitionȱfromȱtheȱcallȱtoȱtheȱ book)ȱandȱtheȱsymbolicȱactionsȱinȱJeremiahȱ13.1Ȭ11;ȱ16.1Ȭ9;ȱ18.1Ȭ6ȱandȱ32.1Ȭ5.ȱ 47ȱȱ Levin,ȱ ȈTheȱ ȇWordȱ ofȱ Yahweh‘.“ȱ Forȱ furtherȱ discussionȱ regardingȱ theȱ redactionȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Jeremiah,ȱ seeȱ Konradȱ Schmid,ȱ Buchgestaltenȱ Desȱ Jeremiabuches:ȱ UntersuchungenȱZurȱRedaktionsȬȱUndȱRezeptionsgeschichteȱVonȱJerȱ30Ȭ33ȱImȱKontextȱDesȱ Buches,ȱ Wissenschaftlicheȱ Monographienȱ Zumȱ Altenȱ Undȱ Neuenȱ Testamentȱ (NeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱNeukirchenerȱVerlag,ȱ1996).ȱ

ȱ

131ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ

JERȱ YJ[OT[[TDFYJ[OT[ JYJ[TDF JYJ[

ȱ

ȱ

1.1aȱ 1ȱ

1.00ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:2aȱ 2ȱ

0.50ȱ

0.50ȱ

0.50ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:2bȱ 3ȱ

0.33ȱ

0.66ȱ

0.33ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:3aȱ 4ȱ

0.25ȱ

0.50ȱ

0.50ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:4aȱ 5ȱ

0.20ȱ

0.60ȱ

0.60ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:5aȱ 6ȱ

0.16ȱ

0.66ȱ

0.50ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:5bȱ 7ȱ

0.14ȱ

0.71ȱ

0.43ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:5cȱ 8ȱ

0.12ȱ

0.77ȱ

0.37ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:5dȱ 9ȱ

0.11ȱ

0.80ȱ

0.33ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:6aȱ 10ȱ

0.10ȱ

0.82ȱ

0.30ȱ

0.10ȱ

1:7aȱ 11ȱ

0.09ȱ

0.83ȱ

0.27ȱ

0.18ȱ

ȱ everyoneȱ

ȱ

1:7bȱ 12ȱ

0.08ȱ

0.84ȱ

0.25ȱ

0.17ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:7cȱ 13ȱ

0.08ȱ

0.84ȱ

0.23ȱ

0.15ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:7dȱ 14ȱ

0.07ȱ

0.86ȱ

0.21ȱ

0.14ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ

1:8aȱ 15ȱ

0.06ȱ

0.87ȱ

ȱ

0.20ȱ

ȱ

1:8bȱ 16ȱ

0.06ȱ

0.87ȱ

ȱ

0.19ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:9aȱ 17ȱ

0.05ȱ

0.88ȱ

ȱ

0.24ȱ

myȱwordsȱ

yourȱmouthȱ

1:9bȱ 18ȱ

0.05ȱ

0.83ȱ

ȱ

0.28ȱ

ȱ

ȱ kingdomsȱ

1:10aȱ 19ȱ

0.05ȱ

0.84ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

nationsȱ

1:11aȱ 20ȱ

0.05ȱ

0.85ȱ

0.20ȱ

ȱ

almondȱbranch

ȱ

1:12aȱ 22ȱ

0.04ȱ

0.86ȱ

ȱ

0.27ȱ

myȱwordȱ

ȱ ȱ

1:13aȱ 24ȱ

0.04ȱ

0.83ȱ

0.20ȱ

0.33ȱ

boilingȱpotȱ

1:13bȱ 25ȱ

0.04ȱ

0.84ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:13cȱ 26ȱ

0.03ȱ

0.85ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:14aȱ 27ȱ

0.03ȱ

0.85ȱ

ȱ

0.33ȱ

disasterȱ

ȱ

1:15aȱ 28ȱ

0.03ȱ

0.85ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

peoplesȱ/ȱnorth

kings/Jeru.ȱ

1:16aȱ 29ȱ

0.03ȱ

0.85ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

myȱjudgments

otherȱgodsȱ

1:17aȱ 30ȱ

0.03ȱ

0.86ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:18aȱ 31ȱ

0.03ȱ

0.86ȱ

ȱ

0.34ȱ kings/officials priests/peopleȱ

1:19aȱ 32ȱ

0.03ȱ

0.87ȱ

ȱ

0.37ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1:19dȱ 35ȱ

0.03ȱ

0.88ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

2:1aȱ 36ȱ 2:2aȱ ȱ

0.02ȱ

0.84ȱ

ȱ

0.35ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

0.02ȱ

0.86ȱ

0.14ȱ

0.34ȱ

Jerusalemȱ

ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ4.8ȱȱȱCumulativeȱReferentialȱDensityȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2ȱ

132ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Whileȱmoreȱwillȱbeȱsaidȱregardingȱthisȱarrayȱofȱtopicalȱentitiesȱatȱaȱlaterȱȱ pointȱinȱthisȱchapter,ȱitȱisȱworthȱnotingȱthatȱJeremiahȱandȱYahwehȱareȱ wellȱentrenchedȱasȱspeechȱactȱparticipantsȱbyȱ1.19d.ȱItȱisȱonlyȱafterȱthisȱ extendedȱsectionȱthatȱaȱthirdȱspeechȱactȱparticipant,ȱJerusalem,ȱisȱmenȬ tionedȱ inȱ 2.2a.ȱ Secondaryȱ topicalȱ entitiesȱ occurȱ withinȱ theȱ speechȱ framesȱ establishedȱ byȱ theȱ mainȱ interlocutors.ȱ Bothȱ theȱ viewpointȱ andȱ cognitiveȱconstrualȱofȱtheȱsecondaryȱentitiesȱisȱrestrictedȱtoȱtheȱcharacȬ ter’sȱ perspectiveȱ –ȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ human,ȱ Jeremiah,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱtheȱdivine,ȱYahweh,ȱonȱtheȱother.ȱReconcilingȱtheȱdifferenceȱinȱ animacyȱbetweenȱtheȱhumanȱandȱtheȱdivineȱasȱinterlocutorsȱinȱaȱcomȬ municationȱ situationȱ isȱ discussedȱ inȱ sectionȱ B.3,ȱ below.ȱ Theȱ relativeȱ animacyȱ ofȱ theȱ almondȱ branchȱ andȱ theȱ boilingȱ potȱ willȱ alsoȱ beȱ adȬ dressedȱinȱthatȱsection.ȱ d. PerceptionȱandȱCognitionȱ Theȱthirdȱgroupȱofȱtermsȱthatȱcueȱspaceȱbuildingȱinȱaȱcognitiveȱnetworkȱ areȱverbsȱofȱperceptionȱandȱcognition.ȱAsȱnotedȱinȱChapterȱ2,ȱverbsȱofȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱshareȱseveralȱ characteristics.ȱ First,ȱtheȱ gramȬ maticalȱsubjectȱofȱtheseȱverbsȱisȱanȱexperiencer,ȱratherȱthanȱaȱprototypiȬ calȱagent.48ȱSecondly,ȱtheȱverbsȱdemonstrateȱnonȬprototypicalȱtransitiviȬ ty,ȱ asȱ evidencedȱ byȱ theȱ tendencyȱ ofȱ theseȱ verbsȱ toȱ takeȱ complementȱ clausesȱasȱgrammaticalȱobjects.ȱFinally,ȱtheseȱverbsȱdemonstrateȱaȱlowȱ degreeȱofȱdynamicity.ȱȱ VerbsȱofȱperceptionȱareȱincludedȱinȱLNȱsemanticȱdomainȱ24,ȱsensoryȱ eventsȱandȱ states.ȱ Thisȱdomainȱ includesȱ theȱ subdomainsȱ see,ȱ hear,ȱsmell,ȱ taste,ȱtouch/feel,ȱpain/sufferingȱandȱgeneralȱsensoryȱperception.ȱTheȱprimaryȱ functionȱ ofȱ verbsȱ ofȱ perceptionȱ isȱ toȱ indicateȱ “theȱ senseȱ modalityȱ andȱ theȱexperiencerȱwhichȱisȱtheȱsourceȱofȱinformation.”49ȱFromȱaȱtypologiȬ calȱ perspective,ȱ theȱ termȱ seeȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ unmarkedȱ ofȱ theȱ perceptionȱ terms.ȱThisȱisȱfollowedȱbyȱhear,ȱthenȱtouch,ȱtasteȱandȱsmellȱasȱaȱgroup.50ȱ Thisȱ hasȱ implicationsȱ forȱ understandingȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ becauseȱ thereȱisȱaȱcertainȱamountȱofȱambiguityȱregardingȱtheȱsenseȱmodalityȱbyȱ whichȱ Jeremiahȱ perceivesȱ theȱ wordȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord.ȱ Termsȱ fromȱ thisȱ seȬ manticȱdomainȱalsoȱtendȱtoȱextendȱtheirȱmeaningȱintoȱtheȱareaȱofȱcogniȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 48ȱȱ VibergȱnotesȱthatȱverbsȱofȱperceptionȱmayȱbeȱeitherȱexperiencerȬbasedȱorȱphenomeȬ nonȬbased.ȱ ExperiencerȬbasedȱ verbsȱ mayȱ signalȱ activity,ȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ phraseȱ Peterȱ wasȱ lookingȱ atȱ theȱ birds;ȱ orȱ experience,ȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ phraseȱ Peterȱ sawȱ theȱ birds;ȱ whereasȱ pheȬ nomenonȬbasedȱ verbsȱ indicateȱ theȱ phenomenonȱ itself,ȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ phraseȱ Peterȱ lookedȱ happy.ȱÅkeȱViberg,ȱ“VerbsȱofȱPerception,”ȱinȱLanguageȱTypologyȱandȱUniversals:ȱAnȱInȬ ternationalȱHandbook,ȱed.ȱM.ȱHaspelmathȱ(Berlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001),ȱ1295.ȱȱ 49ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ 50ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ1297.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ

133ȱ

tion.51ȱForȱexample,ȱinȱEnglishȱtheȱphraseȱIȱseeȱmayȱreferȱbothȱtoȱphysiȬ calȱperceptionȱandȱtoȱunderstandingȱasȱwell.ȱȱ Verbsȱ ofȱ cognitionȱ areȱ alsoȱ knownȱ asȱ mentalȱ statesȱ predicates.ȱ Thisȱ termȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ LNȱ semanticȱ domainsȱ ofȱ knowledge,ȱ 28;ȱ memoryȱ andȱ recall,ȱ 29;ȱ thinking,ȱ 30;ȱ andȱ beliefȱ andȱ trust,ȱ 31.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Croftȱ andȱ Cruse,ȱtheseȱtermsȱrelateȱdirectlyȱtoȱtheȱissueȱofȱperspectiveȱbasedȱuponȱ knowledge,ȱ beliefȱ andȱ attitudes.52ȱ Thisȱ understandingȱ ofȱ perspectiveȱ relatesȱtoȱtheȱissueȱofȱmodality,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱsemanticȱratherȱthanȱaȱsynȬ tacticȱorȱformalȱcategory.ȱModalityȱrefersȱtoȱ‘theȱattitudeȱofȱtheȱspeakerȱ towardsȱthatȱexpressedȱinȱtheȱsentence’,ȱorȱtoȱ‘theȱspeakerȇsȱsubjectiveȱ judgmentȱ concerningȱ theȱ factualityȱ ofȱ theȱ events.’53ȱ Thus,ȱ onceȱ again,ȱ theseȱspaceȱbuildingȱtermsȱareȱdirectlyȱassociatedȱwithȱaȱspeaker:ȱeitherȱ theȱ author/originatorȱ ofȱ theȱ text,ȱ orȱ aȱ characterȱ withinȱ theȱ text.ȱ Theȱ termsȱ indexȱinformationȱfromȱtheȱcharacterȇsȱinternalȱperspective,ȱthusȱ theȱtermȱepistemicȱmodalityȱisȱappropriateȱhere.ȱȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Janȱ Nuyts,ȱ thinkȱ isȱ theȱ prototypicalȱ termȱ withinȱ theȱ semanticȱ fieldȱ ofȱepistemicȱmodality.ȱ Heȱthenȱ listsȱbelieve,ȱdoubt,ȱ know,ȱ supposeȱandȱguessȱasȱfurtherȱexamples.54ȱBecauseȱtheȱtermsȱindexȱinforȬ mationȱ fromȱ theȱ characterȇsȱ internalȱ perspective,ȱ theȱ newȱ spacesȱ openedȱbyȱtheȱtermsȱareȱsomewhatȱrestrictedȱwithinȱtheȱmentalȱspacesȱ network.ȱTheyȱwillȱconnectȱdirectlyȱtoȱtheirȱspaceȱofȱorigin,ȱbutȱmightȱ notȱconnectȱdirectlyȱbackȱtoȱtheȱbaseȱspace,ȱthatȱconnectionȱmightȱwellȱ beȱinheritedȱfromȱtheȱspaceȱofȱorigin.ȱThus,ȱaȱmentalȱspaceȱopenedȱbyȱaȱ mentalȱstatesȱpredicateȱwillȱbeȱhighlyȱdependentȱuponȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱ speakerȱforȱitsȱinterpretation,ȱandȱbyȱdefinitionȱisȱaȱsubspaceȱinȱaȱlargerȱ network.ȱThisȱisȱdemonstratedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱdiagram,ȱwhichȱzoomsȱ inȱ onȱ theȱ discourseȱ spacesȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.4Ȭ1.19ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ presentȱ aȱ finelyȬgrainedȱ viewȱ ofȱ thisȱ sectionȱ ofȱ text.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ diagramȱ theȱ spacesȱ openedȱbyȱtheȱtermȱ J Tȱareȱindicatedȱbyȱaȱdashedȱline,ȱandȱareȱencapȬ sulatedȱwithinȱtheirȱspeechȱframes,ȱdemonstratingȱrestrictedȱaccessȱdueȱ toȱtheȱembeddingȱwithinȱaȱcharacter’sȱperspective.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱtermȱ J Tȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱusedȱasȱaȱverbȱofȱperception.ȱHowever,ȱonceȱagainȱtheȱ natureȱofȱJeremiah’sȱperceptionȱisȱdebated.ȱWasȱitȱaȱfullȬfledgedȱvision?ȱ Wasȱ itȱ anȱ observationȱ ofȱ ordinaryȱ objectsȱ madeȱ inȱ passing?ȱ Simplyȱ stated,ȱtheȱperceptionȱitselfȱisȱtheȱimportantȱaspectȱofȱtheȱexperience.

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 51ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ1304.ȱ 52ȱȱ CroftȱandȱCruse,ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics,ȱ58.ȱ 53ȱȱ Bussman,ȱH.ȱBussman,ȱDictionary,ȱ307;ȱvanȱderȱMerwe,ȱNaudéȱandȱKroeze,ȱC.ȱVanȱderȱ Merwe,ȱJ.ȱNaudéȱandȱJ.ȱKroeze,ȱBHȱReference,ȱ361.ȱȱ 54ȱȱ Nuyts,ȱEpistemicȱModality,ȱLanguage,ȱandȱConceptualization,ȱ110.ȱ

134ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ4.9ȱȱȱCognitiveȱConstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.19ȱ

Figureȱ4.9ȱdemonstratesȱthatȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.19ȱ isȱ aȱ multiȬlayeredȱ process.ȱ SpaceȬbuilders,ȱ includingȱ textȬdeicticȱ termsȱ andȱ termsȱ fromȱ theȱ semanticȱ domainsȱ ofȱ communication,ȱ perceptionȱ andȱcognitionȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱformationȱofȱnumerousȱinterconnectedȱ cognitiveȱpackets.ȱTheȱcognitiveȱpacketsȱareȱstructuredȱbyȱtheȱcontainȬ mentȱ schemaȱ inȱ theȱ N1ȱ sectionȱ atȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ andȱ byȱ theȱ setȱ ofȱ speechȱ framesȱ inȱ theȱ N2ȱ sectionȱ atȱ 1.4Ȭ1.19.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ speechȱ framesȱ inȱ 1.11ȱ andȱ 1.13ȱ containȱ perceptionȱ spacesȱ initiatedȱ byȱ theȱ unȬ markedȱperceptionȱtermȱ J T.ȱWithinȱtheȱperceptionȱspaces,ȱJeremiahȱisȱ askedȱtoȱreportȱwhatȱheȱperceivesȱvisuallyȱandȱdoesȱso.ȱTwoȱobservaȬ tionsȱ areȱ relevant.ȱ First,ȱ despiteȱ theȱ communicationȱ frame,ȱ ambiguityȱ stillȱexistsȱregardingȱtheȱmodeȱofȱperceptionȱbyȱwhichȱJeremiahȱappreȬ hendsȱ theȱ communicationȱ event.ȱ Secondly,ȱ althoughȱ thisȱ sectionȱ doesȱ notȱcontainȱaȱhighȱnumberȱofȱliteraryȱmetaphors,ȱitȱdoesȱexhibitȱaȱliteȬ raryȱqualityȱthatȱextendsȱbeyondȱaȱsimpleȱnarrative.ȱMoreȱspecifically,ȱ theȱspeechȱframesȱintroduceȱaȱtypeȱofȱlevelingȱbetweenȱtheȱhumanȱandȱ theȱ divineȱ asȱ Jeremiahȱ reportsȱ hisȱ communicationȱ withȱ Yahweh.ȱ Thisȱ mayȱ beȱ accountedȱ forȱ byȱ theȱ Greatȱ Chainȱ ofȱ Beingȱ conceptualȱ metaȬ phor,ȱwhichȱwillȱbeȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱsection.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ

135ȱ

3. ConceptualȱMetaphorȱandȱLiteraryȱMetaphorȱ Becauseȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ providesȱ informationȱ fromȱ theȱ perspecȬ tiveȱofȱhumanȱexperienceȱandȱmakesȱthisȱembodiedȱperspectiveȱavailaȬ bleȱ forȱ understandingȱ abstractȱ experiencesȱ andȱ concepts,ȱ thisȱ studyȱ utilisesȱ aȱ weakȱ experientialistȱ approachȱ forȱ analysingȱ andȱ describingȱ conceptualȱ metaphor.ȱ Theȱ approachȱ isȱ necessarilyȱ weakȱ becauseȱ aȱ strongȱ experientialistȱ approachȱ wouldȱ ruleȱ outȱ nonȬembodiedȱ expeȬ riences,ȱ creatingȱ untoldȱ difficultiesȱ forȱ discussingȱ theȱ nonȬembodiedȱ characteristicsȱofȱhumankindȱand,ȱmoreȱimportantly,ȱforȱdiscussingȱtheȱ Divine.ȱ Kövecsesȱ describesȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ andȱhumanȱexperienceȱasȱfollows:ȱ Conceptualȱ metaphorsȱ areȱ groundedȱ in,ȱ orȱ motivatedȱ byȱ humanȱ expeȬ rience…Specifically,ȱweȱexperienceȱtheȱinterconnectednessȱofȱtwoȱdomainsȱ ofȱ experienceȱ andȱ thisȱ justifiesȱ usȱ conceptuallyȱ linkingȱ theȱ twoȱ doȬ mains…theȱexperiencesȱonȱwhichȱtheȱconceptualȱmetaphorsȱareȱbasedȱmayȱ beȱnotȱonlyȱbodilyȱbutȱalsoȱperceptual,ȱcognitive,ȱbiological,ȱorȱcultural.55ȱ

Conceptualȱ metaphorȱ researchȱ isȱ aȱ relativelyȱ newȱ field,ȱ yetȱ theȱ issuesȱ involvedȱ inȱ cognitiveȱ studiesȱ areȱ reflectedȱ inȱ biblicalȱ interpretationȱ asȱ farȱ backȱ asȱ theȱ 1190ȱ ADȱ workȱ ofȱ Maimonides.56ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ inȱ hisȱ expositionȱofȱtheȱtermȱtemunah,ȱMaimonidesȱstates:ȱ ȱ…inȱtheȱBible,ȱthisȱtermȱisȱusedȱinȱthreeȱdifferentȱsenses:ȱtoȱsignifyȱtheȱoutȬ linesȱ ofȱ thingsȱ thatȱ areȱ perceivedȱ byȱ ourȱ bodilyȱ senses;ȱ toȱ signifyȱ theȱ imȬ pressionsȱ retainedȱ inȱ imaginationȱ whenȱ theȱ objectsȱ haveȱ ceasedȱ toȱ affectȱ ourȱsenses;ȱandȱtoȱsignifyȱtheȱtrueȱformȱofȱanȱobjectȱwhichȱisȱperceivedȱonlyȱ byȱtheȱintellectȱ–ȱandȱitȱisȱinȱthisȱthirdȱsignificationȱthatȱtheȱtermȱisȱappliedȱ toȱGod.57ȱȱ

Theȱ experientialistȱ approachȱ proposesȱ thatȱ theȱ “outlinesȱ ofȱ thingsȱ weȱ perceiveȱwithȱourȱeyes”ȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱformationȱofȱimagesȱandȱimȬ ageȱschemata,ȱwhichȱareȱakinȱtoȱtheȱ“impressionsȱretainedȱinȱimaginaȬ tion.”ȱAdditionally,ȱsomeȱwouldȱproposeȱthatȱtheȱimpressionsȱretainedȱ inȱ theȱ imaginationȱ areȱ derivedȱ notȱ onlyȱ byȱ visualȱ perception,ȱ butȱ byȱ otherȱsensoryȱexperiencesȱasȱwell.ȱJackendoff,ȱaȱcognitiveȱscientist,ȱproȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 55ȱȱ Kövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ249.ȱ 56ȱȱ LakoffȱandȱJohnsonȱareȱtwoȱimportantȱfiguresȱinȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱresearch.ȱSeeȱ Georgeȱ Lakoff,ȱ Women,ȱ Fire,ȱ andȱ Dangerousȱ Things:ȱ Whatȱ Categoriesȱ Revealȱ Aboutȱ theȱ Humanȱ Mindȱ (Chicago:ȱ UCP,ȱ 1987);ȱ Lakoffȱ andȱ Johnson,ȱ Metaphorsȱ Weȱ Liveȱ By;ȱ GeorgeȱLakoffȱandȱMarkȱJohnson,ȱPhilosophyȱinȱtheȱFlesh:ȱTheȱEmbodiedȱMindȱ andȱItsȱ ChallengeȱtoȱWesternȱThoughtȱ(NewȱYork:ȱBasicȱBooks,ȱ1999).ȱSeeȱalsoȱGerardȱJ.ȱSteen,ȱ “IdentifyingȱMetaphorȱinȱLanguage,”ȱStyleȱ(2002),ȱ1Ȭ19.ȱ 57ȱȱ Mosesȱ Maimonides,ȱ Theȱ Guideȱ forȱ theȱ Perplexed,ȱ trans.ȱ M.ȱ Friedlanderȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ BarnesȱandȱNoble,ȱ2004),ȱ25.ȱ

136ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

posesȱaȱmodelȱinȱwhichȱvisualȱrepresentationsȱareȱjoinedȱbyȱhapticȱreȬ presentationsȱandȱauditoryȱlocalisationsȱinȱthisȱprocess.58ȱAdditionally,ȱ imageȱ schemataȱ representȱ oneȱ wayȱ ofȱ organisingȱ theȱ impressionsȱ reȬ tainedȱ inȱ theȱimagination.ȱImageȱschemata,ȱsuchȱasȱcontainment,ȱendȱofȱ path,ȱscale,ȱcentreȬperiphery,ȱcycle,ȱforce,ȱlink,ȱpartȬwhole,ȱpathȱandȱverticalityȱ areȱbasedȱuponȱhumanȱexperiencesȱandȱstructureȱmanyȱofȱourȱabstractȱ conceptsȱmetaphorically.59ȱȱ a. TheȱExtendedȱGreatȱChainȱMetaphorȱ Beforeȱ movingȱ onȱ toȱ theȱ descriptionȱ andȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ interfaceȱ beȬ tweenȱcognitiveȱmetaphorȱandȱliteraryȱmetaphorȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.13,ȱitȱisȱ necessaryȱtoȱexamineȱtheȱissueȱofȱmetaphorȱsystems.ȱKövecsesȱproposȬ esȱthatȱconceptualȱmetaphorsȱareȱnotȱisolatedȱoccurrences,ȱbutȱfunctionȱ inȱlargerȱclusters,ȱwhichȱheȱdescribesȱasȱmetaphorȱsystems.ȱTwoȱmajorȱ metaphorȱ systemsȱ haveȱ beenȱ proposed:ȱ theȱ Extendedȱ Greatȱ Chainȱ ofȱ Beingȱ metaphor,ȱ andȱ theȱ Eventȱ Structureȱ metaphor.ȱ Theȱ Extendedȱ GreatȱChainȱofȱBeingȱmetaphorȱcorrelatesȱwithȱobjects,ȱwhileȱtheȱEventȱ Structureȱmetaphorȱcorrelatesȱwithȱactions,ȱorȱstatesȱofȱbeing.ȱȱ Grammariansȱ willȱ likelyȱ noteȱ theȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ nounsȱ andȱ theȱExtendedȱGreatȱChainȱmetaphor,ȱandȱtheȱconnectionȱbetweenȱverbsȱ andȱtheȱEventȱStructureȱmetaphor.ȱCognitiveȱlinguistsȱmightȱassociateȱ entitiesȱwithȱtheȱfirst,ȱandȱrelationsȱwithȱtheȱsecond.ȱLinguistsȱatȱlargeȱ willȱ noteȱ theȱconnectionsȱ betweenȱ theȱGreatȱ Chainȱofȱ Beingȱmetaphorȱ andȱtheȱanimacyȱhierarchy,ȱwhichȱisȱusedȱtoȱanalyseȱagencyȱinȱvariousȱ typesȱofȱsentences.ȱȱ ȱ AnimacyȱHierarchyȱ Speechȱactȱparticipantȱ1ȱ Speechȱactȱparticipantȱ2ȱ Speechȱactȱparticipantȱ3ȱ ProperȱNounȱ Animateȱ Inanimateȱ Massȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 58ȱȱ Theȱtermȱhapticȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱsenseȱofȱtouch.ȱJackendoff,ȱLanguagesȱofȱtheȱMind,ȱ100.ȱ 59ȱȱ Kövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ37.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ

137ȱ

ExtendedȱGreatȱChainȱofȱBeingȱ Divineȱ Creation/Cosmosȱ Societyȱ Humans:ȱhigherȱorderȱattributes,ȱbehaviourȱ Animals:ȱinstinctualȱattributes,ȱbehaviourȱ Plants:ȱbiologicalȱattributes,ȱbehaviourȱ Complexȱobjects:ȱstructuralȱattributes,ȱfunctionalȱbehaviourȱ Naturalȱphysicalȱthings:ȱnaturalȱphysicalȱattributes,ȱbehaviourȱ

ȱ Significantly,ȱtheȱExtendedȱGreatȱChainȱisȱnotȱaȱmetaphoricalȱsystemȱinȱ andȱofȱitself.ȱRather,ȱitȱbecomesȱaȱmetaphoricalȱsystemȱwhenȱ“…ȱaȱparȬ ticularȱlevelȱofȱtheȱchainȱisȱusedȱtoȱunderstandȱanotherȱlevel.”60ȱThisȱisȱ preciselyȱ whatȱ occursȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ chapterȱ ofȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Asȱ previouslyȱ noted,ȱJeremiahȱandȱtheȱLORDȱareȱpresentedȱasȱtheȱmainȱinterlocutorsȱinȱ anȱextendedȱsectionȱofȱreportedȱspeech,ȱandȱJerusalemȱisȱincludedȱasȱanȱ addresseeȱ atȱ 2.2.ȱ Cognitivelyȱ speaking,ȱ theȱ speechȱ domainȱ isȱ nonȬ prototypicalȱdueȱtoȱtheȱcharacterizationȱofȱtheȱLORDȱasȱaȱspeechȱparticiȬ pant.61ȱThisȱportrayalȱshiftsȱtheȱLORDȱdownȱbyȱthreeȱslotsȱinȱtheȱGreatȱ Chainȱ hierarchy.ȱ Inȱthisȱ sectionȱ ofȱ text,ȱ theȱLORDȱ isȱ understoodȱ inȱhuȬ manȱterms,ȱspecificallyȱinȱtheȱareasȱofȱperception,ȱcognition,ȱcommuniȬ cationȱandȱemotion.ȱAdditionally,ȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.3ȱtheȱtermȱIsraelȱrefersȱ toȱ societyȱ asȱ aȱ whole.ȱ Thusȱ societyȱ isȱ alsoȱ presentedȱ atȱ humanȱ scale,ȱ whichȱisȱaȱsingleȱslotȱshiftȱonȱtheȱhierarchy.ȱȱ Whenȱ theȱ LORDȱ andȱ Israelȱ areȱ presentedȱ atȱ humanȱ scale,ȱ theȱ ExȬ tendedȱ Greatȱ Chainȱ ofȱ Beingȱ hierarchyȱ isȱ beingȱ usedȱ asȱ aȱ metaphorȱ system.ȱTheȱ“realityȱspace”ȱinȱtheȱtextȱisȱconstruedȱmetaphoricallyȱ–ȱitȱ isȱ plausible,ȱ yetȱ doesȱ notȱ representȱ aȱ oneȱ toȱ oneȱ correspondenceȱ withȱ theȱworldȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱwhereȱbothȱtheȱLORDȱandȱIsrael/Judahȱareȱ entitiesȱextendingȱfarȱbeyondȱhumanȱscale.ȱTheȱconceptualȱmetaphoriȬ calȱconstrualȱofȱallȱthreeȱentitiesȱatȱhumanȱscaleȱmakesȱtheȱexperientialȬ istȱapproachȱanȱeffectiveȱapproachȱtoȱthisȱsectionȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱȱ KövecsesȱproposesȱthatȱbothȱtheȱGreatȱChainȱandȱtheȱEventȱStrucȬ tureȱconceptualȱmetaphorsȱareȱavailableȱasȱsourceȱdomainsȱforȱtheȱtarȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 60ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ126.ȱ 61ȱȱ TheȱspeechȱsituationȱisȱalsoȱnonȬprototypicalȱaccordingȱtoȱMiller’sȱlinguisticȱanalysis,ȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ theȱ markedȱ metapragmaticȱ phrasalȱ expressionȱ TO N[N JYJ[TDF[J[Y.ȱȱ

138ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

getȱ domainȱ Abstractȱ Complexȱ System,ȱ i.e.ȱ society,ȱ government,ȱ careerȱ andȱ relationships.62ȱ Theȱ abstractȱ complexȱ systemȱ targetȱ domainȱ mayȱ thenȱ beȱ understoodȱ byȱ correlations,ȱ technicallyȱ knownȱ asȱ mappings,ȱ betweenȱsuchȱsourceȱdomainsȱasȱtheȱhumanȱbody,ȱbuildings,ȱ machines,ȱ andȱ plants.ȱ Theseȱ mappingsȱ resultȱ inȱ complexȱ conceptualȱ metaphorsȱ suchȱasȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱBUILDING,ȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱPLANTȱandȱsoȱforth.ȱTheȱapȬ pealȱofȱ thisȱ approachȱforȱunderstandingȱtheȱconceptualȱ metaphorȱ sysȬ temsȱpresentȱinȱMTȱJeremiahȱisȱimmediatelyȱapparentȱuponȱperusalȱofȱ theȱ specificsȱ ofȱ Jeremiah’sȱ instructionsȱ toȱ uprootȱ andȱ tearȱ down…toȱ buildȱ andȱ toȱ plant.ȱ Theȱ whatȱ ofȱ theseȱ statementsȱ surelyȱ movesȱ beyondȱ physicalȱbuildingsȱandȱnaturalȱplants,ȱtoȱtheȱcomplexȱabstractȱsystemsȱ presentȱ inȱ theȱ societyȱ ofȱ Jeremiah’sȱ day,ȱ includingȱ temple,ȱ covenant,ȱ king,ȱandȱtheȱdichotomyȱbetweenȱinsiderȱandȱoutsider.63ȱȱ b. ScopingȱIn:ȱCognitiveȱConstructionȱinȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Jeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱandȱ1.13Ȭ1.19ȱ ThisȱsectionȱpresentsȱaȱsentenceȬlevelȱanalysisȱofȱJeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱandȱ 1.13Ȭ1.19ȱinȱorderȱtoȱexamineȱtheȱmostȱdeeplyȱembeddedȱmentalȱspacesȱ inȱtheȱcognitiveȱnetworkȱ–theȱperceptionȱspacesȱatȱ1.11ȱandȱ1.13.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 62ȱȱ Kövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ48.ȱ 63ȱȱ Stulmanȱ followsȱ thisȱ lineȱ ofȱ reasoningȱ inȱ hisȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ “dismantlingȱ ofȱ JuȬ dah’sȱsacredȱworld.”ȱLouisȱStulman,ȱOrderȱAmidȱChaos:ȱJeremiahȱasȱSymbolicȱTapestry,ȱ BiblicalȱSeminar;ȱ57ȱ(Sheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱ31.ȱ

ȱ

139ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ

ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

[CN JŽYJ[TCDF[KJ[hY 1.11a TQO N b 8JŽ[OTo[JG QTJH7C JHO c TCOQ ŽY d JG QT[oP$ FSHN4CO  e [CN JŽYJ[TGO v
ȱ Figureȱ4.10ȱȱȱClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱ

ȱ Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stemȱ Focusȱ

MSCȱ

1.11a

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬSȱ

3sgMȱ

Predȱ

VP=N2ȱ

b

Nȱ

Qetolȱ

ȱ

ȱ

SBȱ

c

NQPȱ

XȬQotelȱ

ȱ

Predȱ interȱ

M=N2ȱ

d

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱȱȱ

1sgȱ

Predȱ

SBȱ

e

NQPȱ

XȬQotelȱ

sgMȱ

Argȱ

M=N2ȱ

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬSȱȱȱ

3sgMȱ

Predȱ

SBȱ

b

NQȱ

Qatal—Qetolȱ

2sgMȱ

Predȱ

ȱ M=N2ȱ

c

NQȱ

+Qotelȱ PreP;ȱQetolȱ

sgMȱ

Pȱ

JERȱ

1.12a

ȱ Figureȱ4.11ȱȱȱExplanationȱofȱClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱ

ȱ

140ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

V[oP[CN JŽYJ[TCDF[KJ[hY 1.13aȱ TQO N bȱ JG QTJH7C JHO  cȱ TCOQ ŽY dȱ JG QT[oP$ CZ8RŽPT[KU  eȱ JŽP2RHE[ƒP3KOY[ŽPHR8 fȱ [HN JŽYJ[TGO v
ȱ 1.15aȱ

JŽYJ[]W P bȱ 8 HD8 cȱ ]KCNH8T[[T$CZCVG32 UK.[K 8PVŽPY dȱ D[KDHUHJ[GVQO2ZNH.NCY JHF8J[[THNH.NCY

ȱ Figureȱ4.12ȱȱȱClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.13Ȭ1.15ȱ

e fȱ

ȱ

141ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ JERȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Focusȱ

MSCȱ

1.13aȱ

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬSȱ

3sgMȱ

PFȱ

VP=N2ȱ

bȱ

Nȱ

Qetolȱ

ȱ

ȱ

cȱ

NQPȱ

XȬQotelȱ

sgMȱ

PFȱ interȱ

dȱ

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱȱ

1sgȱ

PFȱ

SBȱ

eȱ

NQPȱ

XȬQotelȱ

sgMȱ

AFȱ

M=N2ȱ

fȱ

NQȱ

NmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

N2ȱ

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬSȱ

3sgMȱ

PFȱ

SBȱ

bȱ

NQȱ

XȬYiqtolȱȱ

3sFȱ

Niphalȱ PFȱ

1.15aȱ

NQȱ

+Qotelȱ

sgMȱ

SFȱ

bȱ

NQȱ

focusȱ

ȱ

ȱ

cȱ

NQȱ

WȬQatalȱȱȱȱȱȱ

3plȱ

PFȱ

dȱ

NQȱ

WȬQatalȱ

3plȱ

PFȱ

eȱ

NQȱ

PrePȱ

ȱ

ȱ

fȱ

NQȱ

PrePȱ

ȱ

ȱ

1.14aȱ

SBȱ M=N2ȱ

M=N2ȱ

ȱ N2ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ4.13ȱȱȱExplanationȱofȱClauseȱAnalysisȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.13Ȭ1.15ȱ

c.

Syntaxȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱandȱ1.13Ȭ1.15ȱexhibitȱaȱhighȱdegreeȱofȱsyntacticȱsimiȬ larity.ȱThisȱisȱevidentȱinȱFigureȱ4.9,ȱwhereȱtheȱmentalȱspacesȱdiagramsȱ showȱ identicalȱ patterning,ȱ withȱ theȱ exceptionȱ ofȱ theȱ insertionȱ ofȱ theȱ focusȱ phraseȱ JYJ[] Patȱ 1.15.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.11aȱ andȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.13aȱ bothȱ containȱ theȱ identicalȱ metapragmaticȱ clause,ȱ [N JYJ[TDF[J[Y,ȱ butȱ 1.13ȱ includesȱ theȱ termȱ V[P,ȱ whichȱ impliesȱ aȱ secondȱ communicationȱ event.ȱ Thus,ȱwhileȱonȱoneȱlevelȱtheȱinformationȱinȱeachȱsectionȱisȱsegmented,ȱ itȱ isȱ alsoȱ intricatelyȱ enmeshedȱ inȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ structureȱ onȱ anotherȱ level.ȱCommentatorsȱdifferȱasȱtoȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱconnectionȱ(newȱsegmentȱ versusȱ twoȱ connectedȱ segments),ȱ butȱ inȱ aȱ senseȱ itȱ isȱ anȱ issueȱ thatȱ inȬ cludesȱbothȱtypesȱofȱconnection.ȱȱ

142ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Theȱ wordȱ orderȱ inȱ 1.11cȱ andȱ 1.13cȱ isȱ interrogativeȱ particleȱ –ȱ proȬ nounȱ–Verbȱ(Int)ȱSV,ȱwhichȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱirregular.ȱTheȱwordȱorderȱinȱ 1.11eȱ andȱ 1.13eȱ isȱ NPȱ –ȱ personalȱ pronounȱ –ȱ participleȱ (OSV).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱtheȱobjectȱisȱfrontedȱandȱtheȱwordȱorderȱindicatesȱthatȱtheseȱsenȬ tencesȱareȱexamplesȱofȱsentenceȱfocus.ȱThus,ȱ1.11eȱandȱ1.13eȱmightȱintroȬ duceȱ aȱ discourseȱ topicalȱ frame.ȱ Thisȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ caseȱ atȱ 1.13e,ȱȱȱ becauseȱ theȱ phraseȱ JPYRE[PROY[PRYȱ isȱ echoedȱ inȱ theȱ phraseȱ T J[D[NMNJTJZVRV_YREO ȱatȱ1.14b.ȱImplicationsȱforȱinterpretaȬ tionȱwillȱbeȱdiscussedȱbelow.ȱ d. InformationȱStructureȱ TheȱsentencesȱinȱtheȱPȱspacesȱ(Jeremiahȱ1.11cȱandȱe;ȱ1.13cȱandȱe)ȱareȱofȱ particularȱinterest,ȱasȱtheȱfourȱsentencesȱexhibitȱmarkedȱwordȱorder.ȱAllȱ fourȱareȱXȬQotelȱclauses.64ȱTheȱfrontedȱelementȱinȱtheȱfirstȱsetȱofȱclausesȱ YJ[OT[J TJV JOȱ andȱ J TJV JOȱ isȱ theȱ interrogativeȱ pronounȱ JO.ȱ Thisȱindicatesȱonlyȱthatȱtheȱclausesȱareȱquestions,ȱnotȱthatȱtheȱinterrogaȬ tiveȱpronounȱisȱinȱfocus.ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱsentenceȱinitialȱpositionȱisȱnormalȱ forȱBHȱinterrogativeȱparticles.65ȱThus,ȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱclausesȱareȱinstancesȱ ofȱ predicateȱ focus,ȱ underscoringȱ theȱ presuppositionȱ thatȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱ seeingȱsome,ȱyetȱtoȱbeȱidentified,ȱentity.ȱȱ InȱJeremiahȱ1.11cȱtheȱinterrogativeȱparticleȱisȱjoinedȱtoȱtheȱpersonalȱ pronounȱ JV byȱmaqqepȱandȱtheȱclauseȱincludesȱJeremiahȱinȱtheȱvocaȬ tive.ȱNeitherȱisȱtheȱcaseȱforȱJeremiahȱ1.13c.ȱTheȱtwoȱclausesȱprovideȱanȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ deicticȱ procedureȱ andȱ theȱ anaȬ phoricȱ procedure.ȱ Inȱ theȱ firstȱ instanceȱ theȱ vocativeȱ referenceȱ toȱ JereȬ miahȱfunctionsȱdeicticallyȱJeremiahȱisȱreactivatedȱasȱaȱtopicalȱentity.ȱInȱ theȱsecondȱinstance,ȱJeremiahȱisȱalreadyȱactivated.ȱThusȱtheȱunmarkedȱ pronominalȱJV ȱfunctionsȱanaphorically;ȱitȱcontinuesȱtoȱfocusȱattentionȱ uponȱtheȱpreviouslyȱactivatedȱreferent.ȱThisȱstrengthensȱtheȱargumentȱ forȱ aȱ closeȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ sections,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ viewȱ thatȱtheseȱareȱtwoȱseparateȱsections.66ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 64ȱȱ vanȱderȱMerweȱandȱTalstra,ȱ“Interface,”ȱ85.ȱ 65ȱȱ WhileȱRosenbaumȱproposesȱinterrogativeȱfocusȱasȱaȱsubsetȱofȱfocusȱinȱgeneral,ȱthereȱ isȱaȱtypologicalȱreasonȱthatȱthisȱisȱnotȱtheȱcase.ȱPrimusȱnotesȱthatȱcrossȬlinguisticallyȱ theȱassociationȱofȱinterrogativesȱwithȱfocusȱisȱnotȱstraightforwardȱbecauseȱinterrogaȬ tivesȱ(whȬwords)ȱdoȱnotȱcarryȱtheȱmainȱsentenceȱstress,ȱshowȱlimitedȱwordȱorderȱvaȬ riabilityȱ andȱ markȱ theȱ interrogativeȱ sentenceȱ type,ȱ whereasȱ focusȱ constituentsȱ areȱ notȱnecessarilyȱsentenceȱtypeȱmarkers;ȱtheyȱdoȱcarryȱtheȱstressȱofȱtheȱwholeȱclause,ȱ andȱshowȱmoreȱwordȱorderȱvariation.ȱPrimus,ȱ“WordȱOrderȱTypology,”ȱ873.ȱ 66ȱȱ Carrollȱ seesȱ aȱ closeȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ sections,ȱ withȱ theȱ secondȱ visionȱ beingȱpresentedȱasȱclarificationȱofȱtheȱfirst.ȱCarroll,ȱJeremiah:ȱAȱCommentary,ȱ105.ȱOnȱ theȱotherȱhand,ȱLundbomȱmakesȱaȱclearȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱtwo.ȱHeȱnotesȱthatȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ

143ȱ

However,ȱJeremiahȱ1.11eȱandȱ1.13eȱareȱinstancesȱofȱargumentȱfocus.ȱ Theȱ frontedȱ entitiesȱ inȱ theȱ responsesȱ J T[P FSNSOȱ andȱ J T[P ZYRPT[Uȱ areȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ theȱ communicationȱ event.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ notedȱ inȱ Figureȱ 4.9,ȱ whereȱ theȱ perceptionȱ spacesȱ areȱ theȱ mostȱ deeplyȱ nestedȱ spacesȱ inȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ networkȱ andȱ accessȱ isȱ restrictedȱ toȱ theȱ character’sȱ perspective.ȱ Apparently,ȱ evenȱ Yahwehmustȱ askȱ Jeremiahȱ toȱ reportȱ theȱ contentȱ ofȱ hisȱ perceptionȱ inȱ thisȱ nonȬprototypicalȱ landȬ scape!ȱInȱtheseȱclauses,ȱJeremiah,ȱtheȱembodiedȱmemberȱofȱtheȱadjacenȬ cyȱ pair,ȱ reportsȱ thatȱ heȱ seesȱ FSNSO,ȱanȱalmondȱ branch,ȱ atȱ1.11eȱ andȱ ZYRPT[U,ȱ aȱ boilingȱ pot,ȱ atȱ 1.13e.ȱ Theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theseȱ observationsȱ willȱbeȱtakenȱupȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱsection.ȱ TheseȱsectionsȱareȱaȱcontinuationȱofȱtheȱN2ȱnarrativeȱlevelȱinitiatedȱ atȱ 1.4,ȱ withȱ theȱ firstȱ instanceȱ ofȱ theȱ metapragmaticȱ phrasalȱ expressionȱ [N JYJ[TDF[J[Y,ȱ aȱ wayyiqtolȬSȱ clause.ȱ Theȱ reportedȱ communicationȱ eventȱ isȱ continuedȱ byȱ wayyiqtolȬ0ȱ clausesȱ inȱ whichȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱ bothȱ narratorȱ andȱ reportedȱ speakerȱ (1.11dȱ andȱ 1.13d),ȱ andȱ byȱ wayyiqtolȬSȱ clausesȱinȱwhichȱYahwehȱisȱtheȱreportedȱspeakerȱ(1.12aȱandȱ1.14a).ȱTheȱ perfectiveȱ wayyiqtolȱ formsȱ moveȱ theȱ reportedȱ discourseȱ forwardȱ asȱ aȱ seriesȱofȱsteppingȱstones.ȱImportantly,ȱasȱFigureȱ4.9ȱdemonstrates,ȱtheseȱ clausesȱcontainȱcommunicationȱverbsȱsoȱtheyȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱcreationȱ ofȱ subspaces,ȱ eachȱ ofȱ whichȱ containsȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ verbalȱ forms.ȱ Thus,ȱ Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ1.19ȱisȱneitherȱstraightforwardȱnarrativeȱspeech,ȱnorȱwholȬ lyȱ discursiveȱ speech,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ aȱ hybridȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ thatȱ isȱ wellȬ modelledȱbyȱtheȱnetworkȱmodelȱofȱcognitiveȱconstruction.67ȱ e.

CognitiveȱConstructionȱ

Theȱcontainmentȱschemaȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱtopicalȱentityȱ ZYRPT[UȱstrucȬ turesȱtheȱPȱspaceȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.13.ȱThisȱschemaȱfeatures:ȱ x

Boundary:ȱinȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱpotȱitself;ȱ

x

Enclosedȱareaȱorȱvolume:ȱhere,ȱtheȱboilingȱcontentsȱofȱtheȱpot;ȱandȱ

x

Excludedȱareaȱorȱvolume:ȱtheȱareaȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱliquidȱmightȱgoȱifȱ theȱpotȱtipsȱover.ȱ

Thisȱexampleȱalsoȱmakesȱuseȱofȱtheȱforceȱschema,ȱwhichȱfeaturesȱphysiȬ calȱandȱmetaphoricalȱcausalȱinteraction.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.4ȱandȱ1.11ȱareȱconnectedȱ toȱtheȱ call,ȱwhereasȱJeremiahȱ1.13ȱ introducesȱaȱ newȱrevelation.ȱLundbom,ȱJeremiahȱ1Ȭ20,ȱ240.ȱȱ 67ȱȱ TheseȱtermsȱareȱinȱboldȱtypeȱtoȱemphasiseȱtheȱnarrativeȬdiscursiveȱoppositionȱintroȬ ducedȱbyȱSchneider,ȱasȱopposedȱliteraryȱgenre.ȱSeeȱchapterȱ2,ȱsectionȱC.1.ȱ

144ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

f.

ConceptualȱMetaphorȱ

Additionally,ȱtheȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱANGERȱISȱTHEȱHEATȱOFȱAȱFLUIDȱINȱ Aȱ CONTAINERȱ structuresȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.13Ȭ1.14.ȱ Thisȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ occursȱ crossȬculturally,ȱ withȱ versionsȱ inȱ Hungarian:ȱ Angerȱ wasȱ boilingȱ insideȱofȱhim;ȱPolish:ȱHeȱisȱboilingȱwithȱrage;ȱandȱEnglish:ȱHeȱwasȱaboutȱtoȱ blowȱhisȱstack,ȱtoȱnameȱaȱfew.ȱȱ Theȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ PRESSURISEDȱ CONTAINERȱ metaphorȱ forȱ angerȱ providesȱ aȱ setȱ ofȱ mappingsȱ thatȱ accountȱ forȱ theȱ informationȱ inȱ theseȱ verses:ȱȱȱ x

containerȱwithȱsubstanceȱinȱitȱ ȱ

theȱangryȱperson’sȱbodyȱ

x

theȱsubstanceȱinȱtheȱcontainerȱ ȱ

theȱangerȱ

x

theȱphysicalȱpressureȱwithinȱȱ ȱ

theȱpotentiallyȱdangerousȱforceȱ

x

theȱcauseȱofȱtheȱpressureȱ

ȱ

theȱcauseȱofȱtheȱdangerousȱforceȱ

x

theȱcontrolȱofȱtheȱpressureȱ

ȱ

theȱcontrolȱofȱtheȱforceȱ

x

theȱinabilityȱtoȱcontrolȱtheȱpressureȱ

theȱinabilityȱtoȱcontrolȱtheȱforce68ȱ

First,ȱtheȱconcreteȱobject,ȱtheȱpot,ȱmapsȱwithȱtheȱNorthȱviaȱtheȱcontainȬ mentȱschema.ȱTheȱpotȱandȱtheȱNorthȱeachȱcontainȱsomethingȱ–ȱtheȱpotȱ containsȱtheȱactualȱboilingȱliquid,ȱwhileȱtheȱNorthȱcontainsȱtheȱabstractȱ JTJ,ȱ theȱ evil,ȱ mentionedȱ inȱ verseȱ14.ȱSecondly,ȱ theȱ potȱ isȱtippingȱ andȱ theȱ boilingȱ liquidȱ isȱ aboutȱ toȱ overflowȱ andȱ likewise,ȱ evilȱ isȱ aboutȱ toȱ breakȱforthȱfromȱtheȱNorth.ȱTheȱforceȱdynamicsȱinȱtheȱimageȱareȱimpliȬ cit,ȱinȱthatȱtheȱheatȱsourceȱthatȱisȱcausingȱtheȱpotȱtoȱboilȱisȱtheȱyetȱtoȱbeȱ exploredȱ issueȱ ofȱ disobedience.ȱ Theȱ people’sȱ disobedienceȱ causesȱ theȱ anger,ȱ whichȱ belongsȱ toȱ Yahweh.ȱ Heȱ isȱ aboutȱ toȱ allowȱ thisȱ emotionȱ toȱ overflow.ȱTheȱvehicleȱforȱtheȱoverflowȱisȱtheȱfoeȱfromȱ theȱNorth,ȱwhoȱ willȱbecomeȱGod’sȱinstrumentȱofȱjudgementȱuponȱJudah.ȱȱ Anȱ additionalȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ imageȱ schemas,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ conȬ tainmentȱ andȱ pathȱ schemas,ȱ isȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ transformable.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱweȱtendȱtoȱmanipulateȱimageȱschemataȱinȱourȱminds,ȱwhichȱinȱ thisȱcaseȱallowsȱusȱtoȱfinishȱtheȱtiltingȱjob,ȱallowingȱtheȱboilingȱliquidȱtoȱ overflowȱasȱtheȱpotȱultimatelyȱtipsȱover.ȱMetaphorically,ȱweȱareȱableȱtoȱ envisionȱtheȱevilȱflowingȱfromȱtheȱNorthȱasȱitȱmovesȱtowardsȱus.ȱGivenȱ ourȱabilityȱtoȱmoveȱfromȱmultiplex,ȱfromȱmanyȱsingleȱfiguresȱ(pixels)ȱtoȱ massȱ(aȱsingleȱimage)ȱandȱback,ȱitȱisȱnotȱimpossibleȱtoȱenvisionȱaȱsingleȱ mass,ȱtheȱflowingȱevil,ȱasȱaȱseriesȱofȱlargeȱarmiesȱ whoseȱfacesȱbecomeȱ individuated,ȱLordȱofȱ theȱRingsȱstyle,ȱasȱtheyȱmoveȱintoȱourȱimmediateȱ vicinity.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 68ȱȱ Kövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ170.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱTermsȱ

145ȱ

TheȱimageȱofȱtheȱalmondȱbranchȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱactsȱasȱaȱtopȬ icalȱframeȱwithoutȱtheȱbenefitȱofȱaȱlengthyȱtopicalȱelaboration.69ȱThisȱisȱ notȱ theȱ caseȱ forȱ theȱ boilingȱ potȱ imageȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.13.70ȱ Thisȱ imageȱ introducesȱ theȱ intensityȱ andȱ directionalityȱ ofȱ impendingȱ disaster.ȱ Theȱ topicalȱ frame,ȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ evilȱ flowingȱ likeȱ boilingȱ liquidȱ fromȱ anȱ overturnedȱpotȱinȱ1.13,ȱgivesȱwayȱtoȱaȱtopicalȱelaborationȱinȱ1.14a.ȱTheȱ wayyiqtolȬSȱ phraseȱ [N JYJ[TO [Yȱ includesȱ SAPȱ 1,ȱ Yahweh,ȱ asȱ subjectȱ andȱSAPȱ2,ȱtheȱfirstȱpersonȱspeakerȱJeremiah,ȱasȱobject.ȱWithinȱtheȱquoȬ tation,ȱ anȱ XȬyiqtolȱ clause,ȱYahweh,ȱannouncesȱ thatȱevilȱ willȱ beȱ pouredȱ uponȱ allȱ thoseȱ dwellingȱ inȱ theȱ land.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ XȬqotelȱ clause,ȱ JPYREVYMNOOVYZRONMN TS[PPJ[M ,ȱ highlightsȱ theȱ immediacyȱ andȱ theȱsourceȱofȱtheȱcomingȱdisaster,ȱinȱwhichȱYahwehhimselfȱisȱtheȱproȬ tagonist.ȱAdditionalȱdetailsȱaccrue:ȱtheȱleadersȱwillȱcomeȱandȱsetȱtheirȱ thronesȱatȱtheȱveryȱgatesȱofȱJerusalem,ȱsurroundingȱJerusalemȱandȱtheȱ citiesȱofȱJudahȱasȱwell.ȱTheseȱphrasesȱprovideȱspatialȱorientationȱforȱtheȱ discourseȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.2ff,ȱ whereȱ theȱ locationȱ ofȱ Jeremiah’sȱ orationȱ becomesȱaȱsubjectȱofȱdiscussion.ȱȱ Thisȱ sectionȱ demonstratesȱ theȱ wayȱ thatȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ usesȱ informationȱderivedȱfromȱhumanȱexperienceȱandȱmakesȱthisȱembodiedȱ perspectiveȱ availableȱ forȱ understandingȱ abstractȱ experiencesȱ andȱ conȬ cepts.ȱ Additionally,ȱ theȱ sectionȱ describesȱ howȱ theȱ Greatȱ Chainȱ hieȬ rarchyȱbecomesȱmetaphoricalȱwhenȱanȱentityȱoccursȱasȱaȱsourceȱdomainȱ forȱunderstandingȱanȱentityȱatȱaȱdifferentȱlevel,ȱi.e.ȱaȱtargetȱdomain.ȱInȱ theȱfinalȱexample,ȱtheȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱ ANGERȱ ISȱ Aȱ HOTȱ FLUIDȱ INȱ Aȱ CONTAINERȱ comesȱ intoȱ playȱ whenȱ theȱ single,ȱ humanȱ scaleȱ imageȱ ofȱ aȱ boilingȱ potȱ tiltingȱ awayȱ fromȱ theȱ Northȱ zoomsȱ outȱ toȱ representȱ theȱ largerȱthanȱlifeȱthreatȱofȱimminentȱjudgment.ȱȱ TheȱexamplesȱinȱthisȱchapterȱdelineateȱsomeȱofȱtheȱcomplexȱcogniȬ tiveȱ constructionsȱ thatȱ areȱ representedȱ byȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ2.2.ȱ Theseȱareȱinitiatedȱbyȱspaceȱbuildingȱtermsȱandȱconstructionsȱfromȱtheȱ semanticȱfieldsȱofȱdeixis;ȱspeechȱandȱperception;ȱandȱepistemicȱmodaliȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 69ȱȱ Nonetheless,ȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ theȱ almondȱ branchȱ conveysȱ aȱ similarȱ degreeȱ ofȱ comȬ pressedȱinformation.ȱKingȱthinksȱthatȱtheȱimageȱisȱambiguous,ȱandȱthatȱmeaningȱhasȱ beenȱ lostȱ toȱ theȱ wordȱ playȱ betweenȱ theȱ termsȱ FSH,ȱ almond,ȱ andȱ FSQ,ȱ watching.ȱ However,ȱtheȱinterplayȱbetweenȱwatchingȱandȱtheȱalmondȱbranchȱindicatesȱthatȱtheȱ watchingȱ isȱ notȱ haphazard,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ thatȱ itȱ followsȱ aȱ cycleȱ asȱ doesȱ theȱ almondȱ branch,ȱ whichȱ sproutsȱ blossoms,ȱ leavesȱ andȱ fruitȱ inȱ aȱ predictableȱ cycle.ȱ Similarly,ȱ bothȱ theȱ watchingȱ andȱ theȱ performingȱ willȱ followȱ aȱ predictableȱ pattern.ȱ Philipȱ J.ȱ King,ȱ Jeremiah:ȱ Anȱ Archeologicalȱ Companionȱ (Louisville,ȱ Kentucky:ȱ Westminster/Johnȱ KnoxȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱ152.ȱ 70ȱȱ ExtraȬtextualȱinformationȱregardingȱcultureȱandȱculturalȱartefactsȱinȱancientȱIsraelȱisȱ availableȱ fromȱ aȱ plethoraȱ ofȱ sources.ȱ Particularlyȱ relevantȱ forȱ thisȱ discussionȱ areȱ Odedȱ Borowski,ȱ Dailyȱ Lifeȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Timesȱ (Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 2003);ȱ King,ȱ Jeremiah:ȱ Anȱ ArcheologicalȱCompanion,ȱ152Ȭ153.ȱ

146ȱ

CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

ty.ȱ Imageȱ schemataȱandȱ framesȱ structureȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ packets.ȱ Imageȱ schemataȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2ȱincludeȱtheȱcontainmentȱschemaȱinȱ1.1Ȭ1.3;ȱ theȱ forceȱ andȱ containmentȱ schemataȱ inȱ 1.13;ȱ theȱ pathȱ schemaȱ inȱ 1.14;ȱ andȱ theȱ centreȬperipheryȱ andȱ forceȱ schemataȱ inȱ 1.15.ȱ Theseȱ imageȱ schemataȱ emergeȱ asȱ structuringȱ devicesȱ throughoutȱ theȱ remainderȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱQuotationȱframes,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱreportedȱspeechȱeventȱ betweenȱtheȱLORDȱandȱJeremiahȱatȱ1.4Ȭ2.2a,ȱareȱalsoȱimportantȱstructurȬ ingȱdevices.ȱTheȱinterlocutorsȱdiscussȱtheȱsituationȱatȱhand,ȱwhatȱusedȱ toȱbe,ȱandȱwhatȱwillȱbe,ȱandȱwhatȱtheȱreactionsȱofȱvariousȱpeopleȱmightȱ be.ȱJeremiahȱandȱtheȱLORDȱ emergeȱasȱprimaryȱtopicalȱentities,ȱandȱtheȱ detailsȱ ofȱ Jeremiah’sȱ callȱ areȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ theirȱ conversation.ȱ Theȱ naȬ tions,ȱ theȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ theȱ land,ȱ theȱ tribesȱ ofȱ theȱ kingdomsȱ ofȱ theȱ North,ȱJerusalemȱandȱtheȱcitiesȱofȱJudahȱemergeȱasȱsecondaryȱentities.ȱ Theseȱ entitiesȱ areȱ nowȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ discourse,ȱ andȱareȱ readyȱ toȱ beȱ actiȬ vatedȱasȱprimaryȱentitiesȱasȱtheȱdiscourseȱunfolds.ȱ Theȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ ANGERȱ ISȱ Aȱ HOTȱ FLUIDȱ INȱ ANȱ ENCLOSEDȱ CONTAINERȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ ofȱ severalȱ conceptualȱ metaphorsȱ thatȱ occurȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱTheseȱmetaphors,ȱoftenȱstructuredȱbyȱimageȱschemaȬ ta,ȱprovideȱinformationȱforȱliteraryȱmetaphorȱandȱforȱnarrativeȱtext.ȱ

ȱ

5. CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ ȱ “Theȱtimeȱhasȱcome”,ȱtheȱWalrusȱsaid.ȱ “Toȱtalkȱofȱmanyȱthings…”ȱ ȱ ~ȱLewisȱCarrollȱ ȱ Proseȱ andȱ poetry,ȱ thoseȱ whoȱ listenȱ andȱ thoseȱ whoȱ speak,ȱ realityȱ andȱ surreality:ȱtheseȱareȱaȱfewȱofȱtheȱmanyȱthingsȱincludedȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ 6.30.ȱ Thisȱ chapterȱ willȱ exploreȱ aȱ fewȱ ofȱ theȱ waysȱ thatȱ cognitiveȱ apȬ proachesȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱdiscoveryȱofȱunityȱwithinȱtheȱtext.ȱTheȱquesȬ tionȱatȱhandȱis,ȱ“Whatȱareȱtheȱintegratingȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱtext?”ȱIntegraȬ tionȱ isȱ aȱ primaryȱ featureȱ ofȱ humanȱ cognition,ȱ andȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ conceptualȱintegrationȱisȱtheȱmainȱpointȱofȱconceptualȱblendingȱtheory.1ȱ Theȱareasȱtouchedȱuponȱinȱthisȱchapterȱincludeȱtheȱintegrativeȱpotentialȱ ofȱ frameȱ knowledgeȱ (sectionȱ A.2);ȱ theȱ unifyingȱ effectsȱ ofȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ (sectionȱ B.3);ȱ ȱ theȱcreativeȱuseȱofȱcounterfactualȱ spacesȱ (secȬ tionȱ C.2);ȱ virtualȱ visualȱ scanningȱ (sectionȱ D.2),ȱ imageȱ schemataȱ andȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ (sectionȱ E),ȱ andȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ identityȱ (sectionȱ F).ȱ Additionally,ȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ spaceȬbuildersȱ inȱ poeticȱ textȱ willȱ beȱ disȬ cussedȱ(sectionȱF).ȱ ThisȱchapterȱbuildsȱuponȱtheȱdiscussionȱinȱChapterȱ4,ȱmovingȱfromȱ sectionȱ A.1,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ2.1,ȱ toȱ sectionȱ A.2,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.1Ȭ3.25.ȱ Twoȱ majorȱ cognitiveȱ constructionsȱ areȱ indicatedȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ2.1.ȱ Theȱ first,ȱ Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱ featuresȱtheȱviewpointȱofȱanȱunidentifiedȱnarraȬ torȱspeakingȱtoȱaȱgeneralȱaudience.ȱItȱisȱaȱnarrativeȱsectionȱandȱhasȱbeenȱ taggedȱN1.ȱTheȱsecond,ȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.1,ȱisȱaȱdiscursiveȱsectionȱinȱwhichȱ theȱviewpointȱbelongsȱtoȱtheȱcharacterȱJeremiah.ȱThisȱsectionȱhasȱbeenȱ taggedȱ N2.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.4Ȭ2.1ȱ comprisesȱ fourȱ speechȱ domains,ȱ eachȱ ofȱ whichȱisȱinitiatedȱbyȱtheȱspaceȬbuildingȱphraseȱTO N[N JYJ[TDF[J[Y.ȱ Theȱspeechȱdomainsȱareȱlinkedȱtoȱoneȱanotherȱbyȱtheȱrepetitionȱofȱtheȱ clauseȱ TO N[N JYJ[TDF[J[Y.ȱ Additionally,ȱ eachȱ speechȱ domainȱ actsȱ asȱ aȱ baseȱ spaceȱ forȱ cognitiveȱ construction.ȱ Withinȱ theȱ firstȱ threeȱ doȬ mains,ȱ embeddedȱ quotationȱ spacesȱ areȱ openedȱ byȱ syntacticȱ construcȬ tionsȱcontainingȱtheȱcommunicationȱverbȱTO ȱ(seeȱFigureȱ4.9).ȱTheȱsituȬ ationȱisȱsomewhatȱdifferentȱforȱtheȱfourthȱdomain,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱsubjectȱ ofȱtheȱpresentȱchapter.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

FauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ328.ȱ

148ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

A. Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.2:ȱSpeechȱDomainȱFourȱ Theȱ mainȱ concernȱ ofȱ thisȱ chapterȱ isȱ theȱ fourthȱ speechȱ domain,ȱ whichȱ beginsȱ atȱ 2.1ȱ andȱ continuesȱ throughȱ 3.25.ȱ Theȱ fourthȱ speechȱ domainȱ representsȱ aȱ pointȱ ofȱ departureȱ fromȱ theȱ previousȱ domains.ȱ Whileȱ reȬ portedȱ interchangesȱ betweenȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Yahwehȱ structureȱ theȱ firstȱ threeȱdomains,ȱtheȱfourthȱdomainȱintroducesȱanȱactantȱshiftȱin:ȱJerusaȬ lemȱ isȱ activatedȱ asȱ aȱ newȱ addresseeȱ andȱ theȱ voicesȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ YahwehȱareȱamalgamatedȱintoȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱaȱnonȬprototypicalȱcomplexȱ speaker,ȱasȱdemonstratedȱbyȱtheȱfollowingȱdiagram:ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ5.1ȱȱȱViewingȱArrangementȱforȱJeremiahȱ2.2Ȭ3.25ȱ

Asȱtheȱdiagramȱindicates,ȱtheȱcomplexȱspeakerȱaddressesȱtheȱaudienceȱ asȱaȱ singleȱ voice.ȱ However,ȱthisȱ singleȱvoiceȱ isȱmediatedȱ byȱtwoȱ persȬ pectives:ȱthatȱofȱJeremiah,ȱtheȱveryȱhumanȱprophetȱandȱthatȱofȱYahweh,ȱ theȱdivine.ȱThisȱcombinationȱofȱspeechȱactȱparticipantsȱisȱtaggedȱN3.ȱȱ

1.

Perspectiveȱ

TrackingȱviewpointȱthroughȱtheȱtextȱisȱimportantȱforȱdeterminingȱpersȬ pectiveȱ withinȱ aȱ givenȱ section.ȱReturningȱ toȱ theȱclauseȱanalysis,ȱviewȬ pointȱ isȱ recordedȱ inȱ theȱ MSCȱ column.ȱTheȱtaggingȱ conventionȱreflectsȱ viewpointȱatȱtwoȱdistinctȱlevels:ȱtheȱtextȬlevel,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱcommuniȬ cationȱ eventȱ takesȱ placeȱ betweenȱ theȱ originatorȱ andȱ reader;ȱ andȱ theȱ embeddedȱ level,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ communicationȱ eventȱ takesȱ placeȱ beȬ tweenȱvariousȱconfigurationsȱofȱcharactersȱwithinȱtheȱtext.ȱAsȱtheȱtextȬ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.2:ȱSpeechȱDomainȱFourȱȱ

149ȱ

typeȱ columnȱ inȱ theȱ TDȱ clausesȱ analysisȱ demonstrates,ȱ embeddingȱ isȱ aȱ recursiveȱprocess,ȱwithȱeachȱrecursionȱrepresentingȱanȱinternalȱshiftȱinȱ perspective.2ȱ Threeȱ levelsȱ willȱ beȱ discussedȱ here,ȱ althoughȱ manyȱ secȬ tionsȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ containȱ multipleȱ levelsȱ ofȱ embeddingȱ (seeȱ Figureȱ5.5).ȱ Theȱ configurationȱ ofȱ participantsȱ taggedȱ N1ȱ operatesȱ atȱ theȱ textȬ level.ȱTheȱconfigurationȱofȱparticipantsȱtaggedȱN2ȱoperatesȱatȱanȱinterȬ mediaryȱlevel:ȱtheȱauthorȱhasȱassignedȱtheȱnarratingȱvoiceȱtoȱJeremiah,ȱ whoȱ isȱ alsoȱ aȱ characterȱ inȱ theȱ reportedȱ speechȱ situation.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ configurationȱofȱparticipantsȱtaggedȱN3ȱoperatesȱatȱtheȱembeddedȱlevel,ȱ asȱtheȱcommunicationȱeventsȱoccurȱbetweenȱcharactersȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱWithȱ regardȱtoȱperspective,ȱtheȱN2ȱtagȱindicatesȱthatȱtheȱviewpointȱbelongsȱtoȱ Jeremiahȱasȱnarrator.ȱLikewise,ȱtheȱC2ȱtagȱisȱusedȱinȱembeddedȱspacesȱ toȱindicateȱthatȱtheȱviewpointȱbelongsȱtoȱJeremiahȱasȱcharacter.ȱTheȱC1ȱ tagȱisȱusedȱinȱembeddedȱspacesȱtoȱindicateȱthatȱtheȱviewpointȱbelongsȱ toȱ Yahweh,ȱ andȱ theȱ C3ȱ tagȱ isȱ usedȱ toȱ indicateȱ thatȱ theȱ viewpointȱ beȬ longsȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱinterlocutor,ȱJerusalem.3ȱȱ TheȱNȱtagȱandȱtheȱCȱtagȱnotȱonlyȱindicateȱlayersȱofȱinteraction,ȱbutȱ theyȱ contributeȱ informationȱ regardingȱ subjectivityȱ andȱ objectivityȱ asȱ well.ȱ Theȱ Nȱ tagȱ representsȱ theȱ textȬlevelȱ situationȱ ofȱ speaking,ȱ whichȱ involvesȱ theȱ authorȱ andȱ readerȱ inȱ theȱ subjectiveȱ position.ȱ Theȱ Cȱ tagȱ representsȱ theȱ embeddedȱ textȬinternalȱ situationsȱ ofȱ speaking,ȱ whichȱ involveȱcharactersȱwithinȱtheȱtext,ȱandȱmayȱbeȱatȱvariousȱlevelsȱofȱemȬ bedding.ȱ Theseȱ situationsȱ areȱ inȱ theȱ objectiveȱ positionȱ forȱ theȱ authorȱ andȱ reader,ȱ whoȱ areȱmaximallyȱsubjectiveȱatȱthisȱlevel.ȱWithinȱ anȱemȬ beddedȱspaceȱtheȱcharactersȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱembeddedȱsituationȱareȱinȱ aȱmaximallyȱsubjectiveȱpositionȱandȱtheȱentitiesȱthatȱpopulateȱtheȱspaceȱ openedȱbyȱtheȱconversationȱareȱinȱtheȱobjectiveȱposition.ȱȱȱ SinceȱtheȱauthorȱisȱresponsibleȱforȱassigningȱperspectiveȱtoȱtheȱnarȬ rator,ȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ locateȱ theȱ author,ȱ theȱ anonymousȱ thirdȱ personȱ narratorȱ orȱ theȱ identifiedȱ firstȱ personȱ narratorȱ withinȱ theȱ subjectiveȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱȱ

3ȱȱ

ParunakȱutilisesȱtheȱtermȱincipitȱtoȱdescribeȱtextȬlevelȱinteraction,ȱwhichȱheȱassignsȱtoȱ theȱ writerȱ andȱ reader.ȱ Theȱ termȱ encompassesȱ phrasesȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ metapragmaticȱ phrasalȱ expressionȱ TO N[N JYJ[TDF[J[Yandȱ theȱ quotationȱ frameȱ N JYJ[TO [Y.ȱ Parunakȱ alsoȱ differentiatesȱ betweenȱ communicationȱ eventsȱ thatȱ involveȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ Jeremiah,ȱ termedȱ theȱ backgroundȱ andȱ dispatch,ȱ andȱ thoseȱ thatȱ involveȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ hisȱ addressees,ȱ termedȱ theȱ body.ȱ Heȱ assignsȱ phrasesȱ suchȱ asȱ JYJ[TO JM toȱ theȱ backgroundȱ andȱ dispatch,ȱ andȱ phrasesȱ suchȱ asȱ JYJ[TO JMȱ andȱ JYJ[] Ptoȱtheȱbody.ȱParunak,ȱ“SomeȱDiscourseȱFunctionsȱofȱPropheticȱQuotationȱ FormulasȱinȱJeremiah,”ȱ498Ȭ499.ȱ TheȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermȱcharacterȱinȱdiscussingȱYahwehȱisȱforȱheuristicȱpurposes.ȱHowevȬ er,ȱasȱthisȱisȱaȱtechnicalȱtermȱitȱneedȱnotȱbeȱcarriedȱoverȱintoȱtheologicalȱreflection.ȱ

150ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

positionȱ inȱ theȱ TDȱ viewingȱ arrangementȱ diagramȱ (seeȱ Figureȱ 2.1).ȱ Onȱ theȱotherȱhand,ȱbecauseȱthereȱisȱaȱtendencyȱforȱtheȱreaderȱtoȱempathiseȱ withȱ theȱ characters,ȱ theȱ readerȱ ratherȱ easilyȱ makesȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ jumpȱ fromȱ theȱ subjectiveȱpositionȱinȱtheȱ diagramȱ intoȱ theȱ objectiveȱpositionȱ representedȱ byȱ theȱ situationsȱ ofȱ speakingȱ thatȱ occurȱ withinȱ theȱ text.ȱ Thisȱwillȱbeȱillustratedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱsection.ȱ

2.

ConceptualȱScopingȱandȱAchievingȱHumanȱScaleȱ

TheȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱreflectedȱinȱtheȱmovementȱfromȱN1ȱ throughȱ N2ȱ andȱ onȱ toȱ N3ȱ indicatesȱ conceptualȱ scopingȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ textȬlevelȱ perspectiveȱshiftsȱfromȱanonymousȱnarratorȱtoȱidentifiedȱnarratorȱwhoȱ isȱ simultaneouslyȱ aȱ characterȱ inȱ theȱ embeddedȱ situationȱ ofȱ speaking.ȱ Finally,ȱperspectiveȱisȱassignedȱtoȱtheȱcharactersȱwithinȱtheȱembeddedȱ spaces.4ȱConsequently,ȱthereȱisȱaȱshiftȱfromȱaȱcoarselyȱgrainedȱviewȱtoȱaȱ moreȱ finelyȱgrainedȱviewȱofȱtheȱ situationȱasȱwell.5ȱ Toȱ useȱ aȱcinematoȬ graphicȱ metaphor,ȱ theȱ shiftsȱ inȱ perspectiveȱ createȱ aȱ zoomingȬinȱ effect.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ shift,ȱ fromȱ theȱ narrativeȱ atȱ N1ȱ toȱ theȱ reportedȱ speechȱ inȱ N2,ȱ representsȱaȱ shiftȱ fromȱ theȱ narrator’sȱ perspectiveȱtoȱtheȱperspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ narratorȱ asȱ character.ȱ Thus,ȱ atȱ 1.4,ȱ Jeremiahȱ replacesȱ theȱ unidentiȬ fiedȱ narratorȱ ofȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ asȱ theȱ deicticȱ centre,ȱ theȱ pointȱ fromȱ whichȱ theȱ verbalȱ formsȱ andȱ spatialȱ andȱ temporalȱ informationȱ areȱ indexed.ȱ Asȱ aȱ consequence,ȱtheȱaccessȱpathȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱinformationȱisȱrestrictedȱ toȱ theȱ character’sȱ perspective.6ȱ Additionally,ȱ theȱ reportedȱ speechȱ andȱ quotationȱ spacesȱ inȱ N2ȱ containȱ viewpointȱ markersȱ suchȱ asȱ descriptionȱ fromȱtheȱsubject’sȱbeliefȱspaceȱ(1.6,ȱIȱdoȱnotȱknowȱhowȱtoȱspeak),ȱandȱimȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 4ȱȱ

5ȱȱ

6ȱȱ

Aȱshiftȱinȱverbalȱformsȱaccompaniesȱtheȱshiftȱinȱperspectiveȱfromȱanȱoutsideȱviewȱtoȱ anȱinsideȱviewȱofȱtheȱsituationȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱAsȱnotedȱinȱChapterȱ4,ȱimpenetrabilityȱofȱaȱ situationȱ isȱ indicatedȱ byȱ perfectiveȱ wayyiqtolȱ andȱ qatalȱ forms,ȱ whereasȱ penetrabilityȱ ofȱaȱsituationȱisȱindicatedȱbyȱimperfectiveȱyiqtolȱandȱparticipleȱforms.ȱAsȱtheȱlevelȱofȱ embeddingȱincreases,ȱsoȱdoesȱtheȱuseȱofȱimperfectiveȱforms,ȱwhichȱallowȱtheȱreaderȱ toȱenterȱintoȱtheȱsituation.ȱ Croftȱ andȱ Cruseȱ describeȱ thisȱ construalȱ operationȱ asȱ quantitativeȱ scalarȱ adjustment,ȱ whichȱisȱtheȱresultȱofȱadjustingȱtheȱgranularityȱofȱscalarȱdimensions.ȱThisȱmayȱoccurȱ acrossȱbothȱspatialȱandȱtemporalȱboundaries.ȱCroftȱandȱCruse,ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics,ȱ 52.ȱȱȱ Werthȱ describesȱ levelsȱ ofȱ accessibilityȱ asȱ follows:ȱ “…ȱ aȱ participantȱ hasȱ accessȱ toȱ aȱ participant,ȱaȱcharacterȱinȱtheȱtextȱworldȱheȱorȱsheȱhasȱcreatedȱandȱtoȱaȱsubȬcharacterȱ inȱaȱparticipantȱaccessibleȱsubȬworld,ȱbutȱnotȱtoȱaȱsubȬcharacterȱinȱaȱcharacterȱaccessȬ ibleȱsubȬworld,ȱorȱanyȱentityȱmoreȱthanȱtwoȱlevelsȱremoved.”ȱWhileȱWerthȱisȱspeakȬ ingȱ withȱ referenceȱ toȱ truthȱ evaluationȱ andȱ inferenceȱ chainingȱ inȱ subȬworlds,ȱ hisȱ theoryȱresemblesȱtheȱTDȱapproachȱinȱthatȱaccessibilityȱbecomesȱ limitedȱwithȱsucesȬ siveȱ levelsȱ ofȱ embedding.ȱ Paulȱ Werth,ȱ Textȱ Worlds:ȱ Representingȱ Conceptualȱ Spaceȱ inȱ Discourseȱ(London:ȱLongman,ȱ1999),ȱ215.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.2:ȱSpeechȱDomainȱFourȱȱ

151ȱ

plicitȱratherȱthanȱexplicitȱattributionȱtoȱtheȱsubject’sȱmentalȱstateȱ(1.15,ȱ Doȱnotȱbreakȱdownȱbeforeȱthem,ȱorȱIȱwillȱbreakȱyouȱbeforeȱthem).ȱ Theȱsecondȱshift,ȱfromȱN2ȱtoȱN3,ȱtakesȱplaceȱatȱ2.2d,ȱwhereȱperspecȬ tiveȱ isȱ assessedȱ fromȱ theȱ embeddedȱ space.ȱ Inȱ 1.4Ȭ1.10,ȱ Yahwehȱ conȬ firmsJeremiahȱasȱaȱprophetȱtoȱtheȱnations,ȱsoȱheȱisȱauthorisedȱtoȱspeakȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ Yahweh,ȱ andȱ nowȱ doesȱ so.ȱ Theȱ propheticȱ voice,ȱ whichȱ dominatesȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ isȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ theȱ amalgamationȱ ofȱ theȱ voicesȱofȱJeremiahȱandȱYahwehȱintoȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱtheȱcomplexȱspeakerȱ–ȱ aȱ speakerȱ withȱ oneȱ voice,ȱ butȱ twoȱ perspectives.ȱ Shiftsȱ inȱ perspectiveȱ occurȱoftenȱwithinȱthisȱstretchȱofȱtext.ȱAtȱtimesȱperspectiveȱisȱassignedȱ directlyȱ toȱ Yahwehȱ byȱ quotativeȱ frames,ȱ suchȱ asȱ [N JYJ[TO [Y,ȱ orȱ byȱ theȱuseȱofȱcitationȱformulae,ȱsuchȱasJYJ[TO JM.ȱAtȱotherȱtimes,ȱJereȬ miahȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ insertingȱ hisȱ ownȱ wordsȱ ofȱ lamentation.ȱ Theseȱ inȬ stancesȱareȱnotȱovertlyȱmarkedȱforȱtheȱchangeȱinȱspeaker,ȱrather,ȱthereȱ isȱanȱindicatorȱinȱtheȱshiftȱinȱperson,ȱwhichȱ“…ȱmustȱbeȱdeducedȱfromȱ theȱ surroundingȱ context.”7ȱ However,ȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ theȱ complexȱ speakerȱ unifiesȱ bothȱ voiceȱ andȱ intention.ȱ Additionalȱ voicesȱ presentȱ themselves,ȱ asȱ well,ȱ particularlyȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.5Ȭ6.30.8ȱ Theseȱ areȱ theȱ subjectȱofȱtheȱchapterȱ 6.ȱConceptualȱscopingȱisȱsummarisedȱinȱtheȱfolȬ lowingȱ setȱ ofȱ diagrams,ȱ whichȱ recapitulateȱ theȱ viewingȱ arrangementsȱ introducedȱtoȱthisȱpointȱinȱtheȱcognitiveȱnetwork:ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱ a.ȱNarrator’sȱP:ȱN1ȱȱ

ȱȱb.ȱCharacter’sȱP:ȱȱN2ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱ c.ȱComplexȱSpeaker:ȱN3ȱ

Figureȱ5.2ȱȱȱSummaryȱofȱViewingȱArrangementsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ3.25ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 7ȱȱ 8ȱȱ

Parunak,ȱ“SomeȱDiscourseȱFunctionsȱofȱPropheticȱQuotationȱFormulasȱinȱJeremiah,”ȱ 502.ȱ O’Connerȱdescribesȱthisȱasȱaȱcolloquyȱofȱvoices.ȱK.ȱM.ȱOȇConnor,ȱ“Jeremiah,”ȱinȱTheȱ OxfordȱBibleȱCommentary,ȱedsȱJohnȱBartonȱandȱJohnȱMuddimanȱ(Oxford:ȱOUP,ȱ2000),ȱ 487Ȭ528ȱ(487).ȱ

152ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

Theȱ useȱ ofȱ quotativeȱ framesȱ andȱ theȱ reportȱ ofȱ speechȱ situationsȱ beȬ tweenȱhumanȱandȱdivineȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2ffȱisȱanȱexampleȱofȱconverȬ sionȱtoȱhumanȱscale.ȱThisȱconstrualȱofȱtheȱsituationȱisȱparticularlyȱeffecȬ tiveȱbecause,ȱaccordingȱtoȱFauconnier,ȱconversionȱtoȱhumanȱscaleȱisȱtheȱ overarchingȱ goalȱ ofȱ conceptualȱ integration.ȱ Fauconnierȱ reasons,ȱ “HuȬ manȱbeingsȱareȱevolvedȱandȱculturallyȱsupportedȱtoȱdealȱwithȱrealityȱatȱ humanȱ scaleȱ –ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ throughȱ directȱ actionȱ andȱ perceptionȱ insideȱ faȬ miliarȱframes,ȱtypicallyȱinvolvingȱfewȱ participantsȱandȱdirectȱ intentioȬ nality.”9ȱȱTheȱinclinationȱtoȱdealȱwithȱrealityȱatȱhumanȱscaleȱisȱanȱessenȬ tialȱgoalȱofȱintegration,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱprimaryȱtopicȱinȱconceptualȱblendingȱ theory.ȱFauconnierȱnotes:ȱ Theȱ impulseȱ toȱ achieveȱ integratedȱ blendsȱ isȱ anȱ overarchingȱ principleȱ ofȱ humanȱcognition…ȱSinceȱtheȱessenceȱofȱaȱconceptualȱintegrationȱnetworkȱisȱ toȱprojectȱfromȱmanyȱdifferentȱandȱsometimesȱclashingȱinputsȱintoȱaȱsingleȱ blendedȱspace,ȱintegrationȱinȱthatȱspaceȱisȱaȱconsiderableȱachievement,ȱnotȱ somethingȱimplicitȱinȱtheȱinputs.ȱIntegrationȱinȱtheȱblendedȱspaceȱallowsȱitsȱ manipulationȱasȱaȱunit,ȱmakesȱitȱmoreȱmemorable,ȱandȱenablesȱtheȱthinkerȱ toȱrunȱtheȱblendȱwithoutȱconstantȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱotherȱspacesȱinȱtheȱnetȬ work.ȱ Integrationȱ helpsȱ bringȱ theȱ blendȱ toȱ humanȱ scale,ȱ andȱ therebyȱ alsoȱ increaseȱ (sic)ȱ theȱ possibilityȱ forȱ furtherȱ usefulȱ recruitmentsȱ toȱ theȱ blendȱ fromȱaȱrangeȱofȱourȱknowledgeȱthatȱisȱalreadyȱatȱthatȱhumanȱscale.10ȱ

Conceptualȱ blendingȱ theoryȱ describesȱ howȱ informationȱ fromȱ variousȱ inputȱ spacesȱ contributesȱ towardȱ theȱ formationȱ ofȱ aȱ blendedȱ space.ȱ Blendingȱtheoryȱwasȱintroducedȱinȱchapterȱ3ȱasȱitȱappliesȱtoȱgrammar.ȱ ItȱwillȱbeȱdiscussedȱfurtherȱinȱsectionȱB.4ȱasȱisȱappliesȱtoȱtheȱinterrelaȬ tionshipȱbetweenȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱandȱliteraryȱmetaphor.ȱ Conversionȱtoȱhumanȱscaleȱisȱaȱmatterȱofȱperspective,ȱandȱisȱbasedȱ uponȱtheȱanimacyȱhierarchy.ȱConsequently,ȱthisȱvolumeȱpositsȱthatȱitȱisȱ possibleȱtoȱevaluateȱtheȱperspectiveȱinȱaȱgivenȱsituationȱbasedȱuponȱitsȱ relationȱ toȱ humanȱ scale.ȱ Theȱ perspectiveȱ inȱ situationsȱ thatȱ expressȱ aȱ oneȬtoȬoneȱcorrespondenceȱtoȱnormalȱscaleȱ(suchȱasȱtwoȱhumanȱbeingsȱ involvedȱinȱaȱconversation)ȱmightȱbeȱtermedȱiconic,ȱwhileȱtheȱperspecȬ tiveȱ inȱ situationsȱ movingȱ awayȱ fromȱ aȱ oneȬtoȬoneȱ correspondenceȱ toȱ normalȱscaleȱ(suchȱasȱaȱconversationȱbetweenȱaȱhumanȱandȱanȱanimal,ȱ orȱaȱhumanȱandȱtheȱdeity)ȱmightȱbeȱtermedȱnonȬiconic.11ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 9ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ322.ȱ 10ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ328Ȭ329.ȱ 11ȱȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ termȱ iconicȱ isȱ usedȱ asȱ aȱ descriptive,ȱ heuristicȱ termȱ ratherȱ thanȱasȱ aȱ technicalȱlinguisticȱterm.ȱThereȱisȱanȱaffinityȱbetweenȱthisȱuseȱofȱiconicȱandȱtheȱtermȱ prototypical.ȱHowever,ȱneitherȱformalȱtheoryȱisȱbeingȱinvokedȱhere.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.2:ȱSpeechȱDomainȱFourȱȱ

153ȱ

ȱ iconicȱperspectiveȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

nonȬiconicȱperspectiveȱ

Figureȱ5.3ȱȱȱIconicityȱScaleȱ

Factorsȱ usedȱ inȱ determiningȱ theȱ degreeȱ toȱ whichȱ aȱ situationȱ isȱ nonȬ iconicȱincludeȱtheȱdegreeȱtoȱwhichȱentitiesȱandȱrelationsȱresembleȱtheirȱ normalȬscaleȱcounterparts.12ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2ff,ȱsituationsȱ vacillateȱ alongȱ theȱ scaleȱ ofȱ iconicity.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ byȱ 2.2,ȱ threeȱ mainȱ interlocutorsȱ haveȱ beenȱ introduced:ȱ Jeremiah,ȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ Jerusalemȱ asȱ addressee.ȱ Becauseȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Yahwehȱ areȱ conjoinedȱ asȱ aȱ comȬ plexȱ speaker,ȱ aȱ speakerȱ withȱ oneȱ voice,ȱ butȱ twoȱ perspectivesȱ theȱ inteȬ ractionȱ thatȱ followsȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.3Ȭ6.30ȱ occursȱ betweenȱ theȱ complexȱ speakerȱandȱJerusalem.ȱWhereasȱtheȱsituationȱinȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱoccursȱtowardȱ theȱnormalȱorȱiconicȱendȱofȱtheȱscale,ȱthisȱsituationȱisȱmovingȱtowardsȱ theȱ nonȬiconicȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ scale.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ vacillatesȱ betweenȱ iconicȱandȱnonȬiconicȱrepresentationȱofȱsituations.ȱSituationsȱlocatedȱatȱ theȱ nonȬiconicȱ endȱ ofȱtheȱ scaleȱ includeȱ speechȱframesȱ thatȱ includeȱ theȱ complexȱ speakerȱ andȱ sectionsȱ thatȱ mentionȱ Israelȱ andȱ Daughterȱ Zion.ȱ SituationsȱlocatedȱnearerȱtheȱiconicȱendȱofȱtheȱscaleȱincludeȱJeremiah’sȱ directȱaddressȱtoȱJerusalemȱandȱsectionsȱthatȱreferȱtoȱtheȱHouseȱofȱIsraelȱ andȱ theȱ Houseȱ ofȱ Judah.ȱ However,ȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ theȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Yahwehȱ shareȱ theȱ voiceȱ ofȱ theȱ complexȱ speaker,ȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.4Ȭ6.30ȱneverȱreachesȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱtheȱiconicȱendȱofȱtheȱscale.ȱItȱisȱconȬ ceptuallyȱ significantȱ thatȱ threeȱ entitiesȱfromȱ variousȱ pointsȱ onȱ theȱ ExȬ tendedȱ Greatȱ Chainȱ hierarchyȱ areȱ includedȱ inȱ aȱ commonȱ situationȱ ofȱ speaking.ȱ Whenȱ societyȱ andȱ theȱ divineȱ participateȱ inȱ conversation,ȱ whichȱisȱaȱhumanȱlevelȱactivity,ȱtheȱoriginatorȱisȱusingȱanȱelementȱfromȱ oneȱlevelȱinȱtheȱGreatȱChainȱtoȱunderstandȱelementsȱfromȱotherȱlevels,ȱ thusȱ creatingȱ anȱ instantiationȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ metaphor.ȱ Thus,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ2.2ffȱ representsȱ scopingȱ toȱ humanȱ scale:ȱ theȱ originatorȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ portraysȱsocietyȱandȱtheȱdivineȱinȱnonȬiconic,ȱhumanȱtermsȱinȱorderȱtoȱ createȱunderstandingȱofȱtheseȱabstractȱconcepts.ȱTheȱfollowingȱseriesȱofȱ examplesȱwillȱelaborateȱuponȱtheseȱpoints.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 12ȱȱ Definitenessȱisȱanotherȱparameterȱthatȱcontributesȱtoȱevaluationȱofȱiconicity.ȱRegardȬ ingȱ definitenessȱ inȱ BH,ȱ seeȱ Kirkȱ Lowery,ȱ “Relativeȱ Definitenessȱ andȱ theȱ Verblessȱ Clause,”ȱinȱTheȱVerblessȱClauseȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrew:ȱLinguisticȱApproaches,ȱed.ȱCynthiaȱL.ȱ Millerȱ (Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ Indiana:ȱ Eisenbrauns,ȱ 1999),ȱ 251Ȭ272;ȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ Wolde,ȱ “Theȱ Verblessȱ Clauseȱ andȱ Itsȱ Textualȱ Function,”ȱ inȱ Theȱ Verblessȱ Clauseȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ (WinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1999),ȱ321Ȭ335.ȱ

154ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

B. Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3:ȱTransitionȱtoȱComplexȱSpeakerȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.1Ȭ2.3ȱ isȱ aȱ pivotalȱ sectionȱ thatȱ functionsȱ bothȱ asȱ aȱ linkȱ beȬ tweenȱ theȱ previousȱ discourseȱ spacesȱ andȱ asȱ theȱ baseȱ spaceȱ forȱ addiȬ tionalȱ cognitiveȱ construction.13ȱ Thisȱ willȱ beȱ demonstratedȱ byȱ theȱ followingȱTDȱanalysis.ȱ ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

[CN JŽYJ[TCDF[KJ[hYȱ

2.1aȱ

TQO N bȱ ]KCNH8T[[ƒP\H DHV HTHSY^QNHJȱ

2.2aȱ

TQO N bȱ JŽYJ[TCOH JQ.ȱ

cȱ

^o[CT8PFGUGZ^HN[K7TCMŽ\ȱ

dȱ

^o[HVQN8N.VCD$JC ȱ

eȱ

TH%FK0C%[CT$ZC ^7MGNȱ

fȱ

JH8T\ QNLGTG %ȱ

gȱ

JŽYJ[CNN HT o[GFQSȱ

2.3aȱ

JQVH 8D7V[K Tȱ

bȱ

8OH m[Y[HNMQ NH.ȱ

cȱ

]GJ[N$  QDH7JHHTȱ

dȱ

JŽYJ[]W Pȱ

eȱ

ȱ Figureȱ5.4ȱȱȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3ȱClauseȱLayoutȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 13ȱȱ Atȱthisȱpoint,ȱitȱbecomesȱapparentȱthatȱtheȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱinȱtheȱfinalȱformȱofȱ theȱMTȱisȱatȱvarianceȱwithȱthatȱofȱtheȱLXX.ȱAsȱCarrollȱnotes,ȱtheȱLXXȱdoesȱnotȱconȬ tainȱ 2.1a,ȱ b,ȱ orȱ 2.2a.ȱ Ratherȱ itȱ readsȱ “…andȱ heȱ said,ȱ Thusȱ saysȱ Yahweh.”ȱ Carrollȱ claimsȱthatȱ“theȱformulaicȱintroductionȱisȱtypicalȱofȱtheȱlateȱredactionȱofȱtheȱtraditionȱ (lackingȱ inȱ G)ȱ andȱ reflectsȱ aȱ concernȱ withȱ establishingȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ theȱ speaker’sȱ statementsȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ indicatingȱ divineȱ instructionsȱ forȱ theȱ speaker’sȱ movements.”ȱ Carroll,ȱJeremiah:ȱAȱCommentary,ȱ119.ȱ

ȱ

155ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3:ȱTransitionȱtoȱComplexȱSpeakerȱ

JERȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stem/ȱ Focus

2.1aȱ

Nȱ

WayyiqtolȬSȱ

3sgMȱ

Predȱ

bȱ

Nȱ

Qetolȱ

ȱ

ȱ

2.2aȱ

NQȱ

Qatolȱȱ WȬQatal

2sgMȱ

Predȱ

bȱ

NQȱ

Qetolȱ

ȱ

ȱ

cȱ

NQQȱ

XȬQatalȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

3sgMȱ

Predȱ

dȱ

NQQPȱ

Qatalȱȱ

1sgȱ

Predȱ

ȱeȱ

NQQPȱ

Ellipȱ

ȱ

ȱ

fȱ

NQQPȱ

Qetolȱ

ȱ

(2sgF)ȱ

gȱ

NQQPȱ

PrePȱ

sgFȱ

ȱ

2.3aȱ

NQQPȱ

NmClȱ

ȱ

Sentȱ

bȱ

NQQPȱ

Ellipȱ

ȱ

ȱ

cȱ

NQQPȱ

XȬYiqtolȱȱȱ

3plMȱ

Sentȱ

dȱ

NQQPȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

3sgFȱ

Sentȱ

eȱ

Nȱ

Focusȱ

ȱ

ȱ

MSCȱ Baseȱ VP=N2ȱ SBȱ ȱ VP=C2ȱ ȱ

SBȱ VP=N3ȱ (C1) ȱ VP=C1ȱ ȱ

VP=N2ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ5.5ȱȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ InȱthisȱdiagramȱtheȱtermsȱC1ȱandȱC2ȱareȱintroduced,ȱwhereȱCȱindicatesȱaȱ character’sȱviewpointȱwithinȱaȱmentalȱȱspaceȱandȱtheȱsuperscriptȱnumȬ eralȱ indicatesȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ character.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ diagram,ȱ C1ȱ indiȬ catesȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ C2ȱ indicatesȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Theȱ termȱ SBȱ indicatesȱ theȱ spaceȱ buildingȱ termȱ orȱ constructionȱ thatȱ opensȱ theȱ followingȱ mentalȱ space.ȱȱ

156ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

1. Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ a.

Jeremiahȱ2.1aȬ2.2cȱ

Theȱclauseȱhierarchyȱlayoutȱforȱtheȱseriesȱofȱverbalȱformsȱinȱ2.1aȬ2.2cȱisȱ asȱfollows:ȱ ȱ 2.1ȱ a)ȱNȱ ȱwayyiqtolȬSȱȱ+ȱȱ b)ȱNȱ ȱȱȱȱȱqetolȱTO Nȱ=ȱmetapragmaticȱexpressionȱ 2.2ȱ a)ȱNQȱ ȱ qatolȱ?NJ,ȱwȬqatalȱ TS+ȱȱ b)ȱNQȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱqetolȱTO Nȱ=ȱmarkedȱconstructionȱ c)ȱNQQȱ xȬqatalȱ–ȱsingleȱverb,ȱTO ȱ=ȱ unmarkedȱȱ TheȱthreeȱmainȱclausesȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.2ȱformȱaȱhierarchyȱatȱtheȱsynȬ tactic,ȱ semanticȱ andȱ pragmaticȱ levels.ȱ Syntactically,ȱ theȱ mainȱ clauseȱ hierarchyȱ isȱ wayyiqtol,ȱ WȬqatalȱ andȱ XȬqatal.ȱ Theȱ termȱ TO Nȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ twoȱ clausesȱfunctionsȱasȱaȱgrammaticalizedȱcomplementiser.ȱTheȱtermȱ introducesȱcomplementȱclausesȱthatȱfullyȱjoinȱwithinȱtheȱmainȱclause.14ȱ Atȱ2.2aȱtheȱinfinitiveȱabsoluteȱjoinsȱwithȱtheȱqatalȱformȱatȱanȱequalȱlevelȱ dueȱ toȱ parataxis.15ȱ Theȱ constituentȱ orderȱ inȱ theȱ fourȱ clausesȱ isȱ VSO;ȱ V/VO;ȱXȬVSO,ȱindicatingȱpredicateȱfocusȱinȱeach.ȱThisȱisȱconsistentȱwithȱ providingȱbackgroundȱinformation.ȱȱ TheȱsyntacticȱconstructionsȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1,ȱ2.2ȱandȱ2.2cȱcontributeȱ toȱ theȱ discourseȱ pragmaticsȱ ofȱ theȱ hierarchy.ȱ Thisȱ argumentȱ isȱ basedȱ uponȱ Miller’sȱ discussionȱ ofȱ markednessȱ inȱ quotativeȱ frames.16ȱ Millerȱ proposesȱ thatȱ threeȱ typesȱ ofȱ quotativeȱ framesȱ mayȱ beȱ hierarchicallyȱ orderedȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱmarkedness.17ȱȱTheȱfirstȱoppositionȱisȱbetweenȱ singleȱverbȱframes,ȱsuchȱasȱ2.2c,ȱandȱcomplexȱ(multipleȱverb)ȱframes,ȱinȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 14ȱȱ Anȱ infinitiveȱ clauseȱ connectsȱ directlyȱ toȱ theȱ precedingȱ clause.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merweȱ andȱ Talstra,ȱ“Interface,”ȱ87.ȱ 15ȱȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ hierarchicalȱ downgradingȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ verbalȱ forms.ȱ Lehmann,ȱ “TowardsȱaȱTypologyȱofȱClauseȱLinkage,”ȱ184.ȱ 16ȱȱ Seeȱchapterȱ2,ȱsectionȱC.2ȱforȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱmarkednessȱandȱfocusȱtypes.ȱTheȱbasicȱ ideaȱregardingȱmarkednessȱisȱthatȱ“markednessȱisȱconcernedȱwithȱtheȱdistinctionȱbeȬ tweenȱwhatȱisȱneutral,ȱnatural,ȱorȱexpected”ȱandȱ“whatȱdepartsȱfromȱtheȱneutralȱ alongȱsomeȱspecificȱparameter.”ȱWhatȱisȱneutral,ȱnaturalȱandȱexpectedȱisȱtermedȱ unmarked,ȱwhileȱwhatȱdepartsȱfromȱneutralȱisȱtermedȱmarked.ȱAdditionally,ȱitȱhasȱ beenȱdemonstratedȱthatȱ“markednessȱasymmetriesȱhaveȱbeenȱshownȱtoȱholdȱnotȱonȬ lyȱforȱbinaryȱsystems,ȱbutȱalsoȱforȱlargerȱsetsȱofȱelements,ȱyieldingȱmarkednessȱhieȬ rarchies.”ȱH.ȱBussman,ȱDictionary,ȱ294.ȱThisȱunderstandingȱofȱmarkednessȱunderliesȱ Miller’sȱlinguisticȱanalysisȱofȱreportedȱspeechȱasȱwell.ȱȱ 17ȱȱ Miller,ȱRepresentation.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3:ȱTransitionȱtoȱComplexȱSpeakerȱ

157ȱ

whichȱtheȱmatrixȱverbȱisȱmediatedȱbyȱaȱfiniteȱformȱofȱ TO .ȱTheȱfirstȱareȱ unmarkedȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ isȱ marked.ȱ 18ȱ Theȱ secondȱ oppositionȱ isȱ beȬ tweenȱtwoȱtypesȱofȱcomplexȱframes.ȱInȱthisȱopposition,ȱaȱmultipleȱverbȱ frameȱmediatedȱbyȱaȱfiniteȱformȱofȱ TO ȱisȱunmarked,ȱwhereasȱaȱframeȱ withoutȱaȱfiniteȱformȱofȱ TO ȱbutȱcontainingȱ TO N,ȱsuchȱasȱ2.1ȱorȱ2.2,ȱisȱ marked.ȱSignificantly,ȱunmarkedȱmultipleȱverbȱframesȱoftenȱ representȱ aȱprototypicalȱdialogicȱsituation,ȱwhileȱ TO Nȱframesȱ“allowȱforȱtheȱtheȱ indexingȱ ofȱ nonȬdialogicȱ featuresȱ withinȱ theȱ frame,ȱ withinȱ theȱ quotaȬ tion,ȱorȱwithinȱtheȱadjacencyȱpair.”19ȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.1aȬbȱ containsȱ theȱ expressionȱ TO N[N JYJ[TDFJ[Y .ȱ WordȱorderȱforȱthisȱclauseȱisȱVSO,ȱindicatingȱpredicateȱfocus.ȱTheȱsenȬ tenceȱ answersȱ theȱquestionȱ“Whatȱdidȱ JYJ[TDFȱdo?”ȱTheȱquestionȱpreȬ supposesȱthatȱsomethingȱoccurredȱinvolvingȱtheȱactivatedȱtopicalȱentiȬ ty,ȱ JYJ[TDF.ȱ Thisȱ clauseȱ isȱ aȱ metapragmaticȱ phrasalȱ expressionȱ thatȱ indexesȱaȱmarked,ȱnonȬdialogicȱquotation.ȱThisȱspeechȱsituationȱreflectsȱ elementsȱatȱoddsȱwithȱaȱprototypicalȱcommunicationȱevent:ȱtheȱspeechȱ participantsȱareȱneitherȱfaceȬtoȬface,ȱnorȱinȱtheȱ sameȱphysicalȱlocation.ȱ Whileȱ thisȱ expressionȱ opensȱ anotherȱ speechȱ domain,ȱ thisȱ domainȱ isȱ structuredȱdifferentlyȱthanȱtheȱpreviousȱthreeȱdomains.ȱTheȱcommuniȬ cationȱ situationsȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ threeȱ speechȱ domainsȱ (1.4;ȱ 1.11ȱ andȱ 1.13)ȱexhibitȱdialogicȱturnȬtaking,ȱwhileȱthisȱexpressionȱgivesȱwayȱtoȱaȱ secondȱTO Nȱframeȱatȱ2.2.ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.2aȬb,ȱ TO N]NYT[[P\ DV TSY?NJ,ȱ containsȱ aȱ secondȱ TO Nȱ quotativeȱ frame.Thisȱ statementȱ indexesȱ aȱ marked,ȱ nonȬdialogicȱ quotationȱinȱwhichȱJerusalemȱisȱidentifiedȱasȱtheȱaddresseeȱforȱtheȱfolȬ lowingȱinformation.ȱWordȱorderȱinȱthisȱclauseȱisȱV/VO,ȱindicatingȱpreȬ dicateȱ focus.20ȱ Theȱ sentenceȱ answersȱ theȱ questionȱ “Whatȱ wasȱ Jȱ toȱ do?”ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 18ȱȱ Millerȱ explainsȱ thatȱ theȱ oppositionȱ betweenȱ markedȱ andȱ unmarkedȱ termsȱ isȱ privaȬ tive,ȱratherȱthanȱequipollent,ȱstatingȱ“Aȱprivativeȱoppositionȱinvolvesȱanȱunmarkedȱ member,ȱwhichȱincludesȱallȱofȱtheȱrangeȱofȱaȱphenomenon,ȱandȱaȱmarkedȱmember,ȱ whichȱspecifiesȱaȱsubsetȱofȱtheȱphenomenon…byȱcontrast,ȱanȱequipollentȱoppositionȱ involvesȱtwoȱmembersȱthatȱareȱopposites.ȱNeitherȱmemberȱisȱmoreȱcentralȱthanȱtheȱ other;ȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ oneȱ memberȱ signalsȱ theȱ oppositeȱ ofȱ theȱ otherȱ member.ȱ Anȱ equipollentȱ opposition,ȱ then,ȱ isȱ symmetrical.ȱ Byȱ contrast,ȱ aȱ privativeȱ oppositionȱ isȱ asymmetrical,ȱandȱmostȱoppositionsȱinȱlanguageȱareȱprivative.”ȱIbid.,ȱ427.ȱ 19ȱȱ “Withinȱtheȱ frame,ȱtheȱspeakersȱ mayȱ beȱ choral,ȱ unidentified,ȱprops,ȱ orȱdisplaced…ȱ theȱ addresseesȱ mayȱ beȱ unspecifiedȱ orȱ unidentified.ȱ Withinȱ theȱ quotationȱ nonȬ dialogicȱfeaturesȱincludeȱquotationsȱthatȱareȱsemiȬdirect,ȱretold,ȱiterative,ȱhypothetiȬ cal,ȱorȱfabricated.ȱInȱaddition,ȱtheȱquotationȱintroducedȱwithȱlemorȱmayȱexhibitȱproȬ nominalȱreferenceȱindicatingȱthatȱtheȱprincipalȱandȱtheȱanimatorȱareȱdistributedȱbeȬ tweenȱtwoȱindividuals.”ȱIbid.,ȱ394.ȱ 20ȱȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ infinitiveȱ absoluteȱ actsȱ asȱ anȱ imperativeȱ formȱ (itȱ isȱ asyndeticȱ andȱ beginsȱ itsȱ clause),ȱ whichȱ increasesȱ theȱ forceȱ ofȱ theȱ statement.ȱ Forȱ theȱ imperativeȱ functionȱofȱtheȱinfinitiveȱabsolute,ȱseeȱJ.ȱH.ȱHospers,ȱ“SomeȱRemarksȱAboutȱtheȱSoȬ CalledȱImperativeȱUseȱofȱtheȱInfinitiveȱAbsoluteȱ(InfinitivusȱProȱImperativo)ȱinȱClasȬ

158ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

Thisȱquestionȱpresupposesȱthatȱtheȱactivatedȱtopicalȱentity,ȱtheȱimpliedȱ you,ȱwillȱdoȱsomething,ȱpresumablyȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱdirectȱinstructionȱ toȱdoȱso.ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.2cȱ consistsȱ ofȱ theȱ citationȱ formulaȱ JYJ[TO JM.ȱ Thisȱ phraseȱisȱunmarked,ȱthusȱtheȱquotationȱmayȱorȱmayȱnotȱbeȱprototypiȬ callyȱdialogic.ȱWordȱorderȱforȱthisȱclauseȱisȱXȬVS,ȱagainȱindicatingȱpreȬ dicateȱ focus.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ clause,ȱ Xȱ representsȱ theȱ particleȱ JM,ȱ whichȱ funcȬ tionsȱ asȱ aȱ cataphoricȱ discourseȱ markerȱ directingȱ theȱ readerȱ toȱ theȱ followingȱquotation.ȱTakenȱtogether,ȱtheȱthreeȱclausesȱareȱinstantiationsȱ ofȱ Miller’sȱ markednessȱ hierarchy,ȱ andȱ occurȱ inȱ decreasingȱ orderȱ ofȱ markedness,ȱasȱfollows:ȱ 2.1a.ȱmetapragmaticȱphrasalȱexpressionȱ+ȱTO N:ȱmarkedȱinȱ2ndȱoppositionȱ 2.2a.ȱ TSȱ+ȱTO N:ȱmarkedȱinȱ1stȱoppositionȱȱȱ 2.2c.ȱconjugatedȱTO :ȱunmarkedȱinȱ1stȱoppositionȱ

Significantly,ȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱshiftsȱinȱeachȱclause,ȱdisruptingȱ theȱcoherenceȱofȱtheȱpassage.21ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱclause,ȱtheȱexplicitȱsubjectȱisȱ JYJ[TDF.ȱ Theȱ speakerȱ inȱ thisȱ clauseȱ isȱ Jeremiahȱ asȱ narrator,ȱ andȱ theȱ addresseeȱisȱtheȱassumedȱreader.ȱInȱtheȱsecondȱclauseȱtheȱsubjectȱisȱtheȱ impliedȱ“you”,ȱJeremiah.ȱȱTheȱimpliedȱspeakerȱisȱYahwehȱandȱtheȱimȬ pliedȱ“you”,ȱJeremiah,ȱisȱtheȱaddressee.ȱInȱtheȱthirdȱclause,ȱtheȱexplicitȱ subjectȱisȱYahweh,ȱwhoȱisȱtheȱspeaker.ȱMeanwhileȱJeremiahȱcontinuesȱ asȱ addressee.ȱ Allȱ threeȱ areȱ primaryȱ topicalȱ entities,ȱ andȱ allȱ threeȱ areȱ discourseȱactivatedȱinȱ1.1Ȭ1.19.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ sicalȱ Hebrew,”ȱ inȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Aramaicȱ Syntax,ȱ ed.ȱ K.ȱ Jongelingȱ (Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1991);ȱ Waltkeȱ andȱ OȇConnor,ȱ Anȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Syntax,ȱ §ȱ 35.35.31.ȱ 21ȱȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Givon,ȱ coherenceȱ isȱ determinedȱ byȱ anȱ amalgamationȱ ofȱ participantȱ (topic)ȱcontinuity,ȱtemporalȱcontinuity,ȱspatialȱcontinuityȱandȱactionȱ(themeȱcontinuȬ ity).ȱ Thisȱ isȱ reflectedȱ inȱ Khan’sȱ definitionȱ ofȱ aȱ discourseȱ spanȱ asȱ aȱ “stretchȱ ofȱ textȱ withȱ someȱ kindȱ ofȱ uniformity”.ȱ Withȱ regardȱ toȱ kindsȱ ofȱ uniformity,ȱ Khanȱ distinȬ guishesȱbetweenȱtopicȬspanȱandȱthemeȬspan.ȱAȱtopicȱspanȱisȱaȱspanȱofȱdiscourseȱdeliȬ neatedȱbyȱtopicȱcontinuity.ȱAȱtopicȱspanȱmayȱfunctionȱatȱtheȱlevelȱofȱaȱprimaryȱtopic,ȱ andȱmayȱalsoȱincorporateȱaȱsecondaryȱtopicȱspan,ȱbasedȱuponȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱaȱsecȬ ondaryȱ topic.ȱ Aȱ themeȱ spanȱ isȱ basedȱ uponȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ actionsȱ basedȱ uponȱ aȱ singleȱ semanticȱ domain.ȱ Thisȱ understandingȱ ofȱ coherenceȱ isȱ supportedȱ byȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ definitionsȱ ofȱ thingȱ andȱ relation.ȱ Coherence,ȱ discourseȱ spanȱ andȱtheȱ diffeȬ rentiationȱbetweenȱthingȱandȱrelationȱallȱmayȱbeȱviewedȱasȱaȱdirectȱresultȱofȱtheȱmanȬ nerȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ humanȱ brainȱ processesȱ variousȱ inputs:ȱ theȱ Werneke’sȱ areaȱ ofȱ theȱ brainȱisȱresponsibleȱforȱ“assigningȱtoȱandȱretrievingȱmeaningȱ(concepts)ȱfromȱsignsȱ thatȱreferȱtoȱdiscreteȱentities.”ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱtheȱBroca’sȱareaȱisȱresponsibleȱforȱ “conceptsȱ referringȱ toȱ typesȱ ofȱ situationsȱ andȱ actions.”ȱ T.ȱ Givon,ȱ “Beyondȱ ForeȬ groundȱandȱ Background,”ȱinȱCoherenceȱandȱGroundingȱinȱDiscourse,ȱed.ȱR.ȱS.ȱTomlinȱ (Amsterdam:ȱJohnȱBenjamins,ȱ1987);ȱKhan,ȱStudies,ȱxxxv;ȱRaible,ȱ“LanguageȱUniverȬ salsȱandȱLanguageȱTypology,”ȱ13.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3:ȱTransitionȱtoȱComplexȱSpeakerȱ

159ȱ

TheȱintroductionȱofȱJerusalemȱasȱtheȱfutureȱaddresseeȱisȱanȱimporȬ tantȱadditionȱatȱthisȱpoint.ȱTheȱprepositionalȱphraseȱinȱ2.2aȱmentionedȱ Jeremiah,ȱwhichȱactivatedȱtheȱentityȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱdiscourseȱsection.ȱ Additionally,ȱtheȱcomplexȱspeakerȱisȱdiscourseȬactivatedȱasȱwell.ȱPriorȱ toȱthisȱpoint,ȱJeremiahȱandȱYahwehȱwereȱinȱdialogueȱwithȱoneȱanother:ȱ now,ȱtogether,ȱtheyȱaddressȱJerusalem.ȱȱȱ b. Jeremiahȱ2.2dȬ2.3dȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.2dȬ2.3eȱ isȱ aȱ syntacticallyȱ complexȱ NQQPȱ space.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ onlyȱthreeȱconjugatedȱverbȱformsȱinȱnineȱclauses,ȱoneȱqatalȱformȱatȱ2.2dȱ andȱ twoȱ XȬyiqtolȱ formsȱ atȱ 2.3cȱ andȱ 2.3d.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ instanceȱ theȱ complexȱ speakerȱ exhibitsȱtheȱviewpointȱofȱtheȱexplicitȱspeaker,Yahweh.ȱHeȱadȬ dressesȱhisȱaudienceȱdirectly,ȱusingȱtheȱf/sȱpronominalȱsuffixȱfourȱtimesȱ withinȱthreeȱclausesȱ(2.2dȬf).ȱAsȱnotedȱpreviously,ȱJeremiahȱ2.2aȱestabȬ lishesȱ Jerusalemȱ asȱ theȱ addresseeȱ toȱ whomȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱ toȱ deliverȱ thisȱ speechȱonȱbehalfȱofȱYahweh.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱmentionȱofȱIsraelȱinȱ2.3aȱisȱ theȱ firstȱ indicationȱ thatȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ addresseesȱ mayȱ notȱ beȱ asȱ clearȬcutȱ asȱ wouldȱ firstȱ appear.ȱ Thisȱ raisesȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ identity,ȱ whichȱisȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱsectionȱEȱbelow.ȱ Theȱfinalȱelementȱinȱthisȱsectionȱisȱtheȱtermȱ JYJ[] P.ȱWhileȱvariousȱ scholarsȱhaveȱproposedȱnoȱlessȱthanȱeightȱfunctionsȱforȱthisȱterm,ȱParuȬ nak’sȱargumentȱthatȱitȱisȱaȱfocusȱmarkerȱisȱpersuasive.22ȱParunakȱnotesȱ thatȱ theȱ phraseȱ indicatesȱ “aȱ highlyȱ localȱ highlightingȱ ofȱ aȱ clauseȱ orȱ phraseȱ thatȱ meritsȱ theȱ recipients’ȱ specialȱ attention.”23ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ termȱhighlightsȱtheȱunfortunateȱconsequencesȱforȱanyȱwhoȱwouldȱharmȱ Israelȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ daysȱ ofȱ theȱ nation.ȱ Thisȱ setsȱ upȱ aȱ positiveȱ situationȱ thatȱprovidesȱtheȱbackgroundȱforȱtheȱgreatȱcontrastȱtoȱcome.ȱ

2. CognitiveȱConstructionȱ AtȱJeremiahȱ2.1,ȱthreeȱdistinctȱquotativeȱframesȱactȱasȱspaceȬbuildersȱforȱ theȱfourthȱspeechȱdomain.ȱTheȱfirst,ȱJeremiahȱ2.1,ȱisȱaȱrepetitionȱofȱtheȱ metapragmaticȱphrasalȱexpressionȱ TO N[N JYJ[TDF[J[Y,ȱwhichȱfuncȬ tionsȱasȱaȱlinkȱtoȱtheȱpreviousȱthreeȱspeechȱdomains.ȱTheȱsecond,ȱJereȬ miahȱ2.2a,ȱsimultaneouslyȱintroducesȱtheȱfollowingȱquotationȱandȱidenȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 22ȱȱ Forȱ aȱ fullȱ explanationȱ ofȱ focusȱ particles,ȱ seeȱ Ekkehardȱ König,ȱ Theȱ Meaningȱ ofȱ Focusȱ Particles:ȱ Aȱ Comparativeȱ Perspective,ȱ Theoreticalȱ Linguisticsȱ (London:ȱ Routledge,ȱ 1991).ȱ 23ȱȱ Parunak,ȱ“SomeȱDiscourseȱFunctionsȱofȱPropheticȱQuotationȱFormulasȱinȱJeremiah,”ȱ 571.ȱ

160ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

tifiesȱ theȱ threeȱ mainȱ interlocutorsȱ forȱ theȱ followingȱ section:ȱ Yahweh,ȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.2a,ȱ isȱ Yahwehȱ theȱ impliedȱ speaker,ȱ whileȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱ theȱ directȱ addresseeȱ andȱ Jerusalemȱ isȱ actiȬ vatedȱ asȱ Jeremiah’sȱ futureȱ addressee.ȱ Notably,ȱ theȱ interlocutorsȱ makeȱ theirȱ appearanceȱ inȱ theȱ textȱ inȱ orderȱ ofȱ importanceȱ indicatedȱ byȱ theȱ animacyȱhierarchy:ȱSAPȱ1,ȱSAPȱ2ȱandȱSAPȱ3;ȱorȱC1,ȱC2ȱandȱC3.ȱTheȱthreeȱ entitiesȱoccurȱtogetherȱwithinȱaȱspeechȱactȱsituation,ȱintroducingȱthisȱasȱ anȱinstantiationȱofȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱasȱwellȱ(seeȱsectionȱB,ȱabove).ȱ Finally,ȱtheȱthirdȱquotativeȱframe,ȱJeremiahȱ2.2c,ȱintroducesȱtheȱquotaȬ tionȱ thatȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱ intendedȱ toȱ presentȱ toȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Cumulatively,ȱ theȱ threeȱ statementsȱ contributeȱ toȱ theȱ identificationȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Yahwehȱasȱaȱcomplexȱspeakerȱatȱ2.2d.ȱAtȱthisȱpointȱJeremiahȱisȱtoȱbeginȱ speakingȱ forȱ Yahwehȱ inȱ hisȱ addressȱ toȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ JereȬ miah’sȱ wordsȱ carryȱ aȱ forceȱ beyondȱ thatȱ ofȱ anȱ ordinaryȱ human.ȱ ȱ AlȬ thoughȱJeremiahȱremainsȱveryȱhuman,ȱhisȱspeechȱnowȱcarriesȱtheȱforceȱ ofȱdivineȱspeech.ȱInȱthisȱway,ȱtheȱunifiedȱspeakingȱvoicesȱcontributeȱtoȱ theȱunityȱofȱtheȱsection,ȱandȱtoȱtheȱbookȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3ȱisȱanȱexampleȱofȱscopingȱtoȱhumanȱscale.ȱAllȱthreeȱ speechȬactȱ participants,ȱ Jeremiah,ȱ Jerusalemȱ andȱ Yahweh,ȱ appearȱ atȱ humanȱscale,ȱhighlightingȱtheȱnonȬiconicȱnatureȱofȱthisȱsectionȱofȱtext.ȱ Inȱthisȱway,ȱtheȱspeechȬactȱframeȱcontributesȱtoȱtheȱunityȱofȱtheȱsection.ȱ Theȱ fourthȱ speechȱ domainȱ appearsȱ againstȱ theȱ backdropȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱdiagram:ȱ ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3:ȱTransitionȱtoȱComplexȱSpeakerȱ

161ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ5.6ȱȱȱCognitiveȱConstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3ȱ

3. ConceptualȱMetaphorȱ Theȱ phraseȱ ?[TYPFUZ?N[VTM\ȱ initiatesȱ theȱ Pȱ spaceȱ atȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.2d.ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ containsȱ theȱ mentalȬstatesȱ predicateȱ [VTM\,ȱ andȱ theȱ firstȱ personȱreferenceȱinvokesȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱtheȱspeaker,ȱYahweh.ȱSinceȱ theȱ embeddedȱ spaceȱbelongsȱ toȱ theȱ character,ȱ Yahweh,ȱ theȱ readerȱ hasȱ accessȱ toȱ theȱ internalȱ thoughtȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱ divine.ȱ Thisȱ insiderȱ viewȱ includesȱ hisȱ fondȱ remembranceȱ ofȱ theȱ relationshipȱ heȱ sharedȱ withȱ hisȱ peopleȱ atȱ theȱ inceptionȱ ofȱ theȱ nationȱ (2.2d),ȱ theȱ holyȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ naȬ tion,ȱIsrael,ȱandȱhisȱprotectiveȱstanceȱtowardsȱtheȱnationȱ(2.3aȬd).ȱTwoȱ significantȱ conceptualȱ networksȱ orȱ blendedȱ spacesȱ structureȱ thisȱ secȬ tion:ȱ theȱ Bride,ȱ andȱ Firstȱ Fruits.ȱ Anȱ examinationȱ ofȱ theseȱ spacesȱ willȱ demonstrateȱtheirȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱliteraryȱmetaphorȱandȱcognitiveȱ construction.ȱȱ

162ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

4. LiteraryȱMetaphorȱandȱConceptualȱMetaphorȱ FauconnierȱandȱTurner’sȱrecentȱworkȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱconceptualȱblendingȱ theoryȱ bringsȱ clarityȱ toȱ theȱ crucialȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ literaryȱ metaȬ phorȱ andȱ conceptualȱ metaphor.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱ theory,ȱtheȱliteraryȱmetaphorsȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.2cȬ2.3ȱrepresentȱconceptualȱ networksȱ orȱ manyȬspaceȱ blends.ȱ Suchȱ blendsȱ incorporateȱ informationȱ fromȱ theȱ sourceȱ andȱ targetȱ inputsȱ ofȱ oneȱ orȱ moreȱ conceptualȱ metaȬ phors,ȱasȱwellȱasȱinformationȱfromȱframes,ȱICMsȱandȱimageȱschemata.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ aȱ literaryȱ metaphorȱ andȱ aȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱisȱnotȱoneȱtoȱone,ȱbutȱrather,ȱoneȱtoȱmany.ȱLikewise,ȱaȱsingleȱ conceptualȱmetaphorȱmayȱstructureȱvariousȱliteraryȱmetaphors,ȱ bringȬ ingȱaȱcovertȱunityȱtoȱaȱpassage.ȱForȱexample,ȱtheȱliteraryȱmetaphorsȱinȱ Jeremiahȱ2.2Ȭ2.3,ȱtheȱBrideȱandȱFirstȱFruits,ȱshareȱtheȱconceptualȱmetaȬ phorȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱPERSON.ȱInȱeachȱinstance,ȱtheȱsourceȱdomain,ȱ HUMAN,ȱ givesȱclarityȱtoȱtheȱtargetȱdomain,ȱ SOCIETY.ȱTheȱtwoȱusesȱdifferȱonlyȱinȱ gender,ȱaȱfeatureȱthatȱsetsȱupȱtwoȱwaysȱofȱdiscussingȱtheȱsameȱsociety.24ȱ Importantly,ȱ societyȱ inȱ bothȱ guisesȱ isȱ heldȱ responsibleȱ forȱ unfaithfulȬ ness.ȱȱ TheȱBrideȱblendȱcomprisesȱaȱpairȱofȱconceptualȱmetaphors:ȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERSONȱ andȱ LOVEȱ ISȱ Aȱ JOURNEY.ȱ Firstȱ Fruitsȱ comprisesȱ threeȱcogniȬ tiveȱ metaphors:ȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERSON;ȱ PEOPLEȱ AREȱ PLANTS;ȱ andȱ SOCIALȱ ORGANISATIONSȱ AREȱ PLANTS.ȱ Theseȱ conceptualȱ metaphorsȱ exertȱ aȱ conȬ trollingȱ influenceȱ uponȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.2Ȭ6.30ȱ andȱ provideȱ theȱ conceptualȱ backgroundȱforȱseveralȱliteraryȱmetaphorsȱbothȱwithinȱthisȱsectionȱandȱ throughoutȱ theȱ remainderȱ ofȱ theȱ book.25ȱ Thus,ȱ theseȱ conceptualȱ metaȬ phorsȱactȱasȱaȱunifyingȱfactorȱforȱthisȱsectionȱofȱtext.ȱ Forȱ Kövecsesȱ theȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERSONȱ andȱ SOCIALȱ ORGANISATIONSȱ AREȱPLANTSȱmetaphorsȱareȱinstantiationsȱofȱ ABSTRACTȱCOMPLEXȱSYSTEMSȱ metaphors.ȱAbstractȱcomplexȱsystemsȱareȱentitiesȱthatȱoccurȱaboveȱtheȱ levelȱofȱhumansȱinȱtheȱExtendedȱGreatȱChain:ȱsociety,ȱtheȱcosmosȱandȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 24ȱȱ ThisȱcovertȱunityȱundergirdsȱO’Connor’sȱassertionȱthatȱtheȱmarriageȱmetaphorȱisȱanȱ organisational,ȱorȱ rootȱ metaphorȱinȱtheȱbookȱ ofȱJeremiah.ȱAsȱanȱorganisationalȱmeȬ taphor,ȱtheȱmarriageȱmetaphorȱallowsȱJeremiahȱtoȱaddressȱsocietyȱeitherȱasȱaȱfemale,ȱ i.e.ȱJudahȱandȱJerusalem;ȱorȱasȱaȱmale,ȱi.e.ȱIsrael.ȱSheȱnotesȱtheȱdifferencesȱinȱgramȬ maticalȱ formȱ thatȱ characteriseȱ theȱ differentȱ sections:ȱ f/sȱ suffixesȱ areȱ presentȱ atȱ 2.2;ȱ 2.17Ȭ25;ȱandȱ2.33Ȭ3.5,ȱwhileȱm/sȱandȱm/pȱsuffixesȱareȱpresentȱatȱ2.3;ȱ2.4Ȭ16;ȱandȱ2.26Ȭ 32.ȱO’Connor,ȱ“Jeremiah,”ȱ491.ȱTheȱbifurcationȱbetweenȱfemaleȱandȱmaleȱrepresentaȬ tionsȱofȱsocietyȱisȱproblematicȱforȱfeministȱinterpretation.ȱSeeȱA.ȱR.ȱDiamondȱandȱK.ȱ M.ȱ O’Connor,ȱ “Unfaithfulȱ Passions:ȱ Codingȱ Womenȱ Codingȱ Menȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2ȱ Ȭȱ 3ȱ (4.2),”ȱinȱTroublingȱJeremiah,ȱedsȱA.ȱR.ȱDiamondȱetȱal.ȱ(Sheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱ Press,ȱ1999),ȱ123Ȭ145.ȱ 25ȱȱ SeeȱJeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ15;ȱ2.20Ȭ21;ȱ3.1Ȭ2;ȱ3.6Ȭ11;ȱ4.30Ȭ31;ȱ5.10;ȱ6.2;ȱ6.9;ȱ6.14.ȱSomeȱ ofȱtheseȱ examplesȱwillȱbeȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱsections.ȱȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3:ȱTransitionȱtoȱComplexȱSpeakerȱ

163ȱ

God.ȱ Additionally,ȱ abstractȱ complexȱ systemsȱ areȱ characterisedȱasȱ “abȬ stractȱ configurationsȱofȱentities,”ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱmind,ȱeconomicȱsystems,ȱ socialȱ organisations,ȱ relationshipsȱ andȱ society.ȱ Fourȱ mainȱ metaphorsȱ result:ȱ 1.

Anȱabstractȱcomplexȱsystemȱisȱtheȱhumanȱbody;ȱ

2.

anȱabstractȱcomplexȱsystemȱisȱaȱbuilding;ȱ

3.

anȱabstractȱcomplexȱsystemȱisȱaȱmachine;ȱandȱ

4.

anȱabstractȱcomplexȱsystemȱisȱaȱplant.ȱ

Kövecsesȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱcomplexȱsystemsȱelicitȱfourȱmajorȱconcerns:ȱ 1.

Doȱtheyȱfunctionȱeffectively?ȱ

2.

AreȱtheyȱlongȬlastingȱandȱstable?ȱ

3.

Areȱtheyȱdevelopingȱasȱtheyȱshould?ȱ

4.

Areȱtheyȱinȱappropriateȱcondition?ȱ26ȱ

Theȱ societyȱ isȱ aȱ personȱ metaphorȱ isȱ aȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ theȱ metaphorȱ thatȱrefersȱinȱparticularȱtoȱtheȱbodyȱofȱtheȱperson.ȱTheȱmetaphorȱhasȱaȱ doubleȱ focus:ȱ firstȱ uponȱ theȱ appropriatenessȱ ofȱ theȱ conditionȱ ofȱ theȱ abstractȱsystem,ȱandȱsecondlyȱuponȱtheȱstructureȱofȱtheȱabstractȱsystem.ȱ Theȱ focusȱ onȱ conditionȱ contributesȱ toȱ theȱ simpleȱ metaphorȱ anȱ approȬ priateȱconditionȱisȱaȱhealtyȱconditionȱandȱitsȱconverse,ȱanȱinappropriateȱ conditionȱisȱanȱunhealtyȱcondition.ȱTheȱsecondȱfocusȱcontributesȱtoȱtheȱ simpleȱ metaphorȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ anȱ abstractȱ complexȱ systemȱ isȱ theȱ physicalȱ structureȱofȱtheȱ humanȱbody.27ȱThus,ȱtheȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERSONȱ metaphorȱpresentsȱmaterialȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱconditionȱofȱtheȱsociety.ȱTheȱ focusȱ ofȱ theȱ SOCIALȱ ORGANISATIONSȱ AREȱ PLANTSȱ metaphorȱ isȱ uponȱ theȱ growthȱandȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱsocialȱorganisation.ȱTheȱchoiceȱofȱmeȬ taphorȱreflectsȱtheȱoriginator’sȱconcernȱbothȱwithȱtheȱconditionȱofȱsocieȬ tyȱandȱwithȱitsȱgrowthȱandȱdevelopment.ȱThereȱisȱaȱstrongȱconnectionȱ betweenȱ theȱ choiceȱ ofȱ theseȱ metaphorsȱ andȱ Jeremiah’sȱ commissionȱ toȱ pluckȱupȱandȱtoȱpullȱdown;ȱtoȱdestroyȱandȱtoȱoverȱthrow;ȱandȱtoȱbuildȱ andȱtoȱplant.ȱ a.

TheȱBrideȱ

Jeremiahȱ 2.2dȬgȱ isȱ aȱ deceptivelyȱ simpleȱ statementȱ onȱ theȱ partȱ ofȱ YahȬ weh.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ fourȱ shortȱ phrasesȱevokeȱaȱ tremendousȱ amountȱ ofȱ informationȱthatȱisȱfoundationalȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱsectionsȱofȱtext.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 26ȱȱ Kövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ127.ȱ 27ȱȱ Theȱ secondȱ metaphorȱ occursȱ frequentlyȱ inȱ theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ writings.ȱ Forȱ examȬ ple,ȱseeȱIȱCorinthiansȱ12.12Ȭ27.ȱ

164ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.2dȬgȱ ?[TYPFUZ?N[VTM\ ?[VNYNMVDJ  TDFOD[TZ ?VMN JYT\ NLT D ȱ

Theȱ Brideȱ isȱ aȱ blendedȱ space,ȱ orȱ cognitiveȱ networkȱ comprisingȱ theȱ sourceȱ andȱ targetȱ inputsȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERSONȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ andȱ theȱ sourceȱ andȱ targetȱ domainsȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ LOVEȱ ISȱ Aȱ JOURNEYȱ conceptualȱmetaphor.ȱItȱinvolvesȱ conceptualȱblendingȱofȱ sevȬ eralȱinputȱspaces,ȱratherȱthanȱtheȱtwoȬspaceȱmodelȱinvolvedȱinȱaȱsingleȱ conceptualȱmetaphor.ȱElementsȱfromȱtheȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱPERSONȱmetaphorȱ allowȱ forȱ theȱ conceptualisationȱ ofȱ theȱ entireȱ societyȱ asȱ anȱ individualȱ person.ȱThisȱisȱanȱinstanceȱofȱscopingȱtoȱhumanȱscale,ȱandȱitȱallowsȱtheȱ readerȱtoȱconceptualiseȱtheȱwholeȱofȱsocietyȱasȱaȱsingularȱbride.ȱSociety,ȱ theȱ bride,ȱ isȱ nowȱ availableȱ asȱ aȱ participantȱ inȱ theȱ LOVEȱ ISȱ Aȱ JOURNEYȱ metaphor.ȱBasicȱmappingsȱareȱavailableȱforȱtheȱ LOVEȱ ISȱ Aȱ JOURNEYȱmeȬ taphor.28ȱTheseȱinclude:ȱ Source:ȱjourneyȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Target:ȱloveȱ

theȱtravellersȱȱ

ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

theȱloversȱ

theȱvehicleȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

theȱloveȱrelationshipȱ

theȱjourneyȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

eventsȱinȱtheȱrelationshipȱ

theȱdistanceȱcoveredȱ ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

theȱprogressȱmadeȱ

theȱobstaclesȱencounteredȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

difficultiesȱexperiencedȱ

decisionsȱaboutȱdirectionȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

choicesȱaboutȱwhatȱtoȱdoȱ

theȱdestinationȱofȱtheȱjourneyȱ ȱ

>ȱ

goalȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.2dȬgȱincludesȱtheȱloversȱasȱtravellersȱandȱtheȱinitialȱstageȱofȱ travelȱinȱtheȱwildernessȱasȱtheȱjourney,ȱwhichȱmayȱalludeȱtoȱtheȱExodusȱ period.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱmentionȱofȱeventsȱinȱtheȱrelationship,ȱprogress,ȱdifȬ ficulties,ȱchoicesȱorȱgoal;ȱonlyȱtheȱfirstȱflushȱofȱmarriedȱlove.ȱHowever,ȱ theȱ journeyȱ metaphorȱ isȱ wellȱ entrenchedȱ asȱ frameȱ knowledge,ȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ pathȱ schema.ȱ Theȱ pathȱ schemaȱ involvesȱ physicalȱ orȱ metaȬ phoricalȱmovementȱfromȱplaceȱtoȱplaceȱandȱnormallyȱcomprisesȱaȱstartȬ ingȱpoint,ȱaȱgoalȱandȱintermediateȱpoints.29ȱThus,ȱaȱmentionȱofȱaȱsingleȱ partȱofȱtheȱjourneyȱwillȱactivateȱtheȱentireȱframe.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱinitialȱ phaseȱ ofȱ theȱ journeyȱ isȱ inȱ view,ȱ settingȱ upȱ anȱ expectationȱ thatȱ theȱ reȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 28ȱȱ Kövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ6Ȭ7.ȱ 29ȱȱ Johnson,ȱ Theȱ Bodyȱ inȱ theȱ Mind:ȱ Theȱ Bodilyȱ Basisȱ ofȱ Meaning,ȱ Imagination,ȱ andȱ Reason,ȱ 115.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3:ȱTransitionȱtoȱComplexȱSpeakerȱ

165ȱ

mainderȱofȱtheȱjourneyȱisȱtoȱfollow.ȱTheȱjourneyȱfromȱEgyptȱtoȱCanaanȱ isȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱpathȱschemaȱthatȱrecursȱwhenȱrecountingȱtheȱ eventsȱinȱtheȱlifeȱofȱtheȱnation,ȱIsrael.ȱThisȱisȱoftenȱpairedȱwithȱtheȱideaȱ thatȱ beingȱ inȱ orȱ outȱ ofȱ Canaanȱ isȱ aȱ measureȱ ofȱ God’sȱ approvalȱ ofȱ hisȱ people,ȱwhichȱisȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱcontainmentȱschema.ȱTheseȱtwoȱ schemataȱactȱasȱcovertȱunifyingȱdevices,ȱbothȱinȱtheirȱoriginalȱcontextsȱ andȱinȱtheȱcontextsȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱlaterȱappear.ȱ b. FirstȱFruitsȱ Jeremiahȱ2.3ȱpresentsȱIsraelȱasȱtheȱfirstȱfruitsȱofȱtheȱharvestȱofȱYahweh.ȱ Again,ȱtheȱoriginatorȱcompressesȱaȱtremendousȱamountȱofȱinformationȱ intoȱaȱfewȱshortȱcomments.ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.3ȱ JYJ[NN T[FS JV YDVV[ T YO [Y[NM NM ]J[N  DVJTȱ

Firstȱ Fruitsȱ isȱ aȱ blendedȱ space,ȱ comprisingȱ theȱ sourceȱ andȱ targetȱ doȬ mainsȱofȱthreeȱconceptualȱmetaphors:ȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERSON;ȱ PEOPLEȱ AREȱ PLANTS;ȱandȱ SOCIALȱ ORGANISATIONSȱ AREȱ PLANTS.30ȱIsraelȱappearsȱinȱtheȱ singular,ȱagainȱscopingȱtheȱentireȱsocietyȱtoȱhumanȱscaleȱviaȱtheȱ SOCIEȬ TYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERSONȱ metaphor.ȱ Onceȱ thisȱ moveȱ isȱ accomplished,ȱ Israelȱ mayȱ beȱ mappedȱ asȱ aȱ personȱ withinȱ theȱ targetȱ domainȱ inȱ theȱ PEOPLEȱ AREȱ PLANTSȱmetaphor.ȱTheȱcharacteristicsȱofȱplantsȱareȱthenȱavailableȱasȱtheȱ sourceȱdomainȱforȱunderstandingȱhumans.ȱTheȱsourceȱdomainsȱinȱeachȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ twoȱ metaphorsȱ eachȱ utiliseȱ anȱ entityȱ thatȱ isȱ aȱ singleȱ stepȱ lowerȱonȱtheȱExtendedȱGreatȱChainȱthanȱtheȱentityȱutilisedȱinȱtheȱtargetȱ domain.ȱ Theȱ thirdȱ metaphor,ȱ SOCIALȱ ORGANISATIONSȱ AREȱ PLANTS,ȱ usesȱ anȱ entityȱ inȱ theȱ sourceȱ domainȱ (plants)ȱ thatȱ isȱ twoȱ stepsȱ lowerȱ thanȱ theȱ entityȱ inȱ theȱ targetȱ domainȱ (society).ȱ ȱ Basicȱ mappingsȱ forȱ theȱ SOCIALȱ ORGANISATIONSȱAREȱPLANTSȱmetaphorȱare:ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 30ȱȱ ForȱaȱfullȱdiscussionȱseeȱKövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ8Ȭ9.ȱ

166ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

Source:ȱplantȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Target:ȱsocialȱorganisationsȱ

Theȱwholeȱplantȱ

ȱ

ȱ

>ȱȱ

theȱentireȱorganisationȱ

Aȱpartȱofȱtheȱplantȱ

ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

aȱpartȱofȱtheȱorganisationȱ

Growthȱofȱtheȱplantȱ ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

growthȱofȱorganisationȱ

Removingȱaȱpartȱofȱtheȱplantȱ ȱ

>ȱ

reducingȱorganisationȱ

Theȱrootȱofȱtheȱplantȱ ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

originȱofȱtheȱorganisationȱ

Theȱfloweringȱ

ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

theȱmostȱsuccessfulȱstageȱ

Theȱfruitsȱorȱcropsȱ

ȱ

ȱ

>ȱ

beneficialȱconsequencesȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.3ȱintroducesȱonlyȱtheȱideaȱofȱtheȱfirstȱfruits,ȱtheȱfruitȱorȱcropsȱ thatȱmapȱtoȱtheȱbeneficialȱconsequences.ȱIsraelȱwasȱholyȱandȱsetȱapart,ȱandȱ dueȱ toȱ thisȱ relationship,ȱ Israelȱ enjoyedȱ theȱ protectionȱ ofȱ Yahweh.ȱ Theȱ conceptualȱ metaphorsȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ Brideȱ andȱ theȱ Firstȱ Fruitsȱ blendsȱ recurȱ throughoutȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.1Ȭ6.30ȱ andȱ provideȱ theȱ conceptualȱ backȬ dropȱforȱmuchȱofȱthisȱsectionȱofȱtext.ȱTheȱconceptualȱbackdropȱhasȱbeenȱ setȱforȱwhatȱfollows,ȱandȱwhatȱfollowsȱisȱaȱcontrast,ȱindeed.ȱTheȱsameȱ pairȱofȱmetaphorsȱrecursȱatȱ2.20Ȭ2.21,ȱbutȱfromȱaȱveryȱnegativeȱperspecȬ tive:ȱ theȱ brideȱ hasȱ becomeȱ aȱ looseȱ woman,ȱ andȱ theȱ choiceȱ vineȱ whichȱ Yahwehȱ hadȱ plantedȱ hasȱ becomeȱ wild.ȱ Otherȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱ settledȱ nationȱ asȱ aȱ vineȱ occurȱ atȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.10ȱ (feminineȱ reference)ȱ andȱ JereȬ miahȱ6.9ȱ(masculineȱreferenceȱtoȱIsrael)ȱ31ȱ

5.

TheȱAddresseesȱandȱtheȱProblemȱofȱIdentityȱ

Oneȱissueȱtoȱbeȱresolvedȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱaddresseesȱisȱtheȱproblemȱ ofȱidentityȱ(seeȱfullȱdiscussionȱonȱpageȱ178).ȱWhileȱtheȱMTȱisȱfairlyȱclearȱ thatȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱ toȱ addressȱ Jerusalem,ȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ referencesȱ toȱ Israelȱ andȱ Jacobȱ hasȱ causedȱ someȱ toȱ positȱ thatȱ Jeremiah’sȱ earliestȱ preachingȱ includedȱ addressesȱ toȱ theȱ North.32ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ Albertzȱ notesȱ thatȱ termsȱ referringȱ toȱ Israel,ȱ theȱ Houseȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ andȱtheȱHouseȱofȱJacobȱareȱprevalentȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ4.2,ȱwhereasȱtermsȱ referringȱ toȱ Jerusalem,ȱ Zion,ȱ theȱ Daughterȱ ofȱ Zion,ȱ Judahȱ andȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 31ȱȱ Robertȱ Carrollȱ observesȱ thatȱ theȱ forceȱ ofȱ theȱ imagesȱ inȱ thisȱ section,ȱ includingȱ theȱ imagesȱofȱloyalty,ȱlove,ȱfruitfulnessȱandȱprotection,ȱisȱderivedȱfromȱtheȱcontrastȱwithȱ theȱfollowingȱmaterial,ȱwhichȱincludesȱreferencesȱtoȱdisloyalty,ȱmisplacedȱlove,ȱfruitȬ lessnessȱandȱlackȱofȱprotection.ȱCarroll,ȱJeremiah:ȱAȱCommentary,ȱ119.ȱ 32ȱȱ ThisȱsituationȱalsoȱmilitatesȱagainstȱutilisingȱtheȱcomputationȱofȱcumulativeȱreferenȬ tialȱdensityȱtoolȱthatȱwasȱsoȱeffectiveȱinȱanalysingȱtheȱfrequencyȱandȱdistributionȱofȱ entitiesȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2ȱ(seeȱFigureȱ4.8).ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ

167ȱ

Houseȱ ofȱ Judahȱ areȱ prevalentȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.3Ȭ6.30.ȱ Regardingȱ thisȱ division,ȱAlbertzȱstates:ȱ Nurȱ dieȱ Teilsammlungȱ 2.4Ȭ4.2ȱ (ohneȱ 3.6Ȭ18)ȱ gehörtȱ dieȱ Frühzeitȱ Jeremiasȱ (627Ȭ609)ȱ an.ȱ Esȱ handeltȱ sichȱ umȱ UnheilsȬȱ undȱ Heilsprophetieȱ anȱ dieȱ Bewohnerȱ desȱ ehemaligenȱ Nordreichs...4.3Ȭ6.30ȱ isȱ eineȱ Sammlungȱ vonȱ Unheilswortenȱ gegenȱ Judaȱ anȱ derȱ Zeitȱ nachȱ 609,ȱ wahrscheinlichȱ bisȱ zurȱ AufzeichnungȱderȱUrrolleȱ605/4.33ȱ

Albertzȱconcludesȱthatȱthisȱdivisionȱresolvesȱaȱseriesȱofȱterminological,ȱ functionalȱandȱchronologicalȱproblemsȱinȱJeremiahȱ2Ȭ6.ȱGivenȱtheȱcomȬ positeȱnatureȱofȱtheȱbookȱofȱJeremiah,ȱitȱisȱentirelyȱpossibleȱthatȱtheȱtwoȱ sectionsȱ representȱ earlyȱ disasterȱ andȱ salvationȱ preachingȱ toȱ formerȱ inhabitantsȱofȱtheȱNorthȱ thatȱwasȱrepeatedȱtoȱtheȱinhabitantsȱofȱJudahȱ later.ȱȱ However,ȱgivenȱtheȱpreviousȱdiscussionȱofȱperspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ 2.1ff,ȱitȱbecomesȱapparentȱthatȱinȱtheȱfinalȱformȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱbothȱsectionsȱ ofȱmaterialȱfunctionȱasȱtheȱwordsȱofȱtheȱcomplexȱspeakerȱtoȱJerusalem,ȱ whoȱ appearsȱ asȱ theȱ addresseeȱ inȱ 2.2a.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ sectionȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ belongsȱ toȱ Yahweh.ȱ Thus,ȱ whileȱ itȱ isȱ entirelyȱ possibleȱ thatȱ Jeremiahȱ mayȱ haveȱ addressedȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ remnantȱ ofȱ theȱ Northernȱ Kingdom,ȱ theȱtextȬspaceȱofȱtheȱMTȱsupportsȱJerusalemȱasȱtheȱmainȱaddressee.ȱTheȱ issueȱ ofȱ addresseeȱ identityȱ playsȱ anȱ importantȱ roleȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ discussion.ȱ

C. Jeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ 1. ScopingȱfromȱHumanȱScaleȱ Whileȱ theȱ examplesȱdiscussedȱaboveȱpresentedȱspeechȱframesȱ andȱ conceptualȱmetaphorsȱthatȱinvolveȱscopingȱtoȱhumanȱscale,ȱtheȱvirtualȱ visualȱ scanningȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.10ȱ providesȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ scopingȱ fromȱ humanȱ scale.ȱ Scopingȱ fromȱ humanȱ scaleȱ requiresȱ bothȱ aȱ localisedȱ huȬ manȱ experiencerȱ asȱ anȱ anchorȱ pointȱ andȱ identifiableȱ pointsȱ alongȱ aȱ physicalȱ and/orȱ metaphoricalȱ trajectory.ȱ Inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.10,ȱ establishingȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱlocalisedȱhumanȱexperiencerȱisȱofȱprimaȬ ryȱimportance.ȱTheȱreferencesȱtoȱCyprusȱandȱKedarȱmayȱbeȱcalculatedȱ accuratelyȱ onlyȱ whenȱ thisȱ isȱ understood.ȱ Again,ȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ perspective.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ identifyȱ theȱ localisedȱ humanȱ experiencerȱ inȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 33ȱȱ Rainerȱ Albertz,ȱ „Jer.ȱ 2Ȭ6ȱ undȱ dieȱ Frühzeitverkündigungȱ Jeremias,“ȱ ZAWȱ 94ȱ (1982),ȱ 47.ȱ

168ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

Jeremiahȱ 2.10,ȱ itȱ firstȱ isȱ necessaryȱ toȱ accountȱ forȱ participantȱ referenceȱ andȱperspectiveȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9.ȱ Theȱ terminologicalȱ difficultiesȱ mentionedȱ inȱ sectionȱ B.5ȱ aboveȱ areȱ evidentȱ inȱ theȱ phraseȱ N T[V[DVYZRONMYDS[V[DJYJ[TDFYO ,ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.4,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱtermȱ JYJ[TDFȱlinksȱtheȱpresentȱspaceȱtoȱJeȬ remiahȱ1.2a.ȱTwoȱquestionsȱnowȱarise.ȱFirst,ȱtoȱwhomȱdoesȱtheȱperspecȬ tiveȱinȱthisȱclauseȱbelong?ȱSecond,ȱhowȱareȱtheȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱhouseȱ ofȱJacobȱandȱtheȱhouseȱofȱIsraelȱtoȱbeȱreconciledȱwithȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱ addresseeȱasȱJerusalemȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.2a?ȱSinceȱthisȱsectionȱisȱaȱcontinuȬ ationȱ ofȱ N3,ȱ examiningȱ theȱ configurationȱ ofȱ participantsȱ inȱ theȱ mentalȱ spacesȱ constructionȱ taggedȱ N3ȱ clarifiesȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ perspectiveȱ withinȱ theȱ clause.ȱ Participantsȱ inȱ N3ȱ includeȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Yahwehasȱ comȬ plexȬspeakerȱ andȱ Jerusalemȱ asȱ addresseeȱ (seeȱ Figureȱ 5.1).ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ sectionȱisȱalsoȱatȱtheȱNQQȱlevelȱofȱembedding,ȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱaccountȱ forȱ theȱ verbȱ YOȱ asȱ aȱ shiftȱ inȱ perspectiveȱ forȱ theȱ complexȱ speaker.ȱ Withinȱ theȱ previousȱ section,ȱ theȱ explicitȱ perspectiveȱ belongsȱ toȱ YahȬ weh,ȱ whileȱ inȱ theȱ presentȱ sectionȱ theȱ implicitȱ perspectiveȱ belongsȱ toȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Likewise,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ argumentȱ above,ȱ whenȱ readingȱ theȱ textȱ inȱ itsȱ presentȱ formȱ theȱ addresseeȱ isȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Jeremiahȱ adȬ dressesȱtheȱpeopleȱdirectlyȱinȱthisȱinstance,ȱsoȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱconstrueȱ theȱ situationȱ asȱ moreȱ iconic.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ becauseȱ theȱ individuatedȱ addresȬ seesȱandȱ Jeremiahȱappearȱwithinȱaȱ humanȱscaleȱsituationȱ ofȱ speaking.ȱ (However,ȱ sinceȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ complexȱ speakerȱ involved,ȱ theȱ situationȱ isȱ notȱatȱtheȱfarȱendȱofȱtheȱscale.)ȱ Aȱ secondȱ featureȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.4Ȭ2.9ȱ alsoȱ dependsȱ uponȱ theȱ locaȬ lisedȱ humanȱ experiencerȱ asȱ anȱ anchorȱ point,ȱ thisȱ timeȱ asȱ anȱ anchorȱ pointȱ alongȱaȱtimeȱ scale.ȱ Theȱ timeȱ scaleȱisȱ anȱinstantiationȱofȱ theȱ pathȱ schema,ȱwhichȱincludesȱaȱpathȱandȱpointsȱalongȱtheȱpath.ȱTheȱearliestȱ pointȱ onȱ theȱ timeȱ scaleȱ isȱJeremiahȱ 2.5b,ȱ NY[D]M[VYD Y EOJO.ȱ Thisȱ rhetoricalȱ questionȱ isȱ significantȱ onȱ severalȱ counts.ȱ Linguistically,ȱ itȱ makesȱtheȱsubjectȱyourȱfathersȱdiscourseȬactiveȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱsectionȱ ofȱ text.ȱ Itȱ doesȱ soȱ byȱ anchoringȱ theȱ termȱfathersȱtoȱtheȱ presentȱ addresȬ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ

169ȱ

seesȱbyȱtheȱm/pȱsuffixȱattachedȱtoȱtheȱnoun.34ȱStylistically,ȱitȱisȱtheȱfirstȱ inȱaȱseriesȱofȱrhetoricalȱquestionsȱthatȱactȱasȱaȱunifyingȱfeatureȱforȱJereȬ miahȱ 2.4Ȭ16.35ȱ Theologically,ȱ theȱ expectedȱ answerȱ isȱ “nothing,”ȱ whichȱ impliesȱthatȱYahwehȱhadȱnotȱgivenȱtheȱancestorsȱanyȱreasonȱtoȱdistanceȱ themselves,ȱnorȱtoȱrunȱafterȱworthlessȱthings.ȱYahwehȱdeclaresȱhimselfȱ blameless.ȱTheȱtimeȱscaleȱmovesȱfromȱpastȱtoȱpresentȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.7a,ȱ NOTMJLT N ]MV  [D Y ,ȱwhereȱtheȱ2/plȱaddresseesȱareȱtheȱobjectȱofȱ theȱ sentence.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ timeȱ scaleȱ movesȱ fromȱ presentȱ toȱ futureȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.9,ȱ whereȱ Yahwehȱ statesȱ hisȱ intentionȱ toȱ contendȱ withȱ bothȱ theȱpresentȱaddresseesȱandȱwithȱtheirȱchildren’sȱchildren.ȱ

2. Counterfactualsȱ AȱpairȱofȱunȬaskedȱrhetoricalȱquestionsȱintroducesȱtheȱreasonsȱforȱthisȱ contention.ȱ Theȱ embeddingȱ inȱ theȱ first,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.6a,ȱ JYJ[J[ YTO  NY,ȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ ancestors.ȱ Theȱ embeddingȱ inȱ theȱ second,ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.8a,ȱ JYJ[J[ YTO  N][PJMJ,ȱ belongsȱtoȱtheȱpriests,ȱ whoȱ areȱ aȱ subgroupȱ ofȱ theȱ currentȱ addressees.ȱ Theȱ failureȱ toȱ askȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 34ȱȱ Thisȱ followsȱ theȱ secondȱ ofȱ Langacker’sȱ generalȱ principlesȱ ofȱ structureȱ building,ȱ whichȱinclude:ȱ 1) Theȱbasicȱunitsȱofȱstructureȱbuildingȱareȱrelationshipsȱratherȱthanȱthings;ȱ 2) Whenȱstructureȱisȱadded,ȱitȱisȱusuallyȱanchoredȱtoȱwhatȱhasȱalreadyȱbeenȱ built,ȱbyȱvirtueȱofȱconceptualȱoverlap;ȱ 3) Evenȱwhenȱcovert,ȱtheȱgroundȱisȱtheȱultimateȱanchorȱforȱbuildingȱconȬ nectedȱstructures;ȱandȱ 4) Inȱaȱsequenceȱofȱclauses,ȱtheȱsubjectȱhasȱaȱspecialȱstatusȱasȱaȱpointȱofȱatȬ tachmentȱtoȱwhatȱhasȱalreadyȱbeenȱconstructedȱandȱasȱaȱpointȱofȱaccessȱtoȱ whatȱisȱcurrentlyȱbeingȱconstructed.ȱȱ ȱ Langacker,ȱ“DiscourseȱinȱCognitiveȱGrammar,”ȱ171Ȭ173.ȱ 35ȱȱ Carrollȱviewsȱtheȱseriesȱofȱrhetoricalȱquestionsȱasȱtheȱunifyingȱfeatureȱinȱthisȱsectionȱ ofȱtext.ȱO’Connorȱwidensȱtheȱissueȱofȱunityȱtoȱincludeȱ“…ȱtheȱunifyingȱeffectsȱofȱrootȱ metaphorsȱinȱpoetryȱandȱprose,ȱnarrativeȱdevices,ȱsymbolicȱmeaningsȱofȱeventsȱandȱ dates.”ȱO’ConnorȱquotesȱBiddle,ȱwhoȱnotesȱthatȱunityȱcomesȱfromȱtheȱdominanceȱofȱ theȱdivineȱvoiceȱacrossȱtheȱbookȱandȱfromȱtheȱcentralȱroleȱgivenȱtoȱJeremiah.ȱTheseȱ viewsȱareȱcompatibleȱwithȱtheȱTDȱapproach.ȱAsȱpreviouslyȱexplained,ȱtheȱconcernȱofȱ thisȱvolumeȱisȱtoȱgainȱanȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱtextȱofȱMTȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱthroughȱ aȱcognitivelyȱbasedȱtextȱanalysis.ȱThisȱanalysisȱincludesȱanȱexpandedȱdescriptionȱofȱ theȱliteraryȱmetaphorsȱfoundȱinȱtheȱbookȱbyȱincludingȱanȱexplanationȱofȱliteraryȱmeȬ taphorȱasȱaȱconceptualȱblendingȱprocessȱthatȱincorporatesȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱwithȱ knowledgeȱ derivedȱ fromȱ frames,ȱ schemasȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ models.ȱ Itȱ alsoȱ allowsȱ forȱ theȱ conceptualisationȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Yahwehȱasȱ aȱ complexȱ speaker.ȱ Markȱ Biddle,ȱ Polyphonyȱ andȱ Symphonyȱ inȱ Propheticȱ Literature:ȱ Rereadingȱ Jeremiahȱ 7Ȭ20ȱ (Macon:ȱ MaȬ conȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1996);ȱ Carroll,ȱ Jeremiah:ȱ Aȱ Commentary,ȱ 122;ȱ O’Connor,ȱ “JereȬ miah,”ȱ489.ȱȱ

170ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

questionȱ mayȱ beȱ describedȱ asȱ aȱ nonȬevent.ȱ Otherȱ negativeȱ statementsȱ occurȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.8:ȱ thoseȱ whoȱ handleȱ theȱ lawȱ [PYF[ N;ȱ theȱ rulersȱ transgressȱ against;ȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ theȱ prophets,ȱ whoȱ bothȱ prophesyȱ byȱ Baalȱandȱgoȱafterȱworthlessȱthings.ȱWhileȱtheseȱareȱnegativeȱstatements,ȱ onlyȱ theȱ failureȱ toȱ askȱ “Whereȱ isȱ Yahweh?”ȱ isȱ aȱ nonȬevent,ȱ whichȱ isȱ somethingȱthatȱshouldȱhaveȱhappened,ȱbutȱdidȱnot.ȱTakenȱtogether,ȱtheȱ subgroupsȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.8ȱmanagedȱtoȱdoȱthingsȱtheyȱshouldȱnotȱhaveȱ doneȱandȱnotȱtoȱdoȱthingsȱtheyȱshouldȱhaveȱdone.ȱNoneȱisȱmoreȱsignifiȬ cantȱ forȱ thisȱ discussionȱ thanȱ theȱ nonȬeventȱ ofȱ theȱ unȬaskedȱ quesȬ tion,”WhereȱisȱYahweh?”ȱ Jeremiahȱ2.6ȱandȱ2.8ȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱancestorsȱandȱtheȱpriestsȱdidȱnotȱ utterȱtheȱstatementȱWhereȱisȱYahweh?ȱAdditionally,ȱtheȱancestorsȱdidȱnotȱ askȱafterȱYahwehȱwhoȱbroughtȱusȱupȱfromȱEgypt,ȱwhoȱledȱusȱinȱtheȱwilderȬ ness,ȱwhichȱisȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱpathȱschema.ȱTheȱsituationȱisȱdifȬ ferentȱforȱtheȱpresentȱaddressees,ȱasȱYahwehȱstates,ȱ“Iȱbroughtȱyouȱintoȱaȱ plentifulȱlandȱtoȱeatȱitsȱfruitsȱandȱgoodȱthings,ȱbutȱwhenȱyouȱenteredȱyouȱdeȬ filedȱmyȱland,”ȱwhichȱisȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱcontainmentȱschema.ȱTheȱ unaskedȱ rhetoricalȱ question,ȱ Whereȱ isȱ Yahweh?,ȱ isȱ aȱ conceptualȱ blendȱ thatȱinvolvesȱtheȱgenerationȱofȱaȱcounterfactualȱspace.ȱToȱthisȱpointȱinȱ theȱvolume,ȱtheȱdescribedȱmentalȱspacesȱnetworkȱhasȱincludedȱaȱseriesȱ ofȱ interconnectedȱ singleȱ spaces.ȱ However,ȱ Fauconnierȱ states,ȱ “weȱ useȱ ‘counterfactual’ȱtoȱmeanȱthatȱoneȱspaceȱhasȱforcedȱincompatibilityȱwithȱ another.”36ȱ Therefore,ȱ counterfactualȱ constructionsȱ areȱ moreȱ complex.ȱ Theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ aȱ counterfactualȱ blendȱ requiresȱ aȱ pairȱ ofȱ spacesȱ asȱ inputs,ȱandȱaȱblendedȱspaceȱasȱwell.ȱForȱJeremiahȱ2.6,ȱtheȱactualȱspace,ȱ Inputȱ 1,ȱ contains:ȱ a)ȱ theȱ ancestorsȱ andȱ b)ȱ theȱ unaskedȱ question.ȱ Theȱ presenceȱofȱthisȱnonȬeventȱresultsȱinȱc)ȱYahweh’sȱdispleasure.ȱThisȱgeȬ neratesȱInputȱ2,ȱaȱcounterfactualȱspaceȱthatȱcontains:ȱa)ȱtheȱancestors,ȱb)ȱ theȱ event,ȱ theȱ askedȱ question,ȱ andȱ c)ȱ theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ contention.ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ theȱ blendedȱ spaceȱ containsȱ theȱ negatedȱ possibilityȱ that:ȱ a)ȱ theȱ ancestors,ȱȱb)ȱmightȱchooseȱtoȱaskȱtheȱquestion,ȱandȱasȱaȱconsequence,ȱc)ȱ Yahweh’sȱdispleasureȱwouldȱcease.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 36ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ230.ȱ

ȱ

171ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ5.7ȱȱȱCounterfactualȱ1:ȱUnfufilledȱPossibilityȱ

Forȱ Jeremiahȱ2.8,ȱ theȱ actualȱspace,ȱInputȱ 1,ȱ containsȱ a)ȱ theȱ addressees,ȱ b)ȱ theȱ nonȬeventȱ ofȱ theȱ unaskedȱ question,ȱ andȱ c)ȱ Yahweh’sȱ displeaȬ sure.37ȱ Thisȱ generatesȱ Inputȱ 2,ȱ aȱ counterfactualȱ spaceȱ thatȱ containsȱ a)ȱ theȱaddressees,ȱb)ȱtheȱaskedȱquestion,ȱbutȱc)ȱnoȱcontention.ȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱ theȱblendedȱspaceȱcontainsȱa)ȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱtheȱaddresseesȱmightȱ b)ȱ chooseȱ toȱ askȱ theȱ question,ȱ thus,ȱ c)ȱ Yahweh’sȱ displeasureȱ wouldȱ cease.ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 37ȱȱ Forȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ nonȬthingsȱ andȱ nonȬeventsȱ inȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱ theory,ȱ seeȱ Ibid.,ȱ241Ȭ247.ȱ

172ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ5.8ȱȱȱCounterfactualȱ2:ȱPossibilityȱBlendȱ

ItȱnowȱbecomesȱimportantȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱtheȱnonȬeventȱ representedȱ byȱ theȱ clauseȱ “WhereȱisȱYahweh?”.ȱ Givenȱ theȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱlandȱofȱEgyptȱ(pathȱschema)ȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.6,ȱandȱtheȱarrivalȱintoȱtheȱ plentifulȱlandȱ(containmentȱschema)ȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.8,ȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱseeȱ elementsȱ ofȱ deuteronomisticȱ thoughtȱ withinȱ theseȱ poeticȱ sections.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱDeuteronomyȱ6.12ȱstates “… takeȱcareȱthatȱyouȱdoȱnotȱforgetȱtheȱ LORD,ȱwhoȱbroughtȱyouȱoutȱofȱtheȱlandȱofȱEgypt,ȱoutȱofȱtheȱhouseȱofȱslavery”ȱ (NRSV).ȱ Theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ nonȬevent,ȱ forgettingȱ Yahweh,ȱ andȱ theȱ eventȱ ofȱ servingȱ otherȱ gods,ȱ occursȱ inȱ manyȱ otherȱ placesȱ asȱ well.ȱ Amongȱ themȱ areȱ Deuteronomyȱ 8.11Ȭ20,ȱ whichȱ discussesȱ theȱ imporȬ tanceȱ ofȱ notȱ forgettingȱ toȱ followȱ Yahweh’sȱ commandments,ȱ ordinancesȱ

ȱ

173ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.10:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ

andȱstatutesȱandȱtheȱthreatȱofȱdestructionȱifȱtheyȱdoȱso,ȱandȱDeuteronȬ omyȱ11.13,ȱwhichȱdiscussesȱtheȱpromiseȱofȱrainȱandȱtheȱthreatȱofȱitȱbeȬ ingȱ withheldȱ shouldȱ theȱ peopleȱ serveȱ otherȱ gods.ȱ Theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ unȬaskedȱ questionȱ isȱ itsȱ statusȱ asȱ aȱ nonȬevent.ȱ NotȬaskingȱ isȱ synȬ onymousȱ withȱ forgetting.ȱ Theȱ ancestorsȱ forgotȱ Yahweh,ȱ andȱ theȱ adȬ dresseesȱwereȱinȱtheȱthroesȱofȱtheȱsameȱnonȬevent.ȱȱȱ

D. Jeremiahȱ2.10:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.10ȱ followsȱ uponȱ Yahweh’sȱ accusationsȱ towardȱ theȱ addresȬ seesȱandȱtowardȱtheirȱchildren’sȱchildrenȱinȱ2.9.ȱTheȱaddresseesȱareȱtheȱ referenceȱ pointȱ onȱ aȱ timescaleȱ ofȱ misbehaviourȱ thatȱ beganȱ withȱ theȱ ancestorsȱinȱtheȱwildernessȱandȱwillȱcontinueȱunlessȱchecked.ȱThisȱisȱinȱ contrastȱwithȱtheȱidyllicȱremembrancesȱinȱ2.2Ȭ2.3,ȱaȱcontrastȱthatȱgrowsȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ sectionsȱ ofȱ textȱ asȱ attentionȱ becomesȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱ focusedȱuponȱtheȱpresentȱsituation.ȱTheȱclauseȱanalysisȱofȱJeremiahȱ2.10ȱ follows.ȱ ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

8 T8][o
2.10aȱ

FQ O8PP2%VKJY8ZNKTHFSYȱ

bȱ

V v\H.JHV[HJ_J8 T8ȱ

cȱ

][KJQN( [2*T[KO[JCJȱ

2.11aȱ

][KJQN(  QNJH0JYȱ

bȱ

2F2D.T[KOJ[K0CYȱ

cȱ

N[K2[ 2N%ȱ

dȱ

V v\NC]o[COH80Qȱ

2.12aȱ

FQ O8DTHZ8T$C Yȱ

bȱ

JŽYJ[]W Pȱ

cȱ

ȱ Figureȱ5.9ȱȱȱJeremiahȱ2.10ȱClauseȱLayoutȱ

174ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

2.10aȱ

NQQ

bȱ

NQQ

cȱ

NQQ

XȬImpvȱ WȬImpv ȱ WȬImpvȱ WȬImpv WȬImpvȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ XȬQatalȱȱȱȱȱ

2plMȱ 2plM 2plMȱ 2plM 2plMȱ 3sgF

Stem/ȱ Focus Qalȱ Qal Qalȱ Htpol Qalȱ Qal

2.11aȱ

NQQ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgMȱ

Hiphilȱ

bȱ

NQQ

WȬNmClȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱ

ȱ

cȱ

NQQ

WȬSȬQatalȱȱȱȱ

3sgMȱ

Hiphilȱ

dȱ

NQQ

XȬYiqtolȱ

3sgMȱ

Hiphilȱ

2.12aȱ

NQQ

Impvȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

2plMȱ

Qalȱ

bȱ

NQQ

WȬImpvȱ Impvȱȱȱ

2plMȱ

Qalȱ Qal

cȱ

N

NmClȱ

Focusȱ

ȱ

JERȱ

MSCȱ N3ȱ VP=C2ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ VP=C1ȱ ȱ

VP=C2ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ5.10ȱȱȱJeremiahȱ2.10ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ

1. Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ TheȱfiveȬfoldȱseriesȱofȱimperativeȱverbsȱisȱanȱoutstandingȱfeatureȱinȱthisȱ section.ȱTheȱstringȱofȱimperativesȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.10ȱbeginsȱwithȱtheȱtermȱ [Mȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.10a.ȱ Thisȱ termȱ functionsȱ atȱ theȱ textȱ level,ȱ connectingȱ thisȱsectionȱwithȱtheȱaccusationsȱinȱ2.9.38ȱAnȱimperativeȱverbȱexpressesȱ predicateȱ focus.ȱ Additionally,ȱ attentionȱ isȱ uponȱ theȱ addresseeȱ ratherȱ thanȱ speaker.ȱ Theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ speakerȱ mustȱ beȱ inferredȱ fromȱ theȱ situationȱofȱspeaking.ȱBecauseȱimperativeȱverbsȱindicateȱdeonticȱmodalȬ ity,ȱ establishingȱ theȱ speaker’sȱ identityȱ isȱ ofȱ firstȱ importance.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱtheȱvoiceȱisȱthatȱofȱtheȱcomplexȱspeaker.ȱPerspectiveȱwasȱassignedȱ toȱ Yahwehȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.9.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ theȱ areaȱ namesȱ TFSYȱandȱ ][[VMȱmayȱindicateȱaȱshiftȱtoȱJeremiah’sȱperspectiveȱforȱtheseȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 38ȱȱ Aejmelaeusȱdescribesȱthisȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱtermȱ[Mȱasȱanȱargumentativeȱcoordinator.ȱ Theȱfollowingȱseriesȱ ofȱimperativesȱareȱpartȱ ofȱ aȱcontentionȱframeȱ thatȱbeginsȱwithȱ theȱ phrase]MV D[T F_MNatȱ2.9.ȱAnneliȱAejmelaeus,ȱ“FunctionȱandȱInterȬ pretationȱofȱ‘Ki’ȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrew,”ȱJBLȱ105ȱ(1986),ȱ205;ȱFollingstad,ȱ“DeicticȱViewȬ point.”ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15:ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱMetaphorȱ

175ȱ

clauses.ȱTheȱforceȱofȱtheseȱverbsȱisȱstrengthenedȱbecause,ȱalthoughȱtheȱ wordsȱcomeȱfromȱJeremiah’sȱmouth,ȱtheyȱoriginateȱwithȱtheȱdivine.ȱ

2. CognitiveȱConstructionȱ Theȱinstructionsȱtoȱcrossȱoverȱtoȱ ][[VMȱandȱtoȱsendȱtoȱ TFSȱareȱinstantiaȬ tionsȱofȱtheȱpathȱschema.ȱJerusalem,ȱtheȱaddresseeȱinȱtheȱtextȬlevelȱsituȬ ation,ȱprovidesȱanȱanchorȱpointȱforȱtwoȱpaths.ȱTheȱotherȱanchorȱpointsȱ forȱtheȱconceptualȱtrajectories,ȱorȱpaths,ȱareȱ][[VMȱinȱnorthernȱArabiaȱonȱ theȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱ TFS,ȱtheȱislandsȱandȱcoastlineȱofȱtheȱMediterranean,ȱ onȱtheȱother.ȱThisȱresultsȱinȱvirtualȱvisualȱscanningȱofȱtheȱenvironment.ȱ Aȱsecondȱsetȱofȱperceptualȱinstructionsȱaccompaniesȱtheȱinstructionsȱtoȱ crossȱ overȱ andȱ toȱ send.ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ areȱ theȱ addresseesȱ toȱ scanȱ theȱ enviȬ ronment,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ toȱ Y TYȱ andȱ YPPYDVJY,ȱ toȱ seeȱ andȱ toȱ understand.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ imperativeȱ Y TYȱ indicatesȱ physicalȱ perception,ȱ butȱ theȱ useȱofȱtheȱtermYPPYDVJY,ȱhithpolelȱofȱtheȱ¥_[D,ȱindicatesȱtheȱtheȱsecondȱ useȱ ofȱ Y TYȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.10c,ȱ V \MJV[J_JY TY,ȱ isȱ aȱ metaphoricallyȱ basedȱ extensionȱ ofȱ itsȱ meaning.39ȱ Inȱ thisȱ text,ȱ theȱ speakerȱ takesȱ theȱ hearersȱonȱ aȱvirtualȱ tourȱ ofȱ theȱsurroundingȱ areaȱinȱorderȱ toȱestablishȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ theȱ followingȱ accusation.ȱ Thisȱ beginsȱ withȱ theȱ rhetoricalȱ questionȱ ][JN  NJOJY][JN [YIT[O[JJȱ atȱ 2.11aȬb.ȱ Virtualȱ visualȱ scanningȱisȱanȱeffectiveȱrhetoricalȱdevice,ȱinȱpartȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱmannerȱ inȱwhichȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱtakesȱplace.ȱDamasioȱspeaksȱofȱrecalledȱ imagesȱ withinȱ theȱ mind.ȱ Suchȱ imagesȱ mightȱ haveȱ theirȱ originationȱ inȱ actualȱperceptualȱevents,ȱorȱtheyȱmightȱtakeȱshapeȱduringȱtheȱplanningȱ stagesȱofȱanȱactivity.40ȱNeverȬtheȬless,ȱtheȱimagesȱareȱavailableȱforȱcogȬ nitiveȱ activity.ȱ Suchȱ areȱ theȱ vividȱ imagesȱ drawnȱ byȱ Mosesȱ toȱ prepareȱ theȱIsraelitesȱforȱentryȱintoȱtheȱland.ȱOtherȱexamplesȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ60ȱ include:ȱȱ2.18Ȭ2.19;ȱ2.23Ȭ2.25;ȱ3.2aȬd;ȱ3.6ff;ȱ5.1;ȱandȱ6.1.ȱ

E. Jeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15:ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱMetaphorȱ Atȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.13,ȱ theȱ precedingȱ sectionȱ endsȱ withȱ theȱ declarationȱ ofȱ twoȱevilsȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱtheȱpeople.ȱTheȱfirst,ȱ“…ȱtheyȱhaveȱforsaȬ kenȱ me,”ȱ isȱ theȱ oppositeȱ ofȱ theȱ faithfulȱ followingȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.2.ȱ Theȱ second,ȱ“…ȱtheyȱhaveȱdugȱoutȱcisternsȱforȱthemselves,”ȱimpliesȱinadeȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 39ȱȱ Vibergȱstatesȱ“theȱverbsȱofȱperceptionȱhaveȱaȱtendencyȱtoȱextendȱtheirȱmeaningȱintoȱ theȱ neighboringȱ fieldȱ ofȱ cognitionȱ andȱ toȱ coverȱ meaningsȱ suchȱ asȱ ‘know’ȱ andȱ ‘think’.”ȱViberg,ȱ“VerbsȱofȱPerception,”ȱ1304.ȱ 40ȱȱ AntonioȱRȱDamasio,ȱDescartes’ȱErrorȱ(NewȱYork:ȱHarperCollins,ȱ2000),ȱ96Ȭ97.ȱ

176ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

quateȱ selfȬsufficiency.ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ exchangedȱ theȱ unȬcontainableȱ forȱ containersȱthatȱcannotȱcontainȱanything.ȱThisȱisȱtransparentlyȱanȱinstanȬ tiationȱofȱtheȱcontainmentȱschema.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.14Ȭ15ȱ continuesȱ theȱ N3ȱ level,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ voiceȱ ofȱ theȱ complexȱspeakerȱgivesȱwayȱtoȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱtheȱcharacterȱYahweh,ȱ whoȱdirectlyȱaddressesȱtheȱhearers.ȱSeeȱtheȱfollowingȱclauseȱanalysis:ȱ ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

N HT o[FGDGCJȱ

2.14a

8JVo[C%F[KN[]K ȱ

b

\CDHNJŽ[HJC8'COȱ

c

][KTKRM8I$ o[Y[HNHȱ

2.15a

]HN2S8PVŽPȱ

b

JH0CN2ETC 8V[KŽ
c

Dv[[KN%KO8V&oP

JHV&oP Y[HTH ȱ

d

ȱ Figureȱ5.11ȱȱȱJeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15ȱClauseȱLayoutȱ

ȱ Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stem/ȱ Focus

MSCȱ

2.14a

NQQȱ

NmClȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱ

interrogȱ

ȱ VP=C2ȱ

b

NQQȱ

XȬNmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

c

NQQȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgMȱ

Qalȱ

2.15a

NQQȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

3plMȱ

Qalȱ

b

NQQȱ

Qatalȱȱȱȱȱ

3plȱ

Qalȱ

c

NQQNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱȱȱ

3plMȱ

Qalȱ

d

NQQNȱ

XȬQatalȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

3sgF/ȱ 3pl

Niphalȱ

JERȱ

ȱ Figureȱ5.12ȱȱȱJeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15:ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱMetaphorȱ

177ȱ

1. Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.14ȱ consistsȱ ofȱ threeȱ rhetoricalȱ questions:ȱ twoȱ interrogativeȱ nominalȱ clausesȱandȱanȱXȬqatalȱclause,ȱinȱwhichȱ theȱXȱ isȱanȱinterrogaȬ tiveȱ particle.ȱTheȱaddresseesȱareȱaskedȱtoȱ considerȱ theȱ statusȱofȱIsrael.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.15aȱ isȱ anȱ XȬyiqtolȱ clause.ȱ Theȱ Xȱ representsȱ theȱ frontedȱ preȬ positionalȱ phraseȱ Y[N.ȱ Sinceȱ Israelȱ isȱ aȱ discourseȬactiveȱ topicalȱ entity,ȱ thisȱ clauseȱ exhibitsȱ argumentȱ focus.41ȱ Thereȱ isȱ aȱ degreeȱ ofȱ emphasisȱ hereȱandȱanȱincreaseȱinȱtheȱforceȱdynamicsȱofȱtheȱsection.ȱ

2. CognitiveȱConstructionȱ Thisȱ shortȱ sectionȱ isȱ richȱ inȱ imageȱ schematicȱ information.ȱ Theȱ visualȱ imageȱofȱaȱgroupȱofȱlionsȱroaringȱagainstȱIsraelȱincludesȱbothȱtheȱpathȱ schema,ȱ withȱ lionsȱ onȱ oneȱ sideȱ andȱ Israelȱ asȱ aȱ humanȱ figureȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱandȱtheȱforceȱschema.ȱTheȱforceȱschemaȱisȱdescribedȱasȱphysicalȱ orȱmetaphoricalȱcausalȱinteractionȱandȱincludes:ȱ x

Sourceȱandȱtargetȱofȱtheȱforce;ȱ

x

Directionȱandȱintensityȱofȱtheȱforce;ȱȱ

x

Pathȱofȱmotionȱofȱtheȱsource/target;ȱandȱ

x

Sequenceȱofȱcausation42ȱ

Theȱ forceȱ schemaȱ firstȱappearsȱinȱ theȱimageȱofȱtheȱboilingȱ potȱ inȱ JereȬ miahȱ1.13,ȱandȱitȱreappearsȱmoreȱandȱmoreȱfrequentlyȱwithinȱJeremiahȱ 2.1Ȭ6.30.ȱ ThisȱsectionȱalsoȱcontainsȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱcontainmentȱscheȬ ma.ȱAsȱdemonstratedȱinȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱJeremiah1.1Ȭ1.3ȱinȱchapterȱ4,ȱ sectionȱA,ȱgeographicalȱfeaturesȱsuchȱasȱtheȱlandȱmayȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱaȱ typeȱ ofȱ container.ȱInȱ thisȱcase,ȱ theȱ citiesȱ areȱ emptyȱ ofȱinhabitants.ȱ Theȱ emptyȱcontainerȱreappearsȱmoreȱandȱmoreȱfrequentlyȱwithinȱJeremiahȱ 2.1Ȭ6.30.ȱ Twoȱ conceptualȱ metaphorsȱ contributeȱ towardsȱ theȱ literaryȱ metaȬ phorsȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.14ȱ andȱ 2.15.ȱ Theȱ first,ȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERSON,ȱ standsȱ behindȱ theȱ termȱ Israelȱ asȱ itȱ didȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.3.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ Israelȱ isȱ comparedȱ toȱ aȱ servantȱ whoȱ couldȱ becomeȱ theȱ plunderȱ ofȱ war.ȱ Theȱ second,ȱPEOPLEȱAREȱANIMALS,ȱoccursȱwhenȱtheȱenemiesȱareȱdescribedȱasȱ lions,ȱ aȱ oneȬstepȱdemotionȱonȱtheȱExtendedȱGreatȱChain.ȱ TheȱdescripȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 41ȱȱ Inȱotherȱwords,ȱitȱisȱnotȱfrontedȱforȱtopicalisation.ȱ 42ȱȱ Johnson,ȱTheȱBodyȱinȱtheȱMind:ȱTheȱBodilyȱBasisȱofȱMeaning,ȱImagination,ȱandȱReason,ȱ42Ȭ 44.ȱ

178ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

tionȱ ofȱ theȱ enemiesȱ asȱ animalsȱ alsoȱ recursȱ throughoutȱ theȱ followingȱ sectionȱofȱtext.ȱ

F. Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11/12:ȱWhoȱisȱ“Me”?:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ TheȱProblemȱofȱIdentityȱandȱtheȱAccessȱPrinciple43ȱ Jeremiahȱ3.6a,ȱ ?NOJYJ[ [[O[D[N JYJ[TO [Y,ȱraisesȱtheȱissueȱofȱidenȬ tityȱ thatȱ wasȱ touchedȱ uponȱ inȱ sectionȱ B.5,ȱ above.ȱ Atȱ firstȱ glance,ȱ theȱ sentenceȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ noȱ moreȱ thanȱ anȱ easilyȱ recognisableȱ propheticȱ citationȱ formula.ȱ However,ȱ uponȱ closerȱ inspection,ȱ oneȱ discoversȱ thatȱ thereȱisȱaȱproblemȱofȱidentity.ȱJustȱwhoȱisȱtheȱaddresseeȱreferredȱtoȱbyȱ theȱfirstȱpersonȱpronoun,ȱme?ȱWhileȱbothȱYahwehȱandȱJosiahȱareȱmenȬ tionedȱ byȱ name,ȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ personȱ speakerȱ remainsȱ unȬ derspecified.ȱ Additionally,ȱ theȱ speaker’sȱ identityȱ isȱ notȱ discernibleȱ fromȱtheȱimmediatelyȱprecedingȱtext.ȱThisȱisȱanȱimportantȱissueȱonȱtwoȱ counts:ȱ someȱ viewȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.6Ȭ11ȱ asȱ aȱ redactionalȱ addition,ȱ andȱ theȱ sectionȱisȱatȱtheȱheartȱofȱtheȱproseȬpoetryȱdebate.ȱAȱkeyȱfeatureȱofȱMST,ȱ theȱAccessȱPrinciple,ȱisȱhelpfulȱforȱconfrontingȱtheȱproblemȱofȱidentity.ȱ Asȱpreviouslyȱdiscussed,ȱMSTȱdescribesȱtheȱwayȱthatȱmentalȱspacȬ es,ȱorȱcognitiveȱpackets,ȱareȱopened,ȱstructuredȱandȱlinkedȱinȱtheȱcomȬ municationȱ process.ȱ Manyȱ grammaticalȱ devicesȱ contributeȱ toȱ thisȱ process.ȱ SpaceȬbuildersȱ openȱ newȱ spacesȱ orȱ shiftȱ focusȱ toȱ anȱ existingȱ space.ȱ Frames,ȱ schemas,ȱ presuppositionalȱ structuresȱ suchȱ asȱ clefting,ȱ tensesȱ andȱ moods,ȱ andȱ namesȱ andȱ descriptionsȱ areȱ usedȱ toȱ structureȱ spaces.ȱ Grammaticalȱ devicesȱ suchȱ asȱ transspatialȱ operators,ȱ i.e.ȱ theȱ coȬ pulativeȱverbȱtoȱbe,ȱlinkȱspaces.44ȱLinkingȱisȱalsoȱaȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱAccessȱ Principle.ȱ TheȱAccessȱPrincipleȱisȱbasicȱtoȱcognitiveȱconstruction.ȱAsȱFauconȬ nierȱexplains,ȱ“…ȱanȱexpressionȱthatȱnamesȱorȱdescribesȱanȱelementȱinȱ oneȱmentalȱspaceȱcanȱbeȱusedȱtoȱaccessȱaȱcounterpartȱofȱthatȱelementȱinȱ anotherȱmentalȱspace.”ȱDescribedȱinȱsomewhatȱmoreȱtechnicalȱterms:ȱ IfȱtwoȱelementsȱaȱandȱbȱareȱlinkedȱbyȱaȱconnectorȱFȱ(b=F(a)),ȱthenȱelementȱbȱ canȱ beȱ identifiedȱ byȱ naming,ȱ describing,ȱ orȱ pointingȱ toȱ itsȱ counterpartȱ a.ȱ Whenȱ thisȱ indirectȱ identificationȱ procedureȱ isȱ used,ȱ weȱ sayȱ thatȱ theȱ eleȬ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 43ȱȱ Seeȱsectionȱ2.C.3,ȱforȱtheȱTDȱanalysisȱofȱthisȱsection.ȱ 44ȱȱ Theȱ Greekȱ predicateȱ nominativeȱ constructionȱ utilisesȱ theȱ copulativeȱ verbȱ GKšOKȱ asȱ aȱ transspatialȱoperator,ȱandȱsuchȱconstructionsȱareȱmarkedȱinȱthatȱbothȱargumentsȱareȱ inȱ theȱ nominativeȱ case.ȱ Thisȱ constructionȱ isȱ usedȱ frequentlyȱ inȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ John,ȱȱȱ specificallyȱ inȱ Jesus’ȱ numerousȱ statementsȱ ofȱ selfȬidentification,ȱ suchȱ as,ȱȱ š(IYGKšOKQC£TVQLVJL\YJL.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11:ȱIdentityȱandȱtheȱAccessȱPrincipleȱ

179ȱ

mentȱnamedȱorȱdescribed,ȱa,ȱisȱtheȱtrigger,ȱandȱthatȱtheȱelementȱidentified,ȱ b,ȱisȱtheȱtarget.45ȱ

Fauconnierȱ andȱ Sweetserȱ offerȱ theȱ followingȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ typeȱ ofȱ ambiguityȱ thatȱ mayȱ beȱ addressedȱ byȱ theȱ indirectȱ identificationȱ proceȬ dureȱoutlinedȱbyȱtheȱaccessȱprinciple:ȱ Inȱ1952,ȱtheȱmanȱwithȱtheȱgrayȱhairȱheadedȱtheȱCIA.ȱ

Thisȱstatementȱraisesȱtheȱquestionȱofȱwhenȱtheȱmanȱhadȱgrayȱhair.ȱWasȱ itȱinȱ1952ȱorȱtheȱpresent?ȱTheȱphraseȱtheȱmanȱwithȱtheȱgrayȱhairȱmayȱdeȬ scribeȱanȱelementȱinȱtheȱbaseȱspace.ȱWhenȱaȱnewȱspaceȱisȱsetȱupȱbyȱtheȱ timeȱmarginȱinȱ1952,ȱtheȱelementȱtheȱmanȱwithȱtheȱgrayȱhairȱhasȱaȱcounȬ terpartȱinȱtheȱbaseȱspace.ȱThatȱcounterpartȱmightȱhaveȱdifferentȱproperȬ ties,ȱ suchȱ asȱ beingȱ youngȱ andȱ brownȬhaired.ȱ Theȱ Accessȱ Principleȱ willȱ allowȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ counterpartȱ andȱ whatȱ heȱ wasȱ doingȱ inȱ 1952ȱ throughȱ aȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ initialȱ element,ȱ theȱ manȱ withȱ theȱ grayȱ hair.46ȱ Inȱtheȱsameȱway,ȱtheȱAccessȱPrincipleȱwillȱallowȱforȱindirectȱidentifiȬ cationȱ ofȱ theȱ ambiguousȱmeȱ inȱJeremiahȱ3.6aȱbyȱreferencingȱtheȱcogniȬ tiveȱstructureȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱByȱmaneuveringȱbetweenȱseveralȱspaces,ȱitȱisȱ possibleȱ toȱ traceȱtheȱcomplexȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱthatȱ underliesȱ theȱ presuppositionȱthatȱtheȱspeaker,ȱme,ȱisȱJeremiah.47ȱJeremiahȱ3.6aȱopensȱ withȱ theȱ phraseȱ [N JYJ[TO [Y.ȱ Thisȱ phraseȱ isȱ followedȱ byȱ theȱ timeȱ marginȱ ?NOJYJ[ [[O[D,ȱ inȱ theȱ daysȱ ofȱ Josiahȱ theȱ king.ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ [N JYJ[TO [Yȱ appearsȱ 15ȱ timesȱ inȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Jeremiah,ȱ andȱ atȱ thisȱ pointȱ inȱ theȱ discourseȱ itȱ isȱ wellȱ onȱ itsȱ wayȱ toȱ becomingȱ entrenched.48ȱ Theȱverbȱofȱspeaking,ȱTO [Y,ȱindicatesȱthatȱtheȱsentenceȱisȱanȱinstanceȱofȱ reportedȱ speech,ȱ withȱ Yahwehȱ asȱ theȱ initiatingȱ speakerȱ andȱ theȱ firstȱ pairȱpartȱofȱanȱadjacencyȱpair.ȱTheȱunderspecifiedȱme,ȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱ 1sgȱ pronominalȱ suffix,ȱ isȱ theȱ secondȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ adjacencyȱ pair.ȱ Theȱ sentenceȱ servesȱ toȱ introduceȱ materialȱ summarisedȱ byȱ theȱ followingȱ question:ȱ N T[JDOJVT V[ TJȱ Haveȱ youȱ seenȱ whatȱ Turnableȱ Israelȱhasȱdone?ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 45ȱȱ Fauconnier,ȱMappings,ȱ41.ȱ 46ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱSweetser,ȱSpaces,ȱWorlds,ȱandȱGrammar,ȱ9Ȭ10.ȱ 47ȱȱ TheȱNETȱBibleȱdisambiguatesȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱspeakerȱbyȱinsertingȱaȱvocativeȱintoȱ theȱsentence;ȱWhenȱJosiahȱwasȱkingȱofȱJudah,ȱYahwehȱsaidȱtoȱ me,ȱ“Jeremiah,ȱyouȱhaveȱnoȱ doubtȱseenȱwhatȱwaywardȱIsraelȱdid.”ȱȱwww.netbible.com.ȱThisȱtranslationȱpresentsȱtwoȱ problems:ȱ theȱ additionȱ ofȱ theȱ vocative,ȱ Jeremiah,ȱ andȱ theȱ dilutionȱ ofȱ theȱ markedȱ forceȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱstatement.ȱThatȱclause,ȱhereȱpresentedȱasȱaȱstatement,ȱisȱanȱinȬ terrogativeȱconstructionȱinȱtheȱMT.ȱ 48ȱȱ Ofȱthese,ȱ13ȱinstancesȱhaveȱaȱ1sgȱpronominalȱsuffixȱ(1.7;ȱ1.9;ȱ1.12;ȱ1.14;ȱ3.6;ȱ3.11;ȱ11.6;ȱ 11.9;ȱ13.6;ȱ14.11;ȱ14.14;ȱ15.1;ȱ24.3)ȱandȱtwoȱhaveȱaȱ3sMȱpronominalȱsuffixȱ(9.12;ȱ15.11).ȱ Parunak,ȱ“SomeȱDiscourseȱFunctionsȱofȱPropheticȱQuotationȱFormulasȱinȱJeremiah,”ȱ 499.ȱ

180ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

Theȱ TDȱdiagramȱ introducedȱ inȱ Chapterȱ 2ȱisȱ aȱmentalȱ spacesȱ mapȬ ping,ȱ andȱ aȱ simplifiedȱ formȱ ofȱ theȱ diagramȱ explainsȱ howȱ theȱ Accessȱ Principleȱcanȱassistȱinȱdiscoveringȱtheȱidentityȱofȱme.ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ5.13ȱȱȱTheȱProblemȱofȱIdentityȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6ȱ

Inȱthisȱdiagram,ȱtheȱphraseȱ [N JYJ[TO [Y,ȱYahwehȱsaidȱtoȱme,ȱisȱlocatedȱ inȱ theȱ currentȱ focusȱ spaceȱ inȱ theȱ onstageȱ regionȱ atȱ theȱ topȱ ofȱ theȱ diaȬ gram.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ termȱ meȱ isȱ identifiedȱ asȱ theȱ trigger.ȱ Theȱ ambiȬ guousȱ entity,ȱme,ȱmayȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱcommunicatedȱdiȬ rectlyȱwithȱYahwehȱinȱtheȱdaysȱofȱJosiah.ȱTheȱtermȱmeȱalsoȱoccupiesȱtheȱ originatorȱspaceȱatȱtheȱbottomȱleftȱofȱtheȱdiagram,ȱbecauseȱtheȱphraseȱisȱ presentedȱ asȱ firstȱ personȱ reportedȱ speech.49ȱ Thisȱ spaceȱ isȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ baseȱspaceȱforȱtheȱcommunicationȱsituationȱthatȱholdsȱbetweenȱauthorȱ andȱreaderȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱInȱthisȱinstance,ȱmeȱisȱidentifiedȱasȱtheȱtarget.ȱItȱisȱ nowȱpossibleȱforȱtheȱreaderȱtoȱdiscoverȱsomethingȱaboutȱtheȱspeakerȱinȱ theȱbaseȱspaceȱbyȱreferencingȱhisȱcounterpartȱinȱtheȱnewȱspace,ȱM,ȱspeȬ cifically,ȱ thatȱ theȱ currentȱ speakerȱ atȱ textȱ levelȱ isȱ alsoȱ theȱ speakerȱ whoȱ communicatedȱ withȱ Yahwehȱ inȱ theȱ daysȱ ofȱ Josiah.ȱ Simplyȱ stated,ȱ theȱ reportedȱ speakerȱ isȱ alsoȱ theȱ reportingȱ speaker.ȱ Thisȱ situationȱ reflectsȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 49ȱȱ Langackerȱ notes,ȱ “Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ possibleȱ forȱ aȱ facetȱ ofȱ theȱ groundȱ toȱ goȱ onstageȱ asȱ theȱ specificȱfocusȱofȱattention.ȱi.e.ȱasȱtheȱexpression’sȱprofile.ȱThisȱisȱtheȱcaseȱwithȱformsȱ likeȱ I,ȱ you,ȱ here,ȱ now.”ȱ Langacker,ȱ “Context,ȱ Cognition,ȱ andȱ Semantics:ȱ Aȱ Unifiedȱ DynamicȱApproach.”184.ȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11:ȱIdentityȱandȱtheȱAccessȱPrincipleȱ

181ȱ

theȱmetapragmaticsȱofȱreportedȱspeech,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱgoverningȱfeatureȱofȱ theȱ Jeremiahȱ text.ȱ Theȱ identityȱ ofȱ meȱ isȱ someoneȱ whoȱ hadȱ communiȬ catedȱ directlyȱ withȱ Yahwehȱ inȱ theȱ daysȱ ofȱ Josiah.ȱ Byȱ backtrackingȱ toȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ discoverȱ thatȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ toȱ whomȱtheȱwordȱofȱYahwehȱcameȱinȱtheȱthirteenthȱyearȱofȱtheȱreignȱofȱ Josiah.ȱThisȱrelationshipȱdevelopsȱinȱ1.4Ȭ1.19,ȱaȱsectionȱthatȱconsistsȱofȱ reportedȱ communicationȱ betweenȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Itȱ containsȱ fourȱrepetitionsȱofȱtheȱphraseȱ [N JYJ[TO [Yȱ(1.7;ȱ1.9;ȱ1.12;ȱ1.14),ȱwhichȱ givesȱ furtherȱ evidenceȱ that,ȱ inȱ theȱ text,ȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱ bothȱ theȱ reportedȱ speakerȱandȱtheȱreportingȱspeakerȱatȱ3.6a.ȱ Readingȱtheȱtextȱfromȱaȱliteraryȱperspectiveȱstrengthensȱthisȱlineȱofȱ reasoning,ȱasȱitȱallowsȱoneȱtoȱaskȱquestionsȱregardingȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱ speakerȱ atȱ aȱ givenȱ pointȱ inȱ theȱ text.ȱ Vanȱ Woldeȱ summarisesȱ variousȱ possibilities,ȱwhichȱincludeȱeitherȱtheȱnarratorȱasȱspeakerȱorȱtheȱcharacȬ terȱ asȱ speaker.ȱ Theȱ narratorȱ mightȱ speakȱ directlyȱ toȱ theȱ reader,ȱ asȱ aȱ narrativeȱaside;ȱorȱfromȱhisȱorȱherȱownȱperspectiveȱasȱaȱstoryȬteller;ȱorȱ indirectlyȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ character.ȱ Whenȱ theȱ characterȱ speaks,ȱ heȱ orȱ sheȱ mightȱ speakȱ directly,ȱ inȱ whichȱ caseȱ theȱ quotationȱ isȱ placedȱinȱquotationȱmarks,ȱorȱindirectly.50ȱGivenȱthisȱsetȱofȱoptions,ȱinȱ Jeremiahȱ3.6aȱtheȱnarratorȱisȱspeakingȱindirectlyȱfromȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱ theȱcharacterȱJeremiah.ȱ Thisȱ leadsȱ toȱaȱsecondȱinstanceȱofȱtheȱproblemȱofȱidentity:ȱ whatȱ isȱ theȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱcharacterȱJeremiahȱinȱtheȱtextȱandȱtheȱhisȬ toricalȱJeremiahȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱtext?ȱAreȱtheyȱoneȱandȱtheȱsame?ȱIfȱso,ȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ timeȱ marginȱ (theȱ daysȱ ofȱ Josiah)ȱ andȱ theȱ speakerȱ(Jeremiah)ȱprovidesȱevidenceȱforȱhistoricalȱarguments.ȱLookingȱ atȱtheȱtextȱfromȱanȱhistoricalȱperspective,ȱtheȱnarratorȱmightȱbeȱidentiȬ fiedȱ asȱ Jeremiahȱ himself.ȱ Alternatively,ȱ heȱ mightȱ beȱ Jeremiah’sȱ scribeȱ Baruch,ȱinȱwhichȱ caseȱitȱwouldȱbeȱnaturalȱforȱ himȱtoȱdocumentȱinȱtheȱ firstȱ personȱ onȱ Jeremiah’sȱ behalf.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ narratorȱ mightȱ beȱ aȱ cleverȱredactorȱmakingȱuseȱofȱtheȱentrencedȱphraseȱ [N JYJ[TO [Yȱ andȱ aȱ previouslyȱ introducedȱ timeȱ marginȱ forȱ Jeremiah’sȱ receptionȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ ofȱ Yahweh,ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ insertȱ aȱ sectionȱ ofȱ narrativeȱ withinȱ theȱ otherwiseȱpoeticȱsectionȱofȱJeremiahȱ3.1Ȭ3.13.51ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 50ȱȱ Wolde,ȱRuthȱandȱNaomi,ȱ146.ȱ 51ȱ Whileȱ historicalȱ andȱ redactionalȱ issuesȱ areȱ notȱ atȱ theȱ forefrontȱ ofȱ thisȱ volume,ȱ theȱ findingsȱ ofȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ approachȱ intersectȱ withȱ suchȱ concernsȱ atȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ leȬ vels.ȱTheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱtheȱdateȱofȱtheȱspeechȱeventȱareȱtwoȱimportantȱ pointsȱ ofȱ intersection.ȱ Readingȱ fromȱ aȱ literaryȱ perspectiveȱ allowsȱ forȱ aȱ holisticȱ unȬ derstandingȱofȱtheȱtextȱitself,ȱbutȱdoesȱnotȱcontributeȱtoȱtheseȱissues,ȱwhereasȱanalysȬ ingȱtheȱcrossȬspaceȱconnectionsȱthatȱholdȱbetweenȱtheȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱcuedȱbyȱ theȱ textȱandȱ thoseȱ cuedȱ byȱ externalȱ sourcesȱ isȱ bothȱ desirableȱ andȱ necessaryȱ forȱ deȬ velopingȱaȱfullȱ understandingȱofȱ theȱtext.ȱRegardingȱexternalȱsources,ȱBiddleȱdocuȬ

182ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

Thisȱ shortȱexampleȱdemonstratesȱthatȱevenȱtheȱ identityȱ ofȱpresupȬ posedȱ elementsȱ isȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ complexȱ cognitiveȱ construction,ȱ andȱ thatȱsuchȱconstructionȱdrawsȱfromȱsourcesȱsuchȱasȱencyclopedicȱbackȬ groundȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ linguisticȱ constructionsȱ thatȱ haveȱ becomeȱ enȬ trenchedȱ inȱ previousȱ discourse.ȱ Establishingȱ andȱ maintainingȱ identityȱ isȱessentialȱforȱtextualȱcoherence.ȱ

G. Jeremiahȱ3.19Ȭ20:ȱSpaceȬbuildingȱinȱPoeticȱTextȱ Theȱ poeticȱ textȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.19Ȭ20ȱ isȱ largelyȱ discursive,ȱ andȱ alsoȱ conȬ tainsȱ severalȱ spaceȬbuildingȱ terms.ȱ Theseȱ termsȱ areȱ boxedȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱdiagram:ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ mentsȱthreeȱstrandsȱofȱinterpretationȱinȱhisȱstudyȱofȱtheȱredactionȱhistoryȱofȱJeremiahȱ 2.1Ȭ4.2.ȱTheȱfirstȱapproachȱdifferentiatesȱbetweenȱverseȱoracleȱandȱproseȱexpansionȱinȱ orderingȱmaterialȱchronologically,ȱfromȱJeremiah’sȱearliestȱpreachingȱtoȱtheȱcompoȬ sitionȱ ofȱ theȱ scrollȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 36.ȱ Thisȱ approachȱ makesȱ anȱ earlyȱ appearanceȱ inȱ Duhm’sȱ 1901ȱ commentary,ȱ andȱ Mowinckel’sȱ sourceȬcriticalȱ analysisȱ expandedȱ onȱ Duhm’sȱapproach.ȱMowinckelȱdetectedȱfourȱsourcesȱinȱtheȱJeremiahȱtext:ȱA,ȱtheȱpoeȬ tryȱinȱchaptersȱ1Ȭ25;ȱB,ȱaȱproseȱbiography;ȱC,ȱcollectionsȱofȱsermons;ȱandȱD,ȱtheȱcolȬ lectionȱofȱOANs,ȱwithȱsourceȱAȱbeingȱconsideredȱauthenticȱbyȱvirtueȱofȱstyle.ȱSchoȬ larsȱ suchȱ asȱ Hitzig,ȱ Graf,ȱ Ewald,ȱ Duhm,ȱ Cornhill,ȱ Giesbrecht,ȱ Mowinckel,ȱ Volz,ȱ RudolphȱandȱReitzchelsȱutiliseȱtheȱchronologicalȱapproach.ȱTheȱsecondȱapproachȱexȬ aminesȱ theȱ textȱ fromȱ aȱ rhetoricalȱ perspective,ȱ lookingȱ forȱ rhetoricalȱ devicesȱ andȱ structuresȱthatȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱcontoursȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱScholarsȱthatȱtakeȱthisȱapproachȱ includeȱLundbomȱandȱHolladay.ȱFinally,ȱsomeȱscholars,ȱsuchȱasȱRobertȱCarroll,ȱcritiȬ ciseȱvariousȱchronologicalȱconclusionsȱandȱtheȱreliabilityȱofȱtheȱpresuppositionsȱunȬ derlyingȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱtheȱUrrolle.ȱMarkȱBiddle,ȱ“AȱRedactionȱHistoryȱofȱJeremiahȱ 2:1Ȭ4:2.”ȱ(DoctoralȱThesis,ȱUniversityȱofȱZürichȱ1988,ȱTheologischerȱVerlag,ȱ1989),ȱ1Ȭ 27.ȱ McKaneȱ reliesȱ uponȱ criteriaȱ suchȱ asȱ adjacencyȱ andȱ contiguityȱ whenȱ heȱ deterȬ minesȱthatȱexegesisȱandȱcommentȱuponȱtheȱpoetryȱinȱ3.1Ȭ3.5ȱandȱ3.12Ȭ3.13ȱgeneratedȱ theȱproseȱsectionȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ11.ȱHeȱcitesȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱdivorceȱthemeȱinȱ3.1ȱandȱ theȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermȱN T[JDOȱatȱ3.6ȱandȱ3.13.ȱWilliamȱMcKane,ȱ“RelationsȱbeȬ tweenȱPoetryȱandȱProseȱinȱtheȱȱBookȱofȱJeremiahȱwithȱSpecialȱReferenceȱtoȱJeremiahȱ iiiȱ6Ȭ11ȱandȱxiiȱ14Ȭ17,”ȱinȱAȱProphetȱtoȱtheȱNations:ȱEssaysȱinȱJeremiahȱStudies,ȱedsȱL.ȱG.ȱ PerdueȱandȱB.ȱW.ȱKovacsȱ(WinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1984),ȱ269Ȭ284ȱ(277Ȭ278).ȱ Sweeneyȱviewsȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱasȱredactional.ȱHeȱnotesȱthatȱthisȱmaterialȱisȱusedȱtoȱestablishȱ anȱ analogyȱ betweenȱ Israelȱ andȱ Judah,ȱ specificallyȱ thatȱ “theȱ anticipationȱ ofȱ Judah’sȱ punishmentȱandȱexpectationȱofȱJudah’sȱrepentance…areȱbasedȱonȱIsrael’sȱexperienceȱ inȱ2.2Ȭ4.2.”ȱMarvinȱSweeney,ȱ“StructureȱandȱRedactionȱinȱJeremiahȱ2Ȭ6,”ȱinȱTroublingȱ Jeremiah,ȱ ed.ȱ A.ȱ R.ȱ ȱ Diamondȱ (Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ 1999),ȱ 214.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ

ȱ

183ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.19Ȭ20:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱinȱPoeticȱTextȱ

ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ [K7TCOH [KMPv H Yȱ

3.19aȱ

][oPH%C%^V[K$ ^[ ȱ

bȱ

]o[2*V2 DKE[KDEVCN$ZhPJH'OGZLGTG ^HN_G7G Y ȱ

cȱ

TCOQ ŽY ȱ

dȱ

[KN[K TSK7

8 TSK7 [KDH ȱ

eȱ

[KD8HV

8D8HV  QN[CT$ZC O8ȱ

fȱ

+HTOJHK JHFIH%_MH ȱ

3.20aȱ

N HT o[V[%[K%]G7FCI%_.ȱ

bȱ

JŽYJ[]W Pȱ

cȱ

ȱ Figureȱ5.14ȱȱȱSpaceȬbuildingȱinȱPoeticȱText:ȱClauseȱLayoutȱ

ȱ JERȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stem/ȱ Focus

WȬSȬQatalȱ

1sgȱ

Qalȱ

SBȱ

bȱ NQQPȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

1sgȱ (2sgF)

Qalȱ

ȱ VP=C1ȱ

cȱ NQQPȱ

WȬYiqtolȱ

1sgȱ

Qalȱ

dȱ NQNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ

1sgȱ

Qalȱ

SBȱ

eȱ NQNQPȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

Qalȱ

ȱ VP=C1ȱ

fȱ NQNQȱ

WȬXȬYiqtolȱ

Typeȱ

3.19aȱ NQȱ

2plMȱ (2sgF) 2plMȱ (2sgF)

MSCȱ

Qalȱ

3.20aȱ NQȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgFȱ

Qalȱ

bȱ NQȱ

XȬQatalȱ

2plMȱ

Qalȱ

cȱ NQȱ

Focusȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ Figureȱ5.15ȱȱȱSpaceȬbuildingȱinȱPoeticȱText:ȱClauseȱAnalysisȱ

184ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

1. Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ a. Jeremiahȱ3.19a[VTO [MP Y ThisȱXȬqatalȱclauseȱexhibitsȱSubjectȬVerbȱwordȱorder,ȱandȱopensȱaȱnewȱ mentalȱspaceȱdueȱtoȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱtermȱ [VTO .ȱTheȱfrontedȱtermȱ [MP Yȱindicatesȱargumentȱfocus.ȱInȱotherȱwordsȱtheȱargumentȱ(entity)ȱthatȱ isȱ frontedȱ isȱ theȱ elementȱ thatȱ turnsȱ theȱ presupposedȱ propositionȱ inȱ theȱ clauseȱintoȱaȱpieceȱofȱinformation.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱpresupposedȱpropoȬ sitionȱisȱthatȱ“I”ȱspoke.ȱTheȱanswerȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱ“Whoȱspoke?”ȱisȱreinȬ forcedȱbyȱtheȱfrontedȱterm,ȱtheȱexplicitȱsubjectȱ [MP Y.ȱTheȱfronted,ȱexpliȬ citȱsubjectȱisȱemphasised,ȱwhichȱinȱturnȱincreasesȱtheȱforceȱdynamicsȱinȱ theȱsection.ȱThisȱfirstȱpersonȱclauseȱindexesȱinformationȱfromȱtheȱpersȬ pectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ speaker,ȱ Yahweh.ȱ Theȱ readerȱ isȱ broughtȱ togetherȱ withȱ Yahwehȱinȱtheȱsubjectiveȱpositionȱwithinȱtheȱcharacterȱspace.ȱTheȱobjectȱ ofȱ theirȱ sharedȱ perceptionȱ isȱ Yahweh’sȱ ruminationȱ regardingȱ you,ȱ theȱ onesȱwhomȱYahwehȱdesiresȱtoȱtreatȱasȱoffspring.ȱTheȱadverbȱ?[ ȱinȱ19.bȱ isȱfollowedȱbyȱaȱyiqtolȱverbalȱform.ȱIfȱtheȱyiqtolȱformȱisȱviewedȱasȱconȬ veyingȱ imperfectiveȱ aspect,ȱ thisȱ combinationȱ reflectsȱ aȱ distinctlyȱ modalȱ nuance,ȱwhichȱisȱconfirmedȱbyȱtheȱfirstȱpersonȱperspectiveȱinȱtheȱpriorȱ clause.ȱTheȱreaderȱessentiallyȱpeersȱoverȱtheȱshoulderȱofȱYahwehȱasȱheȱ remembersȱhisȱfondȱhopesȱforȱIsrael,ȱyouȱinȱtheȱinterchange.ȱThisȱinterȬ changeȱcontainsȱanȱinterestingȱarrayȱofȱparticipantȱreferents.ȱ b. Jeremiahȱ3.19dȱȱTO Yȱȱ Thisȱ wayyiqtolȬ0ȱ clauseȱ containsȱ noȱ explicitȱ subject.ȱ Byȱ defaultȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ predicateȱfocusȱclause,ȱasȱwayyiqtolȱverbalȱformsȱareȱobligatorilyȱfronted.ȱ Theȱ clauseȱ answersȱ theȱ questionȱ “Whatȱ didȱ Xȱ do?”ȱ Theȱ firstȱ personȱ speakerȱ isȱ Yahweh,ȱ andȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ theȱ termȱ TO Yactsȱ asȱ theȱ mentalȱ stateȱ predicateȱ Iȱ thought,ȱ whichȱ opensȱ aȱ subspaceȱ withinȱ aȱ previouslyȱ openedȱspace.ȱ

2. VerbsȱofȱSpeakingȱandȱCognitiveȱExtension:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ TheȱFunctionȱofȱTO ȱ Severalȱofȱtheȱpreviousȱexamplesȱcontainȱaȱformȱofȱ¥TO .ȱTheȱtextȬlevelȱ deicticȱ sentenceȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.4ȱ consistsȱ ofȱ theȱ metapragmaticȱ phrasalȱ expressionȱ TO N[N JYJ[TDF[J[Y.Inȱthisȱsentence,ȱ TO Nisȱusedȱasȱaȱ complementiser,ȱwhichȱconnectsȱtheȱsentenceȱtoȱwhatȱfollows.ȱInȱJereȬ miahȱ1.1Ȭ10,ȱconjugatedȱformsȱofȱtheȱtermȱ TO ȱareȱusedȱtoȱopenȱquotaȬ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ3.19Ȭ20:ȱSpaceȱBuildingȱinȱPoeticȱTextȱ

185ȱ

tionȱ spaces,ȱ whichȱ areȱ nearlyȱ asȱ easyȱ toȱ recogniseȱ asȱ theirȱ highlyȱ markedȱ Englishȱ counterparts.ȱ Theȱ quotationȱ spacesȱ areȱ newȱ mentalȱ spacesȱthatȱcouldȱpotentiallyȱcontainȱaȱnewȱground,ȱcompleteȱwithȱnewȱ spatioȬtemporalȱ parametersȱ andȱ newȱ characters.ȱ Theȱ newȱ charactersȱ mightȱ speak,ȱ thusȱ introducingȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ newȱ deicticȱ centres.ȱ Finally,ȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.7a,ȱ3.19aȱandȱ3.19e,ȱtheȱidiomaticȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermȱ TO ȱopensȱepistemicȱmodalityȱspacesȱinȱwhichȱtheȱreaderȱisȱprivilegedȱ toȱenterȱintoȱtheȱthoughtȱworldȱofȱYahwehȱhimself.ȱȱ Thus,ȱdifferentȱformsȱfromȱtheȱsameȱrootȱareȱusedȱtoȱconstrueȱaȱsitȬ uationȱ ofȱ speakingȱ fromȱ differingȱ perspectives:ȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ narratorȱ himselfȱatȱ1.1Ȭ1.3;ȱthatȱofȱtheȱnarratorȱasȱcharacterȱatȱ1.4,ȱ1.11,ȱ1.13ȱandȱ 2.1;ȱthatȱofȱcharactersȱinȱaȱconversationalȱsettingȱatȱ1.6ȱandȱ1.7;ȱandȱthatȱ ofȱ theȱ internalȱ thoughtȱ worldȱ ofȱ aȱ characterȱ atȱ 3.7a,ȱ 3.19aȱ andȱ 3.19e.ȱ Whenȱ theȱ termȱ isȱ usedȱ fromȱ theȱ narrator’sȱ perspective,ȱ theȱ mentalȱ spacesȱ cuedȱ byȱ theȱ constructionȱ areȱ largeȱ speechȱ domains.ȱ Subspacesȱ areȱopenedȱwithinȱtheseȱdomainsȱbyȱusesȱofȱtheȱtermȱfromȱtheȱcharacȬ ter’sȱperspective.ȱTheseȱspacesȱconnectȱdirectlyȱtoȱtheȱbaseȱspaceȱsetȱupȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3.ȱFinally,ȱtheȱtermȱisȱusedȱtoȱaccessȱtheȱthoughtȱworldȱ ofȱaȱcharacter.ȱTheȱsubspacesȱopenedȱinȱthisȱmannerȱexhibitȱaccessȱthatȱ isȱrestrictedȱtoȱtheȱcharacter’sȱspace,ȱinȱthatȱitȱmayȱonlyȱconnectȱdirectlyȱ toȱtheȱspaceȱinȱwhichȱitȱisȱgenerated.ȱHowever,ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱtransitivityȱofȱ containmentȱprinciple,ȱsuchȱspacesȱareȱincorporatedȱintoȱtheȱnetworkȱasȱ aȱwhole.ȱThus,ȱifȱtheȱspaceȱthatȱgeneratesȱtheȱrestrictedȱaccessȱspaceȱhasȱ directȱconnectionsȱtoȱtheȱbaseȱspace,ȱtheȱrestrictedȱaccessȱspaceȱ“comesȱ alongȱforȱtheȱride.”ȱClearly,ȱtheȱconstrualȱoperationsȱinvolvedȱinȱestabȬ lishingȱtheȱvaryingȱperspectivesȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱhighȱlevelȱofȱinterestȱ foundȱinȱBHȱpropheticȱtext.ȱ Conclusion:ȱConceptualȱIntegrationȱofȱManyȱThingsȱ Thisȱchapterȱhasȱexploredȱtheȱintegratingȱfeaturesȱofȱframeȱknowledge,ȱ conceptualȱ metaphor,ȱ conterfactualȱ blendingȱ andȱ theȱ crossȬgenreȱ naȬ tureȱofȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱthroughȱaȱseriesȱofȱexamplesȱdrawnȱfromȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.1Ȭ3.25.ȱ Initially,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.4Ȭ2.1ȱ wasȱ usedȱ toȱ discussȱ theȱ conceptualȱintegrationȱofȱelementsȱfromȱvariousȱpointsȱonȱtheȱExtendedȱ GreatȱChainȱviaȱscopingȱtoȱhumanȱscaleȱwithinȱspeechȱframesȱ(sectionȱ A.1).ȱThisȱwasȱfollowedȱbyȱanȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱcomȬ plexȬspeakerȱ(sectionȱA.2).ȱLiteraryȱmetaphorȱwasȱexplainedȱasȱaȱmanyȬ spaceȱconceptualȱblend,ȱcomprisingȱconceptualȱmetaphor,ȱICMs,ȱimageȱ schemasȱ andȱ backgroundȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ world.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ discoveredȱ thatȱ materialȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.1Ȭ3.25ȱ isȱ characterisedȱ byȱ theȱ containmentȱ andȱ pathȱ schemas,ȱ andȱ byȱ theȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERSONȱ conceptualȱ metaȬ

186ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ

phor.ȱ Complexȱ systemsȱ metaphorsȱ suchȱ asȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERSONȱ andȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱPLANTȱactȱasȱunifyingȱdevicesȱthroughoutȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ6.30ȱ (sectionȱB.4).ȱTheȱproblemȱofȱidentityȱwasȱtakenȱupȱ andȱ explainedȱviaȱ theȱAccessȱPrinciple,ȱwhichȱallowsȱforȱtheȱidentificationȱofȱtheȱspeakerȱinȱ 3.6aȱasȱJeremiahȱ(sectionȱB.5).ȱFinally,ȱtheȱcrossȬgenreȱnatureȱofȱmentalȱ spaceȱ buildingȱ wasȱ discussedȱ (sectionȱ G).ȱ Theȱ networkȱ modelȱ isȱ wellȱ suitedȱforȱthisȱtaskȱbecauseȱtheȱmodelȱisȱneutralȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱgeȬ nreȱofȱaȱtext.ȱNarrativeȱtexts,ȱpoeticȱtexts,ȱlegalȱtextsȱandȱpropheticȱtextsȱ allȱ containȱ spaceȬbuildersȱ thatȱ actȱ asȱ promptsȱ forȱ mentalȬspacesȱ conȬ structions.ȱ Thus,ȱ conceptualȱ theoriesȱ allowȱ forȱ theȱ integrationȱ ofȱ seeȬ minglyȱdisparateȱelementsȱwithinȱtheȱtextȱofȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱ ȱ

6. CognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ ȱ Ierusalem,ȱIerusalem,ȱ convertereȱadȱDominumȱDeumȱtuumȱ ȱ ~ȱTallis,ȱDeȱLamentationeȱ

ȱ ThisȱchapterȱexploresȱtheȱfinalȱsetȱofȱexamplesȱtakenȱfromȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ 6.30.ȱTheȱexamplesȱareȱfromȱsectionȱB,ȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31,ȱandȱsectionȱC,ȱ Jeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30.ȱEachȱofȱtheseȱsectionsȱisȱaȱcontinuationȱofȱtheȱcogniȬ tiveȱ networkȱ thatȱ beginsȱ atȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1.ȱ Theȱ previousȱ twoȱ chaptersȱ examineȱtheȱformationȱofȱtheȱcognitiveȱnetworkȱthroughȱspaceȬbuildingȱ termsȱandȱconstructions,ȱcognitiveȱconnectionsȱandȱstructuringȱdevicesȱ suchȱ asȱ frameȱ knowledge,ȱ imageȱ schemataȱ andȱ conceptualȱ metaphor.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ finalȱ twoȱ sectionsȱ ofȱ textȱ usesȱ theȱ sameȱ setȱ ofȱ features.ȱ Whileȱ chaptersȱ 4ȱ andȱ 5ȱ delveȱ intoȱ theȱ formationȱ andȱ structuringȱ ofȱ textȬlevelȱ cognitiveȱ spaces,ȱ theȱ focusȱ ofȱ theȱ presentȱ chapterȱ isȱanȱexaminationȱofȱlinguisticȱconstrualȱ operationsȱandȱstrucȬ turingȱ devicesȱ thatȱ operateȱ atȱ theȱ sentenceȱ andȱ paragraphȱ levelȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱinȱorderȱtoȱdiscoverȱsmallȬscaleȱeffectsȱthatȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱunityȱ ofȱtheȱlargerȱwhole.ȱ SectionȱB,ȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31,ȱdiffersȱfromȱtheȱpreviousȱnarrativeȱsecȬ tionȱasȱitȱconsistsȱmainlyȱofȱdiscursiveȱ(D)ȱtext.1ȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.9ȱisȱdisȬ cursiveȱ withȱembeddedȱquotation.ȱJeremiahȱ4.10ȱisȱnarrativeȱwithȱemȬ beddedȱquotation,ȱandȱtheȱremainderȱofȱtheȱsection,ȱJeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.31,ȱ isȱ narrativeȱ withȱ embeddedȱ discursiveȱ text.ȱ Sectionȱ C,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.1Ȭ 6.30,ȱ isȱ largelyȱ quotation,ȱ withȱ someȱ embeddedȱ quotation.ȱ Unlikeȱ theȱ narrativeȱsectionsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ3.25,ȱwhichȱregularlyȱexhibitȱthreeȱorȱ moreȱ levelsȱ ofȱ embedding,ȱ sectionsȱ Bȱ andȱ Cȱ rarelyȱ moveȱ beyondȱ twoȱ levels.ȱTextȬtypeȱcontributesȱtoȱestablishingȱperspective,ȱasȱdemonstratȬ edȱinȱchaptersȱ4ȱandȱ5.ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

Categoriesȱinclude:ȱN,ȱnarrativeȱtextȱstartingȱfromȱwayyiqtol;ȱQ,ȱdiscursiveȱtextȱstartȬ ingȱ fromȱ quotation;ȱ D,ȱ discursiveȱ textȱ startingȱ fromȱ yiqtolȱ inȱ narrativeȱ text;ȱ andȱ P,ȱ perceptionȱstartingȱfromȱverbumȱsentiendi.ȱTheȱfourthȱcategoryȱisȱaȱcognitiveȱaddiȬ tionȱ proposedȱ inȱ thisȱ volume.ȱ Forȱ theȱ firstȱ threeȱ categoriesȱ seeȱ E.ȱ Talstra,ȱ “Aȱ HieȬ rarchyȱ ofȱ Clausesȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Narrative,”ȱ inȱ Narrativeȱ Syntaxȱ andȱ theȱ HeȬ brewȱBible,ȱed.ȱE.ȱJ.ȱvanȱWoldeȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1997),ȱ106.ȱ

188ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Theȱ discussionȱ inȱ chapterȱ 5ȱ detailsȱ theȱ shiftȱ inȱ perspectiveȱ inȱ JereȬ miahȱ 1.1Ȭ3.25ȱ asȱ itȱ movesȱ fromȱ narrator,ȱ toȱ narratorȱ asȱ character,ȱ andȱ finallyȱtoȱcharacter.ȱSectionsȱBȱandȱCȱcontinueȱtheȱprocessȱofȱscopingȱtoȱ humanȱscaleȱthatȱbeganȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ3.25.ȱInȱtheseȱsections,ȱtheȱchaȬ ractersȱareȱfullyȱengagedȱwithȱoneȱanotherȱwithinȱtheȱobjectiveȱportionȱ ofȱtheȱviewingȱarrangement.ȱSignificantly,ȱtheȱreaderȱnowȱperceivesȱtheȱ situationȱfromȱwithinȱtheȱtextȱitself.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱtheȱcomplexȱ speakerȱ isȱ stillȱ perceptible,ȱ otherȱ voicesȱ andȱ perspectivesȱ alsoȱ occurȱ withinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30.ȱȱ Frameȱ knowledgeȱ derivedȱ fromȱ metapragmaticȱ reportedȱ speechȱ diminishesȱinȱsectionsȱBȱandȱC.ȱTextȱlevelȱcitationȱformulaeȱallȱbutȱdisȬ appearȱinȱtheseȱsections,ȱdemonstratingȱthatȱtheȱidentitiesȱofȱtheȱprimaȬ ryȱinterlocutors:ȱ
A. Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31:ȱDiscursiveȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.1Ȭ4.31ȱ representsȱ aȱ shiftȱ fromȱ theȱ narrativeȱ textȬtypeȱ toȱ theȱ discursiveȱ textȬtype.2ȱ Thisȱ sectionȱ containsȱ onlyȱ twoȱ isolatedȱ wayyiqtolȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱȱ

Schneider’sȱ differentiationȱ betweenȱ narrativeȱ andȱ discursiveȱ textȱ isȱ explainedȱ inȱ chapterȱ 2,ȱ sectionȱ C.1.ȱ Niccacciȱ providesȱ addedȱ informationȱ fromȱ aȱ textȬlinguisticsȱ perspective.ȱHeȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱwayyiqtolȱformsȱareȱusedȱforȱtheȱmainȱlevelȱofȱcommuȬ nicationȱinȱnarrativeȱtext,ȱandȱaȱshiftȱawayȱfromȱtheȱmainȱlevelȱisȱindicatedȱbyȱaȱshiftȱ toȱ aȱ secondaryȱ verbalȱ form,ȱ suchȱ asȱ WȬXȬqatal,ȱ WȬXȬyiqtol,ȱ WȬqatalȱ orȱ WȬnominalȱ clause.ȱPrimaryȱlevelȱformsȱcanȱstandȱalone,ȱwhileȱsecondaryȱlevelȱmustȱrelyȱuponȱaȱ sentenceȱ atȱ theȱ primaryȱ level.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ discursiveȱ textȱ isȱ moreȱ complex.ȱ Heȱnotesȱthatȱdiscursiveȱtextȱusesȱallȱthreeȱtemporalȱaxes,ȱwhileȱnarrativeȱusesȱonlyȱ theȱpast:ȱtheȱsimpleȱnominalȱclauseȱindicatesȱtheȱpresent;ȱyiqtol,ȱWȬqatal,ȱimperativesȱ andȱ volitivesȱ indicateȱ theȱ future;ȱ qatalȱ indicatesȱ theȱ past.ȱ Inȱ discursiveȱ text,ȱ qatalȱ inȱ theȱfirstȱpositionȱinȱaȱsentenceȱbeginsȱtheȱmainȱline,ȱwhichȱisȱoftenȱcontinuedȱbyȱaȱWȬ qatalȱstring.ȱYiqtolȱprovidesȱtheȱmainȱlineȱforȱtheȱfuture.ȱNiccacci,ȱȇEssentialȱHebrewȱ Syntaxȇ,ȱ111Ȭ117.ȱInȱthisȱvolumeȱdiscursiveȱtextȱisȱdifferentiatedȱfromȱquotedȱspeech.ȱ Theȱfirstȱisȱwrittenȱasȱdirectȱdiscourse,ȱwhileȱtheȱsecondȱisȱwrittenȱasȱreportedȱdirectȱ

ȱ

189ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31:ȱDiscursiveȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

clausesȱ (4.10a;ȱ 4.16d),ȱ butȱ imperativeȱ andȱ cohortativeȱ formsȱ abound.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.1ȱ beginsȱ withȱ anȱ XȬyiqtolȱ clause,ȱ which,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Schneider,ȱisȱtheȱleadingȱverbalȱformȱforȱdiscursiveȱtext.ȱUnlikeȱnarraȬ tiveȱ text,ȱ whichȱ createsȱ distanceȱ betweenȱ theȱ readerȱ andȱ theȱ text,ȱ disȬ cursiveȱ textȱ oftenȱ featuresȱ firstȱ andȱ secondȱ personȱ interactionȱ thatȱ drawsȱtheȱreaderȱintoȱtheȱtext.3ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ6.1ȱȱViewingȱArrangementȱforȱJeremiahȱ4.1ȱ–ȱ4.31ȱ

ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

3ȱȱ

discourse.ȱTheȱtwoȱindicateȱdistinctlyȱdifferentȱspeechȱdomains:ȱdirectȱdiscourseȱinȬ volvesȱtheȱoriginatorȱandȱ(original)ȱreaderȱdirectly,ȱwhileȱreportedȱdirectȱdiscourseȱisȱ indexedȱfromȱaȱcharacter’sȱperspective.ȱ Inȱ anȱ articleȱ discoveredȱ byȱ theȱ presentȱ writerȱ onlyȱ afterȱ theȱ firstȱ chaptersȱ ofȱ thisȱ volumeȱwereȱwritten,ȱVanȱWoldeȱdevelopsȱthisȱuseȱofȱSchneider’sȱcategoriesȱinȱherȱ analysisȱofȱnarrativeȱtext.ȱSheȱnotesȱthatȱverbalȱforms,ȱincludingȱtemporalȱandȱlocaȬ tiveȱ terms,ȱareȱusedȱtoȱ“identifyȱ theȱ personȱ(narratorȱ orȱ character)ȱwhoȱdeterminesȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ byȱ whichȱ theȱ readerȱ isȱ guided.”ȱ Sheȱ goesȱ onȱ toȱ describeȱ otherȱ BHȱ termsȱthatȱaffectȱperspective,ȱandȱherȱlistȱisȱquiteȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱlistȱofȱspaceȱbuildingȱ termsȱdiscussedȱinȱchapterȱ4ȱofȱthisȱvolume.ȱWhileȱtheȱtwoȱlistsȱwereȱcompiledȱindeȬ pendently,ȱ theȱ presentȱ writerȱ owesȱ herȱ useȱ ofȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ characterȱ asȱ aȱ guideȱ throughȱ theȱ textȱ toȱ anotherȱ ofȱ vanȱ Wolde’sȱ volumes,ȱ Ruthȱ andȱ Naomi.ȱ Theȱ presentȱ writer’sȱ focusȱ uponȱ perspectiveȱ derivesȱ fromȱ readingsȱ inȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ linguistics.ȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ Wolde,ȱ “Whoȱ Guidesȱ Whom?ȱ Embeddednessȱ andȱ PerspectiveȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱNarrativeȱandȱinȱIȱKingsȱ3.16Ȭ28,”ȱJBLȱ114ȱ(1995),ȱ624;ȱ Wolde,ȱRuthȱandȱNaomi.ȱ

190ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Asȱ theȱ viewingȱ arrangementȱ diagramȱ forȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.1Ȭ4.31ȱ demonȬ strates,ȱ thisȱ sectionȱ continuesȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ scopingȱ toȱ humanȱ scaleȱ thatȱ beganȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1Ȭ3,ȱ withȱ theȱ successiveȱ movesȱ fromȱ N1ȱ toȱ N2ȱ andȱ finallyȱ toȱ N3ȱ (seeȱ Figureȱ 5.2).ȱ Bothȱ Jeremiah,ȱ asȱ theȱ covertȱ guideȱ throughȱ theȱ text,ȱ andȱ theȱ readerȱ nowȱ appearȱ asȱ ifȱ partiallyȱ encomȬ passedȱbyȱtheȱsituationȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱThisȱarrangementȱisȱtermedȱD1.ȱForȱ theȱ firstȱ time,ȱ theȱ situationȱ appearsȱ asȱ ifȱ itȱ isȱ largerȱ thanȱ theȱ humanȱ observer.ȱ Thisȱ correlatesȱ withȱ theȱ metaphorȱ ofȱ linguisticȱ situationsȱ asȱ materialȱentities.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱfluidȱimperfectiveȱformsȱsubsumeȱtheȱ solidȱ bodiesȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱ observers,ȱ creatingȱ aȱ viewȱ fromȱ withinȱ theȱ situation.ȱByȱwayȱofȱcontrast,ȱtheȱsolidȱperfectiveȱformsȱinȱtheȱnarrativeȱ sectionsȱcreateȱaȱviewȱfromȱwithoutȱ(seeȱchapterȱ3,ȱsectionȱD.4).ȱȱ

1. Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.2:ȱConditionalȱSpaceȱ

ȱ

Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.2ȱintroducesȱtheȱfirstȱdiscursiveȱsection,ȱD1.ȱTheȱvoiceȱinȱ thisȱsectionȱisȱthatȱofȱtheȱcomplexȱspeaker,ȱandȱtheȱperspectiveȱbelongsȱ toȱ
Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.2ȱClauseȱLayoutȱandȱAnalysisȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

N HT o[D8H7]K ȱ

4.1aȱ

JŽYJ[]W Pȱ

bȱ

D8H7[CN ȱ

cȱ

[hPH3KO [GE84KT[KUH7]K Yȱ

dȱ

F8PHV QNYȱ

eȱ

VGO( G% JŽYJ[[CZH7C%oPYȱ

4.2aȱ

JHSHFEKD 8H3KO% ȱ

bȱ

]o[2*2D8MTH%VKJYȱ

cȱ

8NH/CJVo[2D8ȱ

d

ȱ

191ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31:ȱDiscursiveȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

JERȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stemȱ Focus

MSCȱ

4.1aȱ

Dȱ

XȬYiqtolȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

2sgMȱ

Qalȱ

D1 ȱ

bȱ

Dȱ

Focusȱ

ȱ

ȱ

cȱ

Dȱ

XȬYiqtolȱȱȱȱ

2sgMȱ

ARGȱ

dȱ

Dȱ

WȬXȬYiqtolȱ

2sgMȱ

Hiphilȱ

eȱ

Dȱ

WȬXȬYiqtolȱȱ

2sgMȱ

Qalȱ

4.2aȱ

Dȱ

WȬQatalȱȱȱȱȱȱ

2sgMȱ

Niphalȱ

bȱ

Dȱ

Ellipȱ

ȱ

ȱ

cȱ

Dȱ

WȬQatalȱ

3plȱ

Hithȱ

d

Dȱ

WȬXȬYiqtolȱ

3plMȱ

Hithȱ

ȱ C1ȱ ȱ

ȱ b. Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ Thereȱ areȱ severalȱ setsȱ ofȱ boxedȱ termsȱ inȱ theȱ clauseȱ analysis.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ groupȱconsistsȱofȱtheȱconditionalȱparticle,ȱ]K ,ȱwhichȱappearsȱatȱ4.1aȱandȱ againȱatȱ4.1d.4ȱInȱtheseȱclauses,ȱYahwehȱpresentsȱaȱseriesȱofȱconditionsȱ toȱ theȱ addressees.ȱ Next,ȱ thereȱ areȱ twoȱ suffixedȱ prepositions:ȱ [N ȱ apȬ pearsȱ atȱ 4.1cȱ andȱ [PROȱ occursȱ atȱ 4.1d.ȱ Theseȱ termsȱ setȱ upȱ trajectorsȱ forȱ theȱpathȱschema,ȱwithȱYahwehȱasȱtheȱfocalȱpointȱforȱeach.ȱFinally,ȱthereȱ isȱ aȱ groupȱ ofȱ prepositionalȱ phrases,ȱ eachȱ includingȱ theȱ prepositionȱ Dȱ andȱanȱabstractȱnoun:ȱ VO D,ȱRODȱandȱ JSFED.ȱAdditionally,ȱtheȱhithȬ paelȱverbalȱformsȱinȱ4.2c,ȱ¥?TD,ȱandȱ4.2d,ȱ¥NNJ,ȱareȱofȱinterest.ȱ Theȱ setȱ ofȱ clausesȱ atȱ 4.1aȬcȱ formȱ aȱ chiasm,ȱ withȱ theȱ focusȱ particleȱ JYJ[] Pȱinȱtheȱcentre,ȱcallingȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱsurroundingȱphrases.ȱȱ N T[DYV] 

aȱ

JYJ[] P

bȱ

DYV[N 

cȱ

Clauseȱ4.1aȱexhibitsȱVSȱconstituentȱorder,ȱthusȱitȱisȱanȱexampleȱofȱpreȬ dicateȱfocus.ȱAskingȱtheȱdiagnosticȱquestion,ȱwhatȱwillȱIsraelȱdo,ȱrevealsȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 4ȱȱ

Forȱ aȱ fullȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ theȱ particleȱ ] ,ȱ seeȱ C.ȱ vanȱ Leeuwen,ȱ “Dieȱ Partikelȱ ‘Im’,”ȱ inȱ Syntaxȱ andȱ Meaning:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ Syntaxȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ Exegesis,ȱ ed.ȱ C.ȱ J.ȱ LabuȬ schagne,ȱOSȱ18ȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1973).ȱ

192ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

oneȱ difficultyȱ thatȱ occursȱ whenȱ assessingȱ theȱ imperfectiveȱ forms.ȱ Areȱ theȱ imperfectiveȱ forms,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ modalȱ forms?5ȱ Whatȱ mightȱ Israelȱ doȱ isȱ probablyȱ aȱ moreȱ usefulȱ questionȱ toȱ ask.ȱ Theȱ answer,ȱ return,ȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱmanyȱusesȱofȱtheȱrootȱ DYȱinȱtheȱbookȱofȱJeremiah.6ȱClauseȱ4.1cȱexȬ hibitsȱOVȱ order,ȱasȱitȱcontainsȱtheȱfrontedȱtermȱ [N ,ȱwhichȱmakesȱthisȱ anȱexampleȱofȱargumentȱfocus.7ȱSinceȱtheȱspeakerȱisȱalreadyȱdiscourseȬ active,ȱandȱnoȱcontrastȱisȱimplied,ȱtheȱtermȱ [N ȱisȱemphasised.ȱTheȱemȬ phasisȱ contributesȱ forceȱ toȱ theȱ clause.ȱ Theȱ returnȱ requestedȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ simpleȱ aboutȱ faceȱ familiarȱ toȱ everyȱ militaryȱ private.ȱ Rather,ȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ heartȱcryȱofȱaȱbetrayedȱloverȱunwillingȱtoȱreleaseȱanȱunfaithfulȱspouse.ȱȱȱ Theȱhithpaelȱverbalȱformsȱinȱ4.2c,ȱ¥?TD,ȱandȱ4.2d,ȱ ¥NNJ,ȱ presentȱaȱ choiceȱofȱtwoȱinterpretations,ȱor,ȱasȱMandelblitȱobserves,ȱ“twoȱalternaȬ tiveȱblendingȱcharacterizations.”8ȱSheȱnotesȱthatȱforȱMHȱverbs,ȱtheȱdifȬ ferenceȱbetweenȱ reflexiveȱhitpa’elȱverbsȱandȱmiddleȱhitpa’elȱverbsȱhasȱ toȱdoȱwithȱcausalȱforce.ȱForȱreflexiveȱverbs,ȱtheȱcausalȱforceȱisȱseparateȱ fromȱtheȱaffectedȱentity,ȱwhileȱforȱmiddleȱverbs,ȱtheȱcausalȱforceȱisȱinȬ ternalȱtoȱtheȱaffectedȱentity.ȱForȱBHȱverbs,ȱtheȱhithpa’elȱformȱrepresentsȱ theȱmiddleȱvoice,ȱandȱsuchȱverbsȱmayȱbeȱeitherȱreflexiveȱorȱreciprocal.9ȱ Again,ȱitȱisȱaȱmatterȱofȱcausalȱforce.ȱTheȱconditionsȱlaidȱoutȱinȱtheȱpreȬ viousȱ clausesȱ indicateȱ thatȱ theȱ causalȱ forceȱ isȱ externalȱ toȱ theȱ affectedȱ entity:ȱIsrael’sȱreturnȱisȱtheȱexternalȱcausalȱforceȱthatȱwillȱaffectȱtheȱnaȬ tions.ȱThus,ȱaȱreflexiveȱnuanceȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱrepresentedȱhere,ȱȱȱnationsȱ shallȱ beȱ blessedȱ byȱ him.ȱ Thisȱ raisesȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ nations.ȱ Theȱ internalȱ logicȱ ofȱ thisȱ sectionȱ seemsȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ ifȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 5ȱȱ

6ȱȱ

7ȱȱ

8ȱȱ 9ȱȱ

Joostenȱ proposesȱ thatȱ BHȱ hasȱ bothȱ anȱ indicativeȱ systemȱ andȱ aȱ modalȱ system.ȱ Janȱ Joosten,ȱ“TheȱIndicativeȱSystemȱofȱtheȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱVerbȱandȱItsȱLiteraryȱExploiȬ tation,”ȱ inȱ Narrativeȱ Syntaxȱ andȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,ȱ ed.ȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ Vanȱ Woldeȱ (Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1997),ȱ 57Ȭ58.ȱ Cookȱ introducesȱ anotherȱ category,ȱ contingentȱ modality,ȱ toȱ theȱ discusȬ sion.ȱContingentȱmodalityȱisȱindicatedȱwhenȱtheȱspeaker’sȱviewȱofȱtheȱsituationȱinȱaȱ subordinateȱ clauseȱ isȱ contingentȱ uponȱ theȱ actualityȱ ofȱ theȱ statementȱ toȱ whichȱ itȱ isȱ subordinated.ȱCook,ȱ“Grammaticalization,”ȱ127.ȱ CarrollȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱturningȱisȱpartȱofȱtheȱrhetoricȱofȱtheȱYahwehȬaloneȱ party,ȱwhoȱbelievedȱthatȱtoȱturnȱtoȱYahwehȱmeantȱbothȱturningȱawayȱfromȱtheȱfalseȱ cultsȱ andȱ consolidatingȱ worshipȱ inȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ temple.ȱ Theȱ latterȱ includedȱ theȱ consolidationȱofȱpowerȱasȱwell.ȱCarroll,ȱJeremiah:ȱAȱCommentary,ȱ156.ȱHolladayȱassoȬ ciatesȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ turningȱ withȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ covenantȱ inȱ Williamȱ Leeȱ Holladay,ȱ TheȱRootȱŠýbhȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱwithȱParticularȱReferenceȱtoȱItsȱUsagesȱinȱCovenantalȱ Contextsȱ(Leiden:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1958).ȱ Otherȱ examplesȱ ofȱ frontedȱ selfȬreferentialȱ termsȱ occurȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1ȱ –ȱ 6.30.ȱ JereȬ miahȱ1.18aȱisȱaȱcasusȱpendens,ȱandȱindicatesȱcontrastiveȱfocus;ȱJeremiahȱ2.13bȱexhibitsȱ OVȱorder;ȱJeremiahȱ2.21aȱisȱinȱSVOȱorder,ȱwithȱaȱfrontedȱpronounȱasȱexplicitȱsubject.ȱ Eachȱofȱtheseȱappearsȱtoȱ indicateȱargumentȱfocus,ȱwithȱYahwehȱ asȱ theȱentityȱinȱfoȬ cus.ȱȱ Mandelblit,ȱ“GrammaticalȱMarking,”ȱ232.ȱ ArnoldȱandȱChoi,ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax,ȱ194.ȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31:ȱDiscursiveȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

193ȱ

addresseeȱ (Israelȱ inȱtheȱfirstȱinstanceȱ andȱ Jerusalemȱasȱ theȱcurrentȱadȬ dresseeȱinȱtheȱtextȱinȱtheȱsecond)ȱwouldȱreturnȱtoȱYahweh,ȱthisȱwouldȱ causeȱtheȱnationsȱtoȱreapȱbenefitsȱfromȱhim.10ȱȱ c.

CognitiveȱConstructionȱ

Asȱobservedȱinȱchaptersȱ4ȱandȱ5,ȱcognitiveȱconstructionȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ 3.25ȱ comprisesȱ severalȱ speechȱ domains.ȱ Theȱ speechȱ domainsȱ themȬ selvesȱ compriseȱ variousȱ embeddedȱ spacesȱ openedȱ byȱ spaceȬbuildersȱ fromȱ theȱ semanticȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ speech,ȱ perception,ȱ cognition,ȱ andȱ deonticȱ andȱepistemicȱmodality.ȱFrames,ȱidealisedȱcognitiveȱmodelsȱandȱimageȱ schemataȱstructureȱtheȱspaces.ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ4.1ȱisȱaȱcontinuationȱofȱtheȱfourthȱspeechȱdomain.ȱTheȱmeȬ tapragmaticȱstructuringȱofȱ“speechȱreportingȱspeech”ȱthatȱcharacterisesȱ Jeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.1ȱhasȱgivenȱwayȱtoȱreportedȱspeechȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.2Ȭ3.25.ȱ Newȱ cognitiveȱ constructionȱ isȱ inȱ process,ȱ asȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.1ȱ representsȱ bothȱ aȱ shiftȱ inȱ verbalȱ formsȱ andȱ aȱ shiftȱ inȱ spaceȬbuildingȱ terms.ȱ JereȬ miahȱ4.1ȱbeginsȱwithȱtheȱstatementȱ N T[DYV] ,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱcondiȬ tionalȱ particleȱ ] ȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱactingȱ asȱaȱspaceȬbuilder.ȱ Ifȱthisȱisȱtheȱ case,ȱ theȱ newȱ space,ȱ M,ȱ mightȱ beȱ termedȱ aȱ conditionalȱ space.11ȱ Theȱ groupȱ ofȱ clausesȱ atȱ 4.1aȬ4.1cȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ topicalȱ frame,ȱ introducingȱ theȱ invitationȱ ofȱ Yahwehȱ toȱ returnȱ toȱ me.ȱ Theȱ fourȱ clausesȱatȱ 4.1dȬ4.2bȱ actȱ asȱ aȱ topicalȱ elaborationȱ uponȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ returnȱ toȱ me.ȱ 4.1dȱ isȱ aȱ secondȱ conditionalȱ clauseȱ thatȱ describesȱ aȱ featureȱ ofȱ theȱ return.ȱ Threeȱ conditionsȱ contributeȱ toȱ theȱ situation:ȱ ifȱ theȱ addresseesȱ removeȱ theirȱ abominationsȱ fromȱ beforeȱ me,ȱ ifȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱ waver,ȱ andȱ ifȱ theyȱ swearȱ JYJ[[Z,ȱ asȱ theȱ Lordȱ lives,ȱ thenȱ theȱ nationsȱ willȱ beȱ blessedȱ byȱ him,ȱ andȱ willȱ boastȱ inȱ him.ȱ Carrollȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ abominationsȱ areȱ theȱ idolsȱ ofȱ theȱ falseȱ cults,ȱ andȱ thatȱ turningȱ backȱ toȱ Yahwehȱ requiresȱ theȱ puttingȱ awayȱofȱfalseȱgods.ȱHeȱseesȱthisȱasȱanȱindicationȱofȱtheȱtypeȱofȱworshipȱ advocatedȱbyȱtheYahwehȬaloneȱparty.12ȱ Severalȱimageȱschemataȱareȱpresentȱinȱthisȱsection.ȱTheȱfirstȱpersonȱ suffixȱonȱtheȱtermsȱ[N ȱandȱ[PROȱindicatesȱthatȱtheȱspeaker,ȱYahweh,ȱisȱaȱ pointȱ ofȱ referenceȱ bothȱ forȱ theȱ pathȱ schemaȱ andȱ forȱ theȱ centreȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 10ȱȱ ItȱisȱsomehowȱdoubtfulȱthatȱIsrael/Jerusalemȱwouldȱbeȱmotivatedȱtoȱchangeȱtheirȱ waysȱforȱtheȱbenefitȱofȱtheȱnationsȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱimminentȱjudgement.ȱCarrollȱexȬ plainsȱthatȱthisȱsectionȱrepresentsȱaȱlateȱstageȱofȱtheȱroyalȱideologyȱofȱtheȱtemple,ȱ andȱthatȱtheȱassociationȱofȱtheȱnationsȱwithȱtheȱculticȱreformationȱofȱIsraelȱisȱunusualȱ forȱtheȱtradition.ȱCarroll,ȱJeremiah:ȱAȱCommentary,ȱ136.ȱ 11ȱȱ AȱconditionalȱspaceȱdiffersȱfromȱaȱhypotheticalȱspaceȱinȱthatȱitȱcreatesȱanȱopportuniȬ tyȱ bothȱ toȱ reasonȱ andȱ toȱ chooseȱ aȱ courseȱ ofȱ action,ȱ whereasȱ aȱ hypotheticalȱ spaceȱ createsȱanȱopportunityȱtoȱreason,ȱbutȱdoesȱnotȱalwaysȱentailȱaȱchangeȱinȱactionȱ 12ȱȱ Carroll,ȱJeremiah:ȱAȱCommentary,ȱ156.ȱ

194ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

peripheryȱschema,ȱsinceȱheȱisȱtheȱpointȱtoȱwhomȱtheȱaddresseesȱareȱtoȱ return,ȱ andȱ theȱ pointȱ fromȱ whomȱ theȱ addresseesȱ areȱ toȱ removeȱ theirȱ abominations.ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ areȱ theȱ addresseesȱ toȱ swearȱ JYJ[[Z,ȱ butȱ theyȱ areȱtoȱdoȱsoVO D,ȱRODȱ andJSFEDY.ȱTheȱprepositionȱ Dȱinȱtheseȱthreeȱ phrasesȱindicatesȱtheȱcontainmentȱschema.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱthreeȱtermsȱ areȱabstractȱnouns,ȱthusȱtheȱswearingȱisȱtoȱtakeȱplaceȱwithinȱtheȱabstractȱ confinesȱofȱtruth,ȱjusticeȱandȱrighteousness.ȱTheȱreturnȱtoȱYahwehȱandȱ theȱ removalȱ ofȱ theȱ abominationsȱ fromȱ beforeȱ Yahwehȱ appearȱ toȱ beȱ abstractionsȱasȱwell.ȱȱ ThereȱisȱnoȱovertȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱJerusalemȱtemple;ȱratherȱtheȱovertȱ referenceȱisȱtoȱYahwehȱhimself.ȱInȱFauconnier’sȱterms,ȱthisȱisȱdueȱtoȱtheȱ monumentalȱ disconnectionȱ betweenȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ templeȱ asȱ materialȱ anchor,ȱ andȱ theȱ peoples’ȱ complexȱ projectionsȱ regardingȱ theȱ deity.13ȱ Theȱ practicesȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱhaveȱalteredȱtheȱsymbolicȱstructureȱofȱtheȱtemȬ pleȱandȱtheȱworshipȱofȱYahweh.ȱȱForȱtheȱIsraelites,ȱworshipȱwasȱtoȱbeȱaȱ lightȬsplittingȱprismȱthatȱallowedȱtheȱpeopleȱtoȱperceiveȱtheirȱGodȱmoreȱ fully.ȱHowever,ȱjustȱasȱaȱprismȱheldȱatȱtheȱwrongȱangleȱturnsȱbeautyȱtoȱ fire,ȱsoȱunfaithfulnessȱinȱworshipȱhasȱturnedȱtheȱbeautyȱofȱrelationshipȱ withȱtheȱdivineȱintoȱtheȱdestructiveȱfireȱofȱjudgement.14ȱȱȱ

2. Jeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.18ȱ(4.19Ȭ4.21):ȱCentreȬPeripheryȱ Theȱ centreȬperipheryȱ imageȱ schemaȱ isȱ prevalentȱ throughoutȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱTheȱcentreȬperipheryȱschemaȱincludesȱaȱphysicalȱorȱmetaphorȬ icalȱcoreȱorȱedgeȱandȱdegreesȱofȱdistanceȱfromȱtheȱcore.ȱTheȱstructureȱofȱ anȱ apple,ȱ anȱ individual’sȱ perceptualȱ sphereȱ andȱ anȱ individual’sȱ socialȱ sphereȱ areȱ someȱ examplesȱ ofȱ theȱ centreȬperipheryȱ schema.15ȱ Withȱ reȬ gardȱ toȱ physicalȱ location,ȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ gatesȱ ofȱ Jerusalemȱ andȱ theȱ citiesȱofȱJudahȱinȱ1.14ȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱfirstȱinstancesȱofȱtheȱcentreȬperipheryȱ schemaȱinȱMTȱJeremiah.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱJerusalemȱisȱatȱtheȱcentre,ȱandȱtheȱ citiesȱofȱJudahȱ atȱvariousȱpointsȱaroundȱtheȱperiphery.ȱWithȱregardȱtoȱ metaphoricalȱ location,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.12ȱ introducesȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ himselfȱ asȱ aȱ fortifiedȱ city,ȱ readyȱ toȱ withstandȱ attack.ȱ Finally,ȱ withȱ reȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 13ȱȱ Theȱ templeȱ inȱ Jerusalemȱ isȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ aȱ “materialȱ anchorȱ forȱ spiritualȱ andȱ perȬ sonalȱ integrationȱ networks.”ȱ Theȱ temple,ȱ likeȱ aȱ cathedral,ȱ isȱ “aȱ materialȱ anchorȱ forȱ communingȱ withȱ theȱ relativelyȱ inaccessibleȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱ divine.”ȱ Fauconnierȱ andȱ Turner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ206Ȭ207.ȱ 14ȱȱ Responsibilityȱ forȱ theȱ comingȱ judgementȱ isȱ attributedȱ toȱ theȱ peopleȱ andȱ theirȱ unȬ faithfulness.ȱThisȱcontributesȱtoȱtheȱargumentȱthatȱtheȱJeremiahȱtextȱhasȱelementsȱofȱ aȱtheodicy.ȱSeeȱJeremiahȱ2.17;ȱ2.19;ȱ4.4;ȱ4.18;ȱandȱ5.25.ȱ 15ȱȱ Johnson,ȱ Theȱ Bodyȱ inȱ theȱ Mind:ȱ Theȱ Bodilyȱ Basisȱ ofȱ Meaning,ȱ Imagination,ȱ andȱ Reason,ȱ 124Ȭ125.ȱ

ȱ

195ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31:ȱDiscursiveȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

gardȱ toȱ abstractȱ location,ȱ thereȱ areȱ theȱ manyȱ instancesȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ peopleȱ areȱ urgedȱ toȱ returnȱ toȱ Yahweh,ȱ whoȱ providesȱ theȱ centreȱ pointȱ forȱ hisȱ people.ȱ Jerusalem,ȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Yahwehȱ areȱ threeȱ keyȱ entitiesȱ inȱtheȱtextȱandȱtheyȱoftenȱprovideȱaȱfocalȱpointȱforȱtheȱcentreȬperipheryȱ schemaȱbothȱindividuallyȱandȱasȱaȱgroup.ȱSignificantly,ȱYahwehȱisȱpreȬ sentedȱ withoutȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ Temple.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ locationȱ underȱ disȬ cussionȱisȱabstractȱratherȱthanȱphysical.ȱ Inȱtheȱcurrentȱsection,ȱJeremiahȱ4.9Ȭ4.10ȱreinstatesȱtheȱnarrativeȱlevȬ elȱ withȱ anȱ exchangeȱ betweenȱ Yahwehȱ andȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.9.aȱ beginsȱwithȱtheȱclauseȱ JYJ[] P YJJ]Y[DJ[JY ,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱfocusȱparȬ ticleȱJYJ[] Pȱdrawsȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱundifferentiatedȱphraseȱonȱthatȱday.ȱ Thisȱphraseȱformsȱaȱparallelismȱwithȱtheȱphrase,ȱ [JJVD,ȱatȱthatȱtime,ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.11.16Jeremiah’sȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱpronouncementȱofȱdoomȱ atȱ4.10aȱisȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱmetapragmaticȱreportedȱspeech.ȱȱ TO Y

aȱ

TO N]NYT[NYJ\J]NV J J_M JYJ[[PF JJ ȱ

bȱ

RPJFDTZJIPY]MNJ[J[]YN

cȱ

However,ȱtheȱtextȱinȱ4.11Ȭ4.31ȱisȱdiscursive,ȱwhichȱresultsȱinȱNDȱasȱtheȱ baselineȱtextȱlevelȱforȱtheȱremainderȱofȱtheȱsection.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 16ȱȱ ThisȱcombinationȱofȱtheȱprepositionȱD,ȱwhichȱindicatesȱtheȱcontainmentȱschema,ȱandȱ theȱdeicticȱtermsȱ YJȱandȱ [J,ȱisȱratherȱunsettlingȱfromȱaȱcognitiveȱperspective.ȱTheȱ phrasesȱonȱthatȱdayȱandȱatȱthatȱtimeȱdoȱnotȱgiveȱactualȱtemporalȱinformation;ȱrather,ȱ theȱ deicticȱ termsȱ selectȱ aȱ dayȱ andȱ aȱ timeȱ atȱ whichȱ certainȱ activitiesȱ willȱ takeȱ place.ȱ Theȱreaderȱnowȱknowsȱthatȱtheȱleadersȱofȱtheȱsocietyȱwillȱbeȱoverwhelmed,ȱandȱthatȱ aȱhotȱwindȱisȱonȱitsȱwayȱtowardsȱJerusalemȱandȱtheȱinhabitantsȱofȱtheȱcity.ȱHowever,ȱ theyȱdoȱnotȱknowȱpreciselyȱwhenȱthisȱwillȱoccur.ȱ

196ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

a. Jeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.18ȱClauseȱLayoutȱandȱAnalysisȱ ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

]KCNH8T[KNYJm=CJ]HHN TOH ƒ[ [KJCJVH% ȱ ¯[K0CVC%^GTG'TH%FK0C%][o[HRZCECZ8Tȱ

b

TCDHJN 2NYV2T\KN 2Nȱ

c

[KN 2DŽ[JG/ O NHOCZ8Tȱ

4.12aȱ

]HV2 ][KH3KOT%CF$ [oP$ ]C*JH7C ȱ

bȱ

JGN$h[][oPŽP$C.Jƒ1KJȱ

4.13aȱ

Y[HV2D.TCOJHR86CMYȱ

bȱ

Y[HU8U][KTH1KO8/CSȱ

cȱ

8PFH'W[K.8PHN[2 ȱ

dȱ

]KCNH8T[^%KNJHHTO[KU%C. ȱ

4.14aȱ

[KŽ8K7_CCONȱ

bȱ

^ƒP2 V2DZCO^%TKS%_[KNH7 [CVHOFC ȱ

cȱ

_H'KOF[K*CON2S[K.ȱ ]o[HTRG TCJO_mYH C[KOCO8ȱ Jƒ1KJ]o[2*CN8T[K.\CJ ȱ

4.15aȱ bȱ 4.16aȱ

]KCNH8T[NC8[KOCJȱ

bȱ

SHZTG0CJLGTG O][K H%][KTEvPȱ

cȱ

]HN2SJHF8J[[THNC8P7o
dȱ

D[KDH6KOHJ[GNH8[HJ [CFH [TOQ.ȱ

4.17aȱ

JHVHTHO[KVQ [K.ȱ

bȱ

JŽYJ[]W Pȱ

cȱ

^HNJG/ 2 H^o[CNHN$CO8^.TC' ȱ ^%KNFCCIŽP[K. THO[K.^VHHTV v\ ȱ

ȱ

4.11a

4.18aȱ bȱ

ȱ

197ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31:ȱDiscursiveȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ JERȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stemȱ

MSCȱ

NDȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

3sgMȱ

Niphalȱ

ND1ȱ

bȱ

NDQȱ

NmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

C1ȱ

cȱ

NDQȱ

XȬQetolȱ XȬQetol

ȱ

Qal/ȱ Hiph

C1ȱ

4.12aȱ NDQȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

3sgMȱ

Qalȱ

C1ȱ

bȱ NDQȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

1sgȱ

Pielȱ

C1ȱ

XȬYiqtolȱȱȱȱ

3sgMȱ

Qalȱ

C3ȱ

bȱ NDQȱ

WȬNPȱ

ȱ

ȱ

C3ȱ

cȱ NDQȱ

Qatalȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

3plȱ

Qalȱ

C3ȱ

dȱ NDȱ

XȬQatalȱ

1plȱ

Pualȱ

C3ȱ

Impvȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

sgFȱ

Pielȱ

C1ȱ

bȱ NDȱ

XȬYiqtolȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

2sgfȱ

Niphalȱ

C1ȱ

cȱ NDȱ

XȬYiqtolȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

3sfFȱ

Qalȱ

C1ȱ

XȬQotelȱ

sgMȱ

Hiphilȱ

C1ȱ

WȬQotelȱ

sgMȱ

Hiphilȱ

C1ȱ

4.16aȱ NDȱ

Impvȱ

plMȱ

Hiphilȱ

C1ȱ

bȱ NDȱ

Impvȱ

plMȱ

Hiphilȱ

C1ȱ

cȱ NDȱ

Qotelȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

C1ȱ

dȱ NNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱȱȱ

3plMȱ

Qalȱ

C1ȱ

XȬQatalȱȱȱ

3plȱ

Qalȱ

C1ȱ

bȱ NDȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgFȱ

Qalȱ

C1ȱ

cȱ NDȱ

Focusȱ

ȱ

ȱ

C1ȱ

4.18aȱ NDȱ

SȬQatolȱ

ȱ

Qalȱ

C1ȱ

bȱ NDȱ

NmClȱ XȬQatal

3sgMȱ

Qalȱ

C1ȱ

4.11aȱ

4.13aȱ NDQȱ

4.14aȱ NDȱ

4.15aȱ NDȱ bȱ NDȱ

4.17aȱ NDȱ

198ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

b. Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ SeveralȱsyntacticȱandȱsemanticȱfeaturesȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.13ȱaffectȱtheȱ informationȱstructureȱofȱtheȱpassageȱandȱaffectȱcognitiveȱstructuringȱasȱ well.ȱ Thisȱ discussionȱ concernsȱ theȱ boxedȱ termsȱ inȱ theȱ aboveȱ analysis.ȱ (Theȱfirstȱphrase,ȱJeremiahȱ4.11aȱ [JJVD,ȱisȱexplainedȱinȱtheȱcognitiveȱ constructionȱsection.)ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ4.14aȱ]NYT[?DNJTO[UDMȱcontainsȱtheȱimperativeȱ[UDM,ȱ wash.ȱWordȱorderȱinȱthisȱsentenceȱisȱVȬPrePȬOȬVocative.ȱTheȱimperativeȱ verbȱ contributesȱforceȱtoȱtheȱclause.ȱTheȱdirectiveȱ washȱyourȱheartȱ conȬ tributesȱtoȱtheȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱPERSONȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱthatȱstructuresȱ theȱ followingȱ section.ȱ However,ȱ perhapsȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ informaȬ tionȱinȱtheȱsentenceȱisȱ ?DN,ȱyourȱheartȱ(sgF),ȱspokenȱwithȱregardȱtoȱJeruȬ salemȱasȱtheȱareaȱinȱneedȱofȱcleansing.ȱTheȱtermȱreoccursȱatȱ4.18,ȱwhichȱ summarisesȱthisȱsectionȱinȱfourȱterseȱclauses.ȱ ?NJN Y?[NNOY?MTF

aȱ

?DNFIP[MTO[M?VTV \

bȱ

WordȱorderȱforȱtheȱfirstȱclauseȱisȱSVO.ȱTheȱdouble,ȱfrontedȱsubjectȱconȬ sistsȱofȱtheȱtermsȱ ?[NNOY?MTF,ȱeachȱofȱwhichȱcontainsȱaȱ2sgFȱpossesȬ siveȱ suffix.ȱ Theȱ deicticȱ termȱ JN ,ȱ whichȱ refersȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ besiegersȱ surroundingȱ Jerusalem,ȱ followsȱ theȱ infinitiveȱ absoluteȱ verbalȱ formȱ inȱ theȱfirstȱclauseȱ(seeȱ4.16cȬ4.17b).ȱTheȱsecond,ȱnominalȱclauseȱconsistsȱofȱ theȱdeicticȱtermȱ V \ȱandȱtheȱnounȱ ?VT,ȱwhichȱalsoȱhasȱaȱ2sgFȱpossesȬ siveȱsuffix.17ȱTheȱthirdȱclause,ȱTO[M,ȱfunctionsȱasȱanȱinterjection.ȱȱ Theȱfinalȱclause,ȱ?DNFIP[M,ȱitȱhasȱreachedȱasȱfarȱasȱyourȱheart,ȱisȱaȱ turningȱ pointȱ withinȱ theȱ largerȱ section.ȱ Thisȱ clauseȱ containsȱ oneȱ ofȱ threeȱ instancesȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ IPȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱ Theȱ first,ȱ [RNI[YYF[V JYJ[ZN[Y ,ȱandȱYahwehȱsentȱoutȱ(extended)ȱhisȱhandȱandȱ touchedȱ myȱ mouth,ȱ isȱ atȱ 1.9b.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ andȱ moreȱ ominousȱ instance,ȱ RPJFDTZJIPY ,ȱ theȱ swordȱ reachesȱ theȱ soul,ȱ isȱ atȱ 4.10fȱ (NRSVȱ hasȱ throat).ȱTheseȱclausesȱreferȱmetaphoricallyȱtoȱtheȱhapticȱsense,ȱorȱsenseȱ ofȱ touch.ȱ Inȱ 1.9b,ȱ Jeremiahȱ receivesȱ authorisationȱ asȱ aȱ prophetȱ whenȱ Yahwehȱ reachesȱ outȱ hisȱ handȱandȱ touchesȱ Jeremiah’sȱ mouth.ȱ Inȱ 4.10f,ȱ theȱfigureȱofȱaȱswordȱheldȱtoȱtheȱthroatȱisȱmenacingȱinȱtheȱextremeȱ–ȱitȱ givesȱ theȱ metonymicallyȱ perceivedȱ swordsmanȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ lifeȱ andȱ deathȱoverȱtheȱvictim,ȱinȱthisȱcaseȱJerusalem.ȱThus,ȱwhenȱtheȱjudgementȱ ofȱ Yahwehȱ reachesȱ Jerusalem’sȱ heartȱ atȱ 4.18d,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ anyȱ opportunityȱtoȱchange.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 17ȱȱ RegardingȱBHȱnominalȱclauses,ȱseeȱAndersen,ȱTheȱHebrewȱVerblessȱClauseȱinȱtheȱPentaȬ teuch;ȱMiller,ȱC.ȱMiller,ȱVerbless.ȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31:ȱDiscursiveȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

c.

199ȱ

CognitiveȱConstructionȱ

Jeremiahȱ 4.11Ȭ4.18ȱ containsȱ severalȱ termsȱ thatȱ functionȱ asȱ smallȬscaleȱ spaceȬbuilders.ȱ Theseȱ includeȱ theȱ prepositionalȱ phraseȱ [JJVDȱ atȱ 4.11a,ȱ whichȱ describesȱ aȱ futureȱ quotationȱ betweenȱ 4.11bȬ4.13cȱ andȱ theȱ imperativeȱ [UDMȱ atȱ 4.14a.ȱ Asȱ previouslyȱ mentioned,ȱ theȱ phraseȱ [JJVDȱ invokesȱ theȱ containmentȱ schemaȱ forȱ time,ȱ butȱ theȱ phraseȱ containsȱaȱdeicticȱtermȱwithoutȱaȱspecifiedȱreferent.ȱThus,ȱtheȱphraseȱatȱ thatȱtimeȱisȱactuallyȱindeterminateȱwithȱregardȱtoȱcalendarȱtime.ȱRather,ȱ itȱspecifiesȱtheȱcertaintyȱofȱtheȱpromisedȱevent:ȱthisȱpeopleȱandȱJerusalemȱ willȱindeedȱhearȱaboutȱtheȱhotȱwindȱthatȱisȱtoȱcome.ȱTheȱfollowingȱquoȬ tationȱ spaceȱ presentsȱ theȱ detailsȱ ofȱ theȱ event.ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ [OVD?TFTDFOD][[RZEZYT ȱinvokesȱbothȱtheȱpathȱschemaȱandȱtheȱ centreȬperipheryȱ schema.ȱ Theȱ hotȱ windȱ isȱ toȱ comeȱ fromȱ theȱ TDFOD][[R.ȱȱ Somewhatȱironically,ȱtheȱtermȱ][[Rȱseemsȱtoȱassociateȱtheȱdirectionȱ ofȱtheȱ destructiveȱ windȱwithȱtheȱplaceȱwhereȱtheȱaddresseesȱwereȱunȬ faithfulȱtoȱ J[J[ȱ(Jeremiahȱ3.2a)ȱandȱtheȱplaceȱfromȱwhichȱIsrael’sȱweepȬ ingȱ wasȱ heardȱ (Jeremiahȱ 3.21).ȱ Inȱ bothȱ instancesȱ theȱ locationȱ isȱ inȬȱȱȱȱȱ determinate.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ asȱ indicatedȱ byȱ theȱ rhetoricalȱ questionȱ VDM

VNI  NJR[ ,ȱWhereȱhaveȱyouȱnotȱbeenȱunfaithful,ȱwhichȱfollowsȱ theȱinstruction[ TY][RN?[P[[ ,ȱliftȱupȱyourȱeyesȱtoȱtheȱbareȱheightsȱ andȱsee,ȱatȱJeremiahȱ3.2a.18ȱThereȱisȱsomeȱdiscussionȱaboutȱwhetherȱtheȱ termȱ ][[Rȱ indicatesȱ bareȱ heightsȱ orȱ paths.19ȱ ȱ However,ȱ forȱ thisȱ arguȬ mentȱ itȱ isȱ moreȱ importantȱ toȱ noteȱ thatȱ theȱ theȱ termȱ ][[Rȱ indicatesȱ aȱ locationȱatȱaȱdistanceȱfromȱJerusalem,ȱwhichȱprovidesȱtheȱcentreȱpointȱ forȱtheȱcentreȬperipheryȱschema.ȱInȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱterms,ȱ CLOSEȱ TOȱCENTREȱISȱGOODȱandȱ FARȱFROMȱCENTREȱISȱBAD.ȱThisȱconceptualȱmetaȬ phorȱ isȱ fundamentalȱ toȱ theȱ arrangementȱ ofȱ theȱ wildernessȱ tabernacle,ȱ andȱ seemsȱ toȱ contributeȱ toȱ theȱ rhetoricȱ ofȱ theȱ YahwehȬaloneȱ partȱ asȱ well.20ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 18ȱȱ BothȱK,ȱVNI,ȱbeenȱravished,ȱandȱQ,ȱVDM,ȱlainȱwithȱareȱfairlyȱexplicitȱterms.ȱCarrollȱ notesȱthatȱVNIȱisȱanȱobsceneȱterm.ȱCarroll,ȱJeremiah:ȱAȱCommentary,ȱ141.ȱȱȱ 19ȱȱ Inȱ hisȱ 1906ȱ article,ȱ Joüonȱ challengesȱ theȱ acceptedȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ ][[Rȱ asȱ bareȱ heightsȱ orȱ bareȱ slopesȱ byȱ proposingȱ theȱ termsȱ troddenȱ pathsȱ orȱ tracks.ȱ Gelstonȱ agreesȱthatȱtracksȱisȱaȱlikelyȱbutȱnotȱnecessaryȱtranslation.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱEllingerȱ arguesȱ convincinglyȱ thatȱ bareȱ heightsȱ orȱ bareȱ slopesȱ isȱ theȱ correctȱ option.ȱ K.ȱ Ellinger,ȱ “DerȱSinnȱdesȱHebräischenȱWortesȱȇSFY’,”ȱZAWȱ83ȱ(1971);ȱA.ȱGelston,ȱ“SomeȱNotesȱ onȱSecondȱIsaiah,”ȱVTȱ21ȱ(1971);ȱPaulȱJoüon,ȱ“LeȱSensȱDuȱMotȱHébreuȱ‘SFY’,”ȱJournalȱ Asiatiqueȱȱ(1906).ȱȱ 20ȱȱ Directionalityȱ andȱtheȱ centreȬperipheryȱ schemaȱ areȱalsoȱinstantiatedȱ inȱ presentȬdayȱ worship.ȱ Inȱ certainȱ Christianȱ traditions,ȱ placesȱ ofȱ worshipȱ areȱ situatedȱ soȱ thatȱ theȱ worshippersȱfaceȱeastȱduringȱpartsȱofȱtheȱliturgy,ȱbutȱfaceȱtheȱcentreȱofȱtheȱbuildingȱ atȱotherȱtimes.ȱMuslimsȱfaceȱeastȱtoȱpray.ȱNotȱonlyȱdoȱworshippersȱinȱArmeniaȱfaceȱ

200ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

ReturningȱtoȱJeremiahȱ4.12a,ȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱhotȱwindȱasȱbeȬ ingȱtooȱstrongȱforȱwinnowingȱinvokesȱtheȱforceȱschema.ȱTheȱhotȱwindȱ sweepingȱ downȱ uponȱ theȱ peopleȱ ofȱ Jerusalemȱ isȱ movingȱ alongȱ theȱ sameȱtrajectoryȱasȱtheȱcontentsȱofȱtheȱboilingȱpotȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.13,ȱandȱ withȱaȱsimilarȱdegreeȱofȱhot,ȱfluid,ȱundifferentiatedȱforce.ȱ Atȱ4.14aȱandȱ4.18d,ȱtheȱtermȱ ?DNȱinvokesȱtheȱcentreȬperipheryȱimȬ ageȱschema,ȱwhichȱderivesȱfromȱembodiedȱhumanȱexperienceȱinȱwhichȱ bodiesȱhaveȱbothȱaȱcore,ȱcontainingȱtheȱvitalȱelementsȱofȱlife,ȱandȱaȱpeȬ riphery,ȱ i.e.ȱ theȱ extremities.ȱ Ifȱ Jerusalemȱ wouldȱ followȱ theȱ imperaȬ tive?DNJTO[UDMȱatȱ4.14a,ȱthereȱisȱaȱchanceȱthatȱsheȱmightȱbeȱsaved.ȱ Theȱ rhetoricalȱ questionȱ atȱ 4.14cȱ ?PY VYDZO?DTSD_[NV[VOF ,ȱ Howȱ longȱ willȱ yourȱ evilȱ thoughtsȱ lodgeȱ withinȱ you,ȱ indicatesȱtheȱ magnitudeȱ ofȱ Jerusalem’sȱdifficulty.ȱTheȱfinalȱclause,ȱ?DNFIP[M,ȱannouncesȱthatȱitȱ isȱtooȱlate.ȱTheȱwaysȱandȱdoingsȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱhaveȱbroughtȱthemȱtoȱtheȱ pointȱofȱnoȱreturn.ȱ TheȱansweringȱcryȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.19ȱreflectsȱtheȱanguishȱofȱtheȱcityȱunȬ derȱattack.ȱ [O[Oȱ

aȱ

[DNVYT[SJN[ZY

JNYZ 

bȱ

[TZ  N[DN[NJOJȱ

cȱ

InȱJeremiahȱ4.19,ȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱspeakerȱisȱnotȱclear.ȱWhileȱtheȱfirstȱ personȱ referenceȱ mightȱ seemȱ toȱ pointȱ toȱ Jeremiahȱ asȱ speaker,ȱ andȱ hisȱ perspectiveȱisȱcertainlyȱprevalentȱinȱtheȱcomplexȱspeaker’sȱvoice,ȱthereȱ isȱaȱstrongȱpossibilityȱthatȱtheȱspeakerȱisȱsocietyȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱTheȱreasonȱ forȱthisȱhasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱSOCIETYȱISȱAȱPERSONȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱthatȱ runsȱ throughȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.14Ȭ4.18.ȱ Ifȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ J[J[ȱ dominatesȱ theseȱ verses,ȱ itȱ isȱ likelyȱ thatȱ theȱ responseȱ atȱ 4.19ȱ wouldȱ beȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ nowȱ besiegedȱ thirdȱ interlocutor,ȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ battleȱ continuesȱ throughȱ 4.20.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.21ȱ containsȱ aȱ commentȱ uponȱ theȱ stateȱ ofȱ theȱ peopleȱ asȱ foolishȱ andȱ lackingȱ knowledge,ȱ givenȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱofȱJ[J[.ȱ

3. Jeremiahȱ4.23Ȭ4.26:ȱDeȬcreationȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.23Ȭ4.26ȱ presentsȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ postȬbattleȱ impressions,ȱ whichȱ areȱ nearlyȱ apocalypticȱ inȱ scope.ȱ Atȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.23Ȭ4.28ȱ theȱ firstȱ personȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ eastȱ whenȱ approachingȱ thaȱ altar,ȱ butȱ theyȱ backȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ churchȱ soȱ asȱ notȱ toȱ turnȱ theirȱbacksȱtoȱtheȱaltar.ȱSeeȱMaryȱDouglas,ȱPurityȱandȱDanger:ȱAnȱAnalysisȱofȱConceptsȱ ofȱPollutionȱandȱTabooȱ(London:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2003).ȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31:ȱDiscursiveȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

201ȱ

verbalȱformȱ [V[ Tȱandȱtheȱparticleȱ JPJYȱindicateȱaȱshiftȱinȱperspectiveȱtoȱ Jeremiahȱ asȱ character.21ȱ Theȱ shiftȱ toȱ Jeremiah’sȱ perspectiveȱ seemsȱ toȱ indicateȱ anȱ iconicȱ situation,ȱ presentedȱ atȱ humanȱ scale.ȱ However,ȱ aȱ secondȱglanceȱrevealsȱthatȱthisȱisȱnotȱtheȱcase.ȱ a.

Jeremiahȱ4.23Ȭ4.26ȱ(27)ȱClauseȱLayoutȱandȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

LGTH HJVG [KV[K HT ȱ

4.23aȱ

8JQDŽY8JQVJƒ1KJY ȱ

bȱ

]HT2 _[ Y]o[COHCJNG Y ȱ

cȱ

][KTHJGJ[KV[K HT ȱ

4.24aȱ

][K$QTJƒ1KJY ȱ

bȱ

8NHSNCSVKJV2HD*CJNHMY ȱ

cȱ

[KV[K HT ȱ

4.25aȱ

]HFH HJ_[ Jƒ1KJY ȱ

bȱ

8FHFŽP]o[COHCJX2NHMYȱ

cȱ

[KV[K HT ȱ

4.26aȱ

TH%FK0CJNGOTC.CJJƒ1KJY ȱ

bȱ

23C _2T$Z[ƒP3KOJŽYJ[[ƒP3KO 8E7oPY[HTHNHMYȱ

cȱ

JŽYJ[TCOH JQM[K.ȱ

4.27aȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 21ȱȱ VanȱWoldeȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱparticleȱJPJȱindicatesȱ“embeddedȱdirectȱobservation”ȱandȱ assignsȱ theȱ followingȱ informationȱ toȱ theȱ character’sȱ perspective.ȱ Wolde,ȱ “Guides,”ȱ 634.ȱ Seeȱ Follingstad,ȱ “C.ȱ Follingstad,ȱ Deicticȱ Viewpoint”;ȱ C.ȱ J.ȱ Labuschagne,ȱ “Theȱ Particlesȱ‘hn’ȱandȱ‘hinneh’,”ȱinȱSyntaxȱandȱMeaning:ȱStudiesȱinȱHebrewȱSyntaxȱandȱBibȬ licalȱExegesis,ȱed.ȱC.ȱJ.ȱLabuschagne,ȱOSȱ18ȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1973).ȱ

202ȱ ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stemȱ Focus

MSCȱ

4.23aȱ

NDȱ

Qatalȱ

1sgȱ

Qalȱ

ND1ȱ

bȱ

NDȱ

WȬXȬNmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

C2ȱ

cȱ

NDȱ

WȬXȬNmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

C2ȱ

4.24aȱ

NDȱ

Qatalȱ

1sgȱ

Qalȱ

C2ȱ

bȱ

NDȱ

WȬXȬQotelȱ

plMȱ

ȱ

C2ȱ

cȱ

NDȱ

WȬSȬQatalȱ

3plȱ

Hithppȱ

C2ȱ

4.25aȱ

NDȱ

Qatalȱ

1sgȱ

Qalȱ

C2ȱ

bȱ

NDȱ

WȬXȬNmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

C2ȱ

cȱ

NDȱ

WȬSȬQatalȱ

3plȱ

Qalȱ

C2ȱ

4.26aȱ

NDȱ

Qatalȱ

1sgȱ

Qalȱ

C2ȱ

bȱ

NDȱ

WȬXȬNmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

C2ȱ

cȱ

NDȱ

WȬSȬQatalȱ

3plȱ

Niphalȱ

C2ȱ

4.27aȱ

NDȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgȱ

Qalȱ

C2ȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

3sgFȱ

Qalȱ

C2ȱ

JER

bȱ NDQȱ

ȱ b. Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ Theȱ syntax,ȱ semanticsȱ andȱ informationȱ structureȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.23Ȭ4.26ȱ contributeȱforceȱandȱclarityȱtoȱtheȱsection.ȱTheȱrepeatedȱuseȱofȱtheȱfirstȱ personȱ verbumȱ sentiendiȱ [V[ Tȱ andȱ theȱ sentenceȬfocusȱ particleȱ JPJYȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.23Ȭ4.26ȱ indicatesȱ characterȱ perspective.22ȱ Atȱ thisȱ point,ȱ theȱ voiceȱofȱtheȱcomplexȱspeakerȱseemsȱtoȱgiveȱwayȱtoȱthatȱofȱJeremiahȱasȱ character.ȱ Heȱ appearsȱ onȱ stageȱ alone,ȱ aȱ solitaryȱ figureȱ whoseȱ eyesȱ wanderȱthroughȱaȱsceneȱofȱincredibleȱdestruction.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 22ȱȱ Forȱverbumȱsentiendiȱseeȱchapterȱ3.ȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31:ȱDiscursiveȱTextȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

203ȱ

Jeremiahȱ 4.23Ȭ4.26ȱ containsȱ aȱ noteworthyȱ seriesȱ ofȱ verbalȱ forms.ȱ ThereȱareȱsevenȱqatalȱandȱXȬqatalȱformsȱthatȱ indicateȱtheȱmainȱlevelȱofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Oneȱ qotelȱ formȱ andȱ fourȱ nominalȱ clausesȱindicateȱtheȱ embedȬ dedȱlevelȱinȱtheȱtext.23ȱLeadingȱtenseȱwayyiqtolȱandȱyiqtolȱformsȱareȱlackȬ ingȱaltogether,ȱthusȱtheȱclausesȱareȱatȱnearlyȱtheȱsameȱlevelȱofȱembedȬ ding.24ȱ Thisȱ givesȱ theȱ sectionȱ aȱ repetitiveȱ terseness,ȱ whichȱ isȱ aȱ characteristicȱofȱHebrewȱpoetry.ȱConstituentȱorderȱofȱtheȱmainȱclausesȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.23aȱandȱ4.24aȱisȱVO,ȱandȱinȱ4.25ȱandȱ4.26ȱitȱisȱsimplyȱV.ȱ Theȱverbalȱformȱinȱallȱfourȱclausesȱisȱtheȱfirstȱpersonȱ [V[ T,ȱaȱqatalȱformȱ indicatingȱtheȱmainȱlevelȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱ Jeremiahȱ4.23aȱisȱanȱexampleȱofȱsentenceȱfocus.ȱItȱcontainsȱtwoȱdiȬ rectȱ objects,ȱ theȱ earthȱ andȱ theȱ heavens.ȱ Theseȱ entitiesȱ areȱ madeȱ disȬ courseȬactiveȱforȱfurtherȱelaborationȱinȱtheȱclauseȱthatȱfollowsȱeach:ȱtheȱ earthȱ appearsȱ toȱ beYJDYYJVJPJY,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ heavensȱ ]TY _[ Y,ȱ thereȱ wasȱnoȱlight.25ȱBothȱphrasesȱareȱreminiscentȱofȱtheȱcreationȱlanguageȱinȱ theȱ firstȱ chapterȱ ofȱ Genesis,ȱ butȱ theȱ negationȱ evokesȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ deȬ creation.ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ4.24aȱisȱalsoȱanȱexampleȱofȱsentenceȱfocus.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱ directȱobjectȱisȱ ][TJJ.ȱTheȱmountainsȱareȱtheȱactivatedȱentityȱelaboratedȱ uponȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ phrase.ȱ Theȱ complementȱ clauseȱ NSNSVJVYDIJNMY ,ȱ andȱ allȱ theȱ hillsȱ movedȱ toȱ andȱ fro,ȱ makesȱ theȱ hillsȱ discourseȱ activeȱ asȱ well.ȱ Theȱ verbȱ formȱ NSNSVJȱ isȱ onomatopoeicȱ andȱ createsȱ dynamismȱ inȱ theȱ clause.ȱ Theȱ wordȱ pairȱ ][TJJȱ andȱ VYDIȱ alsoȱ appearsȱ inȱ Psalmȱ 114.4,ȱ _ E[PDMVYDI][N[ MYFST][TJJ ,ȱ theȱ mounȬ tainsȱ skippedȱ likeȱ rams,ȱ theȱ hillsȱ likeȱ lambs,ȱ whichȱ isȱ partȱ ofȱ aȱ psalmȱ deȬ scribingȱtheȱexodusȱfromȱEgypt.26ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 23ȱȱ Theȱapproachȱtakenȱinȱthisȱthesisȱindicatesȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱcontinuumȱofȱembeddingȱ ratherȱthanȱaȱstrictȱbifurcationȱbetweenȱmainȱlevelȱandȱsecondaryȱlevelȱverbalȱforms.ȱ ThisȱreflectsȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱMSTȱasȱexplainedȱinȱchaptersȱ4ȱandȱ5:ȱwhenȱnewȱmentalȱ spacesȱareȱopened,ȱthereȱmightȱbeȱaȱshiftȱinȱgroundȱthatȱincludesȱaȱshiftȱinȱtheȱtemȬ poralȱ axisȱ orȱ aȱ shiftȱ fromȱ narratorȱ toȱ characterȱ perspective.ȱ Eitherȱ orȱ bothȱ ofȱ theseȱ mayȱincludeȱaȱshiftȱinȱtheȱgroupȱofȱverbalȱformsȱincludedȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱSinceȱtheȱforȬ mationȱofȱmentalȱspacesȱisȱaȱrecursiveȱprocess,ȱmanyȱlayersȱofȱembeddingȱmayȱoccurȱ inȱaȱgivenȱstretchȱofȱtext.ȱ 24ȱȱ NiccacciȱnotesȱthatȱinȱdiscursiveȱtextȱaȱchainȱofȱWȬqatalȱformsȱactsȱinȱmuchȱtheȱsameȱ wayȱ asȱ aȱ chainȱ ofȱ wayyiqtolȱ formsȱ doesȱ inȱ narrative.ȱ Sinceȱ bothȱ wayyiqtolȱ andȱ qatalȱ formsȱareȱperfective,ȱ“solid”ȱformsȱaccordingȱtoȱJanda’sȱmetaphor,ȱthisȱisȱanȱaccurateȱ observationȱ fromȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ pointȱ ofȱ view.ȱ Niccacci,ȱ “Essentialȱ Hebrewȱ Syntax,”ȱ119.ȱȱ 25ȱȱ ActivatingȱnewȱentitiesȱbyȱplacingȱthemȱinȱtheȱobjectȱpositionȱillustratesȱLangacker’sȱ fifthȱprincipleȱofȱstructureȱbuilding.ȱHeȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱobjectȱgrammaticalȱpositionȱisȱ commonlyȱ usedȱ toȱ introduceȱ newȱ participants.ȱ Langacker,ȱ “Discourseȱ inȱ Cognitiveȱ Grammar,”ȱ173.ȱ 26ȱȱ Thisȱpointȱdeservesȱfurtherȱstudy.ȱ

204ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Jeremiahȱ 4.25aȱ isȱ alsoȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ sentenceȱ focus;ȱ however,ȱ inȱ thisȱcaseȱthereȱisȱnoȱdirectȱobjectȱusedȱtoȱactivateȱaȱnewȱentity.ȱThisȱisȱ because,ȱ asȱ theȱ reportingȱ observerȱ pointsȱ outȱ inȱ 4.25bȱ ]F J_[ JPJY,ȱ thereȱwasȱnoȱone,ȱevenȱtheȱbirdsȱhadȱflownȱaway.ȱJeremiahȱ4.26aȱcontinȬ uesȱ thisȱ pattern.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ directȱ object,ȱ butȱ theȱ reportingȱ observerȱ notesȱinȱaȱterseȱappositionalȱphraseȱthatȱ TDFOJNOTMJ,ȱtheȱfruitfulȱlandȱ isȱtheȱdesert,ȱatȱ4.26b.ȱAdditionally,ȱ4.26cȱstatesȱYEVPY[TNMY,ȱallȱtheȱcitiesȱ wereȱ laidȱ waste.ȱ Whileȱ theȱ threeȱ previousȱ versesȱ areȱ eachȱ containȱ twoȱ parallelȱ lines,ȱ 4.26ȱ containsȱ aȱ third:ȱ YR _YTZ[PROJYJ[[PRO ,ȱ beforeȱ YahȬ wehȱandȱbeforeȱhisȱfierceȱanger.ȱ c.

CognitiveȱConstructionȱ

Theȱobservingȱcharacterȱisȱanȱimportantȱfactorȱinȱdeterminingȱhowȱtheȱ cognitiveȱ networkȱ inȱ thisȱ sectionȱ isȱ opened,ȱ structuredȱ andȱ linked,ȱ asȱ theȱsectionȱisȱhighlyȱdependentȱuponȱthatȱcharacter’sȱperceptionȱofȱtheȱ situation.ȱ Thisȱ volumeȱ identifiesȱ theȱ speakingȱ characterȱ asȱ Jeremiah,ȱ althoughȱitȱhasȱbeenȱarguedȱthatȱthisȱsectionȱisȱaȱlaterȱinsertion.27ȱȱTwoȱ featuresȱstandȱout.ȱFirst,ȱasȱdiscussedȱabove,ȱthereȱisȱtheȱfourȬfoldȱrepeȬ titionȱofȱtheȱtermsȱ [V[ Tȱandȱ JPJY,ȱwhichȱdrawsȱtheȱreaderȱintoȱtheȱobȬ servedȱ situationȱ throughȱ sharedȱ gaze.ȱ Secondly,ȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ deȬ creationȱutilisesȱnegativeȱtermsȱtoȱcreateȱaȱsenseȱofȱvacuousȱdestruction.ȱ Theȱ landȱ changesȱ fromȱ fruitfulnessȱ toȱ desertȱ inȱ aȱ singleȱ appositionalȱ phraseȱatȱ4.26bȱandȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱdestroyedȱcitiesȱfollowsȱatȱ4.26b.ȱ DeȬcreation,ȱ unȬplantingȱ andȱ unȬbuildingȱ occurȱ dueȱ toȱ YR _YTZ,ȱ hisȱ burningȱanger,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱconsequenceȱofȱtheȱpeoples’ȱunfaithfulness.ȱ Theȱphraseȱ YR _YTZisȱanȱindicatorȱofȱtheȱ ANGERȱ ISȱ Aȱ HOTȱ FLUIDȱ INȱ ANȱ ENCLOSEDȱ CONTAINERȱ ȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ becauseȱ theȱ combinaȬ tionȱofȱtheȱtermsȱ _YTZ,ȱburningȱanger,ȱandYR ,ȱhisȱnoseȱevokeȱtheȱ“unȬ derlyingȱconceptualȱmetonymy”ȱ BODYȱ HEATȱ STANDSȱ FORȱ ANGER.ȱ EmboȬ diedȱ experienceȱ giveȱ riseȱ toȱ theȱ metonymy,ȱ forȱ angerȱ causesȱ physiologicalȱchanges:ȱtheȱfaceȱgrowsȱhotȱandȱthereȱisȱanȱinternalȱsenseȱ ofȱpressure.28ȱDeȬcreation,ȱunȬplantingȱandȱunȬbuildingȱareȱcreditedȱtoȱ YahwehȱbyȱtheȱANGERȱISȱAȱHOTȱFLUIDȱmetaphor.ȱȱConsequently,ȱYahwehȱ isȱportrayedȱinȱembodiedȱtermsȱevenȱthoughȱheȱhasȱnoȱphysicalȱbody.ȱ ThisȱsituationȱisȱevocativeȱofȱtheȱfirstȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱANGERȱISȱAȱHOTȱ FLUIDȱINȱANȱENCLOSEDȱCONTAINERȱmetaphor,ȱtheȱboilingȱpotȱatȱJeremiahȱ 1.13Ȭ1.14ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 27ȱ Carrollȱ notesȱ thatȱ Giesebrecht,ȱ Volzȱ andȱ Hyattȱ questionȱ Jeremianicȱ authorship.ȱ Carroll,ȱJeremiah:ȱAȱCommentary,ȱ168.ȱ 28ȱȱ Kövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ171.ȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

205ȱ

B. Jeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱ Perspectiveȱ Sectionȱ C,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ isȱ aȱ stretchȱ ofȱ embeddedȱ quotationȱ thatȱ beginsȱ withȱ theȱ seriesȱ ofȱ fourȱ imperativeȱ verbsȱ atȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.1.ȱ Thisȱ marksȱ theȱ finalȱ shiftȱ inȱ perspectiveȱ withinȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ andȱ theȱ sectionȱtagȱisȱQ.ȱAsȱpreviouslyȱmentioned,ȱthereȱareȱseldomȱmoreȱthanȱ twoȱ layersȱ ofȱ embeddingȱ inȱ thisȱ section.ȱ Becauseȱ quotationȱ isȱ firmlyȱ associatedȱwithȱaȱspeakingȱcharacter,ȱthisȱsectionȱpullsȱtheȱreaderȱevenȱ furtherȱintoȱtheȱsituationȱofȱspeakingȱwithinȱtheȱtext.ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Figureȱ6.2ȱȱȱViewingȱArrangementȱforȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

TheȱviewingȱarrangementȱdiagramȱforȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30ȱshowsȱthatȱtheȱ situationȱ inȱ theȱ textȱ hasȱ becomeȱ evenȱ largerȱ inȱ proportionȱ toȱ theȱ obȬ servers,ȱwhoȱareȱnowȱwellȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱtextȱ(contrastȱFigureȱ6.1).ȱTheȱ separateȱ groundȱ thatȱ surroundsȱ eachȱ observerȱ isȱ nearlyȱ subsumedȱ byȱ theȱgroundȱrepresentedȱbyȱtheȱsituationȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱȱ Theȱ followingȱ arrayȱ ofȱ examplesȱ hasȱ beenȱ chosenȱ toȱ illustrateȱ theȱ syntax,ȱsemanticsȱandȱinformationȱstructureȱatȱtheȱparagraphȱandȱsenȬ tenceȱlevel.ȱTheȱexamplesȱprovideȱaȱchanceȱtoȱperformȱaȱsmallȬscaleȱTDȱ analysis,ȱwhichȱbringsȱtheȱdiscussionȱfromȱtextȱlevelȱcognitiveȱconstrucȬ tionȱ toȱ aȱ closeȬupȱ lookȱatȱsomeȱ ofȱ theȱ structuringȱdevicesȱthatȱ operateȱ allȱtheȱwayȱthroughȱtheȱtext.ȱȱ

206ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

1. Jeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.14:ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱCognitiveȱMetaphorȱ Theȱ followingȱ fourȱ examplesȱ haveȱ beenȱ takenȱ fromȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.1Ȭ5.14.ȱ Theȱexamplesȱtalkȱaboutȱtheȱsituationȱatȱhandȱ fromȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱ variousȱ speechȱ participants.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.1Ȭ5.2ȱ isȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ visualȱ scanning.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.3Ȭ5.6ȱ andȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.8Ȭ5.9ȱ areȱ examplesȱ ofȱ theȱ PEOPLEȱAREȱANIMALSȱconceptualȱmetaphor.ȱJeremiahȱ5.10ȱisȱanȱexampleȱ ofȱ theȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PLANTȱ conceptualȱ metaphor.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.11Ȭ5.14ȱ drawsȱ uponȱ theȱ imageryȱ ofȱ angerȱ andȱ fireȱ inȱ announcingȱ imminentȱ judgement.ȱ a.

Jeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.2ȱClauseȱLayoutȱandȱAnalysis:ȱVisualȱScanningȱ

ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

]KCNH8T[V2E8Z%82ȱ

5.1aȱ

 ŽP8 T8ȱ

bȱ

8F8 cȱ HJ[GV2D2ZTKD8SCD8ȱ

dȱ

[K 8 EOK7]K ȱ

eȱ

H3KOJG Qƒ[]K ȱ

fȱ

JŽP8O( 4CDOȱ

gȱ

+HNZCNUG Yȱ

hȱ

8TO v[JŽ2J[[CZ]K Yȱ 8DHo[TGSGCN_MHNȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

5.2aȱ bȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

JERȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stemȱ Focus

MSCȱ

5.1aȱ

Qȱ

Impvȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

plMȱ

Polelȱ

ȱ C1ȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

WȬImpvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

cȱ

Qȱ

WȬImpvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

dȱ

Qȱ

WȬImpvȱ

plMȱ

Pielȱ

eȱ

Qȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

2plMȱ

Qalȱ

fȱ

Qȱ

XȬQotelȱ

sgMȱ

Qalȱ

gȱ

Qȱ

Qotelȱ

sgMȱ

Pielȱ

hȱ

Qȱ

WȬYiqtolȱ

1sgȱ

Qalȱ

5.2aȱ

Qȱ

WȬXȬNPȬȱ Yiqtol

3plMȱ

ȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

3plMȱ

Niphalȱ

207ȱ

ȱ Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ Asȱnotedȱinȱtheȱchartȱabove,ȱJeremiahȱ5.1ȱcontainsȱaȱstringȱofȱfourȱplMȱ imperativeȱ formsȱ fromȱ ¥Y,ȱ ¥J T,ȱ ¥F[ȱand¥SD.ȱSimilarȱstringsȱ ofȱ imperativeȱformsȱoccurȱthroughoutȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30.29ȱAsideȱfromȱtheȱ polelȱformȱofȱ ¥Y,ȱhurryȱtoȱandȱfro,ȱtheȱremainingȱimperativesȱareȱtakenȱ fromȱtheȱsemanticȱfieldsȱofȱperceptionȱandȱcognition.ȱTheȱspeakerȱurgesȱ theȱ addresseesȱ toȱ look,ȱ toȱ know,ȱ toȱ seek,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ otherȱ examples,ȱ toȱ understandȱ andȱ toȱ hear.ȱ Inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.10,ȱ 2.19,ȱ andȱ 2.23ȱ theȱ addresseesȱ areȱ urgedȱ toȱ takeȱ noteȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ unfaithfulȱ behaviour.ȱ Inȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.18Ȭ6.19,ȱ J[J[ȱ enjoinsȱ theȱ nations,ȱ theȱ congregationȱ andȱ theȱ earthȱ toȱ hearȱ andȱ toȱ knowȱ aboutȱ theȱ disasterȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ sendingȱ uponȱ theȱ unȬ hearingȱpeople.ȱHowever,ȱinȱJeremiahȱ5.1,ȱtheȱaddresseesȱareȱinstructedȱ toȱgoȱoutȱintoȱtheȱstreetsȱofȱJerusalemȱinȱsearchȱofȱevenȱoneȱpersonȱwhoȱ doesȱjusticeȱandȱseeksȱtruth.ȱIfȱtheyȱareȱsuccessful,ȱthereȱisȱaȱpossibilityȱ thatȱtheȱcityȱmayȱbeȱpardoned.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 29ȱȱ Noteworthyȱ examplesȱ includeȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.10,ȱ withȱ imperativesȱ fromȱ ¥_[Dȱ andȱ ¥J T;ȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.19,ȱ fromȱ ¥F[ȱ andȱ ¥J T;ȱ Jeremiah,ȱ 2.23,ȱ fromȱ ¥J Tȱ andȱ ¥F[;ȱandȱJeremiahȱ6.18Ȭ19,ȱfromȱ¥F[ȱandȱ¥O.ȱ

208ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Theȱ seriesȱ ofȱ clausesȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.1aȬhȱ demonstratesȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ clauseȱconnections.ȱTheȱimperativesȱinȱ5.1aȬdȱjoinȱatȱanȱequalȱlevel.ȱThisȱ isȱanȱexampleȱofȱparataxis.ȱJeremiahȱ5.1e,ȱanȱXȬyiqtolȱclause,ȱjoinsȱatȱanȱ unequalȱ level.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ exhibitsȱ interlacingȱ becauseȱ bothȱ theȱ mainȱ clauseȱ andȱ theȱ complementȱ clauseȱ shareȱ theȱ sameȱ subject.30ȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.1fȱ andȱ gȱ areȱ coordinatingȱ clausesȱ thatȱ describeȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ theȱ search.ȱJeremiahȱ5.1hȱreturnsȱtoȱtheȱsameȱlevelȱasȱ5.1e.ȱ CognitiveȱConstruction:ȱDeȬcentringȱtheȱCentreȱ TheȱstringȱofȱimperativeȱformsȱinȱJeremiahȱ5.1ȱcontributesȱtoȱtheȱsenseȱ ofȱ urgencyȱ conveyedȱinȱ thisȱsection.ȱConceptually,ȱ theȱ readerȱ engagesȱ inȱaȱvirtualȱvisualȱscanningȱofȱtheȱstreetsȱofȱtheȱcity.ȱTheȱcombinationȱofȱ imperativeȱ formȱ andȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ termsȱ resultsȱ inȱ anȱ inȬ creaseȱinȱdynamicȱtensionȱinȱthisȱsection.ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.2ȱconnectsȱtheȱ lackȱofȱevenȱaȱsingleȱjustȱpersonȱinȱJerusalem,ȱwithȱtheȱcharacteristicallyȱ dishonestȱ repetitionȱ ofȱ theȱ oathȱ JYJ[[Zȱ byȱ theȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ theȱ city.ȱ Theȱseekersȱwillȱnotȱbeȱsuccessfulȱinȱtheirȱsearch.ȱTheȱcentreȱitselfȱisȱdeȬ centred,ȱwithȱanȱaccompanyingȱsenseȱofȱdisequilibrium.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 30ȱȱ Asȱ Lehmannȱ proposes,ȱ clausesȱ mayȱ beȱ interlacedȱ onȱ aȱ continuumȱ fromȱ completeȱ disjunctionȱtoȱmaximalȱidentity.ȱThisȱisȱanȱintriguingȱtrainȱofȱthought,ȱinȱthatȱinterȬ lacingȱofȱclausesȱdependsȱuponȱbothȱsyntaxȱandȱsemantics,ȱwhichȱcomplementsȱtheȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ approach.ȱ Lehmann’sȱ approachȱ isȱ aȱ promisingȱ oneȱ forȱ furtherȱ developingȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ mainȬlineȱ andȱ secondaryȬlineȱ verbsȱ proposedȱ byȱ Schneiderȱ andȱexplainedȱbyȱTalstraȱandȱNiccacci.ȱSeeȱNiccacci,ȱ“EssentialȱHebrewȱSyntax.”ȱȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

209ȱ

b. Jeremiahȱ5.3Ȭ5.6ȱandȱ5.7Ȭ5.8ȱClauseȱLayoutȱandȱAnalysis:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ PEOPLEȱAREȱANIMALSȱ ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

TCh
5.6aȱ

]FFH[V2DHT$D \ ȱ

bȱ

]GJ[THNCFSQTOŽP ȱ

cȱ

XTH o[JŽ1JO E2
dȱ

]GJ[K38%CT[K.ȱ

eȱ

]GJ[V2D8O

]GJ[V2DWO 8OEH ȱ

fȱ

^HNZCNUG

CZ2NUG V v\HN[  5.7aȱ [oP8DŽ\$^o[hPH% bȱ ][KJQN(  QN%8DHo
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

210ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

PNGȱ

Stem/ȱ Focus

JERȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

5.6aȱ

QQȱ

XȬQatalȱ

bȱ

QQȱ

SȬYiqtolȱ

cȱ

QQȱ

SȬQotelȱ

sgMȱ

Qalȱ

dȱ

QQȱ

SȬYiqtolȱ

3sgMȱ

Niphalȱ

eȱ

QQȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3plȱ

Qalȱ

fȱ

QQȱ

Qatalȱ

3plȱ

Qalȱ

5.7aȱ

Qȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

1sgȱ

Qalȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

SȬQatalȱ

3plȱ (1cs)

Qalȱ

cȱ

QNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ

3plMȱ

Niphalȱ

dȱ

QNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ

1sgȱ

Hiphilȱ

eȱ

QNȱ

WayyiqtolȬ0ȱ

3plMȱ

Qalȱ

fȱ

QNDȱ

WȬXȬYiqtolȱ

3plMȱ

Hithpoȱ

5.8aȱ

QNDȱ

SȬQatalȱ

3plȱ

Qalȱ

bȱ

QNDȱ

SȬYiqtolȱ

3plMȱ

Qalȱ

5.9aȱ

Qȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

1sgȱ

Qalȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

Focusȱ

ȱ

ȱ

cȱ

Qȱ

WȬXȬNmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

3sgMȱ (3plM) 3sgMȱ (3plM)

Hiphilȱ Qalȱ

MSCȱ ȱ C1ȱ ȱ

ȱ Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.3ȱ asksȱ theȱ rhetoricalȱ question,ȱ JPYO N YNJ?[P[JYJ[ ,ȱ Oȱ LORD,ȱ doȱ yourȱ eyesȱ notȱ lookȱ forȱ truth?ȱ Thisȱ clauseȱ appearsȱ toȱ meetȱ theȱ criteriaȱ forȱ Khan’sȱ extraposedȱ construction:ȱ theȱ extraposedȱ nominalȱ isȱ notȱ connectedȱ toȱ aȱ prepositionȱ orȱ objectȱ markerȱ andȱ theȱ grammaticalȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

211ȱ

relationȱisȱsignalledȱbyȱtheȱresumptiveȱpronounȱonȱtheȱtermȱ?[P[.31ȱAcȬ cordingȱ toȱ Khan,ȱ thisȱ structureȱ isȱ usedȱ “toȱ signalȱ theȱ boundariesȱ ofȱ spansȱofȱdiscourse.”32ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱrhetoricalȱquestionȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱ aȱbridgeȱbetweenȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ2ȱandȱtheȱfollowingȱdiscourse,ȱwhichȱisȱ concernedȱwithȱtheȱpeoples’ȱrefusalȱtoȱchangeȱtheirȱways.ȱFromȱpoorȱtoȱ rich,ȱallȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱhadȱbrokenȱawayȱfromȱYahweh.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.6ȱ describesȱ theȱ consequences.ȱ Theȱ wordȱ orderȱ inȱ JereȬ miahȱ5.6aȱisȱXȬV(O)S.ȱTheȱobjectȱsuffixȱstandsȱbeforeȱtheȱsubject,ȱwhichȱ isȱtheȱlastȱelementȱinȱtheȱclause.ȱTheȱtermȱ T[OJ[T ,ȱaȱlionȱfromȱtheȱforȬ est,ȱ isȱ activatedȱ (topicalised)ȱ forȱ theȱ discourse,ȱ butȱ theȱ sentenceȱ itselfȱ exhibitsȱ predicateȱ focus.ȱ Theȱ wordȱ orderȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.6bȱ isȱ SV(O).ȱ Sinceȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ occurrenceȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ VYDTD \,ȱ wolfȱ fromȱ theȱ desert,ȱtheȱsubjectȱisȱfrontedȱforȱtopicalisationȱratherȱthanȱforȱargumentȱ focus.ȱThisȱisȱalsoȱtheȱcaseȱinȱJeremiahȱ5.6c,ȱwhereȱtheȱwordȱorderȱisȱSVȱ andȱ theȱ termȱ TOP,ȱ aȱ leopard,ȱ isȱ frontedȱ forȱ topicalisation.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.6dȱ alsoȱ exhibitsȱ SVȱ wordȱ order.ȱ However,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ phraseȱ JPJO EY[JNM,ȱ allȱ whoȱ goȱ outȱ fromȱ them,ȱ isȱ connectedȱ anaphoricallyȱ toȱ theȱ previousȱ section,ȱ thisȱ isȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ argumentȱ focus.ȱ Thisȱ indiȬ catesȱ emphasis,ȱ aȱ featureȱ thatȱ isȱ reinforcedȱ byȱ theȱ niphalȱ verbȱ XT[,ȱ beȱ tornȱ inȱ pieces.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ [Mȱ clauseȱ reiteratesȱ theȱ enormityȱ ofȱ theȱ transgressionsȱandȱapostasiesȱofȱtheȱpeople.ȱ Theȱ allusionȱ toȱ theȱ peopleȱ asȱ horsesȱ atȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.8ȱ demonstratesȱ theȱ sameȱ wordȱ orderȱ pattern:ȱ bothȱ 5.8aȱ andȱ 5.8bȱ areȱ SV.ȱ Again,ȱ sinceȱ theȱsubjectsȱareȱalreadyȱdiscourseȬactive,ȱtheseȱareȱexamplesȱofȱfrontingȱ forȱ argumentȱ focus.ȱ Theȱ peopleȱ themselveȱ areȱ describedȱ inȱ distinctlyȱ unflatteringȱterms.ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱ SinceȱJeremiahȱ5.1ȱisȱanȱextraposedȱclauseȱthatȱsignalsȱtheȱboundariesȱofȱ aȱdiscourseȱspan,ȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱproposeȱthatȱtheȱextraposedȱclauseȱisȱaȱ typeȱofȱspaceȬbuilder.ȱIfȱso,ȱitȱisȱanȱexampleȱofȱaȱsyntacticȱconstructionȱ actingȱ asȱ aȱ spaceȬbuilder,ȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ previouslyȱ introducedȱ spaceȬbuildersȱthatȱdependȱuponȱbothȱsyntaxȱandȱsemantics.ȱThisȱmeȬ ritsȱfurtherȱstudy.ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ5.6aȬcȱintroducesȱaȱseriesȱofȱwildȱanimalsȱbentȱonȱdestroyȬ ingȱtheȱpeople:ȱaȱlionȱfromȱtheȱforest,ȱaȱwolfȱfromȱtheȱdesertȱandȱaȱleoȬ pard.ȱClearlyȱaȱ singleȱlion,ȱwolfȱorȱleopardȱwouldȱbeȱunableȱtoȱwreakȱ havocȱ uponȱaȱ cityȱfullȱ ofȱ people.ȱ Theseȱanimalsȱareȱpresentedȱ asȱnonȬ iconicȱ entities,ȱ thusȱ thisȱ isȱ anȱ instantiationȱ ofȱ conceptualȱ metaphor.ȱ Inȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 31ȱȱ Khan,ȱStudies,ȱxxvi.ȱ 32ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ83.ȱ

212ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

thisȱ case,ȱ humans,ȱ whoȱ exhibitȱ higherȱ orderȱattributesȱ andȱ behaviour,ȱ areȱ demotedȱ onȱ theȱ Greatȱ Chainȱ toȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ animals,ȱ whoȱ exhibitȱ instinctualȱattributesȱandȱbehaviour.33ȱȱKövecsesȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱ HUMANȱ ISȱ ANIMALȱ METAPHORȱ givesȱ riseȱ toȱ theȱ OBJECTIONABLEȱ HUMANȱ BEHAȬ VIOURȱ ISȱ ANIMALȱ BEHAVIOURȱ metaphor.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ objectionableȱ behaviourȱisȱvividlyȱpresentedȱasȱkilling,ȱdestroyingȱandȱbeingȱtornȱinȱ pieces.ȱTheseȱclausesȱdemonstrateȱtheȱhighȱdegreeȱofȱforceȱengenderedȱ byȱ theȱtransgressionsȱandȱapostasiesȱofȱtheȱpeople.ȱThisȱcontributesȱtoȱ theȱ risingȱ forceȱ dynamicsȱ inȱ thisȱ section,ȱ whichȱ concludesȱ withȱ twoȱ rhetoricalȱquestionsȱatȱJeremiahȱ5.9.ȱ c.

Jeremiahȱ5.10:ȱSOCIETYȱISȱAȱPLANTȱ

ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

HJ[GV2THD8N$ ȱ

5.10aȱ

8VZCY  bȱ 8 $C7NC JHNHMYȱ

cȱ

HJ[GV2[KP8T[KUHJ ȱ

dȱ

JH0JJŽYJ[CN 2N[K.ȱ

eȱ

ȱ ȱ Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stem/ȱ Focus

MSCȱ

5.10aȱ

Qȱ

Impvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

ȱ C1ȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

WȬImpvȱ

plMȱ

Pielȱ

cȱ

Qȱ

WȬXȬYiqtolȱ

2plMȱ

Qalȱ

dȱ

Qȱ

Impvȱ

plMȱ

Hiphilȱ

eȱ

Qȱ

XȬNmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

JERȱ

ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 33ȱȱ Kövecses,ȱMetaphor:ȱAȱPracticalȱIntroduction,ȱ126.ȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

213ȱ

Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ Jerermiahȱ 5.10ȱ containsȱ aȱ stringȱ ofȱ plMȱ imperativeȱ forms,ȱ instructingȱ theȱaddresseesȱtoȱgoȱupȱthroughȱherȱvineȱrows,ȱtoȱdestroyȱandȱtoȱstripȱawayȱ herȱbranches.ȱInȱthisȱexample,ȱtheȱentitiesȱ J[VYTDȱandȱ J[VY[Pȱindicateȱ anȱ agrarianȱ setting,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ workersȱ areȱ toȱ clearȱ theȱ vineyardȱ ofȱ unproductiveȱgrowth.34ȱTheȱaddresseesȱareȱunidentified.ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱȱ Thisȱisȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱ SOCIALȱ ORGANISATIONSȱ AREȱPLANTSȱ metaȬ phorȱ (seeȱ chapterȱ 5,ȱ sectionȱ B.4).ȱ Clearly,ȱ inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ plantȱ isȱ notȱ flourishingȱandȱisȱaboutȱtoȱbeȱthoroughlyȱpruned,ȱalthoughȱperhapsȱunȬ plantedȱwouldȱbeȱaȱmoreȱaccurateȱunderstanding.ȱThisȱsectionȱconnectsȱ backȱ toȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.21,ȱ theȱ degenerateȱ vine,ȱ andȱ forwardȱ toȱ theȱ grapeȬ gathererȱ imageȱ atȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.9.ȱ Allȱ ofȱ theseȱ examplesȱ standȱ inȱ starkȱ reliefȱagainstȱtheȱbackdropȱofȱtheȱFirstȱFruitsȱexampleȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.3.ȱ d. Jeremiahȱ5.14ȱClauseȱLayoutȱandȱAnalysis:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Anger,ȱFireȱandȱJudgementȱ ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ V2 HDE[JQN( JŽYJ[TCOH JQ._MHN ȱ

JERȱ 5.14a

Jm=CJTHDH'CJVG ]GMTG%C'_Ch[ ȱ

b

 N[KR%[CTHD'_VvP[oPPKJ ȱ

c

][KEJm=CJ]HHJY d ]CVHNHM$ hYȱ

e

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 34ȱȱ Whileȱtheȱsecondȱtermȱindicatesȱbranchesȱorȱshoots,ȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱfirstȱtermȱisȱ unclear.ȱCarrollȱmentionsȱtwoȱpossibilities:ȱ“amongȱitsȱwalls”ȱorȱ“herȱ(vine)ȱrows.”ȱ Forȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱpossibilities,ȱseeȱCarroll,ȱJeremiah:ȱAȱCommentary,ȱ181.ȱ

214ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stem/ȱ Focus

MSCȱ

Qȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgMȱ

Qalȱ

SBȱȱ C2

bȱ

QQȱ

XȬQetolȱ

(2plM)ȱ

Pielȱ

C1ȱ

cȱ

QQȱ

XȬQotelȱ

sgMȱ

Qalȱ

C1ȱ

dȱ

QQȱ

NmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

C1ȱ

eȱ

QQȱ

WȬQatalȱ

3sgFȱ (3plM)

Qalȱ

C1ȱ

JERȱ 5.14aȱ

ȱ Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.11Ȭ5.13ȱisȱaȱprecursorȱtoȱ5.14.ȱTheȱ speakerȱinȱthisȱsectionȱisȱ Yahweh,ȱ andȱ Jeremiahȱ isȱ theȱ addressee.ȱ Inȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.11,ȱ Yahwehȱ reȬ marksȱuponȱtheȱutterȱfaithlessnessȱofȱtheȱhouseȱofȱIsraelȱandȱtheȱhouseȱ ofȱJudah;ȱinȱ5.12,ȱheȱaccusesȱthemȱofȱspeakingȱfalselyȱbyȱclaimingȱthatȱ heȱwouldȱdoȱnothingȱandȱinȱ5.13,ȱtheȱprophetsȱareȱdescribedȱasȱemptyȱ containers:ȱtheȱwordȱisȱnotȱinȱthem.ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.14aȱ isȱ anȱ expandedȱ citationȱ formulaȱ thatȱ opensȱ aȱ newȱ quotationȱ space.ȱ Theȱ addresseeȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ noȱ wayyiqtolȱ orȱ yiqtolȱ clausesȱ inȱ thisȱ section,ȱ whichȱ isȱ highlyȱ discursive.ȱ 5.14bȱbeginsȱwithȱtheȱadverbialȱparticle_[,ȱbecause.35ȱThisȱclauseȱsumsȱ upȱtheȱreasonȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱaction:ȱbecauseȱtheyȱhaveȱspokenȱthisȱword.ȱ Theȱ XȬqotelȱ clauseȱ atȱ 5.14cȱ containsȱ theȱ sentenceȱ focusȱ particle,ȱ [PPJ,ȱ whichȱ bringsȱ theȱ entireȱ sentenceȱ intoȱ focus.ȱ Theȱ qotelȱ formȱ bringsȱ aȱ senseȱofȱimmediacyȱtoȱtheȱsiuation,ȱ  N?[RD[TDF_VP,ȱIȱamȱnowȱmakingȱ myȱwordsȱinȱyourȱmouthȱaȱfire.ȱThisȱclauseȱisȱidenticalȱtoȱtheȱclauseȱinȱ1.9,ȱ withȱtheȱadditionȱofȱtheȱphraseȱ N.ȱTheȱadditionȱofȱtheȱtermȱfireȱinȱtheȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ Jeremiah’sȱ wordsȱ fromȱ Yahwehȱ demonstratesȱ theseȱ wordsȱareȱnotȱofȱtheȱbuildingȱandȱplantingȱvariety.ȱTheȱpeopleȱareȱtoȱbeȬ comeȱwood,ȱandȱtheȱwordsȱwillȱdevourȱthem.ȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱ ThisȱsectionȱcontainsȱaȱpreviouslyȱintroducedȱspaceȬbuildingȱconstrucȬ tion,ȱ theȱ citationȱ formulaȱ VY DE[JN JYJ[TO JM_MN .ȱ Thisȱ citationȱ formulaȱ isȱ unmarkedȱ soȱ theȱ followingȱ quotationȱ mayȱ orȱ mayȱ notȱ beȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 35ȱȱ Forȱanȱexpositionȱofȱthisȱparticle,ȱseeȱM.ȱJ.ȱȱMulder,ȱ“DieȱPartikelȱ‘Yaan’,”ȱinȱSyntaxȱ andȱMeaning:ȱStudiesȱinȱHebrewȱSyntaxȱandȱBiblicalȱExegesis,ȱed.ȱC.ȱJ.ȱLabuschagne,ȱOSȱ 18ȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1973).ȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

215ȱ

prototypicallyȱdialogic.ȱTheȱquotationȱbelongsȱtoȱYahwehȱasȱcharacter,ȱ andȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ recordedȱ responseȱ byȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ situationȱ isȱ nonȬprototypical.ȱ Jeremiahȱ5.14ȱ seemsȱtoȱ beȱ aȱ hingeȱbetweenȱ 5.12Ȭ5.13ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ 5.15Ȭ5.19ȱ onȱ theȱ other.36ȱ Termsȱ fromȱ theȱ ¥NM ȱ occurȱbothȱinȱ5.14,ȱwhereȱaȱsingleȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermȱdescribesȱtheȱactionȱofȱ theȱfireȱuponȱtheȱpeople,ȱandȱinȱ5.19,ȱwhereȱfourȱoccurencesȱofȱtheȱtermȱ describeȱtheȱactionȱofȱtheȱinvadersȱuponȱtheȱhouseȱofȱIsrael.ȱThus,ȱsituaȬ tionsȱ thatȱ includeȱ thisȱ termȱ setȱ upȱ aȱ distantȱ parallelismȱ betweenȱ 5.14ȱ andȱ5.19.37ȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.14Ȭ5.19ȱ includesȱ severalȱ instancesȱ ofȱ theȱ containmentȱ schema.ȱ Jeremiah’sȱ mouthȱ isȱ fullȱ ofȱ fieryȱ words,ȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ prophetsȱmentionedȱinȱ5.13,ȱwhoȱthemselvesȱareȱemptyȱofȱwords.ȱTheȱ unidentifiedȱnationȱinȱJeremiahȱ5.16Ȭ5.19ȱisȱsoȱsuccessfulȱinȱwarfareȱthatȱ ZYVRTDSMYVR ,ȱtheirȱquiverȱisȱlikeȱanȱopenȱtomb.ȱTheȱresultsȱofȱtheȱinȬ vasionȱ areȱ devastating:ȱ theȱ foreignȱ nationȱ shallȱ systematicallyȱ emptyȱ theȱ landȱ ofȱ sustenance,ȱ people,ȱ animals,ȱ plants,ȱ andȱ willȱ destroyȱ theȱ fortifiedȱ cities.ȱ Theȱ promiseȱ ofȱ destructionȱ byȱ theȱ swordȱ followsȱ theȱ fourȬfoldȱrepetitionȱofȱtermsȱderivedȱfromȱtheȱ ¥NM .ȱNotȱonlyȱwillȱtheȱ destructionȱ includeȱ theȱ unȬplantingȱ ofȱ theȱ societyȱ asȱ describedȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱexample,ȱbutȱitȱwillȱincludeȱunȬbuildingȱasȱwell.ȱ

2. Jeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ6.30:ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱCognitiveȱMetaphorȱ Jeremiahȱ6.30ȱisȱrepleteȱwithȱpoetryȱthatȱisȱstructuredȱbyȱimageȱschemaȬ taȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ metaphor.ȱ Thisȱ sectionȱ willȱ examineȱ severalȱ setsȱ ofȱ examplesȱtakenȱfromȱJeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ30.ȱTheȱfirstȱsetȱofȱexamplesȱisȱtakenȱ fromȱ takenȱ fromȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.1Ȭ6.15.ȱ Theseȱ versesȱ areȱ alsoȱ textȬtypeȱ Q,ȱ withȱaȱlimitedȱamountȱofȱembedding.ȱSeveralȱimageȱschemataȱandȱconȬ ceptualȱmetaphorsȱstructureȱJeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ6.7:ȱtheȱcentreȬperipheryȱandȱ pathȱschemataȱatȱ6.1;ȱtheȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PLANTȱmetaphorȱatȱ6.2;ȱtheȱforceȱ schemaȱandȱtheȱ PEOPLEȱ AREȱANIMALSȱmetaphorȱatȱ6.3ȱandȱ THEȱCITYȱISȱAȱ PERSONȱ metaphorȱ atȱ 6.6.ȱ Twoȱ importantȱ conceptualȱ metaphorsȱ strucȬ tureȱJeremiahȱ6.8Ȭ6.12:ȱtheȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PLANTȱmetaphorȱatȱ6.9ȱandȱ ANȬ GERȱ ISȱ Aȱ BOILINGȱ LIQUIDȱ metaphorȱ atȱ 6.11.ȱ Anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ visualȱ scanȬ ningȱ opensȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.16Ȭ6.21.ȱ Theseȱ examplesȱ areȱ representativeȱ ratherȱthanȱcomprehensive.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 36ȱȱ Commentatorsȱareȱnotȱinȱagreementȱregardingȱtheȱdivisionȱofȱtheȱlargerȱsection.ȱForȱ McKane,ȱ theȱ verseȱ belongsȱ inȱ 5.12Ȭ5.14,ȱ whileȱ Lundbomȱ includesȱ itȱ inȱ 5.14Ȭ5.19.ȱ Lundbom,ȱJeremiahȱ1Ȭ20;ȱMcKane,ȱAȱCriticalȱandȱExegeticalȱCommentaryȱonȱJeremiah.ȱ 37ȱȱ Berlin,ȱDynamics,ȱxx.ȱ

216ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

a. Jeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ6.7ȱClauseȱLayoutȱandȱAnalysisȱ ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

]KCNH8T[DGTG4KO _KOŽ[PKD[ƒP%8\KHJ ȱ

6.1aȱ

THR28SK7C2SVKD 8ȱ

bȱ

V  CO8  ]GTG.CJV[%NC Yȱ

cȱ

N2FH*TGDGY_2RH&KO JHRSoPJHHT[K. ȱ

dȱ

_2
6.2aȱ

]GJ[TFGY][KQT8 QDŽ[H J[GN ȱ

6.3aȱ

D[KDHU ][KNHJQ HJ[GNH8SH7ȱ

bȱ

2FŽ[VG [K 8HTȱ

cȱ

JHOHZNKOHJ[GNH8'CSȱ

6.4aȱ

]o[HT)JH&CDJGN$hPY8O8Sȱ

bȱ

]2
cȱ

DGTH[NNKE8Ž1o[[K.ȱ

dȱ

8O8Sȱ

6.5aȱ

JHN[H/CDJGN$hPY bȱ HJ[GV2POTC JHV[KZhPYȱ V2 HDEJŽYJ[TCOH JQM[K.ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ

cȱ 6.6aȱ

JHE8VTK.ȱ

bȱ

JHNNQU]KCNH8T[NC8MRKYȱ

cȱ

FCSRHJT[KHJ [KJȱ

dȱ

+H%TKS% SGQ+H/W.ȱ

eȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ JERȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

6.1aȱ

Qȱ

Impvȱ

plMȱ

Stem/ȱ F Hiphilȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

WȬXȬImpvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

cȱ

Qȱ

WȬXȬImpvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

dȱ

Qȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgFȱ

Niphalȱ

6.2aȱ

Qȱ

XȬWȬQatalȱ

1sȱ

Qalȱ

6.3aȱ

Qȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

3plMȱ

Qalȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

Qatalȱ

3plȱ

Qalȱ

cȱ

Qȱ

Qatalȱ

3plȱ

Qalȱ

6.4aȱ

Qȱ

Impvȱ

plMȱ

Pielȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

Impv/ȱȱ Cohortative

plMȱ 1pl

Qalȱ Qal

cȱ

Qȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgMȱ

Qalȱ

dȱ

Qȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

3plMȱ

Niphalȱ

6.5aȱ

Qȱ

Impvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

1plȱ

Qalȱ

cȱ

Qȱ

1plȱ

Hiphilȱ

6.6aȱ

Qȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgMȱ

Qalȱ

bȱ

QQȱ

Impvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

cȱ

QQȱ

WȬImpvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

dȱ

QQȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgMȱ

Hophȱ

eȱ

QQȱ

NmClȱ

ȱ

ȱ

WȬȱ Cohortative WȬȱ Cohortative

217ȱ

MSCȱ ȱ C2ȱ ȱ

ȱ C1ȱ

ȱ C4ȱ ȱ

SBȱ C2 ȱ C1ȱ

ȱ Syntax,ȱSemantics,ȱInformationȱStructureȱandȱCognitiveȱConstructionȱ Inȱthisȱsection,ȱfourȱversesȱcontributeȱtoȱcognitiveȱstructuring:ȱJeremiahȱ 6.1;ȱ6.2;ȱ6.3;ȱandȱ6.6.ȱJeremiahȱ6.1ȱisȱstructuredȱbyȱtheȱcentreȬperipheryȱ imageȱschema.ȱInȱaȱstringȱofȱthreeȱplMȱimperativesȱtheȱaddresseesȱareȱ

218ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

instructedȱtoȱfleeȱforȱsafety,ȱtoȱblowȱaȱtrumpetȱandȱtoȱraiseȱaȱsignal.ȱTheȱ centreȬperipheryȱschemaȱisȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱcomplexȱprepositionȱ DTSO,ȱȱ fromȱtheȱmidstȱ(ofȱJerusalem).ȱJerusalemȱalsoȱprovidesȱtheȱendȬpointȱforȱ theȱpathȱschema,ȱasȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱphraseȱ_YREO,ȱfromȱtheȱnorth,ȱwhichȱ indicatesȱtheȱbeginningȱpointȱfromȱwhichȱevilȱwillȱcome.38ȱWordȱorderȱ forȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.1aȱ isȱ unmarked.ȱ However,ȱ 6.1bȬcȱ exhibitȱ markedȱ wordȱ order,ȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ frontingȱ ofȱ theȱ locativeȱ termsȱ YSVDYȱ andȱ ]TMJV[DNY.ȱEvenȱthoughȱtheseȱtermsȱappearȱhereȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱinȱ theȱdiscourse,ȱitȱseemsȱthatȱtheyȱareȱfrontedȱforȱargumentȱfocus.ȱThis,ȱinȱ combinationȱwithȱtheȱforceȱofȱtheȱimperativeȱverbȱforms,ȱresultsȱinȱsenȬ tenceȱfocus:ȱallȱofȱtheȱinformationȱisȱnew,ȱandȱallȱisȱimportantȱforȱ“turnȬ ingȱtheȱpropositionȱintoȱanȱassertion.”39ȱ Whenȱ theȱ termȱ JYPȱisȱ readȱasȱ pasture,ȱJeremiahȱ 6.2ȱ providesȱaȱfurȬ therȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PLANTȱ conceptualȱ metaphor.40ȱ Wordȱ orderȱforȱthisȱsentenceȱisȱOVO.ȱTalstra’sȱdataȬbaseȱproposesȱthatȱitȱacȬ tuallyȱ consistsȱ ofȱ twoȱ phrases,ȱ anȱ OVȱ phrase,ȱ andȱ aȱ secondȱ Oȱ phraseȱ plusȱanȱellipsis.ȱInȱeitherȱcase,ȱtheȱfocusȱisȱuponȱtheȱaddressees.ȱ Jeremiahȱ6.3ȱisȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱforceȱschemaȱandȱtheȱ PEOPLEȱ AREȱANIMALSȱmetaphor:ȱȱ ]J[TFY][TY D[J[N ȱ

aȱ

D[DU][NJ J[NYSV

bȱ

YF[V [ YT

cȱ

Jeremiahȱ6.3aȱisȱanȱXȬyiqtolȱclauseȱinȱwhichȱtheȱXȱrepresentsȱtheȱfrontedȱ prepositionalȱphraseȱ J[N ,ȱagainstȱher.ȱTheȱfrontingȱindicatesȱargumentȱ focusȱandȱsetsȱupȱtheȱcentreȬpointȱforȱtheȱcentreȬperipheryȱschema.ȱThisȱ phraseȱalsoȱoccursȱinȱJeremiahȱ6.4a.ȱInȱeachȱcase,ȱtheȱphraseȱsetsȱupȱanȱ atemporalȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱaffectedȱentity,ȱher,ȱandȱtheȱactantsȱ inȱtheȱsentence,ȱtheȱshepherdsȱandȱtheirȱflocks.ȱTheȱprepositionȱagainstȱ indicatesȱthatȱaȱdegreeȱofȱforceȱisȱinvolved.ȱJeremiahȱ6.3bȱcontainsȱtheȱ prepositionalȱ phraseȱ J[N,ȱ againȱ settingȱ upȱ anȱ atemporalȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱtheȱaffectedȱentity,ȱher,ȱandȱtheȱactantsȱinȱtheȱsentence.ȱInȱthisȱ instance,ȱ theȱ actantsȱ areȱ settingȱ upȱ theirȱ tents,ȱ whichȱ indicateȱ thatȱ theȱ shepherdsȱ andȱ theirȱ flocksȱ areȱ actuallyȱ humans,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ animals.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 38ȱȱ Theȱ ambiguityȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ _YREȱ leadsȱ toȱ difficultyȱ fromȱ theȱ historicalȬcriticalȱ persȬ pective.ȱ However,ȱ byȱ viewingȱ theȱ termȱ withȱ theȱ pathȱ andȱ centreȬperipheryȱ imageȱ schemataȱinȱmind,ȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱunderstandȱhowȱtheȱfigureȱplaysȱuponȱtheȱundifȬ ferentiatedȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ comingȱ evil.ȱ Otherȱ usesȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ occurȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ atȱ 1.13;ȱ1.14;ȱ1.15;ȱ3.12;ȱ3.18;ȱ4.6;ȱ6.1ȱandȱ6.22.ȱȱ 39ȱȱ Lambrecht,ȱInformationȱStructure,ȱxx.ȱ 40ȱȱ Thisȱ termȱ isȱ difficult,ȱ andȱ hasȱ beenȱ interpretedȱ asȱ “delicatelyȱ bred”ȱ orȱ “beautifulȱ meadow.”ȱCarroll,ȱJeremiah:ȱAȱCommentary,ȱ191.ȱȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

219ȱ

ThisȱinstanceȱofȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱfunctionsȱasȱaȱshiftȱonȱtheȱGreatȱ Chain,ȱwithȱhumanȱbeingsȱprotrayedȱasȱanimals.ȱInȱgeneral,ȱtheȱimageȱ ofȱshepherdsȱandȱflocksȱisȱtranquil.ȱHowever,ȱinȱthisȱinstance,ȱthereȱisȱaȱ sinisterȱ undertone,ȱ asȱ theȱ shepherdsȱ andȱ flocksȱ areȱ nowȱ inȱ positionȱ againstȱDaughterȱZion.ȱThisȱisȱrealisedȱinȱJeremiahȱ6.4a,ȱwhichȱpresentsȱ anȱovertȱcallȱforȱaȱholyȱwar.41ȱAgain,ȱthereȱisȱreferenceȱtoȱunȬbuilding.ȱȱ Jeremiahȱ6.6aȬeȱpresentsȱtheȱcityȱofȱJerusalemȱasȱaȱperson:ȱȱȱ

Thisȱ

VY DEJYJ[TO JM[Mȱ

aȱ

JEYVTM

bȱ

JNNU]NYT[NYMRY

cȱ

FSRJT[J [J

dȱ

JDTSDSJNM

eȱ

sectionȱ

containsȱ

theȱ

unmarkedȱ

citationȱ

formulaȱ

VY DEJYJ[TO JM,ȱ whichȱ isȱ precededȱ byȱ theȱ particleȱ [M.ȱ Theȱ citationȱ

formulaȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ perspectiveȱ belongsȱ toȱ Yahweh.ȱ Theȱ particleȱ [Mȱ mightȱbeȱeitherȱanaphoric,ȱlinkingȱtheȱsectionȱtoȱwhatȱprecedes,ȱorȱcatȬ aphoric,ȱintroducingȱtheȱreasonȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱsection.ȱTheȱreferenceȱ toȱtheȱcityȱasȱaȱpersonȱisȱtheȱresultȱofȱtheȱtermȱ [JȱinȱJeremiahȱ6.6d,ȱandȱ theȱ sgFȱ suffixȱ onȱ theȱ termȱ JDTSDȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.6e.ȱ Furtherȱ referencesȱ confirmȱ thisȱ assessment,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ sgFȱ referencesȱ atȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.7.b,ȱ JVT,ȱ herȱ wickednessȱ andȱ 6.7c,ȱ JD,ȱ inȱ her,ȱ andȱ theȱ vocative,ȱ ]NYT[,ȱ atȱ 6.8a.ȱ Theseȱ referencesȱ compressȱ bothȱ locationȱ andȱ societyȱ toȱ humanȱ scale.ȱ Additionally,ȱ theyȱ createȱ instantiationȱ ofȱ theȱ centreȬperipheryȱ schema.ȱ b. Jeremiahȱ6.9Ȭ6.11ȱȱ InȱJeremiahȱ6.9Ȭ11,ȱtwoȱversesȱareȱimportantȱforȱcognitiveȱconstruction:ȱ Jeremiahȱ6.9ȱandȱJeremiahȱ6.11ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 41ȱȱ AccordingȱtoȱCarroll,ȱtheȱthemeȱofȱfleeingȱinȱJeremiahȱ6.1ȱindicatesȱpropheticȱprocȬ lamationȱ ofȱ holyȱ war,ȱ asȱ doesȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ holyȱ warȱ terminology.ȱ Carroll,ȱ JereȬ miah:ȱ Aȱ Commentary,ȱ 191Ȭ192.ȱ Givenȱ theȱ presentȬdayȱ situation,ȱ oneȱ mustȱ beȱ excepȬ tionallyȱ carefulȱ whenȱ interpretingȱ textsȱ suchȱ asȱ this.ȱ Itȱ wouldȱ beȱ irresponsibleȱ toȱ drawȱaȱliteralȱapplicationȱfromȱsuchȱpassages.ȱȱ

220ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

V2 HDEJŽ2J[TCOH JQ.ȱ

6.9a

N HT o[V[KT _GRG*CM8NN2[NN2ȱ

b

V2/KUNCUNCTE2D.FŽ[DHJ ȱ

c

ȱ Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stem/ȱ Focus

Qȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgMȱ

Qalȱ

b

QQȱ

QatolȬYiqtolȱ

3plMȱ

Poelȱ

c

QQȱ

Impvȱ

sgMȱ

Hiphilȱ

JERȱ 6.9a

MSCȱ SBȱ C2 ȱ C1ȱ

ȱ Jeremiahȱ6.9:ȱSyntax,ȱSemantics,ȱInformationȱStructureȱandȱCognitiveȱȱȱȱȱ Constructionȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.9ȱ beginsȱ withȱ anȱ unmarkedȱ citationȱ formulaȱ thatȱ actsȱ asȱ aȱ lowȬlevelȱspaceȬbuilder.ȱTheȱvoiceȱisȱthatȱofȱtheȱnarrator,ȱwhoȱidentifiesȱ theȱfollowingȱspeakerȱasȱYahweh.ȱAtȱJeremiahȱ6.9bȱtheȱqatolȬyiqtolȱcomȬ binationȱ YNNY[NNYȱ createsȱ anȱ intensifyingȱ effectȱ evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ verbsȱareȱnotȱimperativeȱinȱform.ȱTheȱphraseȱ_RIM,ȱasȱaȱvine,ȱinȱcombinaȬ tionȱwithȱtheȱphraseȱ N T[V[T ,ȱcreatesȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱtheȱ SOCIEȬ TYȱISȱAȱPLANTȱmetaphor.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱsourceȱdomainȱPLANTȱprovidesȱ richȱ informationȱ forȱ understandingȱ theȱ targetȱ domain,ȱ SOCIETY.ȱ Theȱ entireȱphraseȱevokesȱframeȱknowledgeȱbasedȱuponȱagriculturalȱpracticȬ es.ȱ Thisȱ inȱ turnȱ providesȱ informationȱ regardingȱ roles:ȱ theȱ addresseesȱ areȱtoȱtakeȱtheȱroleȱofȱvineyardȱworkers.ȱTheȱimperativeȱclauseȱatȱJereȬ miahȱ 6.9,ȱ VYNUNUNTEYDM?F[DJ ,ȱ isȱ slightlyȱ problematic,ȱ asȱ itȱ changesȱ fromȱ theȱ pluralȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ twoȱ clausesȱ toȱ theȱ singular.ȱ Theȱ instructionȱtoȱpassȱyourȱhandȱagainȱlikeȱaȱgrapeȱgathererȱindicatesȱtheȱforceȱ dynamicsȱofȱtheȱpassage:ȱtheȱremnantȱofȱIsraelȱhasȱbeenȱharvestedȱandȱ nowȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ gleaned.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.10ȱ indicatesȱ aȱ shiftȱ inȱ voice,ȱ fromȱ Yahwehȱ toȱ Jeremiah.ȱ Whileȱthereȱisȱ noȱovertȱindicationȱthatȱ thisȱisȱ so,ȱ Jeremiahȱ hasȱ beenȱ inȱ conversationȱ withȱ Yahwehȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ secȬ tionsȱofȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ [KV NHOJŽYJ[VCO$ZV  Yȱ

221ȱ

6.11aȱ

N[KMHJ[KV[ NoPȱ

bȱ

L8ZC%NHN2NC^QR ȱ

cȱ

YH'Zh[][KT8ZC%F2UNCYȱ

dȱ

¯8FMH/o[JHK ]K[K ]CI[K.ȱ

eȱ

][KOŽ[ NO]K_SŽ\ȱ

fȱ

ȱ 6.11aȱ

Qȱ

WȬXȬQatalȱ

1sgȱ

Qalȱ

C2ȱ

bȱ Qȱ

Qatalȱ Qetol

1sgȱ

Niphalȱ Hiphil

ȱ C1ȱ

cȱ Qȱ

Impvȱ

sgMȱ

Qalȱ

dȱ Qȱ

Ellipȱ

ȱ

ȱ

eȱ Qȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

3plMȱ

Niphalȱ

fȱ Qȱ

Ellipȱȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ Jeremiahȱ6.11:ȱSyntax,ȱSemantics,ȱInformationȱStructureȱandȱCognitiveȱȱȱ Constructionȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.11a,ȱ [V NOJYJ[VOZV Y,ȱ isȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ OVȱ order,ȱ withȱ theȱ objectȱ entity,ȱ JYJ[VOZ,ȱ frontedȱ forȱ argumentȱ focus.ȱ Becauseȱ theȱ voiceȱ inȱ thisȱ sectionȱ isȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ complexȱ speaker,ȱ andȱ becauseȱ theȱ referenceȱ isȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ person,ȱ itȱ appearsȱ thatȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ inȱ thisȱ phraseȱbelongsȱtoȱJeremiah.ȱThisȱisȱaȱprimeȱexampleȱofȱtheȱ ANGERȱ ISȱ Aȱ HOTȱLIQUIDȱINȱAȱCONTAINER metaphor.ȱJeremiah’sȱbodyȱisȱtheȱcontainer,ȱ butȱtheȱboilingȱliquidȱisȱtheȱangerȱofȱYahweh.ȱInȱresponseȱtoȱJeremiah’sȱ complaintȱthatȱheȱisȱwearyȱofȱholdingȱitȱin,ȱofȱmaintainingȱcontrolȱoverȱ thisȱ potentiallyȱ dangerousȱ emotion,ȱ Yahwehȱ instructsȱ himȱ toȱ pourȱ itȱ out.ȱ Theȱ boilingȱ potȱ overturnsȱuponȱ allȱ ofȱ theȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ theȱ land.ȱ ThereȱisȱnoȱturningȱbackȱasȱtheȱjudgementȱofȱYahwehȱisȱdecantedȱuponȱ hisȱpeople.ȱYet,ȱ asȱJeremiahȱ6.13Ȭ6.18ȱdemonstrates,ȱYahwehȱisȱnotȱcaȬ priciousȱinȱhisȱjudgement.ȱTheȱpeopleȱthemselves,ȱfromȱtheȱgreatestȱtoȱ theȱ least,ȱ areȱ equallyȱ guiltyȱ inȱ theirȱ unfaithfulness,ȱ whichȱ exoneratesȱ Yahweh.ȱȱ

222ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

c. Jeremiahȱ6.16ȱClauseȱLayoutȱandȱAnalysisȱ ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

JŽYJ[TCOH JQ. 6.16aȱ ][KMHT'NC8FOK bȱ 8 T8 cȱ ]HN2V2DKVPKN8N$ CY dȱ +HD8MN8D2 CJ^GTGFJm\[  eȱ ]GMRhPNC2*TCO8 EKO8 fȱ 8TO v
ȱ ȱ ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stem/ȱ Focus

XȬQatalȱ

3sgMȱ

Qalȱ

bȱ QQȱ

Impvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

cȱ QQȱ

WȬImpvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

dȱ QQȱ

WȬImpvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

eȱ QQȱ

XȬWȬImpvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

fȱ QQȱ

WȬImpvȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

gȱ QNȱ

WayyiqyolȬ0ȱ

3plMȱ

Qalȱ

hȱ QNQȱ

XȬYiqtolȱ

1plȱ

Qalȱ

JERȱ Typeȱ 6.16aȱ Qȱ

MSCȱ SBȱ C2 ȱ C1ȱ

ȱ Syntax,ȱSemantics,ȱInformationȱStructureȱandȱCognitiveȱConstructionȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.16ȱ containsȱ aȱ finalȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ centreȬperipheryȱ imageȱ schema.ȱ Thisȱ verseȱ beginsȱ withȱ theȱ unmarkedȱ citationȱ formula,ȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

223ȱ

JYJ[TO JM ,ȱwhichȱassignsȱvoiceȱtoȱtheȱcomplexȱspeakerȱandȱperspecȬ

tiveȱtoȱYahweh.ȱTheȱfollowingȱseriesȱofȱplMȱimperativeȱformsȱinstructsȱ theȱaddresseesȱtoȱstandȱatȱtheȱcrossroads,ȱtoȱlookȱandȱtoȱaskȱforȱtheȱancientȱ paths.ȱ Thisȱ seriesȱ ofȱ instructionsȱ evokesȱ theȱ centreȬperipheryȱ imageȱ schema,ȱwithȱtheȱaddresseesȱatȱtheȱcentre.ȱTheyȱareȱtoȱengageȱinȱaȱvirȬ tualȱ visualȱ scanȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptualȱ environmentȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ findȱ andȱ chooseȱtheȱgoodȱway.ȱEvenȱthoughȱtheȱaddresseesȱareȱableȱtoȱenvisionȱ theȱgoodȱway,ȱtheyȱrefuseȱtoȱwalkȱinȱit.ȱȱ d. Jeremiahȱ6.27Ȭ6.30ȱClauseȱLayoutȱandȱAnalysis:ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ TheȱRefinerȱ ȱ

ȱ ClauseȱLayoutȱ

JERȱ

THEDKO[K0CD[K7CVP_2ZH% ȱ

6.27aȱ

CFVYȱ

bȱ

]H.TC'VG H7PCZHD8ȱ

cȱ

][KTT2U[THU]H/W. ȱ

6.28aȱ

Nm\TCD8VGQZPN[KMHT[MNQJȱ

bȱ

JH0J][KV[KZCO]H/W.Nm\TCD8ȱ

cȱ

ZW3COTCZŽPȱ

6.29aȱ

VGTHRQ]C7

 O

]C7K O ȱ

bȱ

X2THEXCTHE YHCNȱ

cȱ

8SH7oP QN][KHTYȱ

dȱ

UH OoPXGUG.ȱ

6.30aȱ

]GJHN8 THS bȱ ]GJH%JŽYJ[UC HO[K.ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ

cȱ

224ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Typeȱ

ClauseȱTagȱ

PNGȱ

Stem/ȱ Focus

MSCȱ

6.27aȱ

Qȱ

XȬQatalȱ

1sgȱ

Qalȱ

ȱ C1ȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

WȬYiqtolȱ

2sgMȱ

Qalȱ

cȱ

Qȱ

WȬQatalȱ

2sgMȱ

Qalȱ

6.28aȱ

Qȱ

Qotelȱ Qotel

plMȱ PlM

Qalȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

Qotelȱ

plMȱ

Qalȱ

cȱ

Qȱ

Qotelȱ

plMȱ

Hiphilȱ

6.29aȱ

Qȱ

Qatalȱ

3sgMȱ

Niphalȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sgMȱ

Qalȱ

cȱ

Qȱ

XȬQatalȱ Qatol

3sgMȱ

Qalȱ

dȱ

Qȱ

WȬXȬnȬQatalȱ

3plȱ

Qalȱ

6.30aȱ

Qȱ

XȬQotelȱ

sgMȱ

Niphalȱ

bȱ

Qȱ

Qatalȱ

3plȱ

Qalȱ

cȱ

Qȱ

XȬQatalȱ

3sMȱ

Qalȱ

JERȱ

ȱ Jeremiahȱ6.27Ȭ6.30ȱintroducesȱframeȱknowledgeȱfromȱtheȱareaȱofȱmetalȬ lurgy.ȱAccordingȱtoȱFauconnier,ȱaȱmentalȱspaceȱwillȱoftenȱbeȱorganisedȱ byȱ aȱ conceptualȱ frame.ȱ Elementsȱ inȱ aȱ frameȱ mayȱ includeȱ scales,ȱ forceȱ dynamics,ȱ imageȱ schemasȱandȱvitalȱ relationsȱ suchȱasȱchange,ȱ identity,ȱ time,ȱ space,ȱ analogy,ȱ disanalogyȱ andȱ uniqueness,ȱ amongȱ others.42ȱ Theȱ shiftȱ toȱ theȱ metallurgicalȱ frameȱ reintroducesȱ theȱ naturallyȱ occuringȱ elementsȱinȱrelationȱtoȱJeremiah,ȱwhoȱatȱ1.18ȱwasȱdeclaredȱtoȱbeȱanȱironȱ pillarȱandȱaȱbronzeȱwall.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱJeremiahȱisȱidentifiedȱasȱanȱassayȬ erȱofȱmetal.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 42ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱTurner,ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink,ȱ93ff.ȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

225ȱ

Syntax,ȱSemanticsȱandȱInformationȱStructureȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.27Ȭ6.30ȱ isȱ quotation,ȱ withȱ noȱ embedding.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.27aȱ containsȱ theȱ frontedȱ termȱ _YZD,ȱ assayer.ȱ Sinceȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ timeȱ theȱ termȱisȱused,ȱfrontingȱoccursȱforȱtopicalisationȱratherȱthanȱforȱargumentȱ focusȱ orȱ emphasis.ȱ Theȱ verbalȱ formsȱ inȱ thisȱ sectionȱ consistȱ ofȱ variousȱ qatal,ȱyiqtolȱandȱparticipleȱforms.ȱȱ CognitiveȱConstructionȱ Theȱ inclusionȱ ofȱ metallurgicalȱ frameȱ knowledgeȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.27ȱ isȱ significantȱ forȱ twoȱ reasons.ȱ First,ȱ theȱ speechȱ participantsȱ areȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱYHWH,ȱasȱwasȱtheȱcaseȱinȱ1.1Ȭ2.1.ȱTheȱpeopleȱareȱreferredȱtoȱinȱtheȱ thirdȱpersonȱplural.ȱThisȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱsituationȱmutesȱtheȱonceȱ activeȱvoiceȱofȱtheȱthirdȱinterlocutor,ȱJerusalem.ȱSecondly,ȱtheȱimageryȱ drawnȱ fromȱ metallurgyȱ demonstratesȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ anȱ underlyingȱ useȱofȱtheȱGreatȱChainȱmetaphor.ȱSociety,ȱwhoȱuntilȱthisȱpointȱhadȱbeenȱ demotedȱ onlyȱ toȱ humanȱ levelȱ inȱ theȱ animacyȱ hierarchy,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ deȬ motedȱ toȱ aȱ naturalȱ physicalȱ thing.ȱTheȱindividualsȱ areȱ nowȱ comparedȱ toȱ valuableȱ butȱ inanimateȱ bronze,ȱ ironȱ andȱ silver.ȱ Theȱ addresseesȱ areȱ nowȱ unableȱ toȱ participateȱ inȱ theȱ conversation.ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ becomeȱ theȱ subjectȱofȱanȱoverheardȱconversation.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ

TheȱContributionȱofȱFrames,ȱImageȱSchemataȱandȱConceptualȱ Metaphorȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ severalȱ smallerȱ examplesȱ ofȱ MTȱ Jeremiahȱ haveȱ beenȱ examinedȱ usingȱ theȱ TDȱ approach.ȱ Theȱ analysisȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ frames,ȱ imageȱ schemataȱ andȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ regularlyȱ structureȱ theȱsmallerȱexamples.ȱSpaceȬbuildersȱareȱpresent,ȱbutȱfunctionȱatȱaȱlowȬ erȱlevelȱthanȱtheȱmetapragmaticȱspeechȱframesȱinȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱchaptersȱ ofȱJeremiah.ȱȱ a. ImageȱSchemataȱ Fourȱ typesȱ ofȱ imageȱ schemataȱ areȱ prevalentȱ withinȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱ Theȱ centreȬperipheryȱ schemaȱ isȱ usedȱ toȱ structureȱ physicalȱ andȱ metaȬ phoricalȱspace;ȱtheȱpathȱschemaȱisȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱscale;ȱtheȱcontainȬ erȱmetaphorȱstructuresȱsituationsȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱcontainment,ȱbeingȱinȱ orȱout,ȱbeingȱfullȱorȱempty,ȱandȱbyȱtheȱcontentȱofȱtheȱcontainer;ȱandȱtheȱ forceȱ schemaȱ isȱ evokedȱ forȱ understandingȱ dynamicityȱ inȱ situations.ȱ Whileȱotherȱschemataȱareȱnoȱdoubtȱpresentȱinȱthisȱtext,ȱtheseȱfourȱpreȬ dominate.ȱȱ

226ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Theȱfollowingȱchartȱsummarisesȱinstancesȱofȱtheȱfourȱschemata:ȱ

40 35 30 25 CentreͲPeriphery 20

Path

15

Force

10

Containment

5 0 CH1

CH2

CH3

CH4

CH5

CH6

ȱ Figureȱ6.3ȱȱȱSummaryȱofȱImageȱSchemataȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Thisȱchartȱprovidesȱanȱoverviewȱofȱfourȱconceptualȱpatternsȱthatȱoccurȱ withinȱtheȱtext.ȱAȱfewȱobservationsȱareȱpertinentȱtoȱtheȱdiscussion.ȱTheȱ pathȱschemaȱoccursȱwithȱgreatȱregularityȱandȱpeaksȱinȱchapterȱ3.ȱThisȱisȱ dueȱtoȱtheȱextendedȱdiscussionȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.10,ȱwhichȱsomeȱthinkȱ isȱ aȱ redactionalȱ insertion.ȱ Theȱ centreȬperipheryȱ schemaȱ isȱ alsoȱ prevaȬ lent,ȱ andȱ alsoȱ peaksȱ inȱ chapterȱ 3ȱ forȱ theȱ sameȱ reason.ȱ Inȱ chapterȱ 3,ȱ Yahwehȱisȱtheȱcentreȱpointȱinȱ11ȱoutȱofȱ14ȱoccurrencesȱinȱtheȱsectionȱasȱ aȱwhole.ȱTheȱcontainmentȱschemaȱpeaksȱinȱchapterȱ4,ȱdueȱinȱpartȱtoȱtheȱ repeatedȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ termsȱ Judahȱ andȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Notȱ surprisingly,ȱ theȱ forceȱschemaȱexhibitsȱanȱupwardȱtrend,ȱparticularlyȱinȱchaptersȱ4ȱandȱ6,ȱ whereȱ referencesȱ toȱ incursionȱ andȱ judgementȱ appearȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱ frequently.ȱ Whileȱexegesisȱisȱnotȱaȱmatterȱofȱ statistics,ȱ theȱdistributionȱ ofȱtheseȱimageȱschemataȱisȱusefulȱforȱgainingȱaȱglobalȱperspectiveȱofȱtheȱ text,ȱ whichȱ mayȱ beȱ testedȱ throughȱ moreȱ detailedȱ exegeticalȱ methods.ȱ Forȱ aȱ moreȱ detailedȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ data,ȱ seeȱ theȱ chartȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ chapter.ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ

227ȱ

b. ConceptualȱMetaphorȱ Conceptualȱ metaphorȱ playsȱ aȱ largeȱ roleȱ inȱ establishingȱ literaryȱ metaȬ phor.ȱ Yet,ȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ alsoȱ occursȱ inȱ otherȱ typesȱ ofȱ textȱ asȱ well,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱspeechȱframesȱsharedȱbyȱJeremiahȱandȱYahweh,ȱwhichȱ playȱonȱtheȱGreatȱChainȱmetaphor.ȱTwoȱconceptualȱmetaphorsȱareȱparȬ ticularlyȱ prevalentȱ throughoutȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱ Theȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱ Aȱ PERȬ SONȱandȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱPLANTȱ metaphorsȱprovideȱtheȱconceptualȱbasisȱforȱ understandingȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ divineȱ andȱ hisȱ people,ȱ asȱ mediatedȱbyȱtheȱveryȱhumanȱfigureȱofȱJeremiah.ȱTheȱ SOCIETYȱASȱAȱPERȬ SONȱ metaphorȱ occursȱ 12ȱ timesȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.1Ȭ6.30:ȱ atȱ 4.1;ȱ 4.14;ȱ 4.17;ȱ 4.18;ȱ4.30;ȱ4.31;ȱ5.12;ȱ6.2;ȱ6.6;ȱ6.9;ȱ6.11;ȱandȱ6.22.ȱTheȱ SOCIETYȱ ISȱAȱPLANTȱ METAPHORȱoccursȱatȱ5.10ȱandȱ6.9.ȱThisȱsectionȱalsoȱincludesȱtheȱ PEOPLEȱ AREȱANIMALSȱmetaphorȱatȱ5.6ȱandȱ5.8.ȱȱ Theseȱ conceptualȱ metaphorsȱ provideȱ covertȱ unityȱ throughoutȱ theȱ textȱ andȱ encourageȱ theȱ formationȱ ofȱ literaryȱ metaphorsȱ thatȱ describeȱ theȱstateȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱandȱtheȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱtheirȱworshipȱpatternsȱ affectȱtheirȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱdivine.ȱTheȱstateȱofȱtheseȱabstractȱsysȬ temsȱisȱscopedȱtoȱhumanȱscaleȱthroughȱtheȱuseȱofȱconceptualȱmetaphorȱ forȱtheȱpurposesȱofȱreasoningȱandȱpersuasion.ȱInformationȱinȱJeremiahȱ 4.1Ȭ6.30ȱisȱpresentedȱfromȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱtheȱcharactersȱinȱtheȱtext:ȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ reader’sȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognitionȱ areȱ conditionedȱ byȱ thoseȱ ofȱ theȱ observingȱ characters.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ propheticȱ textȱ comȬ pressesȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ societyȱ andȱ theȱ divineȱ toȱ humanȱ scale,ȱ makingȱ itȱ moreȱ understandableȱ andȱ accessibleȱ toȱ theȱ reader.ȱ Theȱ descriptionsȱ ofȱ deȬcreation,ȱ unȬplanting,ȱ unȬbuildingȱ andȱ deȬcentring,ȱ theȱ destructionȱ comingȱ fromȱ theȱ north,ȱ andȱ theȱ angerȱ ofȱ YHWHȱ indicateȱ aȱ societyȱ thatȱ hasȱ reflectedȱ uponȱ dreadfulȱ circumsȬ tancesȱinȱanȱeffortȱtoȱreconcileȱtheȱfaithfulnessȱofȱGodȱwithȱgreatȱsocioȬ politicalȱandȱreligiousȱupheaval.ȱ Thisȱ chapterȱhasȱdescribedȱtheȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱ theȱ originatorsȱ ofȱ MTȱJeremiahȱusedȱlanguageȱtoȱtalkȱaboutȱwhatȱmightȱhaveȱbeen,ȱwhatȱ happened,ȱ whatȱ mightȱ haveȱ happenedȱ andȱ whatȱ shouldȱ haveȱ hapȬ pened,ȱusingȱtheȱfullȱrangeȱofȱBHȱclauseȱstructures.ȱ43ȱTheȱvarietyȱofȱBHȱ spaceȬbuildingȱ termsȱ expandedȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ additionȱ ofȱ theȱ extraposedȱ construction.ȱWhileȱsyntaxȱandȱsemanticsȱprovideȱtheȱbasisȱforȱtheȱapȬ proachȱusedȱinȱthisȱvolume,ȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱclearlyȱdemonstratesȱthatȱ evenȱ theȱ mostȱ competentlyȱ arrangedȱ computerȱ databaseȱ isȱ notȱ yetȱ caȬ pableȱofȱperformingȱtheȱtypesȱofȱcomplexȱconceptualȱblendingȱprocesȬ seesȱthatȱoccurȱnearlyȱeffortlesslyȱwithinȱtheȱhumanȱmind.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 43ȱȱ FauconnierȱandȱSweetser,ȱSpaces,ȱWorlds,ȱandȱGrammar,ȱ9.ȱ

228ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

c.

AȱSummaryȱofȱabstractȱcomplexȱsystemȱMetaphorsȱandȱImageȱ SchemataȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ

Inȱtheȱfollowingȱchart,ȱoverlappingȱinstantiationsȱofȱconceptualȱmetaȬ phorȱandȱimageȱschemataȱareȱshaded.ȱ ȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱPERSON,ȱSOCIETYȱISȱAȱPLANTȱ centreȬ containmentȱ forceȱ pathȱ peripheryȱ ȱ ȱ 1.1ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.9ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.13ȱ 1.13ȱ 1.13ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.14 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.15ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.19ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.2ȱȱBride/Fȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.2ȱ ȱ ȱ

2.3ȱȱFirstȱ Fruits/Mȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

2.14ȱȱIsrael/Mȱ

ȱ

2.16ȱȱYou/Fȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

2.20ȱȱUnfaithful/Fȱ

ȱ

ȱ

2.21ȱȱVine/Fȱ

2.22ȱȱWashȱself/Fȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

2.26ȱȱThief/Mȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

2.6ȱ 2.7ȱ ȱ 2.13ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

2.4 2.6ȱ 2.7ȱ 2.10ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.21 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ 2.18ȱ 2.18ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ 2.29ȱ 2.29ȱ

ȱ 2.23ȱ 2.25?ȱ ȱ 2.27 2.28ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

229ȱ

ȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30:ȱEmbeddedȱQuotationȱandȱPerspectiveȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱPERSON,ȱSOCIETYȱISȱAȱPLANTȱ

containmentȱ 2.33ȱȱUnfaithful/Fȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

3.1ȱȱUnfaithful/Fȱ

ȱ

3.6Ȭ3.11ȱȱȱ

ȱ

FaithlessȱIsrael/Fȱ

ȱ

FaithlessȱJudah/Fȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

FaithlessȱIs/Mȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

3.20ȱȱFaithless/Fȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

forceȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

3.19ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.24 ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.3ȱ 4.5 4.7ȱ 4.9ȱ 4.11ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

centreȬ peripheryȱ

pathȱ ȱ 3.1 3.1ȱ ȱ 3.6ȱ 3.6ȱ 3.6 3.8ȱ 3.12ȱ 3.13ȱ 3.14ȱ 3.14 ȱ 3.20ȱ 3.21ȱ 3.22ȱ

ȱ

ȱ 4.1ȱ 4.1ȱ ȱ 4.5 4.7ȱ ȱ 4.11ȱ ȱ

ȱ 4.1ȱ 4.1ȱ ȱ

4.17ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.14 4.17ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

4.14ȱȱJerusalem/Fȱ

ȱ

4.17ȱȱHer/Fȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.5 ȱ 4.9ȱ 4.11ȱ 4.13ȱ 4.14 ȱ

4.18ȱȱYourȱ Heart/Fȱ

ȱ

ȱ

4.18ȱ

4.18ȱ

4.18ȱ

4.19ȱȱMyȱheartȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ 4.23 4.24 4.25ȱ

4.19ȱ

ȱ

ȱ 4.23 4.24 4.25ȱ

4.19ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

4.1ȱȱIsrael/Mȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

230ȱ

ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱPERSON,ȱSOCIETYȱISȱAȱPLANTȱ

containmentȱ

forceȱ

centreȬ peripheryȱ

pathȱ

ȱ

ȱ

4.26ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

4.26ȱ 4.27

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

5.1ȱ ȱ

5.1ȱ 5.3ȱ

5.1ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

5.10ȱȱVine/Fȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

5.10ȱ ȱ 5.15ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

5.10ȱ 5.14ȱ ȱ 5.16ȱ 5.17 5.20x2ȱ 5.22ȱ ȱ

ȱ 5.3ȱ 5.6 ȱ 5.14ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.1ȱ

ȱ ȱ 6.1ȱ

ȱ ȱ 6.1ȱ

6.2ȱȱDaughterȱ Zionȱ

pastureȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

6.6ȱJerusalem/Fȱ

ȱ

6.4 6.5ȱ 6.6ȱ ȱ 6.11 6.12 ȱ

ȱ ȱ 6.9ȱ

ȱ 6.6ȱ ȱ

6.16ȱ

6.16ȱ

4.30ȱO,ȱdesoȬ late/Fȱȱ 4.31ȱDaughterȱ Zionȱ

6.9ȱȱIsrael/Mȱ

6.9ȱȱVine/Fȱ

6.11ȱȱAnger=Heatȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.11 6.12 ȱ

6.22ȱDaughterȱ Zionȱ

ȱ

ȱ

6.22ȱ

6.22ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

6.23ȱ 6.26

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

6.27

ȱ

7.ȱConclusionsȱ ȱ InȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱdifficultiesȱpresentedȱbyȱBHȱpropheticȱtext,ȱ thisȱvoȬ lumeȱhasȱproposedȱaȱTDȱapproach.ȱThisȱapproachȱisȱtextȬcentred,ȱpanȬ chronicȱandȱintegrative.ȱSinceȱtextȱisȱaȱformȱofȱhumanȱcommunication,ȱ insightȱintoȱtheȱcognitiveȱprocessesȱinvolvedȱinȱhumanȱcommunicationȱ offerȱ pointsȱ ofȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ theȱ originatorsȱ andȱ readersȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Cognitiveȱ linguistics,ȱ cognitiveȱ grammar,ȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ scienceȱ informȱ theȱ TDȱ approach.ȱ Conceptualȱ blendingȱ actsȱ asȱ theȱ integrativeȱ principleȱforȱthisȱapproach.ȱ Chapterȱ1:ȱTextȱDynamics:ȱAnȱIntegrativeȱApproachȱ Thisȱ chapterȱ containsȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ recentȱ linguistic,ȱ literaryȱ andȱ technologicalȱapproachesȱtoȱBHȱText.ȱTheȱTDȱanalysisȱofȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ 6.30ȱ incorporatesȱ findingsȱ fromȱ theseȱ studiesȱ (seeȱ chaptersȱ 4Ȭ6).ȱ Theȱ theoreticalȱ shiftȱ thatȱ underliesȱ theȱ movementȱ fromȱ sentenceȱ levelȱ meȬ thodologyȱtoȱ discourseȱlevelȱmethodologyȱisȱimportantȱforȱtheȱholisticȱ TDȱapproach.ȱ However,ȱtheȱmethodologicalȱshiftȱengenderedȱbyȱcomȬ puterisedȱ textȱ processingȱ isȱ ofȱ immediateȱ concernȱ forȱ textȱ analyst,ȱ translator,ȱandȱexegeteȱalike.ȱ TDȱ theoryȱ andȱ methodologyȱ addressȱ theȱ multiȬgenredȱ andȱ highlyȱ discursiveȱnatureȱofȱBHȱpropheticȱtext.ȱTheȱprimaryȱcontributionȱofȱtheȱ TDȱ approachȱ isȱ theȱ reȬconceptualisationȱ ofȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ originator,ȱ textȱ andȱ readerȱ (seeȱ figureȱ 1.3).ȱ Theȱ reȬconceptualisationȱ isȱ experientiallyȱ oriented,ȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ basedȱ uponȱ visualȱ perception.ȱ Theȱ reȬ conceptualisationȱ requiresȱ aȱ suspensionȱ ofȱ judgementȱ regardingȱ theȱ timeȱlineȱandȱitȱthisȱconceptualȱshiftȱallowsȱforȱaȱprincipledȱanalysisȱofȱ theȱlinksȱbetweenȱoriginatorȱandȱreader.ȱȱ TheȱdiagramȱinȱFigureȱ1.3ȱdemonstratesȱthatȱgrammar,ȱcontextȱandȱ cultureȱcreateȱpartialȱlinksȱbetweenȱoriginatorȱandȱreader.ȱBecauseȱhuȬ mansȱ possessȱ similarȱ neuralȱ networks,ȱ embodiedȱ experienceȱ providesȱ anȱimportantȱanalogicalȱconnectionȱbetweenȱoriginatorȱandȱreader.ȱTheȱ TDȱ approachȱ seeksȱ toȱ highlightȱ thisȱ connectionȱ byȱ includingȱ recentȱ researchȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ cognitiveȱ science.ȱ Conceptualȱ blendingȱ theoryȱ modelsȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ neuralȱ coȬactivation,ȱ orȱ inȱ theȱ wordsȱ ofȱ Gillesȱ FauȬ connierȱ theȱ wayȱ weȱ think.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ reason,ȱ thisȱ volumeȱ proposesȱ aȱshiftȱ fromȱ theȱ conduitȱ metaphorȱ forȱ humanȱ communicationȱ toȱ aȱ networkȱ modelȱinȱwhichȱinterlocutorsȱcreateȱaȱsharedȱcognitiveȱnetworkȱduringȱ

232ȱ

ȱConclusionsȱ

theȱ communicationȱ process.ȱ Sinceȱ readingȱ textȱ isȱ aȱ mediatedȱ formȱ ofȱ communication,ȱ thisȱ volumeȱ proposesȱ thatȱ originatorȱ andȱ readerȱ alsoȱ participateȱinȱcreatingȱaȱsharedȱcognitiveȱnetwork.ȱ Secondly,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱexhaustȱtheȱinformationȱinȱtheȱtext,ȱtheȱfourȬ foldȱ TDȱ procedureȱ includesȱ aȱ synchronicȱ syntaxȱ andȱ semanticsȱ analyȬ sis,ȱanȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱinformationȱstructureȱcategoriesȱofȱtopicȱandȱfoȬ cus,ȱanȱanalysisȱofȱcognitiveȱstructuringȱinȱtheȱtextȱandȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱ theȱ conceptualȱ blendingȱ processȱ usedȱ forȱ incorporatingȱ extraȬtextualȱ informationȱ (seeȱ chapterȱ 1,ȱ sectionȱ B.3).ȱ Aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ layerȱ feaȬ tureȱ utilisedȱ byȱ manyȱ computerȱ programmesȱ contributesȱ toȱ underȬ standingȱtheȱintegrativeȱnatureȱofȱconceptualȱblending.ȱ Chapterȱ2:ȱTheȱSentenceȱandȱBeyondȱ Chapterȱ2,ȱsectionȱAȱcomprisesȱaȱfullȱexplanationȱofȱtheȱTDȱtheoryȱandȱ methodology,ȱ utilisingȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ asȱ aȱ sampleȱ text.ȱ Sectionȱ A.1ȱ containsȱ aȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ reȬconceptualisationȱ ofȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱauthor,ȱtextȱandȱreader.ȱSubjectivityȱandȱobjectivityȱareȱimporȬ tantȱ toȱ theȱ discussion,ȱ asȱ theȱ reȬconceptualisationȱ includesȱ aȱ reȬ alignmentȱ ofȱ theȱ originator’sȱ position.ȱ Inȱ traditionalȱ approaches,ȱ theȱ originatorȱisȱoftenȱtheȱobjectȱofȱstudy,ȱwhereasȱinȱthisȱmodelȱtheȱorigiȬ natorȱ andȱ readerȱ appearȱ togetherȱ inȱ theȱ subjectiveȱ position.ȱ Thisȱ reȬ alignmentȱ clarifiesȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ embodiedȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ originatorȱandȱreader.ȱSectionȱA.2ȱacknowledgesȱtheȱcomplexityȱofȱtheȱ readingȱprocess,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱsyntax,ȱsemanticsȱandȱpragmaticsȱofȱtheȱ textȱcombineȱwithȱextraȬtextualȱbackgroundȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱworldȱbyȱ theȱseeminglyȱeffortlessȱconceptualȱblendingȱprocess.ȱTheȱtextȱactsȱasȱaȱ layeredȱblendingȱtemplateȱforȱthisȱprocess,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱlayersȱaccrueȱandȱ contributeȱtoȱaȱsharedȱconceptualȱnetwork.ȱSectionȱA.3ȱprovidesȱaȱfullȱ explanationȱ ofȱ theȱ networkȱ model,ȱ whichȱ isȱ basedȱ uponȱ MST.ȱ Thisȱ theoryȱdescribesȱtheȱemergent,ȱmultiȬdimensionalȱnatureȱofȱtheȱsharedȱ cognitiveȱnetwork,ȱinȱwhichȱmentalȱspacesȱareȱopened,ȱstructuredȱandȱ linkedȱ atȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ level,ȱ andȱ howȱ theȱ spacesȱ areȱ structuredȱ byȱ frames,ȱschemata,ȱandȱcognitiveȱmodels.ȱSectionȱA.4ȱexploresȱhowȱimȬ ageȱschemataȱstructureȱmentalȱspacesȱbyȱactivatingȱbackgroundȱknowȬ ledgeȱofȱtheȱworld.ȱ Chapterȱ2,ȱsectionȱBȱdiscussesȱpropheticȱtextȱandȱperspective.ȱPersȬ pectiveȱ isȱ aȱ linguisticȱ construalȱ operationȱ thatȱ originatesȱ fromȱ emboȬ diedȱ humanȱ experience.ȱ Thisȱ sectionȱ explainsȱ howȱ viewpoint,ȱ deixis,ȱ andȱ perspectiveȱ andȱ nonȬspatialȱ domainsȱ affectȱ theȱ construalȱ ofȱ proȬ pheticȱtext.ȱȱ

ȱ

Conclusionsȱ

233ȱ

Chapterȱ 2,ȱ sectionȱ Cȱ usesȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.6Ȭ3.11ȱ asȱ aȱ sampleȱ textȱ forȱ aȱ trialȱ runȱ ofȱ theȱ TDȱ approach.ȱ Theȱ mainȱ contributionȱ ofȱ thisȱ sectionȱ isȱ theȱ introductionȱ theȱ ascendant,ȱ recursiveȱ TDȱ clauseȱ analysis.ȱ Theȱ disȬ cussionȱalsoȱaddressesȱsomeȱcomplexitiesȱofȱclauseȱlinkage,ȱandȱelaboȬ ratesȱuponȱSchneider’sȱdifferentiationȱbetweenȱnarrativeȱandȱdiscursiveȱ text.ȱResearchȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱlanguageȱtypologyȱandȱuniversalsȱprovidesȱ insightsȱ intoȱ clauseȱ linkageȱ thatȱ isȱ usefulȱ forȱ crossȬlinguisticȱ researchȱ andȱ forȱ understandingȱ theȱ connectionsȱ betweenȱ theȱ clausesȱ inȱ theȱ TDȱ analysis.ȱ Thisȱchapterȱelaboratesȱuponȱtheȱinformationȱstructureȱcategoriesȱofȱ topicȱ andȱ focus,ȱ whichȱ areȱ integralȱ toȱ theȱ TDȱ approach.ȱ MSTȱ isȱ alsoȱ importantȱ forȱ theȱ TDȱ approach,ȱ andȱ thisȱ chapterȱ describesȱ cognitiveȱ structuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11ȱbyȱexplainingȱhowȱspeechȱframesȱopenȱ andȱ structureȱ mentalȱ spaces.ȱ Theȱ chapterȱ alsoȱ providesȱ aȱ preliminaryȱ exampleȱ ofȱ howȱ theȱ TDȱ analysisȱ accountsȱ forȱ theȱ recursiveȱ blendingȱ processȱinvolvedȱinȱreadingȱBHȱpropheticȱtext.ȱȱ Chapterȱ3:ȱTraditionalȱandȱCognitiveȱApproachesȱtoȱBHȱGrammarȱ Theȱ reȬconceptualisationȱ diagramȱ inȱ Figureȱ 1.3ȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ grammarȱisȱaȱsignificantȱlinkȱbetweenȱtheȱoriginatorȱandȱreaderȱofȱtext.ȱ Forȱ theȱ originatorsȱ andȱ readersȱ ofȱ BHȱ text,ȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ grammarȱ createsȱ andȱ strengthensȱ thisȱ connection.ȱ Sinceȱ TDȱ isȱ aȱ cognitiveȱ apȬ proach,ȱaȱcognitiveȱapproachȱtoȱBHȱgrammarȱisȱdesirable.ȱWhileȱcreatȬ ingȱanȱentireȱcognitiveȱgrammarȱofȱBHȱisȱbeyondȱtheȱscopeȱofȱthisȱvoȬ lume,ȱanȱinitialȱabbreviatedȱforayȱintoȱtheȱsubjectȱisȱnecessary.ȱ Chapterȱ3ȱpresentsȱthreeȱgrammaticalȱtheoriesȱthatȱexploreȱtheȱconȬ nectionȱ betweenȱ syntaxȱ andȱ grammaticalȱ constructions.ȱ Roleȱ andȱ RefȬ erenceȱGrammarȱactsȱasȱaȱlinkȱbetweenȱtraditionalȱgrammarȱandȱcogniȬ tiveȱ grammar.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ RRGȱ assessmentȱ ofȱ verbȬspecificȱ semanticȱroles,ȱwhichȱisȱanȱassessmentȱthatȱdependsȱuponȱbothȱsyntaxȱ andȱ semantics.ȱ Asȱ itsȱ nameȱ implies,ȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ explainsȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ languageȱ processing,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ relationshipȱ beȬ tweenȱgrammarȱandȱperceptionȱcreatedȱbyȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱfigureȬgroundȱ distinctionȱ inȱ grammaticalȱ description.ȱ Finally,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ shortȱ introȬ ductionȱtoȱconstructionȱgrammar.ȱ Chapterȱ3ȱdescribesȱcognitiveȱapproachesȱtoȱBHȱtermsȱofȱperceptionȱ andȱ cognition.ȱ Thisȱ sectionȱ describesȱ theȱ RRGȱ assessmentȱ ofȱ verbȬ specificȱ semanticȱ roles,ȱ thematicȱ relationsȱ andȱ semanticȱ macroȬroles,ȱ suchȱ asȱ actorȱ andȱ undergoer,ȱ andȱ theirȱ relationshipȱ toȱ grammaticalȱ rolesȱsuchȱasȱsubjectȱandȱobject.ȱTheȱsectionȱalsoȱdetailsȱtheȱfeaturesȱofȱ

234ȱ

ȱConclusionsȱ

prototypicalȱ situationsȱ andȱ givesȱ anȱ initialȱ assessmentȱ ofȱ perceptionȱ andȱcognitionȱtermsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱ ThisȱsectionȱcontainsȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱBHȱverbalȱsystem.ȱTheȱsecȬ tionȱconsistsȱofȱanȱoverview,ȱdefinitionsȱofȱterms,ȱanȱexaminationȱofȱtheȱ tenseȱ versusȱ aspectȱ debateȱ andȱ aȱ proposalȱ forȱ mappingȱ theȱ syntaxȬ semanticsȱ interface.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ sectionȱ introducesȱ cognitiveȱ addiȬ tionsȱ toȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ spaceȱ andȱ timeȱ inȱ BHȱ text.ȱ Thisȱ includesȱ aȱ descriptionȱofȱaȱcognitiveȱmetaphorȱforȱtime,ȱtheȱ TIMEȱISȱMOTIONȱmetaȬ phorȱ andȱ appliesȱ itȱ toȱ theȱ BHȱ verb.ȱ Theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ aspectȱ isȱ elaboȬ ratedȱuponȱbyȱutilisingȱtheȱ TIMEȱISȱSPACEȱconceptualȱmetaphor.ȱFinally,ȱȱ theȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱmetaphorȱisȱ broughtȱtoȱbearȱ uponȱtheȱ BHȱVerb.ȱ Theȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ SPACEȱ metaphorȱ contributesȱ toȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ inherentȱ propertiesȱ ofȱmatterȱandȱaȱsentenceȬlevelȱunderstandingȱofȱBHȱ aspect.ȱ Aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ inherentȱ propertiesȱ ofȱ matterȱ andȱ BHȱ discourseȱ structureȱfollows.ȱ Chapterȱ 3,ȱ sectionȱ Eȱ introducesȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ binyanȱ system.ȱ Traditionalȱ categoriesȱ provideȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ concepȬ tualȱblendingȱoperationȱinvolvedȱinȱvariousȱgrammaticalȱconstructions.ȱ Chapterȱ3ȱ outlinesȱtheȱbasicȱ categoriesȱforȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ andȱ theȱ BHȱverb,ȱandȱprovidesȱaȱstartingȬpointȱforȱfurtherȱresearchȱintoȱcogniȬ tiveȱgrammarȱandȱBH.ȱ Chapterȱ4:ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ Chaptersȱ4ȱthroughȱ6ȱcontainȱaȱfullȱTDȱanalysisȱofȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30.ȱToȱ organiseȱ theȱ chaptersȱ forȱ thisȱ analysis,ȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ dividedȱ intoȱ threeȱ sectionsȱ basedȱ uponȱ textȬlevelȱ shiftsȱ inȱ textȬtype.ȱ (Sectionȱ A,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ3.25;ȱ Sectionȱ B,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.1Ȭ4.31ȱ andȱ Sectionȱ C,ȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.1Ȭ6.30)ȱ Chaptersȱ4ȱandȱ5ȱcoverȱsectionȱA,ȱwhileȱchapterȱ6ȱcoversȱsectionsȱBȱandȱ C.ȱ Inȱ eachȱ chapterȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ diagramsȱ modelsȱ theȱ viewingȱ arrangeȬ mentȱofȱeachȱsectionȱandȱtheȱemergentȱcognitiveȱnetworkȱevidentȱinȱtheȱ textȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱSpecialȱattentionȱisȱgivenȱtoȱperspectiveȬinducingȱtermsȱ andȱconstructions.ȱ Chapterȱ4,ȱsectionȱAȱexaminesȱtheȱroleȱofȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3ȱinȱestabȬ lishingȱ textȬlevelȱ perspective.ȱ Theȱ narrator’sȱ perspectiveȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱconstruesȱtheȱground,ȱorȱbaseȱspace,ȱforȱtheȱtextȬlevelȱcommuniȬ cationȱ event.ȱ Cognitiveȱ constructionȱ inȱ thisȱ sectionȱ isȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ constructȱ andȱ prepositionalȱ phrasesȱ thatȱ delimitȱ theȱ spatioȬ temporalȱ boundariesȱ ofȱ theȱ reportedȱ communicationȱ event.ȱ Theseȱ grammaticalȱ featuresȱ indicateȱ thatȱ theȱ containmentȱ schemaȱ isȱ usedȱ toȱ structureȱ theȱ mentalȱ spacesȱ construction,ȱ asȱ theyȱ evokeȱ theȱ TIMEȱ ISȱ Aȱ CONTAINERȱconceptualȱmetaphor.ȱ

ȱ

Conclusionsȱ

235ȱ

Thisȱ chapterȱ discussesȱ spaceȬbuildingȱ termsȱ thatȱ occurȱ withinȱ JeȬ remiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3.ȱPerspectiveȱinȱthisȱsectionȱshiftsȱtoȱJeremiahȱasȱfirstȱperȬ sonȱ speaker,ȱ whichȱ opensȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ embeddedȱ mentalȱ spaces.ȱ Theȱ sectionȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ BHȱ textȬdeicticȱ termsȱ openȱ primaryȱ levelȱ spaces,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱspeechȱdomainsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4,ȱ1.11,ȱ1.13,ȱandȱ2.1.ȱ Verbsȱ ofȱ communicationȱ openȱ secondaryȱ levelȱ speechȱ domains,ȱ andȱ verbsȱofȱperceptionȱandȱcognitionȱopenȱspacesȱbasedȱuponȱknowledge,ȱ beliefȱ andȱ attitude.ȱ Variousȱ levelsȱ ofȱ embeddingȱ occur,ȱ andȱ areȱ modȬ elledȱinȱtheȱseriesȱofȱdiagrams.ȱ Anotherȱ keyȱ componentȱ ofȱ thisȱ chapterȱ isȱ theȱ introductionȱ ofȱ ȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ andȱ literaryȱ metaphor,ȱ utiȬ lisingȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.13ȱ asȱ anȱ example.ȱ Conceptualȱ metaphor,ȱ whichȱ isȱ aȱ productȱ ofȱ humanȱ experience,ȱ isȱ notȱ identicalȱ toȱ literaryȱ metaphor.ȱ However,ȱliteraryȱmetaphorȱisȱoftenȱanȱinstantiationȱofȱconceptualȱmeȬ taphor.ȱ(Thisȱdiscussionȱresumesȱinȱchapterȱ5ȱsectionȱB.)ȱȱ Cognitiveȱ constructionȱ inȱ chapterȱ 4ȱ occursȱ atȱ severalȱ levels.ȱ JereȬ miahȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ formsȱ theȱ baseȬspaceȱ forȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ network.ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.4Ȭ2.1ȱcontainsȱprimaryȱlevelȱsubȬspaces,ȱorȱspeechȱdomains,ȱandȱsecȬ ondaryȱ levelȱ embeddedȱ spacesȱ basedȱ uponȱ perceptionȱ andȱ cognition.ȱ TheȱLORDȱisȱpresentedȱasȱspeechȬactȱparticipantȱ1,ȱandȱJeremiahȱisȱpreȬ sentedȱasȱspeechȬactȱparticipantȱ2,ȱsettingȱupȱaȱrelationshipȱthatȱisȱimȬ portantȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱsectionsȱofȱtext.ȱȱ Chapterȱ5:ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35ȱ Chapterȱ5ȱcontinuesȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱcognitiveȱstructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30ȱwithȱanȱexaminationȱofȱtheȱfourthȱspeechȱdomain.ȱOnceȱagain,ȱ thereȱisȱaȱshiftȱinȱperspectiveȱ(seeȱFigureȱ5.2).ȱInȱthisȱsection,ȱJerusalemȱ emergesȱasȱspeechȬactȱparticipantȱ3,ȱwhileȱJeremiahȱandȱtheȱLORDȱconȬ joinȱasȱaȱcomplexȱspeakerȱ–ȱaȱspeakerȱwithȱoneȱvoice,ȱbutȱtwoȱperspecȬ tivesȱ(basedȱuponȱtheirȱrespectiveȱdeicticȱcentres).ȱ Chapterȱ 5ȱ describesȱ theȱ shiftȱ inȱ perspectiveȱ thatȱ governsȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.1Ȭ3.2.ȱ Theȱ originatorȱ assignsȱ perspectiveȱ toȱ theȱ variousȱ charactersȱ inȱ thisȱ section.ȱ Theȱ conceptualȱ scopingȱ thatȱ occursȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ2.2ȱ contributesȱtoȱachievingȱhumanȱscale,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱfoundationalȱprincipleȱ inȱconceptualȱblendingȱ theoryȱThisȱprincipleȱhelpsȱtoȱexplainȱhowȱtheȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ disproportionateȱ charactersȱ isȱ reconciledȱ byȱ portrayingȱ themȱ asȱ humanȬscaleȱ speechȱ actȱ participants.ȱ Aȱ fullȱ TDȱ analysisȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 2.1Ȭ2.3,ȱ includingȱ syntax,ȱ semanticsȱ andȱ informaȬ tionȱ structure,ȱ cognitiveȱ constructionȱandȱ conceptualȱmetaphorȱ occursȱ inȱ thisȱ section.ȱ Theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ literaryȱ metaphorȱ andȱ concepȬ tualȱ metaphorȱ isȱ addressedȱ utilisingȱJeremiahȱ2.2Ȭ2.3ȱasȱ aȱsampleȱ text.ȱ

236ȱ

ȱConclusionsȱ

Thisȱleadsȱintoȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱconceptualȱmetaphor.ȱChapterȱ5,ȱsectionȱ B.5ȱintroducesȱtheȱaddresseesȱandȱtheȱproblemȱofȱidentity.ȱ(ThisȱdiscusȬ sionȱresumesȱinȱsectionȱG)ȱ Chapterȱ 5ȱ alsoȱ presentsȱ examplesȱ ofȱ virtualȱ visualȱ scanningȱ inȱ JeȬ remiahȱ 2.4Ȭ2.9ȱ andȱ 2.10.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ exampleȱ illustratesȱ scopingȱ fromȱ huȬ manȱscaleȱandȱtheȱimportantȱroleȱofȱcounterfactuals,ȱdemonstratingȱtheȱ roleȱ ofȱ MSTȱ inȱ modellingȱ humanȱ reasoning.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ exampleȱ inȬ cludesȱanȱexplanationȱofȱtheȱpathȱandȱforceȱimageȱschemata.ȱChapterȱ5ȱ proposesȱ aȱ solutionȱ toȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ identityȱ utilisingȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.6Ȭ 3.11/12ȱasȱaȱsampleȱtext.ȱTheȱproposedȱsolutionȱhighlightsȱtheȱinteracȬ tionȱbetweenȱprimaryȱlevelȱcitationȱformulaeȱandȱembeddedȱtext,ȱbasedȱ onȱcognitiveȱlinkingȱofȱdiscourseȱreferents.ȱThisȱisȱusefulȱforȱmodellingȱ theȱ interrelationshipȱ betweenȱ variousȱ textȱ originators,ȱ suchȱ asȱ authorȱ andȱredactor.ȱAdditionally,ȱchapterȱ5ȱdescribesȱspaceȱbuildingȱinȱpoeticȱ textȱ byȱ examiningȱ Jeremiahȱ 3.19Ȭ3.20.ȱ Thisȱ sectionȱ concentratesȱ uponȱ verbsȱofȱspeakingȱandȱtheirȱcognitiveȱextensionȱbyȱdiscussingȱtheȱfuncȬ tionȱofȱtheȱtermȱTO ,ȱtoȱspeak.ȱ Chapterȱ6:ȱCognitiveȱStructuringȱinȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30ȱ Chapterȱ 6ȱ describesȱ theȱ shiftȱ inȱ textȬtypeȱ thatȱ occursȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.1Ȭ 6.30,ȱ whereȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ predominatelyȱ discursiveȱ ratherȱ thanȱ narrative.ȱ Significantly,ȱdiscursiveȱ textȱdiffersȱfromȱ narrativeȱtextȱ inȱthatȱ itȱ oftenȱ featuresȱ firstȱ andȱ secondȱ personȱ referencesȱ thatȱ drawȱ theȱ readerȱ intoȱ theȱtext.ȱThisȱsectionȱisȱaȱcontinuationȱofȱtheȱfourthȱspeechȱdomain.ȱ Chapterȱ6,ȱsectionȱAȱusesȱexamplesȱdrawnȱfromȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31ȱtoȱ exploreȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ discursiveȱ textȱ andȱ perspective.ȱ Inȱ Jeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.2,ȱvoiceȱbelongsȱtoȱtheȱcomplexȱspeakerȱandȱperspectiveȱ isȱ assignedȱ toȱ theȱ LORD.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ conditionalȱ spaceȱ structuredȱ byȱ theȱ path,ȱcentreȬperipheryȱandȱcontainmentȱschemata.ȱInȱJeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.18ȱ (4.19Ȭ4.21),ȱvoiceȱbelongsȱtoȱtheȱcomplexȱspeaker,ȱbutȱatȱtimesȱitȱisȱdiffiȬ cultȱ toȱ distinguishȱ whoseȱ perspectiveȱ isȱ beingȱ expressed.ȱ Theȱ centreȬ peripheryȱ schemaȱ structuresȱ thisȱ section.ȱ Inȱ Jeremiahȱ 4.23Ȭ4.26,ȱ voiceȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ complexȱ speakerȱ andȱ perspectiveȱ isȱ assignedȱ toȱ JereȬ miah.ȱ Thisȱ sectionȱ describesȱ deȬcreation,ȱ unȬplantingȱ andȱ unȬbuildingȱ thatȱ occurȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ Lord’sȱ responseȱ toȱ theȱ unfaithfulnessȱ ofȱ theȱ people.ȱ Thisȱ sectionȱ isȱ anȱ instantiationȱ ofȱ theȱ ANGERȱ ISȱ Aȱ HOTȱ FLUIDȱ INȱ ANȱENCLOSEDȱCONTAINERȱconceptualȱmetaphor.ȱ Chapterȱ 6,ȱ sectionȱ Bȱ explainsȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ embeddedȱ quotationȱandȱperspectiveȱusingȱexamplesȱfromȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.14.ȱTheȱ embeddedȱ quotationȱ spacesȱ areȱ theȱ mostȱ deeplyȱ nestedȱ andȱ drawȱ theȱ readerȱmoreȱfullyȱintoȱtheȱsituationȱatȱhand.ȱImageȱschemataȱandȱcogniȬ

ȱ

Conclusionsȱ

237ȱ

tiveȱ metaphorsȱ proliferateȱ inȱ theseȱ examples.ȱ Theȱ path,ȱ centreȬ periphery,ȱcontainmentȱandȱforceȱschemataȱstructureȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.14.ȱ Additionally,ȱ theȱ PEOPLEȱ AREȱ ANIMALS,ȱ SOCIALȱ ORGANISATIONSȱ AREȱ PLANTS,ȱandȱ ANGERȱISȱAȱBOILINGȱLIQUIDȱ conceptualȱmetaphorsȱstructureȱ theȱ examples.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ alsoȱ theȱ caseȱ forȱ theȱ examplesȱ drawnȱ fromȱ JereȬ miahȱ6.1Ȭ6.15.ȱHowever,ȱaȱknowledgeȱframeȱfromȱtheȱareaȱofȱmetallurȬ gyȱ structuresȱ Jeremiahȱ 6.27Ȭ6.30.ȱ Theseȱ examplesȱ highlightȱ theȱ contriȬ butionȱ ofȱ frames,ȱ imageȱ schemataȱ andȱ conceptualȱ metaphorȱ toȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ networkȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 5.1Ȭ6.30.ȱ Theȱ chapterȱ concludesȱ withȱ Figureȱ 6.3,ȱ aȱ chartȱ thatȱ summarisesȱ theȱ containment,ȱ force,ȱ path,ȱ andȱ centreȬperipheryȱ schemataȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ andȱ aȱ summaryȱ ofȱ ABȬ STRACTȱCOMPLEXȱSYSTEMSȱMETAPHORSȱandȱimageȱschemataȱthatȱappearsȱ atȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱchapter.ȱ

Conclusionsȱ TheȱTDȱapproachȱcontributesȱtoȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱBHȱpropheticȱtextȱ inȱ severalȱ ways.ȱ First,ȱ byȱ reȬconceptualisingȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ originator,ȱtextȱandȱreaderȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱreȬanalyseȱtheȱlinksȱbetweenȱ originatorȱ andȱ reader.ȱ Theȱ analogicalȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ embodiedȱ humansȱ isȱ particularlyȱ compelling,ȱ asȱ illustratedȱ byȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ imageȱ schemata,ȱ framesȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ modelsȱ withinȱ theȱ text.ȱ Byȱ exȬ aminingȱ theȱ textȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ MST,ȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ modelȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ constructionȱ underlyingȱ theȱ text.ȱ Sinceȱ spaceȱ buildingȱ termsȱ andȱ conȬ structionsȱ indicateȱ bothȱ primaryȱ andȱ embeddedȱ mentalȱ spaces,ȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ modelȱ theȱ variousȱ spacesȱ usingȱ figureȬgroundȱ diagrams.ȱ Conceptualȱ scopingȱ toȱ (andȱ from)ȱ humanȱ scaleȱ helpsȱ toȱ explainȱ theȱ discrepanciesȱbetweenȱprimaryȱspeechȬactȱparticipantsȱwithinȱtheȱtextȱ–ȱ ontologicallyȱ speaking,ȱ theȱ Lord,ȱ Jeremiah,ȱ andȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Jerusalemȱ areȱ veryȱ differentȱ things.ȱ However,ȱ whenȱ theȱ threeȱ appearȱ asȱhumanȬ scaleȱspeechȬactȱparticipants,ȱcognitiveȱreorientationȱallowsȱforȱaȱmoreȱ comprehensiveȱunderstandingȱforȱtheirȱinterrelationship.ȱȱ Cognitiveȱ linguisticsȱ andȱ cognitiveȱ grammarȱ areȱ relativelyȱ newȱ fields,ȱandȱdiscoveriesȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱcognitiveȱscienceȱareȱongoing,ȱthusȱ openingȱ newȱ avenuesȱ ofȱ researchȱ forȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ studies,ȱ parȬ ticularlyȱinȱtheȱareasȱofȱgrammar,ȱlinguistics,ȱandȱconceptualȱblending.ȱ Itȱ isȱ hopedȱ thatȱ theȱ TDȱ analysisȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30ȱ presentedȱ inȱ thisȱ volumeȱ willȱ openȱ theȱ doorȱaȱ bitȱ wider,ȱ allowingȱfurtherȱevaluationȱ ofȱȱ theȱstrengthsȱandȱweaknessesȱofȱtheȱcognitiveȱapproachȱtoȱBHȱtext.ȱ ȱ

Bibliographyȱ ȱ Abma,ȱR.ȱBondsȱofȱLove:ȱMethodicȱStudiesȱofȱPropheticȱTextsȱwithȱMarriageȱImageryȱ (Isaiahȱ50:ȱ1Ȭ3ȱandȱ54:1Ȭ10,ȱHoseaȱ1Ȭ3,ȱJeremiahȱ2Ȭ3).ȱStudiaȱSemiticaȱNeerlanȬ dica;ȱ40.ȱAssen:ȱVanȱGorcum,ȱ1999.ȱ Aejmelaeus,ȱ Anneli.ȱ “Functionȱ andȱ Interpretationȱ ofȱ ‘Ki’ȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew.”ȱ JBLȱ105ȱ(1986):ȱ193Ȭ209.ȱ Albertz,ȱ Rainer.ȱ “Jer.ȱ 2Ȭ6ȱ undȱ dieȱ Frühzeitverkündigungȱ Jeremias.“ȱ ZAWȱ 94ȱ (1982):ȱ20Ȭ47.ȱ Alter,ȱ Robertȱ andȱ Frankȱ Kermode.ȱ Theȱ Literaryȱ Guideȱ toȱ theȱ Bible.ȱ Cambridge,ȱ Mass:ȱBelknapȱPressȱofȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1987.ȱ Andersen,ȱ Francisȱ I.ȱ Theȱ Hebrewȱ Verblessȱ Clauseȱ inȱ theȱ Pentateuch.ȱ JBLMSȱ 14.ȱ Nashville:ȱ Publishedȱ forȱ theȱ Societyȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literatureȱ byȱ Abingdonȱ Press,ȱ1970.ȱ Arnold,ȱBillȱT.ȱandȱJohnȱH.ȱChoi.ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax.ȱCambridge:ȱ CUP,ȱ2003.ȱ ȱ Bache,ȱ Carl.ȱ “Aspectȱ andȱ Aktionsart:ȱ Towardsȱ aȱ Semanticȱ Distinction.”ȱ JLȱ 18ȱ (1982):ȱ57Ȭ72.ȱ Bailenson,ȱJeremyȱ N.,ȱ Andrewȱ C.ȱ Beallȱ andȱ Jimȱ Blascovich.ȱGazeȱ andȱ Taskȱ PerȬ formanceȱ inȱ Sharedȱ Virtualȱ Environments.ȱ 2002.ȱ Accessed.ȱ Availableȱ fromȱ http://www.stanford.edu/~bailenso/papers/VCA%20Gaze.pdf.ȱ Barton,ȱJohn.ȱ ReadingȱtheȱOldȱTestament:ȱMethodȱinȱBiblicalȱ Study.ȱ London:ȱDarȬ tonȱLongmanȱ&ȱTodd,ȱ1984.ȱ Batistella,ȱEdwinȱL.ȱTheȱLogicȱofȱMarkedness.ȱNewȱYork:ȱOUP,ȱ1996.ȱ Bergen,ȱ Robertȱ D.ȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Discourseȱ Linguistics.ȱ Dallas:ȱ Summerȱ InstituteȱofȱLinguistics,ȱ1994.ȱ Berlin,ȱAdele.ȱPoeticsȱandȱInterpretationȱofȱBiblicalȱNarrative.ȱBibleȱandȱLiteratureȱ Series,ȱ9.ȱSheffield:ȱAlmondȱPress,ȱ1983.ȱ ________.ȱ Theȱ Dynamicsȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Parallelism.ȱ Bloomington,ȱ Ind:ȱ Indianaȱ UniȬ versityȱPress,ȱ1985.ȱ Bhat,ȱD.ȱN.ȱTheȱProminenceȱofȱTense,ȱAspect,ȱandȱMood.ȱAmsterdam:ȱJohnȱBenjaȬ mins,ȱ1999.ȱ Biddle,ȱ Mark.ȱ “Aȱ Redactionȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ 2:1ȱ Ȭȱ 4:2.”ȱ Doctoralȱ Thesis,ȱ UniversityȱofȱZürichȱ1988,ȱTheologischerȱVerlag,ȱ1989.ȱ

240ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

________.ȱ Polyphonyȱ andȱ Symphonyȱ inȱ Propheticȱ Literature:ȱ Rereadingȱ Jeremiahȱ 7Ȭ 20.ȱMacon:ȱMaconȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996.ȱ Binnick,ȱRobertȱI.ȱTimeȱandȱtheȱVerb:ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱTenseȱandȱAspect.ȱNewȱYorkȱandȱ Oxford:ȱOUP,ȱ1991.ȱ ________.ȱ Projectȱ onȱ Annotatedȱ Bibliographyȱ ofȱ Contemporaryȱ Researchȱ inȱ Tense,ȱ GrammaticalȱAspect,ȱAktionsart,ȱandȱRelatedȱAreas.ȱ2002.ȱAccessed.ȱAvailable:ȱ http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~binnick/TENSE.ȱ Blokland,ȱ A.ȱ T.ȱ denȱ exter.ȱ Inȱ Searchȱ ofȱ Textȱ Syntax:ȱ Towardsȱ aȱ Syntacticȱ TextȬ SegmentationȱModelȱforȱBiblicalȱHebrew.ȱAmsterdam:ȱVUȱPress,ȱ1995.ȱ Bodine,ȱ Walterȱ Ray.ȱ Linguisticsȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew.ȱ Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ Ind:ȱ EisenȬ brauns,ȱ1992.ȱ ________.ȱ Discourseȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literature:ȱ Whatȱ Itȱ Isȱ andȱ Whatȱ Itȱ Offers.ȱ SemeiaȱStudies.ȱAtlanta:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1995.ȱ Borowski,ȱOded.ȱDailyȱLifeȱinȱBiblicalȱTimes.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003.ȱ Brisard,ȱ Frank.ȱ Grounding:ȱ Theȱ Epistemicȱ Footingȱ ofȱ Deixisȱ andȱ Reference.ȱ CognitiveȱLinguisticsȱResearch;ȱ21.ȱBerlin:ȱM.ȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2002.ȱ Brockelmann,ȱC.ȱ“Dieȱ‘Tempora‘ȱdesȱSemitischen.“ȱZPȱ3ȱ(1951):ȱ10Ȭ154.ȱ Bühler,ȱ Karl.ȱ ”Theȱ Deicticȱ Fieldȱ ofȱ Languageȱ andȱ Deicticȱ Words.”ȱ Inȱ Speech,ȱ Place,ȱandȱAction:ȱStudiesȱinȱDeixisȱandȱRelatedȱTopics,ȱeds.ȱR.ȱJ.ȱJarvellaȱandȱ W.ȱKlein,ȱ9Ȭ30.ȱChichester:ȱJohnȱWileyȱandȱSons,ȱ1982.ȱ Bussman,ȱ Hadumon.ȱ Routledgeȱ Dictionaryȱ ofȱ Languageȱ andȱ Linguistics.ȱ London:ȱ Routledge,ȱ1996.ȱ Buth,ȱ Randall.ȱ ”Topicȱ andȱ Focusȱ inȱ HebrewȱPoetry:ȱ Psalmȱ 51.”ȱ Inȱ Languageȱ inȱ Context:ȱEssaysȱforȱRobertȱE.ȱLongacre,ȱeds.ȱShinȱJaȱJooȱHwangȱandȱWilliamȱ R.ȱ Merrifield,ȱ 83Ȭ96.ȱ Arlington:ȱ Summerȱ Instituteȱ ofȱ Linguisticsȱ andȱ theȱ UniversityȱofȱTexasȱatȱArlington,ȱ1992.ȱ ________.ȱ“WordȱOrderȱinȱtheȱVerblessȱClause:ȱAȱFunctionalȱApproach.”ȱInȱTheȱ VerblessȱClauseȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrew:ȱLinguisticȱApproaches,ȱed.ȱCynthiaȱL.ȱMilȬ ler,ȱ79Ȭ108.ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱIndiana:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1999.ȱ Bybee,ȱJoanȱL.,ȱRevereȱPerkinsȱandȱWilliamȱPagliuca.ȱTheȱEvolutionȱofȱGrammar:ȱ Tense,ȱ Aspect,ȱ andȱ Modalityȱ inȱ theȱ Languagesȱ ofȱ theȱ World.ȱ Chicago:ȱ UCP,ȱ 1994.ȱ ȱ Carroll,ȱ Lewisȱ andȱ Hughȱ Haughton.ȱ Aliceȇsȱ Adventuresȱ inȱ Wonderland.ȱ CenteȬ naryȱed.ȱPenguinȱClassics.ȱLondon:ȱPenguin,ȱ1998.ȱ Carroll,ȱRobertȱP.ȱJeremiah:ȱAȱCommentary.ȱOldȱTestamentȱLibrary.ȱPhiladelphia:ȱ Westminster,ȱ1986.ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

241ȱ

Cloete,ȱ Walterȱ Theophilusȱ Woldemar.ȱ Versificationȱ andȱ Syntaxȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2Ȭ25:ȱ Syntacticalȱ Constraintsȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ Colometry.ȱ Atlanta,ȱ Ga:ȱ Scholarsȱ Press,ȱ 1989.ȱ Collins,ȱJohnȱJ.ȱTheȱBibleȱafterȱBabel.ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱMichigan:ȱEerdmans,ȱ2005.ȱ Collins,ȱ Terence.ȱ LineȬFormsȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ Poetry:ȱ Aȱ Grammaticalȱ Approachȱ toȱ theȱ Stylisticȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Prophets.ȱ Studiaȱ Pohl.ȱ Seriesȱ Maior;ȱ 7.ȱ Rome:ȱ BiblicalȱInstituteȱPress,ȱ1978.ȱ Comrie,ȱBernard.ȱAspect:ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱStudyȱofȱVerbalȱAspectȱandȱRelatedȱ Problems.ȱ Cambridgeȱ Textbooksȱ inȱ Linguistics.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1976.ȱ ________.ȱTense.ȱCambridgeȱTextbooksȱinȱLinguistics.ȱCambridge:ȱCUP,ȱ1985.ȱ Cook,ȱ Johnȱ A.ȱ “Theȱ Hebrewȱ Verb:ȱ AȱGrammaticalizationȱApproach.”ȱ ZAHȱ 14ȱ (2001):ȱ117Ȭ144.ȱ ________.ȱ“TheȱUseȱofȱWayyiqtolȱinȱHebrewȱPoetry.”ȱSBL,ȱAtlantaȱȱ(2003).ȱ Cotterell,ȱ Peterȱ andȱ Maxȱ Turner.ȱ Linguisticsȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ Interpretation.ȱ London:ȱ SPCK,ȱ1989.ȱ Croft,ȱWilliamȱandȱD.ȱA.ȱCruse.ȱCognitiveȱ Linguistics.ȱCambridgeȱTextbooksȱinȱ Linguistics.ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2004.ȱ Cruse,ȱD.ȱA.ȱPragmatics.ȱOxford:ȱOUP,ȱ2000.ȱ ȱ Damasio,ȱAntonioȱR.ȱDescartes’ȱError.ȱNewȱYork:ȱHarperCollins,ȱ2000.ȱ DeȱBeaugrande,ȱRobertȱandȱWolfgangȱU.ȱDressler.ȱIntroductionȱtoȱTextȱLinguisȬ tics.ȱLongmanȱLinguisticsȱLibraryȱ26.ȱLondon:ȱLongman,ȱ1981.ȱ deȱRegt,ȱLenartȱJ.ȱ“DomainsȱandȱSubdomainsȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrew.”ȱInȱNarrativeȱ andȱ Comment:ȱ Contributionsȱ toȱ Discourseȱ Grammarȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew,ȱ ed.ȱ Eepȱ Talstra,ȱ 147Ȭ161.ȱ Amsterdam:ȱ Societasȱ Hebraicaȱ Amstelodamensis,ȱ 1995.ȱ ________.ȱ “Macrosyntacticȱ Functionsȱ ofȱ Nominalȱ Clausesȱ Referringȱ toȱ ParticiȬ pants.”ȱInȱTheȱVerblessȱClauseȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrew,ȱed.ȱCynthiaȱL.ȱMiller,ȱ273Ȭ 296.ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1999.ȱ Diamond,ȱ A.ȱ R.ȱ andȱ K.ȱ M.ȱ OȇConnor.ȱ “Unfaithfulȱ Passions:ȱ Codingȱ Womenȱ Codingȱ Menȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ 2ȱ Ȭȱ 3ȱ (4.2).”ȱ Inȱ Troublingȱ Jeremiah,ȱ eds.ȱ A.ȱ R.ȱ DiȬ amond,ȱK.ȱM.ȱOȇConnor,ȱL.ȱStulmanȱandȱSBL.ȱCompositionȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱ JeremiahȱGroup,ȱ123Ȭ145.ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1999.ȱ DobbsȬAllsop,ȱF.ȱW.ȱ“BiblicalȱHebrewȱStativesȱandȱSituationȱAspect.”ȱJSSȱXLVȱ (2000):ȱ21Ȭ52.ȱ Douglas,ȱMary.ȱPurityȱandȱDanger:ȱAnȱAnalysisȱofȱConceptsȱofȱPollutionȱandȱTaboo.ȱ London:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2003.ȱ

242ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Doyle,ȱBrian.ȱTheȱApocalypseȱofȱIsaiahȱMetaphoricallyȱSpeaking:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱtheȱUse,ȱ Function,ȱandȱSignificanceȱofȱMetaphorsȱinȱIsaiahȱ24Ȭ27.ȱLeuven:ȱPeeters,ȱ2000.ȱ Driver,ȱS.ȱR.ȱandȱW.ȱRandallȱGarr.ȱAȱTreatiseȱonȱtheȱUseȱofȱtheȱTensesȱinȱHebrewȱ andȱ Someȱ Otherȱ Syntacticalȱ Questions.ȱ Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ Mich.:ȱ Williamȱ B.ȱ Eerdmans,ȱ1998.ȱ ȱ Ehlich,ȱKonrad.ȱVerwendungenȱderȱDeixisȱBeimȱSprachlichenȱHandeln:ȱLinguistischȬ PhilologischeȱUntersuchungenȱZumȱHebräischenȱDeiktischenȱSystem.ȱFrankfurtȱ amȱMainȱandȱLasȱVegas:ȱP.ȱLang,ȱ1979.ȱ ________.ȱ“AnaphoraȱandȱDeixis:ȱSame,ȱSimilar,ȱorȱDifferent?”ȱInȱSpeech,ȱPlace,ȱ andȱ Action,ȱ eds.ȱ R.ȱ J.ȱ Jarvellaȱ andȱ Wolfgangȱ Klein,ȱ 315Ȭ338.ȱ Chichester:ȱ Wiley,ȱ1982.ȱ Ellinger,ȱK.ȱ“DerȱSinnȱdesȱHebräischenȱWortesȱȇSFYȇ.“ȱZAWȱ83ȱ(1971):ȱ317Ȭ329.ȱ Emerton,ȱJ.ȱA.ȱ“SamuelȱRollesȱDriver,ȱ1846Ȭ1914.”ȱInȱAȱCenturyȱofȱBritishȱOrienȬ talistsȱ1902Ȭ2001,ȱed.ȱC.ȱE.ȱBosworth,ȱ122Ȭ138.ȱOxford:ȱOUP,ȱ2001.ȱ Ewald,ȱHeinrich.ȱSyntaxȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestament.ȱTranslatedȱ byȱ Jamesȱ Kennedy.ȱ Edinburgh:ȱ Tȱ andȱ Tȱ Clark,ȱ 1881.ȱ Reprint,ȱ Georgiasȱ Press,ȱ2005.ȱ Exum,ȱ J.ȱ Cherylȱ andȱ Davidȱ J.ȱ A.ȱ Clines.ȱ Theȱ Newȱ Literaryȱ Criticismȱ andȱ theȱ HeȬ brewȱBible.ȱJSOTȱSupȱ143.ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1993.ȱ ȱ Fauconnier,ȱ Gilles.ȱ Mentalȱ Spaces:ȱ Aspectsȱ ofȱ Meaningȱ Constructionȱ inȱ Naturalȱ Language.ȱCambridge:ȱCUP,ȱ1994.ȱȱ ________.ȱMappingsȱinȱThoughtȱandȱLanguage.ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱ Press,ȱ1997.ȱ Fauconnier,ȱ Gillesȱ andȱ Eveȱ Sweetser.ȱ Spaces,ȱ Worlds,ȱ andȱ Grammar.ȱ Chicago:ȱ UCP,ȱ1996.ȱ Fauconnier,ȱGillesȱandȱMarkȱTurner.ȱ“BlendingȱasȱaȱCentralȱProcessȱofȱGramȬ mar.”ȱ Inȱ Conceptualȱ Structure,ȱ Discourseȱ andȱ Language,ȱ ed.ȱ Adeleȱ E.ȱ GoldȬ berg,ȱ113Ȭ129.ȱStanford:ȱCSLI,ȱ1996.ȱ ________.ȱTheȱWayȱWeȱThink:ȱConceptualȱBlendingȱandȱtheȱMindȇsȱHiddenȱComplexȬ ities.ȱNewȱYork:ȱBasicȱBooks,ȱ2002.ȱ Finch,ȱ Geoffrey.ȱ Linguisticȱ Termsȱ andȱ Concepts.ȱ Basingstoke:ȱ Palgraveȱ MacmilȬ lan,ȱ2000.ȱ Floor,ȱSebastiaanȱJ.ȱ“FromȱInformationȱStructure,ȱTopic,ȱandȱFocus,ȱtoȱThemeȱinȱ BiblicalȱHebrewȱNarrative.”ȱDLit,ȱUniversityȱofȱStellenbosch,ȱ2004.ȱ Follingstad,ȱ Carlȱ Martin.ȱ “Deicticȱ Viewpointȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Text:ȱ Aȱ SynȬ tagmaticȱ andȱ Paradigmaticȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ Particleȱ Ki.”ȱ Doctoralȱ Thesis,ȱ VrijeȱUniversiteitȱteȱAmsterdamȱ2001,ȱSILȱInternational,ȱ2001.ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

243ȱ

Freeman,ȱMargaretȱH.ȱ“CognitiveȱMappingȱinȱLiteraryȱAnalysis.”ȱStyleȱȱ(2002):ȱ 1Ȭ13.ȱ Geller,ȱ Stephenȱ A.ȱ Parallelismȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Biblicalȱ Poetry.ȱ Harvardȱ Semiticȱ MonoȬ graphs,ȱNo.ȱ20.ȱMissoula:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1979.ȱ ________.ȱ“TheȱDynamicsȱofȱParallelȱVerse.”ȱHTRȱ75ȱ(1982):ȱ35Ȭ56.ȱ ________.ȱ “Throughȱ Windowsȱ andȱ Mirrorsȱ intoȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible:ȱ History,ȱ LiteratureȱandȱLanguageȱinȱtheȱStudyȱofȱText.”ȱInȱAȱSenseȱofȱText,ȱ3Ȭ40.ȱWiȬ nonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1982.ȱ Gelston,ȱA.ȱ“SomeȱNotesȱonȱSecondȱIsaiah.”ȱVTȱ21ȱ(1971):ȱ518Ȭ521.ȱ Gernsbacher,ȱMortonȱAnn,ȱandȱDavidȱHargreaves.ȱ“TheȱPrivilegeȱofȱPrimacy.”ȱ InȱPragmaticsȱofȱWordȱOrderȱFlexibility,ȱed.ȱDorisȱL.ȱPayne,ȱ83Ȭ116.ȱAmsterȬ dam:ȱJohnȱBenjamins,ȱ1992.ȱ Gillingham,ȱS.ȱE.ȱOneȱBible,ȱManyȱVoices:ȱDifferentȱApproachesȱtoȱBiblicalȱStudies.ȱ London:ȱSPCK,ȱ1998.ȱ Givon,ȱT.ȱ“BeyondȱForegroundȱandȱBackground.”ȱInȱCoherenceȱandȱGroundingȱinȱ Discourse,ȱed.ȱR.ȱS.ȱTomlin,ȱ175Ȭ188.ȱAmsterdam:ȱJohnȱBenjamins,ȱ1987.ȱ Goldfajn,ȱTal.ȱWordȱOrderȱandȱTimeȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱNarrative.ȱOxfordȱTheologȬ icalȱMonographs.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1998.ȱ Greenstein,ȱEdwardȱL.ȱ“HowȱDoesȱParallelismȱMean?”ȱInȱAȱSenseȱofȱText,ȱ41Ȭ70.ȱ WinonaȱLake:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1982.ȱ Grimes,ȱJosephȱEvans.ȱTheȱThreadȱofȱDiscourse.ȱJanuaȱLinguarum.ȱSeriesȱMinor;ȱ 207.ȱTheȱHague:ȱMouton,ȱ1975.ȱ Grüneberg,ȱKeith.ȱAbraham,ȱBlessingȱandȱtheȱNations:ȱAȱPhilologicalȱandȱExegeticalȱ StudyȱofȱGenesisȱ12:3ȱinȱItsȱNarrativeȱContext.ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2003.ȱ ȱ Hardmeier,ȱC.ȱandȱE.ȱTalstra.ȱ“SprachgestaltȱundȱSinngehalt:ȱWegeȱZuȱNeuenȱ Instrumentenȱ derȱ Computergestützenȱ Textwahrnehmung.“ȱ ZAWȱ 101ȱ (1989):ȱ408Ȭ428.ȱ Haspelmath,ȱ M.,ȱ E.ȱ König,ȱ W.ȱ Oesterreicherȱ andȱ W.ȱ Raible,ȱ eds.ȱ Languageȱ TyȬ pologyȱandȱLanguageȱUniversals:ȱAnȱInternationalȱHandbook.ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱ Gruyter,ȱ2001.ȱ Hatav,ȱ Galia.ȱ Theȱ Semanticsȱ ofȱ Aspectȱ andȱ Modality:ȱ Evidenceȱ fromȱ Englishȱ andȱ BiblicalȱHebrew.ȱVol.ȱ34ȱSLCS.ȱAmsterdam:ȱJohnȱBenjamins,ȱ1997.ȱ ________.ȱ“(Free)ȱDirectȱDiscourseȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrew.”ȱHSȱ41ȱ(2000):ȱ7Ȭ30.ȱ Hayes,ȱE.ȱR.ȱ“HearingȱJeremiah:ȱPerceptionȱandȱCognitionȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2.”ȱ HSȱ45ȱ(2004):ȱ99Ȭ119.ȱ

244ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

________.ȱ“TheȱInfluenceȱofȱEzekielȱ37ȱonȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ6:14Ȭ7:1.”ȱInȱTheȱBookȱofȱ Ezekielȱ andȱ Itsȱ Influence,ȱ 115Ȭ118,ȱeds.ȱ Johannesȱ Trompȱ andȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ Deȱ Jonge,ȱ Hampshire:ȱAshgate,ȱ2007.ȱȱ Heimerdinger,ȱJeanȬMarc.ȱTopic,ȱFocusȱandȱForegroundȱinȱAncientȱHebrewȱNarraȬ tives.ȱJSOTȱSupȱ295.ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1999.ȱ Hendel,ȱ Ronaldȱ S.ȱ “Inȱ theȱ Marginsȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Verbalȱ System:ȱ Situation,ȱ Tense,ȱAspect,ȱMood.”ȱZAHȱ9ȱ(1996):ȱ152Ȭ181.ȱ Hoftjitzer,ȱJ.ȱ“TheȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱDatabaseȱProject.”ȱInȱStudiesȱinȱAncientȱHebrewȱ Semantics,ȱ65Ȭ85.ȱLouvain:ȱPeeters,ȱ1985.ȱ Holladay,ȱWilliamȱL.ȱ“PrototypeȱandȱCopies:ȱAȱNewȱApproachȱtoȱtheȱPoetryȬ ProseȱProblemȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱJeremiah.”ȱJBLȱ79:ȱ351Ȭ367.ȱ ________.ȱTheȱRootȱŠýbhȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱwithȱParticularȱReferenceȱtoȱItsȱUsagȬ esȱinȱCovenantalȱContexts.ȱLeiden:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1958.ȱ Holmstedt,ȱ Robert.ȱ “Reviewȱ ofȱ Focusȱ Structureȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Wordȱ Orderȱ andȱ Informationȱ Structure,ȱ byȱ Katsuomiȱ Shimasaki.”ȱ HSȱ 44ȱ (2003):ȱ203Ȭ215.ȱ ________.ȱ “Wordȱ Orderȱ andȱ Informationȱ Structureȱ inȱ Proverbs.”ȱ SBL,ȱ Atlantaȱȱ (2003):ȱ1Ȭ20.ȱ Hopper,ȱPaul.ȱ“AspectȱandȱForegroundingȱinȱDiscourse.”ȱInȱSyntaxȱandȱSemanȬ ticsȱ 12:ȱ Discourseȱ andȱ Syntax,ȱ ed.ȱ T.ȱ Givon,ȱ 213Ȭ241.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ1979.ȱ Horie,ȱKaoru.ȱ“ComplementȱClauses.”ȱInȱLanguageȱTypologyȱandȱLanguageȱUniȬ versals,ȱed.ȱM.ȱHaspelmath,ȱ2,ȱ979Ȭ993.ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001.ȱ Hospers,ȱJ.ȱH.ȱ“SomeȱRemarksȱAboutȱtheȱSoȬCalledȱImperativeȱUseȱofȱtheȱInfiȬ nitiveȱ Absoluteȱ (Infinitivusȱ Proȱ Imperativo)ȱ inȱ Classicalȱ Hebrew.”ȱ Inȱ StuȬ diesȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Aramaicȱ Syntax,ȱ ed.ȱ K.ȱ Jongeling,ȱ 99Ȭ102.ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1991.ȱ ȱ Jackendoff,ȱRay.ȱLanguagesȱofȱtheȱMind.ȱCambridge,ȱMass:ȱMIT,ȱ1999.ȱ Jakobson,ȱRoman.ȱ“LinguisticsȱandȱPoetics.”ȱInȱStyleȱandȱLanguage,ȱed.ȱThomasȱ AlbertȱSebeok,ȱ350Ȭ377.ȱBloomington,ȱ1960.ȱ ________.ȱ“PoetryȱofȱGrammarȱandȱGrammarȱofȱPoetry.”ȱLinguaȱ21ȱ(1968):ȱ597Ȭ 609.ȱ Janda,ȱLauraȱA.ȱ“AȱMetaphorȱinȱSearchȱofȱaȱSourceȱDomain.”ȱCLȱ15ȱ(2004):ȱ471Ȭ 572.ȱ Jenni,ȱErnst.ȱDasȱHebräischeȱPiȇel:ȱSyntaktischȬSemasiologischeȱUntersuchungȱEinerȱ VerbalformȱImȱAltenȱTestament.ȱZürich:ȱEVZȬVerlag,ȱ1968.ȱ ________.ȱDieȱHebräischenȱPräpositionen.ȱVol.ȱ1.ȱStuttgart:ȱKohlhammer,ȱ1992.ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

245ȱ

Johnson,ȱ Mark.ȱ Theȱ Bodyȱ inȱ theȱ Mind:ȱ Theȱ Bodilyȱ Basisȱ ofȱ Meaning,ȱ Imagination,ȱ andȱReason.ȱChicago:ȱUCP,ȱ1987.ȱ Jongeling,ȱ K.ȱ “Onȱ theȱ VSOȱ Characterȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱ .”ȱ Inȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ AramaicȱSyntax,ȱed.ȱK.ȱJongeling,ȱ103Ȭ111.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1991.ȱ Joosten,ȱ Jan.ȱ “Theȱ IndicativeȱSystemȱ ofȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Verbȱ andȱ Itsȱ LiteȬ raryȱ Exploitation.”ȱ Inȱ Narrativeȱ Syntaxȱ andȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,ȱ ed.ȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ Vanȱ Wolde,ȱ51Ȭ71.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1997.ȱ Joüon,ȱPaul.ȱ“LeȱSensȱDuȱMotȱHébreuȱ‘SFY‘.“ȱJournalȱAsiatiqueȱ(1906):ȱ137Ȭ142.ȱ ȱ Kamp,ȱ Albert.ȱ “Worldȱ Buildingȱ inȱ Jobȱ 28.”ȱ Inȱ Jobȱ 28:ȱ Cognitionȱ inȱ Context,ȱ ed.ȱ EllenȱVanȱWolde,ȱ307Ȭ319.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003.ȱ Kessler,ȱ Martin.ȱ Readingȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Jeremiah:ȱ Aȱ Searchȱ forȱ Coherence.ȱ Winonaȱ Lake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ2004.ȱ Khan,ȱGeoffrey.ȱStudiesȱinȱSemiticȱSyntax.ȱLondonȱOrientalȱSeries;ȱV.ȱ38.ȱOxford:ȱ OUP,ȱ1988.ȱ King,ȱ Philipȱ J.ȱ Jeremiah:ȱ Anȱ Archeologicalȱ Companion.ȱ Louisville,ȱ Kentucky:ȱ Westminster/JohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ1993.ȱ König,ȱ Ekkehard.ȱ Theȱ Meaningȱ ofȱ Focusȱ Particles:ȱ Aȱ Comparativeȱ Perspective.ȱ TheoreticalȱLinguistics.ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1991.ȱ Kövecses,ȱ Zoltan.ȱ Metaphor:ȱ Aȱ Practicalȱ Introduction.ȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ Oxford:ȱ OUP,ȱ2002.ȱ Kroeze,ȱJ.ȱH.ȱA.ȱ“SemanticȱRelationsȱinȱConstructȱPhrasesȱofȱBiblicalȱHebrew:ȱAȱ FunctionalȱApproach.”ȱZAHȱ11ȱ(1998):ȱ27Ȭ41.ȱ Kugel,ȱ Jamesȱ L.ȱ Theȱ Ideaȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Poetry:ȱ Parallelismȱ andȱ Itsȱ History.ȱ Newȱ HaȬ ven:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1981.ȱ ȱ Labuschagne,ȱ C.ȱ J.ȱ “Theȱ Particlesȱ ‘hn’ȱ andȱ ‘hinneh’.”ȱ Inȱ Syntaxȱ andȱ Meaning:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ Syntaxȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ Exegesis,ȱ ed.ȱ C.ȱ J.ȱ Labuschagne,ȱ 1Ȭ14.ȱ Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1973.ȱ Lakoff,ȱGeorge.ȱWomen,ȱFire,ȱandȱDangerousȱThings:ȱWhatȱCategoriesȱRevealȱAboutȱ theȱHumanȱMind.ȱChicago:ȱUCP,ȱ1987.ȱ Lakoff,ȱ Georgeȱ andȱ Markȱ Johnson.ȱ Metaphorsȱ Weȱ Liveȱ By.ȱ Chicago;ȱ London:ȱ UniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1980.ȱ ________.ȱPhilosophyȱinȱtheȱFlesh:ȱTheȱEmbodiedȱMindȱandȱItsȱChallengeȱtoȱWesternȱ Thought.ȱNewȱYork:ȱBasicȱBooks,ȱ1999.ȱ Lambrecht,ȱKnud.ȱInformationȱStructureȱandȱSentenceȱForm:ȱTopic,ȱFocus,ȱandȱtheȱ MentalȱRepresentationsȱofȱDiscourseȱReferents.ȱCambridgeȱStudiesȱinȱLinguisȬ tics;ȱ71.ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994.ȱ

246ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Langacker,ȱ Ronaldȱ W.ȱ Foundationsȱ ofȱ Cognitiveȱ Grammar.ȱ Bloomington,ȱ Ind:ȱ IndianaȱUniversityȱLinguisticsȱClub,ȱ1983.ȱ ________.ȱFoundationsȱofȱCognitiveȱGrammar.ȱVol.ȱ1.ȱStanford:ȱSUP,ȱ1987.ȱ ________.ȱ Grammarȱ andȱ Conceptualization.ȱ Cognitiveȱ Linguisticsȱ Research;ȱ 14.ȱ Berlin:ȱMoutonȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1999.ȱ ________.ȱ“DiscourseȱinȱCognitiveȱGrammar.”ȱCLȱ12ȱ(2001):ȱ143Ȭ188.ȱ ________.ȱ Concept,ȱ Image,ȱ andȱ Symbol:ȱ Theȱ Cognitiveȱ Basisȱ ofȱ Grammar.ȱ 2ndȱ ed.ȱ CognitiveȱLinguisticsȱResearch;ȱ1.ȱBerlin:ȱMoutonȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2002.ȱ ________.ȱ“DeixisȱandȱSubjectivity.”ȱInȱGrounding:ȱTheȱEpistemicȱFootingȱofȱDeixisȱ andȱReference,ȱed.ȱFrankȱBrisard,ȱ21,ȱ1Ȭ28.ȱBerlin:ȱMoutonȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2002.ȱ ________.ȱ“Context,ȱCognition,ȱandȱSemantics:ȱAȱUnifiedȱDynamicȱApproach.”ȱ Inȱ Jobȱ 28:ȱ Cognitionȱ inȱ Context,ȱ ed.ȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ Wolde,ȱ 179Ȭ230.ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 2003.ȱ Lee,ȱDavid.ȱCognitiveȱLinguistics:ȱAnȱIntroduction.ȱMelbourneȱandȱOxford:ȱOUP,ȱ 2001.ȱ Lehmann,ȱChristian.ȱ“TowardsȱaȱTypologyȱofȱClauseȱLinkage.”ȱInȱClauseȱComȬ biningȱinȱGrammarȱandȱDiscourse,ȱeds.ȱJohnȱHaimanȱandȱSandraȱThompson,ȱ 181Ȭ225.ȱAmsterdam:ȱBenjamins,ȱ1988.ȱ Levin,ȱChristoph.ȱDieȱVerheissungȱDesȱNeuenȱBundesȱ:ȱInȱIhremȱ TheologiegeschichtlichenȱZusammenhangȱAusgelegt.ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ &ȱRuprecht,ȱ1985.ȱ ________.ȱȈTheȱȇWordȱofȱYahwehȇ:ȱAȱTheologicalȱConceptȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱJereȬ miah.ȈȱInȱProphets,ȱProphecy,ȱandȱPropheticȱTextsȱinȱSecondȱTempleȱJudaism,ȱ ed.ȱMichaelȱH.ȱFloydȱandȱRobertȱD.ȱHaak,ȱ43Ȭ62.ȱNewȱYork:ȱT&TȱClark,ȱ 2006.ȱ Levinsohn,ȱStephenȱH.ȱ“ReviewȱofȱTopic,ȱFocusȱandȱForegroundȱinȱAncientȱHebrewȱ Narratives,ȱbyȱJeanȬMarcȱHeimerdinger.”ȱJTTLȱ14ȱ(2002):ȱ126Ȭ147.ȱ Lode,ȱ Lars.ȱ “Postverbalȱ Wordȱ Orderȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Structureȱ andȱ FuncȬ tion.”ȱSemiticsȱ9ȱ(1984):ȱ113Ȭ164.ȱ ________.ȱ“PostverbalȱWordȱOrderȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrew:ȱStructureȱandȱFunction:ȱ PartȱTwo.”ȱSemiticsȱ10ȱ(1985):ȱ24Ȭ39.ȱ Longacre,ȱ Robertȱ E.ȱ “Theȱ Paragraphȱ asȱ aȱ Grammaticalȱ Unit.”ȱ Inȱ Syntaxȱ andȱ Semantics,ȱed.ȱTalmyȱGivon,ȱ12,ȱ115Ȭ134.ȱNewȱYork:ȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1979.ȱ ________.ȱ Theȱ GrammarȱofȱDiscourse.ȱ TopicsȱinȱLanguageȱandȱ Linguistics.ȱNewȱ York:ȱPlenum,ȱ1983.ȱ ________.ȱJoseph:ȱAȱStoryȱofȱDivineȱProvidence:ȱAȱTextȱTheoreticalȱandȱTextlinguisticȱ AnalysisȱofȱGenesisȱ37ȱandȱ39Ȭ48.ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1989.ȱ ________.ȱ “Buildingȱ forȱ theȱ Worshipȱ ofȱ God:ȱ Exodusȱ 25:1Ȭ30.”ȱ Inȱ Discourseȱ AnalysisȱofȱBiblicalȱLiterature:ȱWhatȱItȱIsȱandȱWhatȱItȱOffers,ȱed.ȱW.ȱR.ȱBodine,ȱ 21Ȭ49.ȱAtlanta:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1995.ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

247ȱ

Louw,ȱJ.ȱP.ȱandȱE.ȱA.ȱNida.ȱGreekȬEnglishȱLexiconȱofȱtheȱNewȱTestament:ȱBasedȱonȱ SemanticȱDomains.ȱ2ȱvols.ȱ2ndȱed.ȱNewȱYork:ȱUnitedȱBibleȱSocieties,ȱ1989.ȱ Lowery,ȱ Kirk.ȱ “Theoreticalȱ Foundationsȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱ Discourseȱ Grammar.”ȱ Inȱ DiscourseȱAnalysisȱofȱBiblicalȱLiterature:ȱWhatȱItȱIsȱandȱWhatȱItȱOffers,ȱed.ȱWalȬ terȱRayȱBodine,ȱ103Ȭ130.ȱAtlanta:ȱScholarȇsȱPress,ȱ1995.ȱ ________.ȱ “Relativeȱ Definitenessȱ andȱ theȱ Verblessȱ Clause.”ȱ Inȱ Theȱ Verblessȱ Clauseȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Linguisticȱ Approaches,ȱ ed.ȱ Cynthiaȱ L.ȱ Miller,ȱ 251Ȭ 272.ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱIndiana:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1999.ȱ Lowth,ȱRobert.ȱLecturesȱonȱtheȱSacredȱPoetryȱofȱtheȱHebrews.ȱVol.ȱ1.ȱLondon:ȱRoutȬ ledge/ThoemmesȱPress,ȱ1995.ȱ Lundbom,ȱJackȱR.ȱJeremiahȱ1Ȭ20.ȱVol.ȱ21A,ȱTheȱAnchorȱBible.ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubȬ leday,ȱ1999.ȱ ȱ Maimonides,ȱMoses.ȱTheȱ GuideȱforȱtheȱPerplexed.ȱ TranslatedȱbyȱM.ȱFriedlander.ȱ NewȱYork:ȱBarnesȱandȱNoble,ȱ2004.ȱ Mandelblit,ȱ Nili.ȱ “Theȱ Grammaticalȱ Markingȱ ofȱ Conceptualȱ Integration:ȱ Fromȱ SyntaxȱtoȱMorphology.”ȱCLȱ11ȱ(2000):ȱ197Ȭ291.ȱ Marmaridou,ȱ Sophiaȱ S.ȱ A.ȱ Pragmaticȱ Meaningȱ andȱ Cognition.ȱ Pragmaticsȱ &ȱ Beyond;ȱNewȱSer.ȱ72.ȱAmsterdam:ȱJ.ȱBenjaminsȱPublishing,ȱ2000.ȱ McFall,ȱLeslie.ȱTheȱEnigmaȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱVerbalȱSystem:ȱSolutionsȱfromȱEwaldȱtoȱtheȱ PresentȱDay.ȱHistoricȱTextsȱandȱInterpretersȱinȱBiblicalȱScholarship;ȱ2.ȱShefȬ fieldȱSouthȱYorkshire:ȱAlmondȱPress,ȱ1982.ȱ McKane,ȱWilliam.ȱ“RelationsȱbetweenȱPoetryȱandȱProseȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱJeremiahȱ withȱSpecialȱReferenceȱtoȱJeremiahȱiiiȱ6Ȭ11ȱandȱxiiȱ14Ȭ17.”ȱInȱAȱProphetȱtoȱtheȱ Nations:ȱEssaysȱinȱJeremiahȱStudies,ȱeds.ȱL.ȱG.ȱPerdueȱandȱB.ȱW.ȱKovacs,ȱ269Ȭ 284.ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1984.ȱ ________.ȱAȱCriticalȱandȱExegeticalȱCommentaryȱonȱJeremiah.ȱ2ȱvols.ȱInternationalȱ Criticalȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Holyȱ Scripturesȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ andȱ Newȱ TestaȬ ments.ȱEdinburgh:ȱT.ȱ&ȱT.ȱClark,ȱ1986.ȱ Meier,ȱ Samuelȱ A.ȱ Speakingȱ ofȱ Speaking:ȱ Markingȱ Directȱ Discourseȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible.ȱVTȱSupȱ46.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1992.ȱ Mettinger,ȱ Tryggveȱ N.ȱ D.ȱ “Theȱ HebrewȱVerbȱ System:ȱAȱSurveyȱ ofȱ Recentȱ ReȬ search.”ȱASTIȱ9ȱ(1974):ȱ64Ȭ84.ȱ Mey,ȱJacobȱL.ȱPragmatics:ȱAnȱIntroduction.ȱ2dȱed.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell,ȱ2001.ȱ Michel,ȱDiethelm.ȱTemporaȱundȱSatzstellungȱinȱDenȱPsalmen.ȱAbhandlungenȱzurȱ EvangelischenȱTheologie.ȱBonn:ȱH.ȱBouvier,ȱ1960.ȱ Miller,ȱ Cynthiaȱ L.ȱ Theȱ Verblessȱ Clauseȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Linguisticȱ Approaches.ȱ Linguisticȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Westȱ Semitic.ȱ Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ Ind.:ȱ EisenȬ brauns,ȱ1999.ȱ

248ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

________.ȱ Theȱ Representationȱ ofȱ Speechȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Narrative:ȱ Aȱ Linguisticȱ Analysis.ȱHSM.ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ2003.ȱ Moor,ȱJ.ȱC.ȱde,ȱed.ȱSynchronicȱorȱDiachronic?ȱAȱDebateȱonȱMethodȱinȱOldȱTestamentȱ Exegesis,ȱOudtestamentischeȱStudiënȱ34.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1995.ȱ Moor,ȱ Johannesȱ Cornelisȱ deȱ andȱ Wilfredȱ G.ȱ E.ȱ Watson.ȱ Verseȱ inȱ Ancientȱ nearȱ EasternȱProse.ȱAlterȱOrientȱundȱAltesȱTestament.ȱNeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱVerlagȱ ButzonȱundȱBercker,ȱ1993.ȱ Morgan,ȱRobertȱandȱJohnȱBarton.ȱBiblicalȱInterpretation.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniverȬ sityȱPress,ȱ1988.ȱ Mulder,ȱ M.ȱ J.ȱ “Dieȱ Partikelȱ ‘Yaan‘.“ȱ Inȱ Syntaxȱ andȱ Meaning:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ SyntaxȱandȱBiblicalȱExegesis,ȱed.ȱC.ȱJ.ȱLabuschagne,ȱ50Ȭ83.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1973.ȱ Muraoka,ȱ T.ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Hebrewȱ Semantics.ȱ Vol.ȱ 4ȱ AbrȬNahrain.ȱ SuppleȬ mentȱSeries.ȱLouvain:ȱPeetersȱPress,ȱ1995.ȱ ________.ȱSemanticsȱofȱAncientȱHebrew.ȱVol.ȱ6ȱAbrȬNahrain.ȱSupplementȱSeries.ȱ Louvain:ȱPeeters,ȱ1998.ȱ ȱ Naudé,ȱJ.ȱA.ȱ“TheȱTransitionsȱofȱBiblicalȱHebrew.”ȱInȱBiblicalȱHebrew:ȱStudiesȱinȱ Chronologyȱ andȱ Typology,ȱ ed.ȱ Ianȱ Young,ȱ 369,ȱ 189Ȭ214.ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Tȱ &ȱ Tȱ Clark,ȱ2003.ȱ Niccacci,ȱ Alviero.ȱ “Essentialȱ Hebrewȱ Syntax.”ȱ Inȱ Narrativeȱ andȱ Comment,ȱ ed.ȱ Eepȱ Talstra,ȱ 111Ȭ125.ȱ Amsterdam:ȱ Societasȱ Hebraicaȱ Amstelodamensis,ȱ 1995.ȱ Niccacci,ȱAlvieroȱandȱW.ȱG.ȱE.ȱWatson.ȱTheȱSyntaxȱofȱtheȱVerbȱinȱClassicalȱHebrewȱ Prose.ȱJSOTȱSupȱ86.ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1990.ȱ Noonan,ȱ Michel.ȱ “Complementation.”ȱ Inȱ Languageȱ Typologyȱ andȱ Syntacticȱ DeȬ scription,ȱed.ȱTimothyȱSchopen,ȱ42Ȭ140.ȱCambridge:ȱCUP,ȱ1985.ȱ Nuyts,ȱ Jan.ȱ Epistemicȱ Modality,ȱ Language,ȱ andȱ Conceptualization.ȱ Amsterdam:ȱ JohnȱBenjamins,ȱ2001.ȱ ȱ OȇConnor,ȱK.ȱM.ȱ“Jeremiah.”ȱInȱTheȱOxfordȱBibleȱCommentary,ȱeds.ȱJohnȱBartonȱ andȱJohnȱMuddiman,ȱ487Ȭ528.ȱOxford:ȱOUP,ȱ2000.ȱ OȇConnor,ȱ Michaelȱ Patrick.ȱ Hebrewȱ Verseȱ Structure.ȱ Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ Ind:ȱ EisenȬ brauns,ȱ1980.ȱ ȱ Pardee,ȱ Dennis.ȱ Ugariticȱ andȱ Hebrewȱ Poeticȱ Parallelism:ȱ Aȱ Trialȱ Cutȱ (‘Ntȱ Iȱ andȱ Proverbsȱ2).ȱVTȱSupȱ39.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1988.ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

249ȱ

Pardee,ȱ Dennisȱ andȱ S.ȱ Davidȱ Sperling.ȱ Handbookȱ ofȱ Ancientȱ Hebrewȱ Letters:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ Edition.ȱ Sourcesȱ forȱ Biblicalȱ Study;ȱ No.15.ȱ Chico,ȱ Calif:ȱ Scholarsȱ Press,ȱ1982.ȱ Parunak,ȱ H.ȱ Vanȱ Dyke.ȱ “Someȱ Discourseȱ Functionsȱ ofȱ Propheticȱ Quotationȱ FormulasȱinȱJeremiah.”ȱInȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱandȱDiscourseȱLinguistics,ȱed.ȱRoȬ bertȱD.ȱBergen,ȱ489Ȭ518.ȱDallas:ȱSIL,ȱ1994.ȱ Petofi,ȱ J.ȱ S.ȱ “Studiesȱ inȱ Textȱ Grammar.”ȱ Inȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Textȱ Grammar,ȱ eds.ȱ J.ȱ S.ȱ PetofiȱandȱH.ȱRieser.ȱDordrecht:ȱReidel,ȱ1973.ȱ Postma,ȱFerenc,ȱE.ȱTalstraȱandȱM.ȱVervenne.ȱExodus:ȱMaterialsȱinȱAutomaticȱTextȱ Processing.ȱInstrumentaȱBiblicaȱ1.ȱAmsterdam:ȱVUȱBoekhandl,ȱ1983.ȱ Premper,ȱ Waldfried.ȱ “Universalsȱ ofȱ theȱ Linguisticȱ Representationȱ ofȱ SituaȬ tions.”ȱInȱLanguageȱTypologyȱandȱLanguageȱUniversals:ȱAnȱInternationalȱHandȬ book,ȱed.ȱM.ȱHaspelmath,ȱ1,ȱ477Ȭ495.ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001.ȱ Primus,ȱ Beatrice.ȱ “Wordȱ Orderȱ Typology.”ȱ Inȱ Languageȱ Typologyȱ andȱ Languageȱ Universals:ȱAnȱInternationalȱHandbook,ȱed.ȱM.ȱHaspelmath,ȱ2,ȱ855Ȭ898.ȱBerlin:ȱ WalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001.ȱ Pröbstle,ȱ Martin.ȱ “Deixisȱ andȱ theȱ Linearȱ Orderingȱ ofȱ Sentenceȱ Constituents.”ȱ SBL,ȱDenverȱ(2001):ȱ1Ȭ16.ȱ ȱ Raible,ȱW.ȱ“LanguageȱUniversalsȱandȱLanguageȱTypology.”ȱInȱLanguageȱTypolȬ ogyȱandȱLanguageȱUniversals:ȱAnȱInternationalȱHandbook,ȱeds.ȱM.ȱHaspelmath,ȱ E.ȱKonig,ȱW.ȱOesterreicherȱandȱW.ȱRaible,ȱ1,ȱ1Ȭ24.ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyȬ ter,ȱ2001.ȱ ________.ȱ“LinkingȱClauses.”ȱInȱLanguageȱTypologyȱandȱLanguageȱUniversals:ȱAnȱ InternationalȱHandbook,ȱeds.ȱM.ȱHaspelmath,ȱE.ȱKonig,ȱW.ȱOesterreicherȱandȱ W.ȱRaible,ȱ1,ȱ590Ȭ617.ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001.ȱ Rieser,ȱC.ȱF.ȱ“OnȱtheȱDevelopmentȱofȱTextȱGrammar.”ȱInȱCurrentȱTrendsȱinȱTextȱ Linguistics,ȱed.ȱWolfgangȱU.ȱDressler,ȱ13.ȱBerlin:ȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1978.ȱ Rosenbaum,ȱMichael.ȱWordȬOrderȱVariationȱinȱIsaiahȱ40Ȭ55:ȱAȱFunctionalȱPerspecȬ tive.ȱAssen:ȱVanȱGorcum,ȱ1997.ȱ Rubba,ȱJo.ȱ“AlternateȱGroundsȱinȱtheȱInterpretationȱofȱDeicticȱExpressions.”ȱInȱ Spaces,ȱ Worlds,ȱ andȱGrammar,ȱeds.ȱG.ȱFauconnierȱandȱE.ȱSweetser,ȱ227Ȭ261.ȱ Chicago:ȱUCP,ȱ1996.ȱ ȱ Sailhamer,ȱJohn.ȱ“AȱDatabaseȱApproachȱtoȱtheȱAnalysisȱofȱHebrewȱNarrative.”ȱ MAARAVȱ5Ȭ6ȱ(1990):ȱ319Ȭ335.ȱ Sanders,ȱ Joséȱ andȱ Giselaȱ Redeker.ȱ “Perspectiveȱ andȱ theȱ Representationȱ ofȱ SpeechȱandȱThoughtȱinȱNarrativeȱDiscourse.”ȱInȱSpaces,ȱWorlds,ȱandȱGramȬ mar,ȱeds.ȱG.ȱFauconnierȱandȱE.ȱSweetser,ȱ290Ȭ317.ȱChicago:ȱUCP,ȱ1996.ȱ

250ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Sasse,ȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ “Scalesȱ betweenȱ Nouninessȱ andȱ Verbiness.”ȱ Inȱ Languageȱ Typologyȱ andȱ Languageȱ Universals:ȱ Anȱ Internationalȱ Handbook,ȱ ed.ȱ M.ȱ Haspelmath,ȱ 1,ȱ 495Ȭ509.ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2001.ȱ Sayers,ȱDorothyȱL.ȱTheȱUnpleasantnessȱatȱtheȱBellonaȱClub.ȱLondon:ȱErnestȱBenn,ȱ 1928.ȱReprint,ȱLondon:ȱStoddardȱandȱHoughton,ȱ1968.ȱ Schmid,ȱKonrad.ȱBuchgestaltenȱDesȱJeremiabuches:ȱUntersuchungenȱZurȱ RedaktionsȬȱUndȱRezeptionsgeschichteȱVonȱJerȱ30Ȭ33ȱImȱKontextȱDesȱBuchesȱ WissenschaftlicheȱMonographienȱZumȱAltenȱUndȱNeuenȱTestament.ȱ NeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱNeukirchenerȱVerlag,ȱ1996.ȱ Schneider,ȱ Wolfgang.ȱ Grammatikȱ desȱ biblischenȱ Hebräisch.ȱ Munich:ȱ Claudiusȱ Verlag,ȱ1993.ȱ Schweizer,ȱHarald.ȱMetaphorischeȱGrammatik:ȱWegeȱzurȱIntegrationȱvonȱGrammatikȱ undȱTextinterpretationȱinȱderȱExegese.ȱSt.ȱOttilien:ȱEOSȬVerlag,ȱ1981.ȱ Shimasaki,ȱKatsuomi.ȱFocusȱ Structureȱ inȱ BiblicalȱHebrew:ȱ Aȱ StudyȱofȱWordȱ Orderȱ andȱInformationȱStructure.ȱBethesda,ȱMd:ȱCDLȱPress,ȱ2002.ȱ Siebsma,ȱ P.ȱ A.ȱ Theȱ Functionȱ ofȱ theȱ Niphȇalȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew.ȱ Assen,ȱ NL:ȱ Vanȱ Gorcum,ȱ1991.ȱ Spawn,ȱKevin.ȱ‘AsȱItȱIsȱWritten’ȱandȱOtherȱCitationȱFormulaeȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament.ȱ BZAW,ȱed.ȱOttoȱKaiser.ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2002.ȱ Steen,ȱGerardȱJ.ȱ“IdentifyingȱMetaphorȱinȱLanguage.”ȱStyleȱȱ(2002):ȱ1Ȭ19.ȱ Sternberg,ȱ Meir.ȱ Theȱ Poeticsȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Narrative:ȱ Ideologicalȱ Literatureȱ andȱ theȱ DramaȱofȱReading.ȱIndianaȱStudiesȱinȱBiblicalȱLiterature.ȱBloomington,ȱInd:ȱ IndianaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1987.ȱ Stulman,ȱ Louis.ȱOrderȱ Amidȱ Chaos:ȱ Jeremiahȱ asȱSymbolicȱ Tapestry.ȱBiblicalȱ SemiȬ nar;ȱ57.ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1998.ȱ Sweeney,ȱMarvin.ȱ“StructureȱandȱRedactionȱinȱJeremiahȱ2Ȭ6.”ȱInȱTroublingȱJereȬ miah,ȱed.ȱA.ȱR.ȱȱDiamond,ȱ200Ȭ218.ȱSheffield:ȱSAP,ȱ1999.ȱ ȱ Talstra,ȱE.ȱ“TextȱGrammarȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱBibleȱI:ȱElementsȱofȱaȱTheory.”ȱBOȱ 35ȱ(1978):ȱ169Ȭ174.ȱ ________.ȱ“TextȱGrammarȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱBibleȱII:ȱSyntaxȱandȱSemantics.”ȱBOȱ 39ȱ(1982):ȱ26Ȭ38.ȱ ________.ȱ“TowardȱaȱDistributionalȱDefinitionȱofȱClausesȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrew.”ȱ ETLȱ63ȱ(1987):ȱ95Ȭ105.ȱ ________.ȱComputerȱAssistedȱAnalysisȱofȱBiblicalȱTexts:ȱPapersȱReadȱatȱtheȱWorkshopȱ onȱtheȱOccasionȱofȱtheȱTenthȱAnniversaryȱofȱtheȱWerkgroepȱInformatica,ȱFacultyȱ ofȱ Theology,ȱ Vrijeȱ Universiteit,ȱ Amsterdam,ȱ Novemberȱ 5Ȭ6,ȱ 1987.ȱ Applicatioȱ 7.ȱ Amsterdam:ȱFreeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1989.ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

251ȱ

________.ȱ “Textȱ Grammarȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrew:ȱ Theȱ Viewpointȱ ofȱ Wolfgangȱ Schneider.”ȱJTTLȱ5ȱ(1992):ȱ269Ȭ297.ȱ ________.ȱ “Deuteronomyȱ 9ȱ andȱ 10:ȱ Synchronicȱ andȱ Diachronicȱ Observations.”ȱ InȱSynchronicȱorȱDiachronic:ȱAȱDebateȱonȱMethodȱinȱOldȱTestamentȱExegesis,ȱed.ȱ J.C.ȱdeȱMoor,ȱ187Ȭ210.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1995.ȱ ________.ȱ“AȱHierarchyȱofȱClausesȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱNarrative.”ȱInȱNarrativeȱ SyntaxȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱBible,ȱed.ȱE.ȱJ.ȱvanȱWolde,ȱ85Ȭ118.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1997.ȱ ________.ȱ“AȱHierarchyȱofȱClausesȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱNarrative.”ȱInȱNarrativeȱ SyntaxȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱBible,ȱed.ȱEllenȱvanȱWolde,ȱ85Ȭ118.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2002.ȱ ________.ȱ“TextȱSegmentationȱandȱLinguisticȱLevels.”ȱȱ(2003):ȱ1Ȭ40.ȱ ȱ Taylor,ȱ Johnȱ R.ȱ Cognitiveȱ Grammar.ȱ Oxfordȱ Textbooksȱ inȱ Linguistics.ȱ Oxford;ȱ NewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2002.ȱ Tov,ȱ Emmanuel.ȱ “Computerȱ Assistedȱ Researchȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ andȱ Hebrewȱ BiȬ ble.”ȱInȱComputerȱAssistedȱAnalysisȱofȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱText,ȱed.ȱE.ȱTalstra,ȱ87Ȭ 118.ȱAmsterdam:ȱVUȱPress,ȱ1989.ȱ ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merwe,ȱ C.ȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ “Recentȱ Trendsȱ inȱ theȱ Descriptionȱ ofȱ Oldȱ Hebrew.”ȱ JNSLȱ15ȱ(1989):ȱ217Ȭ241.ȱ ________.ȱ“ExplainingȱFrontingȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrew.”ȱJNSLȱ25ȱ(1996):ȱ173Ȭ186.ȱ ________.ȱ “Reconsideringȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Temporalȱ Expressions.”ȱ ZAHȱ 10ȱ (1997):ȱ42Ȭ59.ȱ ________.ȱ “Theȱ Elusiveȱ Biblicalȱ Termȱ WHYH:ȱ Aȱ Perspectiveȱ inȱ Termsȱ ofȱ Itsȱ Syntax,ȱSemantics,ȱandȱPragmaticsȱinȱIȱSamuel.”ȱHSȱ15ȱ(1999):ȱ83Ȭ114.ȱ ________.ȱ“ReviewȱofȱTopic,ȱFocusȱandȱForeground,ȱbyȱJeanȬMarcȱHeimerdinger.”ȱ Biblicaȱ81ȱ(1999):ȱ574Ȭ578.ȱ ________.ȱ“SomeȱRecentȱTrendsȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱLinguistics:ȱAȱFewȱPointersȱ TowardsȱaȱMoreȱComprehensiveȱModelȱofȱLanguageȱUse.”ȱHSȱ44ȱ(2003):ȱ7Ȭ 24.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merwe,ȱ C.ȱ H.ȱ J.,ȱ J.ȱ A.ȱ Naudéȱ andȱ J.ȱ H.ȱ A.ȱ Kroeze.ȱ Aȱ Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ ReferenceȱGrammar.ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1999.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Merwe,ȱ C.ȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ andȱ Eepȱ Talstra.ȱ “Biblicalȱ Hebrewȱ Wordȱ Order:ȱ Theȱ InterfaceȱofȱInformationȱStructureȱandȱFormalȱFeatures.”ȱZAHȱ15/16ȱ(2001):ȱ 68Ȭ108.ȱ vanȱderȱWal,ȱA.ȱJ.ȱO.ȱ“TowardȱaȱSynchronicȱAnalysisȱofȱtheȱMasoreticȱTextȱofȱ theȱBookȱofȱJeremiah.”ȱInȱReadingȱtheȱBookȱofȱJeremiah:ȱAȱSearchȱforȱCoherence,ȱ ed.ȱMartinȱKessler,ȱ13Ȭ23.ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ2004.ȱ

252ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

vanȱLeeuwen,ȱ C.ȱ“DieȱPartikelȱ‘Im‘.“ȱInȱSyntaxȱandȱMeaning:ȱStudiesȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ SyntaxȱandȱBiblicalȱExegesis,ȱed.ȱC.ȱJ.ȱLabuschagne,ȱ15Ȭ48.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1973.ȱ VanȱValin,ȱRobertȱD.ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱSyntax.ȱCambridge:ȱCUP,ȱ2001.ȱ Verheij,ȱA.ȱJ.ȱC.ȱBasisgrammaticaȱVanȱHetȱBijbelsȱHebreeuws.ȱDelft:ȱEburon,ȱ2002.ȱ ________.ȱBits,ȱBytes,ȱandȱBinyanim:ȱAȱQuantitativeȱStudyȱofȱVerbalȱLexemeȱFormaȬ tionsȱinȱtheȱHebrewȱBible.ȱOrientaliaȱLovaniensiaȱAnalecta;ȱ93.ȱLeuven:ȱPeeȬ ters:ȱDepartementȱOosterseȱStudies,ȱ2000.ȱ Viberg,ȱ Åke.ȱ “Verbsȱ ofȱ Perception.”ȱ Inȱ Languageȱ Typologyȱ andȱ Universals:ȱ Anȱ Internationalȱ Handbook,ȱ ed.ȱ M.ȱ Haspelmath,ȱ 2,ȱ 1294Ȭ1309.ȱ Berlin:ȱ Walterȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ2001.ȱ Wallace,ȱ Stephen.ȱ “Figureȱ andȱ Ground:ȱ Theȱ Interrelationshipȱ ofȱ Linguisticȱ Categories.”ȱ Inȱ TenseȬAspect:ȱ Betweenȱ Semanticsȱ andȱ Pragmatics,ȱ ed.ȱ Paulȱ J.ȱ Hopper,ȱ201Ȭ219.ȱAmsterdam:ȱJohnȱBenjamins,ȱ1982.ȱ Waltke,ȱBruceȱandȱM.ȱOȇConnor.ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱSyntax.ȱWiȬ nonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1990.ȱ Watson,ȱWilfredȱG.ȱE.ȱClassicalȱHebrewȱPoetry:ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱItsȱTechniques.ȱ2ndȱed.ȱ JSOTȱSupȱ26.ȱSheffield:ȱJSOTȱPress,ȱ1986.ȱ ________.ȱ Traditionalȱ Techniquesȱ inȱ Classicalȱ Hebrewȱ Verse.ȱ JSOTȱ Supȱ 170.ȱ Sheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1994.ȱ Weinrich,ȱ Harald.ȱ Tempus:ȱ Besprocheneȱ undȱ Erzählteȱ Welt.ȱ 2ȱ ed.ȱ Stuttgart:ȱ Kohlhammer,ȱ1971.ȱ Wendland,ȱErnstȱR.ȱTheȱDiscourseȱAnalysisȱofȱHebrewȱPropheticȱLiterature.ȱVol.ȱ40,ȱ Mellenȱ Biblicalȱ Pressȱ Series.ȱ Lewiston,ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Mellenȱ Biblicalȱ Press,ȱ 1994.ȱ Werth,ȱPaul.ȱ“HowȱtoȱBuildȱaȱWorldȱ(inȱaȱLotȱLessȱThanȱSixȱDays,ȱUsingȱOnlyȱ WhatȇsȱinȱYourȱHead).”ȱInȱNewȱEssaysȱonȱDeixis:ȱDiscourse,ȱNarrative,ȱLiteraȬ ture,ȱed.ȱKeithȱGreen,ȱ49Ȭ80.ȱAmsterdam:ȱRodopi,ȱ1995.ȱ ________.ȱ Textȱ Worlds:ȱ Representingȱ Conceptualȱ Spaceȱ inȱ Discourse.ȱ London:ȱ Longman,ȱ1999.ȱ Wolde,ȱE.ȱJ.ȱvan.ȱ“WhoȱGuidesȱWhom?ȱEmbeddednessȱandȱPerspectiveȱinȱBibȬ licalȱHebrewȱNarrativeȱandȱinȱIȱKingsȱ3.16Ȭ28.”ȱJBLȱ114ȱ(1995):ȱ623Ȭ642.ȱ ________.ȱ“LinguisticȱMotivationȱandȱBiblicalȱExegesis.”ȱInȱNarrativeȱSyntaxȱandȱ theȱHebrewȱBible,ȱed.ȱE.ȱJ.ȱvanȱWolde,ȱ21Ȭ50.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1997.ȱ ________.ȱRuthȱandȱNaomi.ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress,ȱ1997.ȱ ________.ȱ“TheȱVerblessȱClauseȱandȱItsȱTextualȱFunction.”ȱInȱTheȱVerblessȱClauseȱ inȱBiblicalȱHebrew,ȱ321Ȭ335.ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱInd:ȱEisenbrauns,ȱ1999.ȱ Zewi,ȱ Tamar.ȱ “Reviewȱ ofȱ Wordȱ Orderȱ andȱ Time,ȱ byȱ Talȱ Goldfajn.”ȱ JSSȱ 46:ȱ 143Ȭ 146.ȱ

ȱ

IndexȱofȱBiblicalȱReferences ȱ ȱ Genesisȱ 1ȱ ȱ ȱ 203ȱ 22.1ȱ ȱ ȱ 117ȱ ȱ GenesisȬIIȱKingsȱ8ȱ ȱ Deuteronomyȱ 9ȱ ȱ ȱ 21nȱ 10ȱ ȱ ȱ 21nȱ 11.13ȱȱ ȱ 173ȱ ȱ IȱKingsȱ 1ȱandȱ2ȱ ȱ 10ȱ ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1Ȭ3ȱ ȱ ȱ 190ȱ 1Ȭ25ȱ ȱ ȱ 182nȱ 1.1ȱ ȱ ȱ 115,ȱ117,ȱ187ȱ 1.1Ȭ1.2ȱ ȱ 118ȱ 1.1Ȭ1.3ȱ ȱ 70n,ȱ94–95,ȱ ȱ ȱ 111–122,ȱ126,ȱ ȱ ȱ 127,ȱ134,ȱ146,ȱ ȱ ȱ 147,ȱ150,ȱ153,ȱ ȱ ȱ 160,ȱ177,ȱ181,ȱ ȱ ȱ 185,ȱ234,ȱ235ȱ 1.1Ȭ1.10ȱȱ 65,ȱ184–185ȱ 1.1Ȭ1.19ȱȱ 134,ȱ158ȱ 1.1Ȭ2.1ȱ ȱ 110,ȱ147,ȱ225ȱ 1.1Ȭ2.2ȱ ȱ 116,ȱ129,ȱ130– ȱ ȱ 132,ȱ145–146,ȱ ȱ ȱ 152–153,ȱ166n,ȱ ȱ ȱ 235ȱ

ȱ ȱ 1.1Ȭ2.3ȱ ȱ 1.1Ȭ3.25ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 1.1Ȭ6.30ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.1aȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.1bȱ ȱ ȱ 1.1cȱ ȱ ȱ 1.2aȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.2bȱ ȱ ȱ 1.2dȱ ȱ ȱ 1.3aȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.3bȱ ȱ ȱ 1.3cȱ ȱ ȱ 1.3eȱ ȱ ȱ 1.4ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.4Ȭ1.10ȱȱ ȱ ȱ

127ȱ 110,ȱ151,ȱ187,ȱ 188,ȱ193,ȱ234ȱ 3,ȱ27,ȱ37,ȱ51,ȱ65,ȱ 67,ȱ77–78,ȱ107,ȱ 109–146,ȱ147,ȱ 149,ȱ153,ȱ169n,ȱ 186,ȱ187,ȱ188,ȱ 192n,ȱ194,ȱ198,ȱ 205,ȱ207,ȱ220,ȱ 225,ȱ226,ȱ227,ȱ 228–230,ȱ231,ȱ 234,ȱ235,ȱ237ȱ 116,ȱ117,ȱ118,ȱ 126ȱ 118,ȱ120ȱ 126ȱ 115,ȱ116,ȱ117,ȱ 118,ȱ168ȱ 94,ȱ118,ȱ120ȱ 94,ȱ118,ȱ120ȱ 94,ȱ115,ȱ117,ȱ 118,ȱ120ȱ 65ȱ 118ȱ 118,ȱ121ȱ 123,ȱ125,ȱ142n– 143n,ȱ143,ȱ150,ȱ 157,ȱ184,ȱ185,ȱ 235ȱ 91,ȱ125,ȱ130n,ȱ 151ȱ

254ȱ 1.4Ȭ1.19ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 1.4Ȭ2.1ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.4Ȭ2.2ȱ ȱ 1.4Ȭ2.2aȱȱ 1.4Ȭ2.3ȱ ȱ 1.4Ȭ6.30ȱȱ 1.4aȱ ȱ ȱ 1.4bȱ ȱ ȱ 1.5aȱ ȱ ȱ 1.5bȱ ȱ ȱ 1.5dȱ ȱ ȱ 1.5e,ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.6ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.6aȱ ȱ ȱ 1.7ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.7aȱ ȱ ȱ 1.7dȱ ȱ ȱ 1.7fȱ ȱ ȱ 1.9ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.9aȱ ȱ ȱ 1.9bȱ ȱ ȱ 1.9cȱ ȱ ȱ 1.9dȱ ȱ ȱ 1.10ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.10bȱȱ ȱ 1.11ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.11Ȭ1.14ȱ 1.11aȱȱ ȱ 1.11cȱȱ ȱ 1.11dȱȱ ȱ 1.11eȱȱ ȱ

IndexȱofȱBiblicalȱReferencesȱ

133,ȱ134,ȱ143,ȱ 181ȱ 147,ȱ185,ȱ193,ȱ 235ȱ 128,ȱ129,ȱ130ȱ 146ȱ 123–146,ȱ235ȱ 153,ȱ186ȱ 25,ȱ91,ȱ128,ȱ130ȱ 65ȱ 91ȱ 91ȱ 91ȱ 91ȱ 150,ȱ185ȱ 128ȱ 179n,ȱ181,ȱ185ȱ 91,ȱ128ȱ 91ȱ 91ȱ 179n,ȱ181,ȱ214ȱ 91ȱ 91,ȱ198ȱ 91,ȱ128ȱ 91ȱ 106ȱ 91ȱ 125,ȱ134,ȱ138,ȱ 142n–143n,ȱ157,ȱ 185,ȱ235ȱ 1.11Ȭ1.12,ȱ125,ȱ 138–140,ȱ141,ȱ 145ȱ 130nȱ 128,ȱ130,ȱ141ȱ 142ȱ 128,ȱ143ȱ 142–143ȱ

1.12ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.12aȱȱ ȱ 1.13ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.13Ȭ1.14ȱ 1.13Ȭ1.15ȱ 1.13Ȭ1.19ȱ 1.13aȱȱ ȱ 1.13dȱȱ ȱ 1.13eȱȱ ȱ 1.14ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.14aȱȱ ȱ 1.14bȱȱ ȱ 1.15ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.18ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.18aȱȱ ȱ 1.19dȱȱ ȱ 2Ȭ3ȱ ȱ ȱ 2Ȭ6ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.1ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.1Ȭ2.3ȱ ȱ 2.1Ȭ3.2ȱ ȱ 2.1Ȭ3.25ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 2.1Ȭ3.35ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 2.1Ȭ4.2ȱ ȱ 2.1Ȭ6.30ȱȱ 2.1aȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.1aȬ2.2cȱ 2.1aȬbȱ ȱ 2.1bȱ ȱ ȱ

179n,ȱ181,ȱ194ȱ 143ȱ 125,ȱ134,ȱ136,ȱ 138,ȱ141,ȱ142n– 143n,ȱ143,ȱ145,ȱ 146,ȱ157,ȱ185,ȱ 200,ȱ218n,ȱ235ȱ 144ȱ 140,ȱ141ȱ 125,ȱ138–140ȱ 128,ȱ130,ȱ141ȱ 143ȱ 142–143ȱ 146,ȱ179n,ȱ181,ȱ 194,ȱ218nȱ 128,ȱ143ȱ 142ȱ 141,ȱ218nȱ 224ȱ 192nȱ 132ȱ 162nȱ 167ȱ 125,ȱ156,ȱ157,ȱ 159,ȱ185,ȱ235ȱ 154–167,ȱ235ȱ 148–153,ȱ235ȱ 110,ȱ147,ȱ148,ȱ 185ȱ 147–186,ȱ235– 236ȱ 182nȱ 151,ȱ166,ȱ177ȱ 128,ȱ130,ȱ154n,ȱ 158ȱ 156–159ȱ 157ȱ 154nȱ

ȱ

2.1ffȱ ȱ ȱ 2.2ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.2Ȭ2.3ȱ ȱ 2.2Ȭ3.25ȱȱ 2.2Ȭ4.2ȱ ȱ 2.2Ȭ6.30ȱȱ 2.2aȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.2aȬbȱ ȱ 2.2cȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.2cȬ2.3ȱȱȱ 2.2dȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.2dȬ2.3dȱ 2.2dȬ2.3eȱ 2.2dȬfȱ ȱ 2.2dȬgȱ ȱ 2.3ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.3aȬdȱ ȱ 2.3cȱ ȱ ȱ 2.3dȱ ȱ ȱ 2.4ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.4Ȭ2.9ȱ ȱ 2.4Ȭ4.2ȱ ȱ 2.4Ȭ16ȱ ȱ 2.5bȱ ȱ ȱ 2.6ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.6aȱ ȱ ȱ 2.7aȱ ȱ ȱ 2.8ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.8aȱ ȱ ȱ 2.9ȱ ȱ ȱ

IndexȱofȱBiblicalȱReferencesȱ

167ȱ 137,ȱ145,ȱ153,ȱ 156,ȱ157,ȱ162n,ȱ 175ȱ 162,ȱ173,ȱ235ȱ 148,ȱ193ȱ 182nȱ 162ȱ 132,ȱ154n,ȱ156,ȱ 158,ȱ159–160,ȱ 167,ȱ168ȱ 157ȱ 156–157,ȱ158,ȱ 160ȱ 162ȱ 151,ȱ159,ȱ160,ȱ 161ȱ 159ȱ 159ȱ 159ȱ 163–164ȱ 137,ȱ162n,ȱ165– 166,ȱ177,ȱ213ȱ 2.3Ȭ6.30,ȱ1ȱ 161ȱ 159ȱ 159ȱ 168ȱ 167–173,ȱ236ȱ 166ȱ 162n,ȱ169ȱ 168ȱ 170,ȱ172ȱ 169ȱ 169ȱ 170,ȱ171,ȱ172ȱ 169ȱ 169,ȱ173,ȱ174ȱ

2.10ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.10aȱȱ ȱ 2.10cȱȱ ȱ 2.11aȬbȱ ȱ 2.13ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.13bȱȱ ȱ 2.14ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.14Ȭ2.15ȱ 2.15ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.15aȱȱ ȱ 2.17ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.17Ȭ2.25ȱ 2.18Ȭ2.19ȱ 2.19ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.20Ȭ2.21ȱ 2.21ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.21aȱȱ ȱ 2.23ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.23Ȭ2.25ȱ 2.26Ȭ2.32ȱ 2.33ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.33Ȭ3.5ȱȱ 3,ȱ61nȱ ȱ 3.1Ȭ3.2ȱ ȱ 3.1Ȭ3.5ȱ ȱ 3.1Ȭ3.13ȱȱ 3.2aȱ ȱ ȱ 3.2aȬdȱ ȱ 3.6ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.6Ȭ3.10ȱȱ 3.6Ȭ3.11ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.6Ȭ3.11/12ȱ

255ȱ 167–168,ȱ173– 175,ȱ207,ȱ207n,ȱ 236ȱ 174ȱ 175ȱ 175ȱ 175ȱ 192nȱ 177ȱ 162n,ȱ175–178ȱ 177ȱ 177ȱ 194nȱ 162nȱ 175ȱ 194n,ȱ207,ȱ207nȱ 162n,ȱ166ȱ 213ȱ 192nȱ 207nȱ 175ȱ 162nȱ 207ȱ 162nȱ 226ȱ 162nȱ 110,ȱ182nȱ 181ȱ 199ȱ 175ȱ 24,ȱ59,ȱ60,ȱ179n,ȱ 180,ȱ182nȱ 29,ȱ48,ȱ226ȱ 30–31,ȱ42n,ȱ44– 65,ȱ59n,ȱ65–66,ȱ 110,ȱ162n,ȱ178,ȱ 182n,ȱ233ȱ 178–182,ȱ236ȱ

256ȱ 3.6Ȭ3.25ȱȱ 3.6aȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.6bȱ ȱ ȱ 3.6bȬcȱ ȱ 3.6cȱ ȱ ȱ 3.6dȱ ȱ ȱ 3.6dȬeȱ ȱ 3.6eȱ ȱ ȱ 3.6ffȱ ȱ ȱ 3.7ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.7aȱ ȱ ȱ 3.7bȱ ȱ ȱ 3.7cȱ ȱ ȱ 3.7dȱ ȱ ȱ 3.7eȱ ȱ ȱ 3.8ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.8aȱ ȱ ȱ 3.8bȱ ȱ ȱ 3.8f–3.11bȱ 3.9ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.9Ȭ3.11ȱȱ 3.10aȱȱ ȱ 3.10cȱȱ ȱ 3.11ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.12ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.12Ȭ3.13ȱ 3.13ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.18ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.19Ȭ3.20ȱ 3.19aȱȱ ȱ 3.19dȱȱ ȱ 3.19eȱȱ ȱ 3.21ȱ ȱ ȱ 4ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.1ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.1Ȭ4.2ȱ ȱ

IndexȱofȱBiblicalȱReferencesȱ

110ȱ 42,ȱ51,ȱ55,ȱ57,ȱ 63,ȱ64,ȱ65,ȱ178,ȱ 179,ȱ181ȱ 51,ȱ57,ȱ59,ȱ60ȱ 55ȱ 48n,ȱ52,ȱ63ȱ 48n,ȱ52,ȱ55,ȱ60ȱ 60ȱ 52,ȱ55ȱ 175ȱ 61ȱ 61,ȱ63,ȱ65,ȱ185ȱ 61,ȱ63ȱ 61,ȱ63ȱ 61,ȱ63ȱ 61ȱ 62ȱ 42,ȱ62,ȱ63ȱ 63ȱ 63ȱ 63ȱ 63ȱ 63ȱ 62ȱ 179nȱ 218nȱ 182nȱ 182nȱ 218nȱ 182–185,ȱ236ȱ 184,ȱ185ȱ 184ȱ 185ȱ 199ȱ 226ȱ 189,ȱ193,ȱ227ȱ 190–194,ȱ236ȱ

4.1Ȭ4.9ȱ ȱ 110,ȱ187ȱ 4.1Ȭ4.31,ȱ 110,ȱ187,ȱ188– ȱ ȱ 204,ȱ234,ȱ236ȱ 4.1Ȭ6.30ȱȱ 187–230,ȱ236ȱ 4.1aȱ ȱ ȱ 191ȱ 4.1aȬcȱ ȱ 191,ȱ193ȱ 4.1cȱ ȱ ȱ 191,ȱ192ȱ 4.1dȱ ȱ ȱ 191,ȱ193ȱ 4.1dȬ4.2bȱ 191,ȱ193ȱ 4.2ȱ ȱ ȱ 162nȱ 4.2cȱ ȱ ȱ 191,ȱ192ȱ 4.2dȱ ȱ ȱ 191,ȱ192ȱ 4.3Ȭ6.30ȱȱ 167ȱ 4.4ȱ ȱ ȱ 194nȱ 4.5Ȭ6.30ȱȱ 151ȱ 4.6ȱ ȱ ȱ 218nȱ 4.9Ȭ4.10ȱȱ 195ȱ 4.9aȱ ȱ ȱ 195ȱ 4.10ȱ ȱ ȱ 110ȱ 4.10aȱȱ ȱ 189,ȱ195ȱ 4.10fȱ ȱ ȱ 198ȱ 4.11ȱ ȱ ȱ 195ȱ 4.11Ȭ4.13ȱ 198ȱ 4.11Ȭ4.18ȱ 196–197,ȱ199,ȱ ȱ ȱ 236ȱ 4.11Ȭ4.18ȱ(4.19Ȭ4.21)ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 194–200ȱ 4.11Ȭ4.31ȱ 110,ȱ187,ȱ195ȱ 4.11aȱȱ ȱ 198,ȱ199ȱ 4.11bȬ4.13cȱ 199ȱ 4.12aȱȱ ȱ 200ȱ 4.14ȱ ȱ ȱ 227ȱ 4.14Ȭ4.18ȱ 200ȱ 4.14cȱȱ ȱ 200ȱ 4.16cȬ4.17bȱ 198ȱ 4.17ȱ ȱ ȱ 227ȱ 4.18ȱ ȱ ȱ 194n,ȱ198,ȱ227ȱ 4.18dȱȱ ȱ 198,ȱ200ȱ

ȱ

4.19ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.19Ȭ4.21ȱ 4.20ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.21ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.23Ȭ4.26ȱ 4.23Ȭ4.26ȱ(27)ȱ 4.23Ȭ4.28ȱ 4.23aȱȱ ȱ 4.24aȱȱ ȱ 4.25ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.25aȱȱ ȱ 4.25bȱȱ ȱ 4.26ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.26aȱȱ ȱ 4.26bȱȱ ȱ 4.30ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.30Ȭ4.31ȱ 4.31ȱ ȱ ȱ 5.1ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 5.1Ȭ5.2ȱ ȱ 5.1Ȭ5.14ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 5.1Ȭ6:30ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 5.1aȬdȱ ȱ 5.1aȬhȱ ȱ 5.1eȱ ȱ ȱ 5.1fȱ ȱ ȱ 5.1gȱ ȱ ȱ 5.3ȱ ȱ ȱ 5.3Ȭ5.6ȱ ȱ 5.6ȱ ȱ ȱ 5.6aȱ ȱ ȱ 5.6aȬcȱ ȱ 5.6bȱ ȱ ȱ 5.6dȱ ȱ ȱ 5.7Ȭ5.8ȱ ȱ

IndexȱofȱBiblicalȱReferencesȱ

200ȱ 194–200,ȱ236ȱ 200ȱ 200ȱ 200–204,ȱ236ȱ 201–202ȱ 200–201ȱ 203ȱ 203ȱ 203ȱ 204ȱ 204ȱ 203,ȱ204ȱ 204ȱ 204ȱ 227ȱ 162nȱ 227ȱ 175,ȱ205,ȱ207,ȱ 208,ȱ211ȱ 206–208,ȱ211ȱ 206–215,ȱ236– 237ȱ 110,ȱ187,ȱ205– 230,ȱ234,ȱ237ȱ 208ȱ 208ȱ 208ȱ 208ȱ 208ȱ 210ȱ 206,ȱ209–212ȱ 211,227ȱ 211ȱ 211ȱ 211ȱ 211ȱ 209–212ȱ

5.8ȱ 5.8aȱ 5.8bȱ 5.9ȱ 5.10ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 5.11ȱ ȱ ȱ 5.11Ȭ5.13ȱ 5.11Ȭ5.14ȱ 5.12ȱ ȱ ȱ 5.12Ȭ5.13ȱ 5.12Ȭ5.14ȱ 5.13,ȱ214ȱ 5.14ȱ ȱ ȱ 5.14Ȭ5.19ȱ 5.14aȱȱ ȱ 5.14bȱȱ ȱ 5.14cȱȱ ȱ 5.15Ȭ5.19ȱ 5.16Ȭ5.19ȱ 5.19ȱ ȱ ȱ 5.25ȱ ȱ ȱ 6ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.1ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.1Ȭ6.7ȱ ȱ 6.1Ȭ6.15ȱȱ 6.1Ȭ6.30ȱȱ 6.1aȱ ȱ ȱ 6.1bȬcȱ ȱ 6.2ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.3ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.3aȱ ȱ ȱ 6.3bȱ ȱ ȱ 6.4aȱ ȱ ȱ 6.6ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.6aȬeȱ ȱ

257ȱ 211,ȱ227ȱ 211ȱ 211ȱ 212ȱ 162n,ȱ166,ȱ206,ȱ 212–213,ȱ227ȱ 214ȱ 214ȱ 206ȱ 214,ȱ227ȱ 215ȱ 215ȱ 215ȱ 213–215ȱ 215nȱ 214ȱ 214ȱ 214ȱ 215ȱ 215ȱ 215ȱ 194nȱ 226ȱ 175,ȱ215,ȱ217,ȱ 218n,ȱ219nȱ 215,ȱ216–219ȱ 215,ȱ237ȱ 215–225ȱ 218ȱ 218ȱ 164n,ȱ215,ȱ217,ȱ 218,ȱ227ȱ 215,ȱ217,ȱ218ȱ 218ȱ 218ȱ 218,ȱ219ȱ 215,ȱ217,ȱ227ȱ 219ȱ

258ȱ 6.6dȱ ȱ ȱ 6.6eȱ ȱ ȱ 6.7bȱ ȱ ȱ 6.7cȱ ȱ ȱ 6.8Ȭ6.12ȱȱ 6.8aȱ ȱ ȱ 6.9ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.9Ȭ6.11ȱȱ 6.9bȱ ȱ ȱ 6.11ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.11aȱȱ ȱ 6.13Ȭ6.18ȱ 6.14ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.16ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.16Ȭ6.21ȱ 6.18Ȭ6.19ȱ 6.22ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.27ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.27Ȭ6.30ȱ 6.27aȱȱ ȱ 6.30ȱ ȱ ȱ 7ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

IndexȱofȱBiblicalȱReferencesȱ

219ȱ 219ȱ 219ȱ 219ȱ 215ȱ 219ȱ 162n,ȱ166,ȱ213,ȱ 215,ȱ219,ȱ220,ȱ 227ȱ 219–221ȱ 220ȱ 215,ȱ219,ȱ221,ȱ 227ȱ 221ȱ 221ȱ 162nȱ 222–223ȱ 215ȱ 207,ȱ207nȱ 218n,ȱ227ȱ 225ȱ 223–225,ȱ237ȱ 225ȱ 215ȱ 119ȱ

9.12ȱ ȱ ȱ 11.6ȱ ȱ ȱ 11.9ȱ ȱ ȱ 13.1Ȭ13.11ȱ 13.6ȱ ȱ ȱ 14.11ȱȱ ȱ 14.14ȱȱ ȱ 15.1ȱ ȱ ȱ 15.11ȱȱ ȱ 16.1Ȭ16.9ȱ 18.1Ȭ18.6ȱ 24.3ȱ ȱ ȱ 32.1Ȭ32.5ȱ 36ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Psalmsȱ 114.4ȱȱ ȱ ȱ Jobȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Johnȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ IȱCorinthiansȱ 12.12Ȭ27ȱ ȱ

179nȱ 179nȱ 179nȱ 130nȱ 179nȱ 179nȱ 179nȱ 179nȱ 179nȱ 130nȱ 130nȱ 179nȱ 130nȱ 182nȱ

203ȱ 112nȱ 178nȱ

163nȱ

ȱ

IndexȱofȱAuthorsȱ Aejmelaeus,ȱAnneliȱȱ174nȱ Albertz,ȱRainerȱȱ166–167ȱ Alter,ȱRobertȱȱ1nȱ Andersen,ȱF.I.ȱȱ4,ȱ198nȱ Ann,ȱMortonȱ56nȱ Arnold,ȱBillȱT.ȱȱ84n,ȱ89n,ȱ101,ȱ 192nȱ ȱ Bache,ȱCarlȱȱ81nȱ Bailenson,ȱJeremyȱȱN.ȱ17ȱ Barton,ȱJohnȱȱ1nȱ Batistella,ȱEdwinȱL.ȱȱ125nȱ Beall,ȱAndrewȱC.ȱ17nȱ Bergen,ȱRobertȱD.ȱȱ11nȱ Berlin,ȱAdeleȱȱ1n,ȱ4,ȱ6–8,ȱ12,ȱ 215nȱ Bhat,ȱD.N.ȱȱ80,ȱ81,ȱ87,ȱ97–98ȱ Biddle,ȱMarkȱȱ169n,ȱ181n–182nȱ Binnick,ȱRobertȱI.ȱȱ78,ȱ79n,ȱ97nȱ Blascovich,ȱJimȱȱ17nȱ Blokland,ȱA.E.ȱdenȱexeterȱȱ8,ȱ9n,ȱ 10ȱ Bodine,ȱWalterȱRayȱȱ2n,ȱ5n,ȱ11nȱ Borowski,ȱOdedȱȱ145nȱ Brisard,ȱFrankȱȱ37nȱ Brockelmann,ȱC.ȱȱ79nȱ Bühler,ȱKarlȱȱ39nȱ Bussman,ȱHadumonȱȱ39n,ȱ56,ȱ 133n,ȱ156nȱ Buth,ȱRandallȱȱ12n,ȱ57nȱ Bybee,ȱJoanȱL.ȱȱ85nȱ

Carroll,ȱLewisȱȱ1,ȱ36–37,ȱ147ȱ Carroll,ȱRobertȱȱ111n,ȱ142n– 143n,ȱ154n,ȱ166n,ȱ169n,ȱ 182n,ȱ192n,ȱ193,ȱ199n,ȱ204n,ȱ 213n,ȱ218n,ȱ219nȱ Choi,ȱJohnȱH.ȱ84n,ȱ89n,ȱ101,ȱ 192nȱ Clines,ȱDavidȱJ.A.ȱ1nȱ Cloete,ȱWalterȱTheophilusȱ Woldemarȱȱ45nȱ Collins,ȱJohnȱȱ18nȱ Collins,ȱTerenceȱȱ45nȱ Comrie,ȱBernardȱȱ80n,ȱ87n,ȱ88nȱ Cook,ȱJohnȱA.ȱȱ2n,ȱ12n,ȱ25,ȱ49n,ȱ 56n,ȱ80n,ȱ81,ȱ82,ȱ84–86,ȱ96– 97,ȱ98,ȱ108,ȱ115ȱ Cotterell,ȱPeterȱȱ4,ȱ5–6ȱ Croft,ȱWilliamȱȱ32n,ȱ35n,ȱ37n,ȱ 42,ȱ43,ȱ71n,ȱ93n,ȱ109n,ȱ126n,ȱ 133,ȱ150nȱ Cruse,ȱD.A.ȱȱ23n,ȱ32n,ȱ35n,ȱ37n,ȱ 42,ȱ43,ȱ71n,ȱ93n,ȱ109n,ȱ126n,ȱ 133,ȱ150nȱ ȱ Damasio,ȱAntonioȱR.ȱȱ175ȱ deȱMoor,ȱJohannesȱCornelisȱȱ7nȱ deȱRegt,ȱLenartȱJ.ȱȱ9,ȱ57n,ȱ128nȱ Diamond,ȱA.R.ȱȱ162nȱ Dik,ȱSimonȱȱ55nȱ DobbsȬAllsopȱȱF.W.,ȱ88nȱ Douglas,ȱMaryȱȱ199n–200nȱ

260ȱ

IndexȱofȱAuthorsȱ

Doyle,ȱBrianȱȱ12nȱ Dressler,ȱWolfgangȱU.ȱȱ5nȱ Driver,ȱS.R.ȱȱ82ȱ ȱ Eckhardt,ȱW.ȱȱ9ȱ Ehlich,ȱKonradȱȱ39–40,ȱ41n,ȱ53n,ȱ 124–125ȱ Ellinger,ȱK.ȱȱ199nȱ Emerton,ȱJ.A.ȱȱ82nȱ Ewald,ȱHeinrichȱȱ82ȱ Exum,ȱJ.ȱCherylȱȱ1nȱ ȱ Fauconnier,ȱGillesȱȱ3n,ȱ20n,ȱ21n,ȱ 27,ȱ32n,ȱ33,ȱ34,ȱ38n,ȱ64,ȱ 104n,ȱ109n,ȱ112n,ȱ124n,ȱ 147n,ȱ152,ȱ162,ȱ170,ȱ178–179,ȱ 194,ȱ224,ȱ227n,ȱ231ȱ Finch,ȱGeoffreyȱȱ91nȱ Floor,ȱSebastiaanȱJ.ȱȱ11n–12n,ȱ 44n,ȱ55n,ȱ57n,ȱ58n,ȱ61ȱ Follingstad,ȱCarlȱMartinȱȱ13n,ȱ 28,ȱ38,ȱ201nȱ Freeman,ȱMargaretȱH.ȱȱ43nȱ ȱ Garr,ȱW.ȱRandallȱȱ82nȱ Geller,ȱStephenȱA.ȱȱȱ7nȱ Gelston,ȱA.ȱȱ199nȱ Gillingham,ȱS.E.ȱȱ1nȱ Givon,ȱT.ȱȱ158nȱ Goethe,ȱJohannȱWolfgangȱvonȱȱȱ 67ȱ Goldfajn,ȱTalȱȱ12n,ȱ87n,ȱ99,ȱ115ȱ Greenstein,ȱEdwardȱL.ȱȱ7nȱ Grimes,ȱJosephȱEvansȱȱ5nȱ Gross,ȱW.ȱȱ9ȱ Grüneberg,ȱKeithȱȱ90ȱ ȱ Hardmeier,ȱC.ȱȱ9nȱ

Hargreaves,ȱDavidȱȱ56nȱ Hatav,ȱGaliaȱȱ128nȱ Hayes,ȱE.R.ȱȱ29n,ȱ55nȱ Heimerdinger,ȱJeanȬMarcȱȱ4n,ȱ 45n,ȱ53n,ȱ55,ȱ116n,ȱ117ȱ Hendel,ȱRobertȱS.ȱȱ82n,ȱ84,ȱ87– 91ȱ Hoftjitzer,ȱJ.ȱȱ11nȱ Holladay,ȱWilliamȱL.ȱȱ7n,ȱ182n,ȱ 192nȱ Holmstedt,ȱRobertȱȱ55n,ȱ56nȱ Hopper,ȱPaulȱȱ78nȱ Horie,ȱKaoriȱȱ47nȱ Hospers,ȱJ.H.ȱȱ157n–158nȱ ȱ Jackendoff,ȱRayȱȱ33n,ȱ135–136ȱ Jakobson,ȱRomanȱȱ6ȱ Janda,ȱLauraȱA.ȱȱ95–97,ȱ98nȱ Jenni,ȱErnstȱȱ101n,ȱ119nȱ Johnson,ȱMarkȱȱ19n,ȱ21n,ȱ35–36,ȱ 93–94,ȱ118n,ȱ119n,ȱ135n,ȱ 164n,ȱ177n,ȱ194nȱ Jongeling,ȱK.ȱȱ56nȱ Joosten,ȱJanȱȱ192nȱ Joüon,ȱPaulȱȱ199nȱ ȱ Kamp,ȱArnoldȱȱ112nȱ Kermode,ȱFrankȱȱ1nȱ Kessler,ȱMartinȱȱ12nȱ Khan,ȱGeoffreyȱȱ54n,ȱ116n,ȱ 158n,ȱ210–211ȱ King,ȱPhilipȱJ.ȱȱ145nȱ König,ȱEkkeharȱȱ159nȱ Kövecses,ȱZoltanȱȱ21n,ȱ92n,ȱ121,ȱ 135,ȱ136–137,ȱ144n,ȱ162–163,ȱ 164n,ȱ165n,ȱ204n,ȱ212ȱ Kripke,ȱSaulȱȱ112nȱ Kroeze,ȱJ.H.A.ȱȱ45n,ȱ55n,ȱ133nȱ

ȱ

IndexȱofȱAuthorsȱ

Kugel,ȱJamesȱL.ȱȱ6–7,ȱ12,ȱ56ȱ ȱ Labuschagne,ȱC.J.ȱȱ201nȱ Lakoff,ȱGeorgeȱȱ21n,ȱ36,ȱ93–94,ȱ 135nȱ Lambrecht,ȱKnudȱȱ26,ȱ27,ȱ53,ȱ 54n,ȱ55–56,ȱ58n,ȱ84,ȱ115,ȱ 117,ȱ218nȱ Langacker,ȱRonaldȱW.ȱȱ3n,ȱ14n,ȱ 15,ȱ16n,ȱ32n–33n,ȱ37,ȱ50n– 51n,ȱ68n,ȱ70,ȱ71–72,ȱ73,ȱ 109n,ȱ112n,ȱ120,ȱ126n,ȱ128n,ȱ 169n,ȱ180n,ȱ203nȱ Lee,ȱDavidȱȱ32n,ȱ33nȱ Lehmann,ȱChristianȱȱ46,ȱ156n,ȱ 208nȱ Levin,ȱChristopherȱȱ129–130ȱ Levinsohn,ȱStephenȱH.ȱȱ53nȱ Lode,ȱLarsȱȱ57nȱ Longacre,ȱRobertȱȱ4–5,ȱ10,ȱ12,ȱ 49n,ȱ58n,ȱ82–83ȱ Louw,ȱJ.P.ȱȱ73–74,ȱ127ȱ Lowery,ȱKirkȱȱ4,ȱ9–10,ȱ153nȱ Lowth,ȱBishopȱRobertȱȱ6ȱ Lundbom,ȱJackȱR.ȱȱ7n,ȱ143n,ȱ 182n,ȱ215nȱ ȱ Maimonides,ȱMosesȱȱ135ȱ Mandelblit,ȱNiliȱȱ13n,ȱ73,ȱ90n,ȱ 102–103,ȱ104,ȱ107,ȱ192ȱ Marmaridou,ȱSophiaȱȱ13n,ȱ18n,ȱ 43,ȱ96ȱ McFall,ȱLeslieȱȱ79nȱ McKane,ȱWilliamȱȱ111n,ȱ182n,ȱ 215nȱ Mettinger,ȱTryggveȱN.D.ȱȱ79nȱ Mey,ȱJacobȱL.ȱȱ23nȱ Michel,ȱDiethelmȱȱ79nȱ

261ȱ

Miller,ȱCynthiaȱȱ4,ȱ8,ȱ11n,ȱ28,ȱ 57n,ȱ64,ȱ77,ȱ125,ȱ137n,ȱ156,ȱ 157n,ȱ158ȱ Morgan,ȱRobertȱȱ1nȱ Mulder,ȱM.J.ȱȱ214nȱ Muraoka,ȱT.ȱȱ74nȱ ȱ Naudé,ȱJ.A.ȱȱ55n,ȱ85n,ȱ133nȱ Niccacci,ȱAlvieroȱȱ82,ȱ203n,ȱ 208nȱ Nida,ȱE.A.ȱ73–74,ȱ127ȱ Noonan,ȱMichelȱȱ47nȱ Nuyts,ȱJanȱȱ42n,ȱ43,ȱ133ȱ ȱ OȇConnor,ȱK.M.ȱȱ151n,ȱ162nȱ OȇConnorȱȱMichaelȱPatrick,ȱ 45n,ȱ56n,ȱ81,ȱ90n,ȱ91n,ȱ92n,ȱ 101,ȱ158nȱ ȱ Pagliuca,ȱWilliamȱȱ85nȱ Pardee,ȱDennisȱȱ7nȱ Parunak,ȱH.ȱVanȱDykeȱȱ125n,ȱ 148n,ȱ151n,ȱ159ȱ Perkins,ȱRevereȱȱ85nȱ Petofi,ȱJ.S.ȱȱ5nȱ Pike,ȱKennethȱȱ4ȱ Postma,ȱFerencȱȱ9nȱ Premper,ȱWaldfriedȱȱ67,ȱ76,ȱ78,ȱ 88,ȱ91n,ȱ101nȱ Primus,ȱBeatriceȱȱ56n–57n,ȱ142nȱ Pröbstle,ȱMartinȱȱ55nȱ ȱ Raible,ȱW.ȱȱ45n,ȱ47n,ȱ59ȱ Redeker,ȱGiselaȱȱ43n,ȱ128nȱ Reichenbachȱȱ87nȱ Richter,ȱW.ȱȱ9ȱ Rieser,ȱC.F.ȱȱ5nȱ Rosenbaum,ȱMichaelȱȱ55n,ȱ142nȱ

262ȱ

IndexȱofȱAuthorsȱ

Rubba,ȱJoȱȱ113nȱ ȱ Sailhamer,ȱJohnȱH.ȱȱ8,ȱ9nȱ Sanders,ȱJoséȱȱ43n,ȱ128nȱ Sasse,ȱH.J.ȱȱ73nȱ Sayers,ȱDorothyȱȱ29ȱ Schmid,ȱKonradȱȱ130nȱ Schneider,ȱWolfgangȱȱ49n,ȱ50,ȱ 83,ȱ99–100,ȱ109n,ȱ115,ȱ143n,ȱ 188n,ȱ208nȱ Schweizer,ȱHaraldȱȱ41n,ȱ113ȱ Shimasaki,ȱKatsuomiȱȱ47n,ȱ55n,ȱ 58nȱ Siebsma,ȱP.A.ȱȱ101nȱ Spawn,ȱKevinȱȱ128nȱ Sperling,ȱS.ȱDavidȱȱ7nȱ Sternberg,ȱMeirȱȱ1nȱ Stone,ȱLawsonȱȱ101ȱ Stulman,ȱLouisȱȱ138nȱ Sweeney,ȱMarvinȱȱ182nȱ Sweetser,ȱEveȱȱ27n,ȱ33n,ȱ179,ȱ 227nȱ ȱ Tallis,ȱThomasȱȱ188ȱ Talmy,ȱLeonardȱȱ70,ȱ93,ȱ109nȱ Talstra,ȱEepȱȱ8,ȱ9,ȱ10,ȱ11n,ȱ21n,ȱ 32,ȱ46n,ȱ50n,ȱ52n,ȱ55n,ȱ56n,ȱ 58n,ȱ83,ȱ87n,ȱ117n,ȱ118n,ȱ 156n,ȱ187n,ȱ208nȱ TaylorȱȱJohnȱR.,ȱ33nȱ ȱ

Tomlin,ȱRussellȱȱ116nȱ Tov,ȱEmmanuelȱȱ9nȱ Turner,ȱMaxȱȱ3n,ȱ4,ȱ5–6,ȱ20n,ȱ 21n,ȱ32n,ȱ33n,ȱ34n,ȱ64n,ȱ 104n,ȱ147n,ȱ152n,ȱ162,ȱ170n,ȱ 194n,ȱ224nȱ ȱ vanȱderȱMerwe,ȱC.H.ȱȱ4n,ȱ8–9,ȱ 12n,ȱ53n,ȱ55n,ȱ56n,ȱ58n,ȱ92n,ȱ 117n,ȱ125n,ȱ133n,ȱ142n,ȱ 156nȱ vanȱderȱWal,ȱA.J.O.ȱȱ1n–2n,ȱ6nȱ vanȱLeeuwen,ȱC.ȱȱ191nȱ VanȱValin,ȱRobertȱD.ȱȱ47n,ȱ68n,ȱ 70n,ȱ74–75ȱ Verheij,ȱA.J.C.ȱȱ45n,ȱ101nȱ Viberg,ȱÅkeȱȱ132n,ȱ175nȱ ȱ Wallace,ȱStephenȱȱ78nȱ Waltke,ȱBruceȱȱ56n,ȱ81,ȱ90n,ȱ 91n,ȱ92n,ȱ101,ȱ158nȱ Watson,ȱWilfredȱȱ7n,ȱ12,ȱ82nȱ Weinrich,ȱHaraldȱȱ50ȱ Wendland,ȱErnstȱR.ȱȱ12nȱ Werth,ȱPaulȱȱ35n,ȱ150nȱ Wolde,ȱE.J.ȱvanȱȱ13n,ȱ112n,ȱ 153n,ȱ181,ȱ189n,ȱ201nȱ Wordsworth,ȱWilliamȱȱ109ȱ ȱ Zewi,ȱTamarȱȱ83nȱ

ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ ȱ ABSTRACTȱCOMPLEXȱSYSTEMS,ȱ

162,ȱ237ȱ AccessȱPrinciple,ȱ178–182,ȱ186ȱ aktionsart,ȱ81ȱ ANGERȱISȱAȱBOILINGȱLIQUID,ȱ215,ȱ 237ȱ ANGERȱISȱAȱHOTȱFLUIDȱINȱAȱCONȬ TAINER,ȱ145ȱ ANGERȱISȱAȱHOTȱFLUIDȱINȱANȱ ENCLOSEDȱCONTAINER,ȱ

146,ȱ236ȱ ANGERȱISȱTHEȱHEATȱOFȱAȱFLUIDȱINȱ AȱCONTAINER,ȱ144ȱ

animacyȱhierarchy,ȱ76–77ȱ argumentȱfocus,ȱ56,ȱ57ȱ aspect,ȱ100ȱ aspectȱprominentȱlanguage,ȱ Hebrewȱas,ȱ86ȱ atemporal,ȱdefined,ȱ71ȱ atemporalȱrelations,ȱdescribed,ȱ 72ȱ ȱ baseȬspace,ȱdefined,ȱ33–34,ȱ113ȱ BibleȱWindows,ȱ10nȱ BibleȱWorks,ȱ10nȱ binyanȱsystemȱ constructionȱgrammarȱand,ȱ 73ȱ linguisticȱroleȱof,ȱ12–13ȱ andȱmargins,ȱ101–107ȱ binyanim,ȱdefined,ȱ81ȱ

ȱ blendedȱspaceȱ theȱBrideȱas,ȱ164ȱ FirstȱFruitsȱas,ȱ165ȱ blendingȱtheory.ȱseeȱconceptualȱ blendingȱ theȱBride,ȱasȱmetaphor,ȱ161,ȱ 162–165,ȱ166ȱ ȱ camera,ȱasȱanalogy,ȱ98ȱ canonicalȱviewingȱarrangeȬ ment,ȱ14–17,ȱ50n–51nȱ centreȬperipheryȱimageȱscheȬ ma,ȱ78,ȱ146,ȱ194–200,ȱ199nȱ CG.ȱseeȱcognitiveȱgrammarȱ (CG)ȱ THEȱCITYȱISȱAȱPERSON,ȱ215ȱ clauseȱanalysis,ȱ44–53ȱ clauseȱatoms,ȱ45ȱ clauseȱlayoutȱandȱanalysisȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.2,ȱ190ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.18,ȱ196– 197ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.2,ȱ206–208ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.14,ȱ213–215ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ6.7,ȱ216–219ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.9Ȭ6.11,ȱ220ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.11,ȱ221ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.16,ȱ222–223ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.27Ȭ6.30,ȱ223– 225ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.23Ȭ4.26ȱ(27),ȱ 201–202ȱ

264ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ

inȱJeremiahȱ5.3Ȭ5.6ȱandȱ5.7Ȭ 5.8,ȱ209–212ȱ clauseȱlinkage,ȱ46–47ȱ cognitionȱ cognitiveȱgrammarȱand,ȱ73– 78ȱ verbsȱof,ȱ132–134ȱ cognitiveȱconstructionȱ andȱdiscourse,ȱ128nȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱ117–119ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.13,ȱ143ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3,ȱ159–161ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.10,ȱ175ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15,ȱ177– 178ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11,ȱ65–66ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.2,ȱ193–194ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.18,ȱ199– 200ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.23Ȭ4.26,ȱ204ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.2,ȱ208ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.10,ȱ213ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.14,ȱ214–215ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ6.7,ȱ217–219ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.9,ȱ220ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.9Ȭ6.11,ȱ219–221ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.11,ȱ221ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.16,ȱ222–223ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.27Ȭ6.30,ȱ225ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.3Ȭ5.6ȱandȱ5.7Ȭ 5.8,ȱ211–212ȱ spaceȬbuildersȱin,ȱ65ȱ cognitiveȱgrammarȱ(CG),ȱ67,ȱ 68,ȱ70–73,ȱ169n,ȱ237ȱ cognitiveȱlinguistics,ȱ237ȱ cognitiveȱmetaphorȱ andȱconceptualȱblendingȱ theory,ȱ122nȱ

inȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.14,ȱ206–215ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ215–225ȱ andȱtime,ȱ92–94ȱ cognitiveȱmodels,ȱ35ȱ cognitiveȱnetwork,ȱ20,ȱ109,ȱ113,ȱ 151,ȱ164,ȱ231–232,ȱ234ȱ cognitiveȱpackets,ȱdefined,ȱ 124nȱ cognitiveȱstructuringȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ109–146,ȱ 234–235ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.35,ȱ147–186,ȱ 235–236ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11,ȱ59–63ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ187–230,ȱ 236–237ȱ spaceȬbuildingȱterms,ȱ123– 146ȱ textȬlevelȱperspective,ȱ111– 122ȱ communicationȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3,ȱ127–130ȱ networkȱmodel,ȱ231–232ȱ compatibility,ȱinȱdiscourseȱ structure,ȱ99ȱ complexȱspeaker,ȱ154–167ȱ computersȱ asȱanalogy,ȱ21,ȱ22,ȱ123ȱ useȱof,ȱ8–11ȱ conceptualȱblendingȱ inȱtheȱbinyanȱsystem,ȱ102–107ȱ andȱcognitiveȱmetaphors,ȱ 122nȱ andȱconceptualȱintegration,ȱ 147ȱ defined,ȱ3,ȱ152ȱ layeredȱblendingȱtemplate,ȱ 232ȱ

ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ

nonȬthingsȱandȱnonȬevents,ȱ 171nȱ andȱspaceȬbuilders,ȱ65ȱ asȱvaluableȱtool,ȱ108ȱ conceptualȱintegration,ȱ185–186ȱ ofȱbinyanim,ȱ104–107ȱ andȱconceptualȱblending,ȱ147ȱ conceptualȱmetaphorȱ andȱexperientialistȱapproach,ȱ 43nȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱ121–122ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ225,ȱ227ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ2.3,ȱ161ȱ andȱliteraryȱmetaphor,ȱ135– 146,ȱ162–167,ȱ235ȱ conceptualȱpacketsȱ cognitiveȱspacesȱas,ȱ124ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11,ȱ64–65ȱ mentalȱspacesȱas,ȱ33,ȱ35ȱ conditionalȱspace,ȱinȱJeremiahȱ 4.1Ȭ4.2,ȱ190–194,ȱ193nȱ conduitȱmetaphor,ȱ19,ȱ119ȱ connectionistȱnetworks,ȱ18ȱ consolidation,ȱ126nȱ constructionȱgrammar,ȱ68,ȱ73ȱ containmentȱschema,ȱ119–120,ȱ 121,ȱ143,ȱ234ȱ contiguity,ȱinȱdiscourseȱstrucȬ ture,ȱ100ȱ contingentȱmodality,ȱdefined,ȱ 192nȱ counterfactualȱspaceȱ defined,ȱ170ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9,ȱ169–173ȱ cumulativeȱreferentialȱdensity,ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2,ȱ130– 132ȱ ȱ

265ȱ

definiteness,ȱ153nȱ deicticȱterms,ȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ 2.3,ȱ124–127ȱ deixis,ȱ39–41,ȱ61,ȱ96n,ȱ145,ȱ232ȱ diachronic,ȱ25ȱ analysis,ȱ1,ȱ44,ȱ86ȱ vs.ȱsynchronic,ȱ1n–2n,ȱ21nȱ diathesis,ȱ89ȱ DictionaryȱofȱSemanticȱDomainsȱ (LouwȬNida),ȱ127ȱ directionality,ȱ199n–200nȱ discourse,ȱdefined,ȱ5ȱ discourseȱanalysis,ȱvs.ȱtextȱdyȬ namics,ȱ58nȱ discourseȱanalysisȱapproach,ȱ4– 5ȱ discourseȱatoms,ȱ46ȱ discourseȱstructureȱandȱmatter,ȱ 99–100ȱ discursiveȱtextȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31,ȱ188–204ȱ andȱspeechȱdomains,ȱ188n– 189nȱ vs.ȱnarrativeȱtext,ȱ49–51ȱ dynamicity,ȱ88,ȱ89n,ȱ99ȱ dynamics,ȱdefined,ȱ2ȱ ȱ embeddedȱquotation,ȱinȱJereȬ miahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ205–230,ȱ 236ȱ embedding,ȱcontinuumȱof,ȱ 203nȱ embodiedȱexperience,ȱ18–19ȱ encyclopedicȱbackgroundȱ knowledge,ȱ31,ȱ31n,ȱ182ȱ epistemicȱmodality,ȱ42n,ȱ133,ȱ 145–146ȱ EventȱStructure,ȱ136–138ȱ

266ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ

eventȬrelatedȱbrainȱpotentialȱ measures,ȱ45nȱ ExtendedȱGreatȱChainȱofȱBeingȱ metaphor,ȱ134,ȱ136–138,ȱ 145,ȱ153,ȱ162–163,ȱ165,ȱ 177,ȱ185,ȱ212,ȱ219,ȱ225,ȱ227ȱ ȱ fientive,ȱdefined,ȱ88nȱ figureȬground,ȱ36,ȱ70–71,ȱ93,ȱ 233ȱ FirstȱFruits,ȱasȱmetaphor,ȱ161,ȱ 162–163,ȱ165–166,ȱ213ȱ focalȱlink,ȱ20nȱ focus,ȱ44,ȱ44n,ȱ55–58,ȱ65,ȱ75n,ȱ 142n,ȱ233ȱ defined,ȱ117,ȱ126nȱ focusȱspace,ȱ34ȱ forceȱschema,ȱ143ȱ frames,ȱ34–35,ȱ146,ȱ178,ȱ225–228ȱ frontedȱselfȬreferentialȱterms,ȱ 192nȱ ȱ genericȱeventȱschema,ȱ103ȱ TheȱGrammaticalȱMarkingȱofȱ ConceptualȱIntegrationȱ (Mandelblit),ȱ102–107ȱ grammaticalȱtheories,ȱ68–73ȱ grammaticalisationȱapproach,ȱ 84–86ȱ grammaticalisationȱphenomeȬ na,ȱdefined,ȱ84–85ȱ grammaticalisationȱtheory,ȱ defined,ȱ85ȱ Grammatikȱdesȱbiblischenȱ Hebräischȱ(Schneider),ȱ50ȱ GreatȱChainȱhierarchy.ȱseeȱExȬ tendedȱGreatȱChainȱofȱBeȬ ingȱmetaphorȱ

GreatȱChainȱofȱBeingȱmetaȬ phor.ȱseeȱExtendedȱGreatȱ ChainȱofȱBeingȱmetaphorȱ ground,ȱdefined,ȱ16nȱ ȱ TheȱHebrewȱVerb:ȱAȱGrammaticaȬ lizationȱApproachȱ(Cook),ȱ 84–86ȱ Ȉholyȱwar,Ȉȱtranslationȱof,ȱ219nȱ HUMANȱISȱANIMAL,ȱ212ȱ humanȱscale,ȱscopingȱfrom,ȱ 167–169ȱ examplesȱof,ȱ167,ȱ236ȱ humanȱscale,ȱscopingȱto,ȱ150– 153ȱ examplesȱof,ȱ152,ȱ153,ȱ160,ȱ 164,ȱ190ȱ hypotheticalȱspace,ȱ193nȱ ȱ ICMȱ(IdealizedȱCognitiveȱ Model),ȱ96nȱ iconic,ȱdefined,ȱ152–153,ȱ152nȱ IdealizedȱCognitiveȱModelȱ (ICM),ȱ96nȱ identity,ȱproblemȱof,ȱ166–167,ȱ 178–182ȱ imageȱschemaȱtransformations,ȱ defined,ȱ94nȱ imageȱschemata,ȱ35–37ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ228–230ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15,ȱ175– 178ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.14,ȱ206–215ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ225–226ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ215–225ȱ andȱmetaphor,ȱ136,ȱ144,ȱ146ȱ andȱnonȬspatialȱdomains,ȱ41ȱ

ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ

IMPERFECTIVEȱISȱAȱFLUIDȱSUBȬ STANCE,ȱ95,ȱ96ȱ imperfectiveȱvs.ȱperfective,ȱ100ȱ informationȱstructureȱ categoriesȱof,ȱ26,ȱ53nȱ defined,ȱ26nȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱ115–117ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.10,ȱ174–175ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15,ȱ177ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ3.6Ȭ3.11,ȱ53–58ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.2,ȱ191–193ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.18,ȱ198ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.23Ȭ4.26,ȱ202– 204ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.2,ȱ207–208ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.10,ȱ213ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.14,ȱ214ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ6.7,ȱ217–219ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.9,ȱ220ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.11,ȱ221ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.16,ȱ222–223ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.27Ȭ6.30,ȱ225ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱandȱ 1.13Ȭ1.19,ȱ142–143ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.3Ȭ5.6ȱandȱ5.7Ȭ 5.8,ȱ210–211ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ3.19a,ȱ184ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.1aȬ2.2c,ȱ156– 159ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ3.19d,ȱ184ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.2dȬ2.3d,ȱ159ȱ andȱMentalȱSpacesȱTheory,ȱ 26–27ȱ andȱsemanticȱinformation,ȱ 83–84ȱ inherentȱrelationality,ȱ78ȱ intransitiveȱconstruction,ȱ90.ȱ 90n,ȱ102,ȱ104–105ȱ

267ȱ

journeyȱmetaphor,ȱ164ȱ ȱ landmark,ȱdefined,ȱ71,ȱ72ȱ languageȱinȱcontext,ȱ25ȱ lexicalizationȱandȱbinyanim,ȱ87– 91ȱ Libronix,ȱ11ȱ literaryȱmetaphor,ȱandȱconcepȬ tualȱmetaphor,ȱ135–146,ȱ 162–167,ȱ235ȱ LogosȱLibraryȱSystem,ȱ10nȱ LordȱofȱtheȱRingsȱ(Tolkien),ȱ144ȱ LOVEȱISȱAȱJOURNEY,ȱ162,ȱ164,ȱ188ȱ ȱ margins,ȱ84,ȱ101–107ȱ markedness,ȱ125,ȱ125n,ȱ156n,ȱ 157nȱ materialȱanchor,ȱ20–22,ȱ194nȱ matter,ȱpropertiesȱof,ȱ95,ȱ97–98ȱ mentalȱrepresentationsȱvs.ȱmenȬ talȱspaces,ȱ27ȱ mentalȱspaceȱnetwork,ȱdefined,ȱ 33ȱ mentalȱspacesȱ conceptualȱpacketsȱas,ȱ33,ȱ35ȱ described,ȱ34,ȱ35ȱ andȱspaceȬbuilders,ȱ65ȱ andȱspeechȱdomains,ȱ125,ȱ185ȱ andȱviewpointȱspace,ȱ38,ȱ94ȱ vs.ȱmentalȱrepresentations,ȱ27ȱ MentalȱSpacesȱTheoryȱ(MST)ȱ andȱtheȱaccessȱprinciple,ȱ178ȱ andȱbaseȬspace,ȱ113ȱ defined,ȱ27ȱ andȱinformationȱstructure,ȱ 26–27ȱ andȱreȬconceptualisation,ȱ19ȱ roleȱofȱsemantics,ȱ84ȱ

268ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ

andȱspaceȬbuilders,ȱ25ȱ mentalȱstatesȱpredicates,ȱ133ȱ metaȬlinguisiticȱdeiticȱterms,ȱ39ȱ metaphor.ȱseeȱspecificȱonesȱ andȱimageȱschemata,ȱ136,ȱ 144,ȱ146ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ228–230ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15,ȱ175– 178ȱ asȱtermȱinȱconceptualȱmetaȬ phorȱstudies,ȱ121nȱ metaȬrepresentationalȱcharacȬ ter,ȱ39ȱ methodȱofȱloci,ȱdefined,ȱ32nȱ modality,ȱandȱsemanticȱdoȬ mains,ȱ42nȱ modusȱponensȱargument,ȱ119ȱ morphologicalȱanalysis,ȱcomȬ putersȱand,ȱ10–11ȱ MST.ȱseeȱMentalȱSpacesȱTheoryȱ (MST)ȱ ȱ narrative,ȱ5–6,ȱ7,ȱ11–13,ȱ46nȱ vs.ȱdiscursiveȱtext,ȱ49–51,ȱ 188n–189nȱ NETȱBible,ȱ179nȱ networkȱmodel,ȱ32–35,ȱ143,ȱ232ȱ nonȬevents,ȱ171nȱ nonȬiconic,ȱdefined,ȱ152–153ȱ nonȬspatialȱdomains,ȱ41–44,ȱ232ȱ nonȬthings,ȱ171nȱ ȱ OBJECTIONABLEȱHUMANȱBEHAȬ VIORȱISȱANIMALȱBEHAVIOR,ȱ

212ȱ objectivity,ȱ14n,ȱ18n,ȱ50n–51n,ȱ 149,ȱ232ȱ onȬline,ȱdefined,ȱ33nȱ

orientation,ȱ37ȱ orientationalȱmetaphor,ȱ95ȱ originator,ȱdefined,ȱ14nȱ ȱ panchronic,ȱdefined,ȱ2nȱ parallelism,ȱ6–8,ȱ25,ȱ45nȱ participantȱmapping,ȱ107ȱ pathȱschema,ȱ19,ȱ36,ȱ118,ȱ146,ȱ 164ȱ PEOPLEȱAREȱANIMALS,ȱ177,ȱ209– 212,ȱ215,ȱ218,ȱ237ȱ PEOPLEȱAREȱPLANTS,ȱ162,ȱ165ȱ perceptionȱ cognitiveȱgrammarȱand,ȱ73– 78ȱ verbsȱof,ȱ132–134,ȱ132nȱ perceptionȱspace,ȱ62ȱ PERFECTIVEȱISȱAȱDISCRETEȱSOLIDȱ OBJECT,ȱ95,ȱ96ȱ perfectiveȱvs.ȱimperfective,ȱ100ȱ perspectiveȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱ111–119ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3,ȱ123–124ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.2,ȱ148–150ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.31,ȱ188–204ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ6.30,ȱ205–230,ȱ 236ȱ andȱnonȬspatialȱdomains,ȱ41– 44ȱ andȱpropheticȱtext,ȱ37–44,ȱ 232ȱ andȱspaceȬbuilders,ȱ42ȱ phraseȱatoms,ȱ45ȱ Pikeȇsȱtagmemeȱtheory,ȱ4ȱ poeticȱfunctionȱandȱparallelism,ȱ 6–7ȱ poeticȱtext,ȱandȱspaceȬbuilders,ȱ 182–185ȱ

ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ

pointȱofȱviewȱvs.ȱviewpoint,ȱ38ȱ PossibleȱWorldsȱphilosophy,ȱ 112nȱ pragmatics,ȱdefined,ȱ23ȱ predicateȱfocus,ȱ56–57,ȱ58ȱ predicateȱmapping,ȱ107ȱ PRESSURIZEDȱCONTAINER,ȱ144ȱ processes,ȱdefined,ȱ71,ȱ72–73ȱ profile,ȱdefined,ȱ70ȱ propertiesȱofȱmatter,ȱ95,ȱ97–98ȱ propheticȱliteratureȱ andȱspaceȬbuilders,ȱ42ȱ andȱtextȱdynamics,ȱ11–12,ȱ29,ȱ 237ȱ propheticȱtextȱ andȱcognitiveȱgrammarȱandȱ linguistics,ȱ107–108ȱ comprehensiveȱanalysisȱof,ȱ 66ȱ inȱdiscursiveȱvs.ȱnarrativeȱ text,ȱ51ȱ andȱPȱcategory,ȱ59ȱ andȱperspective,ȱ37–44,ȱ232ȱ prototypicalȱdialogue,ȱ64ȱ prototypicalȱsituation,ȱ76–77ȱ ȱ quaȱconceptualisers,ȱ20ȱ ȱ RebeccaȱBrownȱDesign,ȱ22nȱ RecentȱTrendsȱinȱtheȱLinguisticȱ DescriptionȱofȱOldȱHebrewȱ (vanȱderȱMerwe),ȱ9ȱ reȬconceptualisation,ȱ13,ȱ18n,ȱ 19,ȱ20,ȱ231ȱ reȬconceptualising,ȱ14ȱ Relationswörter,ȱ113,ȱ118ȱ reportedȱspeech,ȱ8ȱ

269ȱ

roleȱandȱreferenceȱgrammarȱ (RRG),ȱ68,ȱ69–70,ȱ233–234ȱ RRG.ȱseeȱroleȱandȱreferenceȱ grammarȱ(RRG)ȱ ȱ salience,ȱ99–100ȱ scalarȱadjustment,ȱ124n,ȱ126,ȱ 126nȱ schemas,ȱdefined,ȱ178ȱ scope,ȱdefined,ȱ126nȱ scopingȱ andȱconceptualȱintegration,ȱ 185ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.1Ȭ3.2,ȱ150–153ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱandȱ 1.13Ȭ1.19,ȱ138–140ȱ scopingȱfromȱhumanȱscale,ȱ 167–169ȱ examplesȱof,ȱ167,ȱ236ȱ scopingȱtoȱhumanȱscaleȱ examplesȱof,ȱ152,ȱ153,ȱ160,ȱ 164,ȱ190ȱ semanticȱdomainsȱ andȱgroupingȱverbsȱofȱperȬ ceptionȱandȱcognition,ȱ 73,ȱ132–133ȱ andȱmodality,ȱ42nȱ andȱparallelism,ȱ25ȱ andȱspaceȬbuilders,ȱ124,ȱ127,ȱ 129–130ȱ typesȱof,ȱ40ȱ semanticȱroles,ȱ74–75ȱ semanticsȱ defined,ȱ23,ȱ33ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.10,ȱ174–175ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15,ȱ177ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.2,ȱ191–193ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.18,ȱ198ȱ

270ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ

inȱJeremiahȱ4.23Ȭ4.26,ȱ202– 204ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.2,ȱ207–208ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.10,ȱ213ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.14,ȱ214ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ6.7,ȱ217–219ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.9,ȱ220ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.11,ȱ221ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.16,ȱ222–223ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.27Ȭ6.30,ȱ225ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.3Ȭ5.6ȱandȱ5.7Ȭ 5.8,ȱ210–211ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ3.19a,ȱ184ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.1aȬ2.2c,ȱ156– 159ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ3.19d,ȱ184ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.2dȬ2.3d,ȱ159ȱ ofȱvoice,ȱ89ȱ sentenceȱatoms,ȱ46ȱ sentenceȱfocus,ȱ56,ȱ58ȱ sharedȱgaze,ȱ17ȱ situation,ȱ68,ȱ75,ȱ76–77,ȱ78,ȱ80,ȱ 81,ȱ84,ȱ87–88,ȱ95–96,ȱ97,ȱ 98,ȱ99,ȱ100–101,ȱ108,ȱ150ȱ SITUATIONSȱAREȱMATERIALȱENTIȬ TIES,ȱ95ȱ

Slavicȱaspect,ȱ95,ȱ98ȱ SOCIALȱORGANIZATIONSȱAREȱ PLANTS,ȱ162,ȱ163,ȱ165–166,ȱ

213,ȱ237ȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱBUILDING,ȱ138ȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱPERSON,ȱ162,ȱ163,ȱ

164,ȱ165,ȱ177,ȱ185–186,ȱ 188,ȱ227,ȱ228–230ȱ SOCIETYȱISȱAȱPLANT,ȱ138,ȱ186,ȱ 188,ȱ212–213,ȱ215,ȱ218,ȱ 227,ȱ228–230ȱ sourceȱdomains,ȱ138ȱ

spaceȱ inȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱtext,ȱ91– 101ȱ defined,ȱ124nȱ spaceȬbuildersȱ inȱBiblicalȱHebrew,ȱ124–134ȱ inȱcognitiveȱconstruction,ȱ65ȱ defined,ȱ34,ȱ109,ȱ178ȱ asȱmentalȱspaceȱconstrucȬ tions,ȱ186ȱ andȱMentalȱSpacesȱTheory,ȱ 25ȱ metaȬlinguisiticȱdeiticȱtermsȱ as,ȱ39ȱ andȱperspective,ȱ42ȱ inȱpoeticȱtext,ȱ182–185,ȱ236ȱ andȱsemanticȱdomains,ȱ124,ȱ 127,ȱ129–130ȱ termsȱinȱJeremiahȱ1.4Ȭ2.3,ȱ 123–146ȱ typesȱof,ȱ61ȱ speechȱacts,ȱ39ȱ speechȱdomainsȱ asȱbaseȬspace,ȱ147ȱ andȱdiscursiveȱtext,ȱ188n– 189nȱ andȱmentalȱspaces,ȱ185ȱ primary,ȱ127–129,ȱ235ȱ secondary,ȱ129,ȱ235ȱ speechȱdomainȱfour,ȱinȱJereȬ miahȱ2.1Ȭ3.2,ȱ148–153,ȱ 235ȱ speechȱframes,ȱ64–65,ȱ233ȱ StuttgartȱElectronicȱBible,ȱ11,ȱ44ȱ subjectivity,ȱ14n,ȱ15,ȱ18,ȱ18n,ȱ 50n–51n,ȱ70n,ȱ149,ȱ232ȱ subjectivityȬobjectivity,ȱ37,ȱ109,ȱ 232ȱ

ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ

synchronic,ȱ25ȱ analysis,ȱ1,ȱ23,ȱ43–44,ȱ67,ȱ84,ȱ 86,ȱ232ȱ vs.ȱdiachronic,ȱ1n–2n,ȱ21nȱ syntaxȱ defined,ȱ23ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ1.3,ȱ115ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.10,ȱ174–175ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.14Ȭ2.15,ȱ177ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.1Ȭ4.2,ȱ191–193ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.11Ȭ4.18,ȱ198ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ4.23Ȭ4.26,ȱ202– 204ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.2,ȱ207–208ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.10,ȱ213ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.14,ȱ214ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.1Ȭ6.7,ȱ217–219ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.9,ȱ220ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.11,ȱ221ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.16,ȱ222–223ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ6.27Ȭ6.30,ȱ225ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ1.11Ȭ1.12ȱandȱ 1.13Ȭ1.19,ȱ141–142ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.3Ȭ5.6ȱandȱ5.7Ȭ 5.8,ȱ210–211ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ3.19a,ȱ184ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.1aȬ2.2c,ȱ156– 159ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ3.19d,ȱ184ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.2dȬ2.3d,ȱ159ȱ syntaxȱanalysis,ȱdefined,ȱ25,ȱ32,ȱ 65ȱ SyntaxȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱLanguageȱofȱ theȱOldȱTestamentȱ(Ewald),ȱ 82ȱ syntaxȬsemanticsȱinterface,ȱ mapping,ȱ83–91ȱ ȱ

271ȱ

tagmemeȱtheory,ȱPikeȇs,ȱ4ȱ targetȱdomain,ȱ138ȱ TD.ȱseeȱtextȱdynamicsȱ(TD)ȱ tense,ȱ50,ȱ68,ȱ78,ȱ78n,ȱ79–80,ȱ82– 83,ȱ87,ȱ91n,ȱ94,ȱ96,ȱ108,ȱ 178,ȱ234ȱ textȱdeixis,ȱ125ȱ textȱdynamicsȱ(TD)ȱ analysisȱmodel,ȱ32ȱ andȱauthor,ȱtext,ȱandȱreader,ȱ 30ȱ andȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱtext,ȱ 231–232ȱ asȱcognitiveȱapproach,ȱ65–66,ȱ 101,ȱ233ȱ defined,ȱ2,ȱ11ȱ andȱtheȱgrammaticalisationȱ approach,ȱ84ȱ methodologyȱof,ȱ232ȱ andȱNewȱTestamentȱtext,ȱ29nȱ aȱprimaryȱgoalȱof,ȱ43ȱ problemsȱof,ȱ27–28ȱ andȱpropheticȱliterature,ȱ11– 12,ȱ29,ȱ237ȱ stagesȱofȱprocedure,ȱ23–27ȱ syntaxȬsemanticsȱinterface,ȱ mapping,ȱ83–91ȱ vs.ȱdiscourseȱanalysis,ȱ58nȱ textȬtype,ȱ82nȱ themeȱtrace,ȱ61ȱ themeȬspanȱvs.ȱtopicȬspan,ȱ158nȱ things,ȱdescribed,ȱ72ȱ time,ȱinȱBiblicalȱHebrewȱtext,ȱ 91–101ȱ TIMEȱASȱAȱMOVINGȱOBJECT,ȱ96ȱ TIMEȱISȱAȱCONTAINER,ȱ94,ȱ95,ȱ 121–122,ȱ234ȱ

272ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ

TIMEȱISȱMOTION,ȱ68,ȱ92–94,ȱ96,ȱ

108,ȱ234ȱ TIMEȱISȱSPACE,ȱ68,ȱ94–97,ȱ100,ȱ

108,ȱ234ȱ topic,ȱ44,ȱ44n,ȱ53–58,ȱ115,ȱ233ȱ topicȱtheme,ȱ55ȱ topicalȱelaboration,ȱ117ȱ topicalȱframe,ȱ55,ȱ117ȱ topicȬspanȱvs.ȱthemeȬspan,ȱ158nȱ trajector,ȱdefined,ȱ71,ȱ72ȱ transitivityȱofȱcontainmentȱ principle,ȱ185ȱ transitivityȱofȱenclosureȱprinȬ ciple,ȱ119–120ȱ transspatialȱoperators,ȱdefined,ȱ 178ȱ TreatiseȱonȱtheȱUseȱofȱtheȱTensesȱ (Driver),ȱ82ȱ ȱ vantageȱpoint,ȱ37ȱ verbȱ(BiblicalȱHebrew),ȱ78–91ȱ aspect,ȱ81ȱ grammaticalisationȱapȬ proach,ȱ84–86ȱ lexicalizationȱandȱbinyanim,ȱ 87–91ȱ metaphorsȱand,ȱ234ȱ situation,ȱ87–88ȱ spaceȱandȱtime,ȱ91–101ȱ syntaxȬsemanticsȱinterface,ȱ mapping,ȱ83–91ȱ ȱ

tense,ȱ80ȱ tenseȱvs.ȱaspect,ȱ82–83ȱ terminology,ȱ79–81ȱ transitivity,ȱ88–89ȱ voice,ȱ89–91ȱ verbsȱofȱcommunication,ȱinȱ Jeremiahȱ1.1Ȭ2.2,ȱ130–132ȱ verbsȱofȱspeaking,ȱandȱcogniȬ tiveȱextension,ȱ184–185ȱ viewpoint,ȱ37–38,ȱ41,ȱ232ȱ viewpointȱspace,ȱ34,ȱ38,ȱ94ȱ visualȱscanningȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.4Ȭ2.9,ȱ167–173,ȱ 236ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ2.10,ȱ173–175,ȱ236ȱ inȱJeremiahȱ5.1Ȭ5.2,ȱ206–208ȱ VrijeȱUniversiteitȱ Amsterdam,ȱ44,ȱ47ȱ Netherlands,ȱ23ȱ ȱ WerkgroupȱInformatica,ȱVrijeȱ Universiteitȱ(WIVU),ȱ23,ȱ 78ȱ WIVU.ȱseeȱWerkgroupȱInformaȬ tica,ȱVrijeȱUniversiteitȱ (WIVU)ȱ WIVUȱdatabase,ȱ51,ȱ52n,ȱ59,ȱ69,ȱ 83,ȱ87nȱ Theȱ“WordȱOfȱYahweh”:ȱAȱTheoȬ logicalȱConceptȱinȱtheȱBookȱ ofȱJeremiahȱ(Levin),ȱ129ȱ