MCMASTER DIVINITY COLLEGE

HEBREW VERBAL SYSTEM

A PRESENTATION PAPER SUBMITTED TO:

DR. STANLEY E. PORTER

IN PARTIAL COMPLETION OF COURSE:

ADVANCED GREEK GRAMMAR AND LINGUISTICS

PHD COURSE CODE: G105

BY: HYUKKI KIM

HAMILTON, ONTARIO

APRIL 10, 2007

1

1. Introduction

The understanding of the biblical Hebrew verbal system has been a long-standing

struggle for Hebrew scholars. Especially, since the last quarter of 20th century, scholarly

debates on this issue have become more intensive than before. One reason, which makes

this debate more intensive, is because the Hebrew verbal system has internal problems

which are caused by the different written period between biblical writings or difference

between genres. Many scholars have tried to establish the scheme of the Hebrew verbal

system which covers the whole corpus of biblical writings.1 Hebrew scholars, however,

began to realize that the Hebrew verbal system may work differently according to the genre

and the written period.2 In order to effectively propose my thesis in this paper, therefore, I

will focus on narrative discourse in Classical Biblical Hebrew, which is discerned from

Late Biblical Hebrew. Firstly, I will try to summarize some difficult issues related to the

Hebrew verbal system and some proposals which have been developed in the history of

biblical Hebrew studies. Then I will introduce some recent proposals which adopt several

linguistic theories, such as theories of tense and aspect and discourse analysis. Through

critically synthesizing those approaches, I will develop my own approach. Finally, through

1 Most traditional grammarians belong to this, even though they notice some difference between

narrative and poetry but they try to establish the scheme of the Hebrew verbal system which covers the whole

corpus of biblical writings. For the same tendency in recent research, see B. Peckham, “Tense and Mood in

Biblical Hebrew.” ZAH 10/2 (1997): 139-68; T.D. Anderson, “The Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System,”

ZAH 13/1 (2000): 1-66; B. Waltke, and M. P. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona

Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990). 2 Cf. S.G. Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative: A Discourse Analysis of Narrative

from the Classical Period,” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1985; R.E. Longacre, “Weqatal Forms in

Biblical Hebrew Prose,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. R.D. Bergen (Winona Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns, 1994), 50-98; V. DeCaen, “On the Placement and Interpretation of the Verbs in Standard Biblical

Hebrew Prose,” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1995; J. Joosten, “The Distinction between Classical and

Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in Syntax,” HS 46 (2005): 327-39.

2

applying my own approach to the Hebrew text, I will examine the applicability of my

approach.

2. The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System

Some basic difficulties for studying biblical Hebrew rise from the fact that biblical

Hebrew, which is defined as the language documented in the Old Testament, is not spoken

anymore. In addition, because the Old Testament had been written over nearly a

millennium, there are some differences between books within the Old Testament. Therefore,

some scholars would distinguish between Classical Biblical Hebrew, which includes the

Pentateuch and Former Prophets, and Late Biblical Hebrew, which includes Ezra-

Nehemiah, Esther, and the non-synoptic parts of Chronicles.3 Some features that are found

in Late Biblical Hebrew are more radically developed in Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew,

which have a clear tense system.4 The difference is found not only in this diachronic aspect

but also in the synchronic aspect. Many discernible characteristics are found between

genres, particularly between narrative and poetry.5

Furthermore, the Hebrew verbal system shows some distinctive features from other

ancient Semitic languages by having only two major conjugations and the waw relative

3 Waltke, and O'Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 11-13; C. Rabin, “Hebrew,” Current Trends in

Linguistics 6. Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa, ed. T.A. Sebeok et al. (The Hague: Mouton,

1970), 304-46; E.Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language, ed. R. Kutscher (Jerusalem: Magnes,

1982); Angel Saenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, trans. John Elwolde (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1993); Joosten, “The Distinction between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew,”

327-39. 4 Mishinaic Hebrew is a tense-based language: qatal = past; yiqtol = future; qotel = present. Cf. M. H.

Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927), 72-73; Angel Saenz-Badillos, A History

of the Hebrew Language, trans. John Elwolde (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 190-95. 5 Cf. Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,

1985), 1-17; E.R. Wendland, “The Discourse Analysis of Hebrew Poetry: A Procedural Outline,” Discourse

Perspectives on Hebrew Poetry in the Scriptures, ed. E.R. Wendland, UBS Monograph Series 7 (New York:

United Bible Societies, 1994), 3-5.

3

system.6 In the indicative mood of biblical Hebrew, the verbal system has only two major

conjugations, suffix and prefix.7 Verbal forms is expressed by the combination of these two

conjugations and the conjunction waw. There are six types of combinations: qatal, wəqatal

(relative), wəqatal (copulative), yiqtol, wayyiqtol (relative) and wəyiqtol (copulative).8 Both

suffix and prefix conjugations occur in every temporal situation, such as present, future,

and past. It is strange in the point of view of European speakers who use tense-based

languages. More surprising is the fact that a series of wayyiqtol denotes sequential events in

the past while yiqtol without waw usually describes imperfective events in the present or

future. On the other hand, qatal is usually used for perfective events in the past, while

6 Cf. Akkadian distinguishes between present, perfect, stative, and preterite; Ugaritic perfect,

imperfect, jussive; Arabic perfect, imperfect, subjunctive, jussive. However, in Hebrew jussive and

subjunctive usually are in the same form as imperfect. See Patrick R. Bennett, Comparative Semitic

Linguistics: A Manual (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 94-118; G. Bergsträsser, Introduction to the Semitic

Languages: Text Specimens and Grammatical Sketches, trans. P. T. Daniels (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,

1983), 225-35; S. Moscati, et al., An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages:

Phonology and Morphology (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1964), 122-70.

For the studies which prove the existence of various paradigms of prefix conjugation in Hebrew from

the evidence of Semitic languages, see A. F. Rainey, “The Prefix Conjugation Patterns of Early Northwest

Semitic,” Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran,

ed. T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller, HSS 37 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 407-20; J.

Kuryłowicz, Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics (London: Curzon, 1973). Although these scholars try to

show some evidence which proves the existence of various paradigms of prefix conjugation in biblical

Hebrew, it is clear that those paradigms often cannot be distinguished and in the majority of case only one

prefix form occurs.

Some scholars argue that old Aramaic had a waw relative system. See T. Muraoka, “The Tel Dan

Inscription and Aramaic/Hebrew Tenses,” AbrN 33 (1995): 113-15; T. Muraoka, and M. Rogland, “The Waw

Consecutive in Old Aramaic? A Rejoinder to Victor Sasson,” VT 48 (1998): 99-104; contra. V. DeCaen, “The

Morphosyntactic Argument for the Waw-consecutive in Old Aramaic,” VT 51 (2001): 381-85. 7 There are other popular names: perfect and imperfect. However, in order to avoid some confusion

which may rise from the implication of the names, I will use suffix and prefix conjugation as the titles of

those two conjugations. However, when these names are used with waw relative forms, I will use the terms

qatal, wəqatal, wayyiqtol, and yiqtol. See Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, 455-56. 8 Most Hebrew scholars recognize five types of combinations without distinguishing between

wayyiqtol (relative) and wəyiqtol (copulative). However, I will use six types of combinations, because wəqatal

(relative) and wəqatal (copulative) are functionally discerned, just as wayyiqtol (relative) and wəyiqtol

(copulative) are distinguished. “Copulative” indicates that the combination between conjunction waw and a

verb does not make any change from the normal use of each conjugation and “relative” means that the

combination makes some change from the normal function of each conjugation. Following Waltke and

O’Connor I use the name ‘waw relative’ rather than the popular name, ‘waw consecutive,’ because this

combination describes not only sequential relationship but also subordinate relationship.

4

wəqatal (relative) is often for imperfective events. These seemingly boundless uses of both

conjugations have led Hebrew scholars to propose many theories about the Hebrew verbal

system.9

3. The History of the Verbal System in Biblical Hebrew

From the earliest Jewish grammarians such as David Qumhi (1160-1235) until 1827,

the traditional view, which prevailed in the Christian universities of Europe, was tense-

based theories, because Mishnaic Hebrew and most European languages are tense-based

languages.10 Following Mishnaic Hebrew, they considered three tenses in biblical Hebrew:

qatal = past; yiqtol = future; qotel = present. They called the combination of a verb form

with waw conjunction waw hippûk, that is, waw-conversive, because when the verb form is

combined with waw conjunction, the tense of the verb form is converted into the tense of

the opposite verb form.11

However, these tense-based theories have some weaknesses because in practice

these theories do not fit well. According to McFall’s statistics, the RSV translates qatal

with a past tense in 10,830 instances out of a total of 13,874 occurrences, wayyiqtol with a

past in 14,202 out of a total of 14,972, yiqtol with a future in 5,451 instances out of a total

of 14,299, and wəqatal (relative) with a future in 2,932 out of a total of 6,378. As seen in

these statistics, qatal and wayyiqtol support these tense based theories but yiqtol and

9 See Leslie McFall, The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present

Day (Sheffield: Almond, 1982); Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, 455-78. 10 Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, 458-59.

11 Ibid., 459.

5

weqatal betray the theories.12 The RSV translates yiqtol and wəqatal with a past tense

respectively in 484 and 774 instances. Especially in poetry books, the breaking of these

rules is more radical.13 While being aware of these problems, Hebrew scholars tried to

correct their tense-based theories with notions of relative time and a comparative-historical

approach, but they still held fast their tense-based theories.14

It was Heinrich Ewald (1803-1875) who broke new ground in the study of the

verbal system. Following the teaching of Johann Jahn (1750-1816) with respect to the

terminology of the verbal system, Ewald wrote of the two conjugations in 1827: “The first

aorist (qatal) conveys a completed (perfectam) thing, whether present, preterite, or future.

The second aorist (yiqtol) conveys a non-completed (imperfectam) thing, whether present,

preterite, or future.”15 Edwald considered waw-relative to indicate more emphatically the

consequence of an action and called it waw-consecutive. In addition, he argued that

wayyiqtol functions as the antithesis of wəqatal. While anticipating later comparative-

historical research, Ewald observed that the wayyiqtol form is related wherever possible to

the jussive form.16 While Ewald’s views better satisfied the data than any tense theory, his

terms “perfect” and “imperfect” replaced the temporal terms. Even standard works on the

other Semitic languages came to employ similar concepts and terms.17

12 McFall, Enigma, 186-87.

13 Ibid.

14 See Ibid., 21-37. McFall mentions N.W. Schroder, Philip Gell, Samuel Lee, and so on.

15 Ibid., 44, as translated from original Latin text in Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, 463. According to

McFall, Jahn called two conjugations the first and second aorists, abandoning the terms, Past and Future.

Although Samuel Lee accused Ewald of plagiarism, the concepts of two conjugations were Ewald’s. 16 McFall, Enigma, 54.

17 Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, 464. Cf. Moscati et al., Comparative Grammar, 131; Bennett,

Semitic Linguistics, 94-118; Bergsträsser, Semitic Languages, 225-35.

6

The Influential British scholar S.R. Driver (1846-1914) accepted Ewald’s theory

and made it popular.18 However, he did not make a significant independent contribution to

the study of the verbal system, although he had some different opinions from Ewald’s

theory.19 In these early forms of aspect theory, the view of Ewald and Driver had some

weaknesses. They confused the concept of “complete” with that of “completed.” As a result,

they argued for a so-called “prophetic perfect,” which is prophets’ use of the suffix

conjugation for future events. According to them, this use is because prophets recognized

the future events as completed.20 In addition, it is not fully correct to describe future-time

references and modal nuances as the term “imperfect aspect,” as Thomas O. Lambdin

mentions.21 This aspectualist view is found in most standard Hebrew grammar books in the

20th century.22

Since the last quarter of the 20th century, tense-based theories have begun to appear

again.23 Furthermore, with help from historical comparative studies and linguistics studies,

18 Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, 464.

19 According to Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, 464, “Driver sought to explain the two conjugations in

Hebrew by relating them to the aspects “perfect” and “imperfect” as interpreted by G. Curtius for Greek. This

led him to claim that the imperfect always signified nascent or incipient action, whereas Ewald had suggested

such meanings as only one possibility.” 20 Ibid. Cf Bernard Comrie, Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related

Problems (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1976), 18. According to Comrie, there is an important semantic

distinction between terms “completed” and “complete.” Later, I will discuss this issue in detail. 21 T.O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Schriber, 1971), 100. He mentions, “It

is not entirely accurate…to describe such action (general, non-specific, habitual, potential, or to some degree

probable) as incomplete or unfinished, as is often done.” 22 Cf. A.B. Davidson and John Mauchline, An Introductory Hebrew Grammar, 26

th ed. (Edinburgh:

T.&T. Clark, 1966), 81; Moshe Greenberg, Introduction to Hebrew (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-

Hall, 1965), 45; Jacob Weingreen, Classical Hebrew Composition, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1959), 56;

Lambdin, Introduction; R.J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto,

1976), 29-34; Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, 455-78. 23 J. Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971); E.J. Revell, “The

System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose,” HUCA 60 (1989): 1-37; A. F. Rainey, “The Prefix

Conjugation Patterns of Early Northwest Semitic,” Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern

Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, eds. T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller, HSS 37 (Atlanta:

Scholars Press, 1990), 407-20.

7

debates became more complicated.24 From historical comparative studies, scholars have

tried to find the origin of waw relative. The basic proposal is that the Hebrew prefix

conjugation is remnants of two older prefix conjugations (yaqtul and yaqtulu in Ugaritic),

the short form (yaqtul) denoting preterite and jussive, and the long form (yaqtulu)

imperfective aspect, unreal mood, or general present and future actions.25 Now while many

scholars accept this proposal, they use it for supporting their theories. Although this

proposal may have some merits for understanding the ancient Semitic verbal system and

the origin of the Hebrew verbal system, this proposal from comparative study has its own

set of problems. The main problem is that with most verbs the two alleged prefix

conjugations cannot be distinguished. Thus, Waltke and O'Connor, although they accept

this proposal, they question “Can a language tolerate such a homonymy? Can a language

tolerate over an extended period the same form representing opposing aspects or tenses?”26

Therefore, Zevit comments that “Etymological explanations that purport to describe the

origins of the Hebrew verbal system are inadequate as descriptions of how this system

works in fact.”27

24 Scholars tend to keep the balance between two views without falling into an extreme view. Cf. Y.

Endo, The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An Approach from Discourse Analysis,

SSN 32 (Assen/Maastricht: van Gorcum, 1996); R. Buth, “The Hebrew Verb in Current Discussions,” Journal

of Translation and Textlinguistics 5 (1992): 91-105; R.S. Hendel, “In the Margins of the Hebrew Verbal

System: Situation, Tense, Aspect, Mood,” ZAH 9/2 (1996): 152-81; J. Huehnergard, “The Early Hebrew

Prefix-Conjugations,” HS 29 (1988): 19-23; P.J. Gentry, “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical

Hebrew,” HS 39 (1998): 7-39. 25 Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, 468-70. Also see W.L. Moran, “The Hebrew Language in its

Northwest Semitic Background,” The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell

Albright, ed. G. E. Wright (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961) 59-84; A. F. Rainey, “The Ancient Hebrew

Prefix Conjugation in Light of Amarnah Canaanite,” HS 27 (1986): 4-19. 26 Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, 468.

27 Zevit, “Talking Funny in Biblical Henglish and Solving a Problem of the Yaqtul Past Tense,” HS

29 (1988): 27. Also see E.L. Greenstein, “On the Prefixed Preterite in Biblical Hebrew.” HS 29 (1988): 7-17; J.

Huehnergard, “The Early Hebrew Prefix-Conjugations.” HS 29 (1988): 19-23.

8

Recently, scholars tend to adopt some theories which were developed in the field of

linguistics. For example, there are studies about ‘time’ and ‘aspect,’ and theories of text-

linguistics.28 While delaying the comment about the former, I will first deal with theories of

text-linguistics which were applied to the studies of the Hebrew verbal system, because it is

the main focus of this paper.

4. Discourse Analysis Approaches

With the recent increasing interest in discourse analysis many books and articles

have appeared from the perspective of discourse analysis. Two main approaches among

studies on the Hebrew verbal system can be distinguished. One is an approach influence by

a German text-linguistic scholar, Harald Weinrich. Main proponents of this approach are W.

Schneider, A. Niccacci and E. Talstra. The other is an approach developed by K.L. Pike

and his student R.E. Longacre, the so-called Tagmemics model. Many bible translators and

American scholars follow Tagmemics, because K.L. Pike and R.E. Longacre are main

figures in the Summer Institute of Linguistics, the linguistic institute for Bible translation in

America. For the sake of convenience, I will focus on the views of Niccacci and Longacre,

because they are key proponents for each camp.

While responding to criticism of his view, Niccacci is improving his view’s

weaknesses. His basic proposal is, however, still based on the theories of Weinrich and

28 About time and aspect, see B. Comrie, Tense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985);

idem, Aspect. About discourse analysis, see G. Brown, and G. Yule, Discourse Analysis (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1983); R. de Beaugrande, and W. Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics

(London/New York: Longman, 1981); S. Levinson, Pragmatics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1983).

9

Schneider.29 According to H. Weinrich, text-linguistics refers to “a method used in

linguistics to describe all the elements of a language including the function these have in

oral and written texts… A grammar which does not accept units beyond the sentence can

never even notice let alone resolve the most interesting problems of linguistics.”30 Weinrich

considers narrative texts from three aspects: linguistic attitude, foregrounding and linguistic

perspective.31 Following Weinrich, in terms of linguistic attitude, Niccacci differentiates

two text types (genres), which are group I, “discourse” or “comment” and group II,

“narrative.”32 Later, he calls “discourse” “direct speech” because the term “discourse” is

confusing when talking of “discourse analysis” instead of text-linguistics.33 According to

Niccacci, the term “narrative” “concerns persons or events which are not present or current

in the relationship involving writer-reader and so the third person is used.”34 Later, he

distinguishes narrative into a historical narrative and an oral narrative (or report in the

direct speech).35 The term ‘direct speech’ refers not only to dialogue, sermon, or prayer, but

29 About his improving of terminologies and weaknesses, see A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in

Classical Hebrew Prose, JSOTSup 86 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); idem, “On the Hebrew

Verbal System,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. R.D. Bergen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,

1994), 117-37; idem, “Basic Facts and Theory of the biblical Hebrew Verb System in Porse,” Narrative

Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996, ed. E. van Wolde, Biblical

Interpretation Series 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 167-202. 30 H. Weinrich, Tempus. Besprochene und erzählte Welt, 3

rd ed (Stuttgart, 1977), 5, as cited in

Niccacci, Syntax, 19. 31 Ibid.

32 Niccacci, Syntax, 19.

33 Idem, “On the Hebrew Verbal System,” 119.

34 Idem, Syntax, 29.

35 Idem, “On the Hebrew Verbal System,” 120-21. However, “How the relationship between direct

speech and oral narrative should be understood is not clear,” as Van der Merwe comments, in “An Overview

of Hebrew Narrative Syntax,” Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996,

ed. E. van Wolde, Biblical Interpretation Series 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 12.

10

also to indirect speech, “as when an author comments in different ways upon the story he is

narrating.”36

Following Weinrich, Niccacci tries to find “foreground” and “background” in

biblical texts, but he does not give an explanation of these terms. P.J. Hopper provides the

theoretical explanation of these notions:

It is evidently a universal of narrative discourse that in any extended text an overt

distinction is made between the language of the actual story line and the language of

supportive material which does not itself narrate the main events. I refer to the former –

the parts of the narrative which related events belonging to the skeletal structure of the

discourse – as FOREGROUND and the latter as BACKGROUND…One finds, … a

tendency for punctual verbs to have perfective aspect (i.e. to occur in foregrounded

sentences) and conversely for verbs of the durative/stative/iterative types to occur in

imperfective, i.e. backgrounded, clauses… Strictly speaking, only foregrounded clauses

are actually NARRATED. Backgrounded clauses do not themselves narrate, but instead

they support, amplify, or COMMENT on the narration… one finds in backgrounding

those forms associated with a lower degree of assertiveness, and even forms designated as

irrealis: subjunctives, optatives, other “modal” verb forms (including those expressed as

modal auxiliaries), and negation.37

Similarly to this theory, Niccacci recognizes verb forms for foreground and

background in each genre. In “narrative,” wayyiqtol is the verb form for foreground while

waw-X-qatal and wəqatal are usually for background.38 In “direct speech” the forms which

build the foreground and background may differ in accordance with the temporal axis that

is involved. For example, in the axis of the future wəqatal indicates foreground and w-X-

yiqtol background. In the axis of the past, X-qatal and continuative wayyiqtol are used for

foreground and waw-X-qatal is for background.39

36 Niccacci, “On the Hebrew Verbal System,” 119.

37 P.J. Hopper, “Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse,” Discourse and Syntax, ed. T. Givón,

Syntax and Semantics 12 (New York: Academic Press, 1976), 213-216, as cited in Y. Endo, The Verbal System

of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An Approach from Discourse Analysis, SSN 32 (Assen/Maastricht:

Van Gorcum, 1996), 22. 38 Niccacci notices that waw-X-yiqtol and waw-simple nominal clause are also used for background

information. 39 Niccacci, “On the Hebrew Verbal System,” 132.

11

According to this linguistic perspective, he distinguishes verbal forms into retrieved

information (flashback, ‘antecedent’ to the ensuing account), degree zero (the level of the

story itself), and anticipated information (‘disclosure,’ reveals the end of the story). He

shows this table:40

English

Hebrew

Recovered

Information (↑) Degree zero(O)

Anticipated

Information (↓)

Past perfect Simple past

Imperfect Conditional

Narrative

WAW-X-QATAL WAYYIQTOL YIQTOL

Present perfect Present

Volitive moods Future

Discourse

X-QATAL

Volitive forms

(x-)QATAL

X-indicative YIQTOL

Simple noun clause

YIQTOL

Final Clauses etc.

Niccacci affirms that “verb forms have fixed temporal reference when they are

verbal sentences and /or indicate the mainline of communication both in narrative and in

direct speech.”41 However, when they are nominal clauses and indicate a subsidiary line of

communication, they have a relative temporal reference. Thus, in the subsidiary line of

communication, aspect in the sense of mode of action (Aktionsart), is a legitimate category

of the Hebrew verbal system.42 Then he summarizes it in this table:

43

Temporal Axes Comment Narrative

Present Simple nominal clause

Volitive forms Simple nominal clause

Past Qatal, or X-qatal Wayyiqtol

Future X-yiqtol (indicative)

wəqatal

X-yiqtol (indicative)

wəqatal

40 Idem, “Syntax,” 20-21.

41 Ibid., 129.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid., 120.

12

Another contribution is about the position of the verb. According to him, the x-Verb

type of sentence is not a stylistic variant of the Verb-x type but a different type with

distinctively different functions. Thus, “first-place verb form constitutes a plain, unmarked

sentence where the verb is the predicate, as expected. On the contrary, second-place verb

form constitutes a marked sentence where the verb is demoted to the role of subject, or

“given” information or the sentence as a whole is demoted to the status of syntactic

dependence.”44 He distinguishes the second-place verb form into three categories:

45

I - Emphasis on “x” II – No emphasis on “x” III – No emphasis on “x”

X (=PP) – V (D)

X (=IP) – V (D)

X – V (contrast; N)

X – V (antecedent Information)

X – V (Circumstance)

Oral report (D)

D = direct speech; IP = interrogative pronoun; N = historical narrative;

PP = personal pronoun; V = finite verb; x = a non-verbal element

Niccacci’s theory shows more systematic explanation of the Hebrew verbal system

than the old theories did. The advantage of his view is to consider the verbal system from

the perspective of text-linguistics. That is, he focuses not just on the level of word or

sentence but on the level of discourse. From this perspective, he effectively explains that

each verb form has different function in different text type. Then, he shows the differences

of the functions between verb forms in the same text type. Moreover, he also distinguishes

between the functions of sentences according to word order. These are insightful points

which are gained by a text-linguistics approach.

44 Idem, “Basic Facts and Theory of the biblical Hebrew Verb System in Prose,” Narrative Syntax,

176. 45 Ibid.

13

However, as one of the founders of the new approach in Hebrew studies, his view

has some weaknesses. Although his theory begins with a presupposition of a top-down

character, he considers his theory to be a bottom-up approach in contrast to a top-down

approach which is the characteristic of Longacre’s theory and he often complains that

discourse linguists posit too many text types.46 This is, however, not a proper criticism

because his approach has the same starting point as Longacre’s in terms of discerning text

types. The difference is that he has just two text types while Longacre has at least four:

narrative, procedural, expository and hortatory discourse.47 Then, he also divides these two

types into more categories but the classification between categories is often not clear, as

seen between oral narrative and direct speech.48

Another problem is his tendency toward overstatement of the rules of syntax, which

sometimes makes his own arguments inconsistent.49

Thus, the lack of his work’s

thoroughness caused some critics to complain that “such an approach takes us into the

realm of semantic forces of individual verb and ultimately can tell us nothing about … WP

(=wayyiqtol) in a more generalized sense.”50 Because some weakness of his theory overlaps

with Longacre’s theory, I will later deal with it in my comments on Longacre’s theory.

46 Niccacci, “On the Hebrew Verbal System,” 119.

47 R.E. Longacre, Joseph, A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic

Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 60-62; idem, “The Paragraph as a

Grammatical Unit,” Discourse and Syntax, ed. T. Givon, (New York: Academic, 1979), 115-34. 48 See Van der Merwe, “Overview,” 12; D.A. Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew,

JSOTSup 177 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 31-32. 49 See Dawson, Text-Linguistics, 32-33.

50 D.L. Washburn, “Chomsky’s separation of syntax and semantics,” HS 35 (1995): 31. Also see G.

Hatav, The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew

(Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1997), 15-16.

14

Another distinctive approach is Longacre’s Tagmemic theory, which is one of

functional approaches in the field of discourse analysis.51 While his theory is based on the

work of K.L. Pike, he developed his own theory. 52 Tagmemics has three concepts:

tagmeme, syntagmeme, and hierarchical linguistic structure. 53 “The tagmeme was

originally defined as a slot-class correlation” and he prefer to refer to the slot-filler

correlation as function-set. Thus tagmeme may be a functional element which constitutes

the clause, such as a subject-as-agent tagmeme and object-as-patient tagmeme. Tagmemes

combine to form structured wholes, that is, syntagmemes. The English transitive clause is

such a syntagmeme. Thus, “the functions of the various tagmemes are expounded by sets of

syntagmemes and a syntagmeme is composed of tagmemes… Together, tagmeme and

syntagmeme related yield a systematic theory of grammatical hierarchy. At every level of

structure from the stem level to the discourse level, tagmemes compose syntagmemes. Thus,

discourse-level tagmemes are units such as episodes in stories or points in a sermon.”

Van der Merwe summarizes some basic assumptions of Longacre’s discourse

grammar:54

1. Any morphosyntactic form in a text represents the author’s choice whether conscious

or automatic; we may not know the why’s of all such choices, but we may speculate on

them as implementations of different discourse strategies… Among these problems have

been dexis and the use of articles. Pronominalization, and other anaphoric ways of

referring to a participant; better understanding of tense, aspect, mode, and voice in verbs;

use of optional temporal and spatial expressions; the function of extraposition; left

dislocation, and others such features; subject selection, object selection, and other focus

phenomena; the functions and thrust of conjunctions and other sequence signals; and the

51 C.H.J. Van der Merwe, “Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Grammar,” Biblical Hebrew

and Discourse Linguistics, ed. R.D. Bergen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 19-20. 52 Cf. Kenneth L. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human

Behavior (The Hague: Mouton, 1967). 53 I will summarize his tagmemic theory from his appendix in Joseph, A Story of Divine Providence,

311-13. 54 C.H.J. van der Merwe, “A Critical Analysis of Narrative Syntactic Approaches, with Special

Attention to Their Relationship to Discourse Analysis,” Narrative Syntax, ed. Van Wolde, 142-43.

15

function of mystery particles which occur in connected contexts in some language, which

the native speaker knows where to use and where not to use, but which defy translation.

2. In the grammar of language, there are hierarchical levels from morpheme to stem,

word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, and discourse.

3. At each level a number of syntagmemes or discourse types that consist of tagmemes

are distinguishable, e.g. at the level of discourse four discourse types are distinguished in

terms of the parameters “agent and temporal succession,” viz. narrative (+agent,

+succession), procedural (-agent, +temporal succession), hortatory (+agent, -succession)

and expository (-agent, -temporal succession).

4. Each discourse type has its own grammatical rules, e.g. – There is a different word

order in the clauses that encode their mainline information, as in Biblical Hebrew, where

the order VSO (verb, subject, object) prevails in narrative, but SVO in exposition.

5. The narrative discourse type consists of the following tagmemes, viz. title, aperture,

stage, episode, peak, a peak’ (in which the peak is resolved) and closure. Each tagmeme

has a set of constructions that are associated with it, e.g. the peak and peak’ has the

following type of surface structure characteristics: “(1) rhetorical underlining by means of

repetition and paraphrase, (2) heightened vividness by a tense shift or by person shift, …

(7) ‘slowing the camera down’ by treating structures that are not usually on the event line

as if they were.”

6. “Comprehension of a story results from multiple processing, including top-down (use

of the schema) and bottom-up (use of content) and cues provide by the text.”

Based on his theory of discourse analysis, Longacre proposes verbal rank schemes

according to discourse type. This is a verbal rank in narrative:55

Band 1:

Storyline 1. Preterite

56: primary (wayyiqtol)

Band 2:

Backgrounded

Actions

2.1. Perfect (qatal)

2.2 Noun + perfect (with noun in focus)

Band 3:

Backgrounded

Activities

3.1. hinnēh + participle

3.2. Participle

3.3. Noun + participle

Band 4:

Setting

4.1. Preterite of hāyâ, ‘be’

4.2. Perfect of hāyâ, ‘be’

4.3. Nominal clause (verbless)

4.4. Existential clause with yēš

Band 5: 5. Negation of verb clause: irrealis (any band)

55 Longacre, Analysis of Genesis, 81.

56 He believes that prefix form in wayyiqtol is related to preterite form in early Semitic languages,

separated from prefix form which means imperfective (Ibid., 65).

16

He treats clauses with a preterite (wayyiqtol) as on the narrative line and all clauses

with some other form of the verb as off-the-line.57 That means that the typical word order

of main line clauses is VSO. Clauses with a verb in qatal have a secondary function

marking backgrounded actions, and clauses with a participle backgrounded activities.

According to Longacre, wayyiqtol verbs are ‘punctiliar’ and ‘sequential’ in narrative, while

qatal is found to be a non-punctiliar and non-sequential kind of past tense.58 On the other

hand, “the imperfect (yiqtol) and the participles are respectively implicitly and explicitly

durative in framework of the story and hāyâ clauses and verbless clauses represent static

elements toward the bottom of the scheme and negated clauses rank lowest.”59 wayyiqtol

verbs have the important property of advancing the progress of a narrative. These clauses

report events in the same order as their succession in the real world.60

He also shows the second verb rank scheme in predictive discourse:61

Band 1:

Lind of Prediction 1. waw (consecutive) perfect (wəqatal)

Band 2:

Backgrounded

Predictions

2.1. Imperfect

2.2. Noun + imperfect (with noun in focus)

Band 3:

Backgrounded

Activities

3.1. hinnēh + participle

3.2. Participle

3.3. Noun + participle

Band 4:

Setting

4.1. wəqatal of hāyâ, ‘be’

4.2. Imperfect of hāyâ, ‘be’

4.3. Nominal clause (verbless)

4.4. Existential clause with yēš

According to Longacre, “the general parallelism of prediction (events told in

advance of their happening) and narration (recounting of events that have already

57 Ibid., 80.

58 Ibid., 59.

59 Ibid.

60 See Ibid., 90.

61 Ibid., 107.

17

transpired) is seen in the common adherence to a strict VSO (or VOS) ordering of storyline

clauses and the restriction to the affirmative.”62 Thus, wəqatal verbs are composed of

storyline while yiqtol of off-the-line. That is, the highest ranking form of the verb in

predictive discourse is wəqatal. The next highest ranking verb forms are forms of the

imperfect, that is, yiqtol.

He also shows verb rank scheme in hortatory discourse:63

Band 1:

Primary line of

Exhortation

1.1. Imperative (2 person)

1.2. Cohortative (1 person)

1.3. 1.3. Jussive (3 person)

unranked

Band 2:

Second line of

Exhortation

2.1. ā l + jussive/imperfect

2.2. Modal imperfect

Band 3:

Results/Consequences

(Motivation)

3.1. w (consecutive) perfect

3.2. lô’/pen + imperfect

3.3. (Future) perfect

Band 4:

Setting (Problem)

4.1. Perfect (of past events)

4.2. Participles

4.3. Nominal clauses

In hortatory discourse, command forms are central. Commands in Biblical Hebrew

are formally distinguished according to person. In the second person, (positive) commands

are imperative. In the first person, cohortatives occur and in the third person jussives. In the

secondary band he puts negative commands and modal uses of the imperfect figure. He

places final clauses in the third band, which are expressed by wəqatal in the positive result

and lô’/pen + imperfect in the negative result.

This is not a full explanation but shows Longacre’s contribution in terms of the

Hebrew verbal system. His approach is based on observations of a variety of languages and

62 Ibid., 106.

63 Ibid., 121.

18

is still scrutinized by him on a regular basis in the light of new findings.64 Moreover, in

comparison with the approaches of Niccacci and other scholars, some may argue that he

has a much more sophisticated frame of reference. However, as we will explain below, his

theory has some weaknesses which are in common with Niccacci’s.65

Recently, Jean-Marc Heimerdinger wrote a book on topic, focus, and foreground in

ancient Hebrew Narratives from the perspective of discourse analysis, which was originally

based on his Ph.D. dissertation.66 Through his entire book, he criticizes Longacre’s theory

and proposes his own approach.

First, Heimerdinger’s main criticism of Longacre’s theory is against his notion of

foregrounding. Longacre usually argues the foreground/background approach which relies

upon only one form in each discourse type, e.g. wayyiqtol in narrative discourse. However,

as Heimerdinger shows throughout his book, wayyiqtol clauses do not form always main

story lines. They may be an evaluative comment, a descriptive detail, a summary, an

enumeration, and explanatory information, which do not move the action or the event

forward.67 This observation indicates that, depending on its function in discourse, wayyiqtol

may or may not be foregrounded. In addition, temporally sequenced events need not be

64 Van der Merwe, “Analysis of Narrative Syntactic Approaches,” 144.

65 R.E. Longacre, “Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verbs: Affirmation and Restatement,”

Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. W. R. Bodine (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 177. Actually, he

himself mentions that his theory is similar to Niccacci and Schneider. 66 J.M. Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives, JSOTSup 295

(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). 67 See ibid., 76-98. He examines many examples which belong to something other than mainline.

Also see R. Buth, “Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis: The Problem

of ‘Unmarked Temporal Overlay’ and the ‘Pluperfect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol,’” Biblical Hebrew and

Discourse Linguistics, ed. R.D. Bergen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 138-54; E. Talstra, “Clause

Types and Textual Structure: An Experiment in Narrative Syntax,” Narrative and Comment: Contributions

Presented to Wolfgang Schneider, ed. E. Talstra (Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1995),

166-179.

19

encoded in a uniform grammatical class, nor in a homogeneous formal class (wayyiqtol) as

Longacre assumes.68

Secondly, Heimerdinger argues that the notion of foregrounding is faulty because,

by grammaticalizing the notion of foregrounding it also ends up by grammaticalizing the

notion of importance in the discourse. As he shows in his book, foregrounding is not a

simple matter which can be found only by the verbal form. Rather, various linguistic items,

which in the perspective of pragmatics will evoke reader’s interest, can be put to use for

foregrounding.69 Thus, van der Merwe argues correctly:

70

The growing awareness of the complexity of human communication and that trying to

understand a text involves much more than decoding a linguistic code, caution us towards

the following: - the holistic type of text semantic type of approach of Longacre and

claims like “it is my conviction that the verb forms in a narrative constitute the main clue

to the author’s perspective in presenting information.”

Thirdly, although Longacre’s theory claims to be a simultaneous top-down and

bottom-up approach, it has an intrinsic weakness which is often found in top-down

approaches. His own notional framework often tends to override the formal aspect of his

data, which in terms of his own theory should play an equal role.71 Den Exter Blokland

complained that “in spite of incorporation of syntactical features, exploring the workings of

the Hebrew text syntax does not seem Longacre’s primary concern. Rather his concern is in

bringing to the text a kind of universal syntax of semantics, a formalization of textual

68 Ibid., 261. Also see ibid., 98-100.

69 Ibid., 262-63. Also see R. Buth, “Functional Grammar, Hebrew and Aramaic: An Integrated, Text

Linguistic Approach to Syntax,” Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers, ed.

W.R. Bodine (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 77-102. Buth, 87, also observes similar problems: “If we define

foreground as a pragmatic function, instead of semantically, we get around the impasse of non-sequential

events being encoded with a “sequential-foregrounding” structure… We would not be able to point to an

event in a narrative and say categorically, based only on the referential nature of the event itself, that it is or is

not a foregrounded event.” 70 Van der Merwe, “Analysis of Narrative Syntactic Approaches,” 145.

71 Ibid., 144.

20

interpretation.”72 In fact, as a top-down approach, his theory’s first step is to determine the

discourse type of the text. However, determining its discourse type is not easy without

analyzing the text by bottom-up approach. Therefore, it is another difficulty with his

approach.

As seen in the studies of Niccacci and Longacre, the approaches of discourse

analysis have many advantages which traditional grammars have not made. Especially, they

show the function of the verbal system of the level of discourse and its difference according

to discourse types. Overstatement and oversimplification which are revealed in their

theories should be corrected. Because human communication is more complicated and

reading text is not only the process related to its semantics but also to its pragmatics, in

order to find the meaning and function of the Hebrew verbal system, we should pay

attention to more various linguistic items than Niccacci and Longacre suggest. While I

appreciate the great contributions of previous scholars, from both traditional approach and

discourse approach, I will propose my own approach for understanding the Hebrew verbal

system.73

5. A Proposed Approach for Understanding the Hebrew Verbal System

The Hebrew verbal system is based on aspect, not tense. However, it does not mean

that the Hebrew language does not have a means of conveying the time of an event. It just

means that in Hebrew tense is not encoded in verbal forms as an absolute tense system.

Rather, tense is determined by context, that is, discourse type, temporal expressions and so

72 A.F. den Exter Blokland, In Search of Text Syntax: Towards a Syntactic Segmentation Model for

Biblical Hebrew (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1995), 89. 73 Honestly speaking, it is not a new method but may be more balanced method than previous ones.

21

on. Although I accept the theory of the aspect-based verbal system, I still need to clarify

some related definitions.

5.1. Aspect

Aspect is defined as “different ways of viewing the internal temporal constituency

of a situation.”74 Aspect is different from Aktionsart which often is a confused term with

aspect. Aktionsart is a German word meaning ‘kind of action.’ While it is not always clear

how aspect and aktionsart can be distinguished, there are several proposals. Comrie argues

that the distinction is “between aspect as grammaticalisation of the relevant semantic

distinction and Aktionsart which represents lexicalisation of the distinctions, irrespective of

how these distinctions are lexicalised.”75 It is also claimed that aspect and Aktionsart

correspond to a subjective versus objective opposition.76

Aspect is distinguished into two categories, perfectivity and imperfectivity.

Perfectivity denotes “the view of a situation as a single whole, without distinction of the

various separate phases that make up that situation; while the imperfective pays essential

attention to the internal structure of the situation.”77 When we explain the term perfectivity,

there has been some confusion between meanings of “completed action” and “complete

action.” Comrie explains the difference between two:

“…despite the formal similarity between the two words, there is an important semantic

distinction which turns out to be crucial in discussing aspect. The perfective does indeed

denote a complete situation, whereas the use of the perfective puts no more emphasis,

74 Comrie, Aspect, 3.

75 Ibid., 6-7.

76 Tal Goldfajn, Word Order and Time in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1998), 61. 77 Comrie, Aspect, 16.

22

necessarily, on the end of a situation than on any other part of the situation, rather all

parts of the situation are presented as a single whole.”78

According to this definition, in biblical Hebrew the suffix conjugation expresses

perfectivity, while the prefix conjugation imperfectivity. Waw relative forms, wayyiqtol and

wəqatal, are basically sequential forms respectively following the aspect of the suffix and

prefix conjugation. Although many theories have been proposed for the origin of waw

relative forms, as seen above, it is still not clear. In the synchronic level, however, there are

clear parallel sets, qatal and wayyiqtol, and yiqtol and wəqatal, whatever origin they have.

In addition, although I am aware of debates on the relation of yiqtol and modal forms,

jussive and cohortative and of actual morphological, functional, and semantic overlap

between them, I will focus on these four forms in this study because of the importance of

the four forms in narrative discourse.

5.2 Tense

As mentioned above, in biblical Hebrew tense is not encoded in verbal forms. It

means that Hebrew does not have an absolute tense system, but a relative tense system.79

The system of relative tense involves the relationships among three temporal points: the

speaker time (S), the event time (E), and the reference time (R). This is the notion which

was founded by H. Reichenbach.80 According to him, the reference time (R) may precede,

follow, or coincide with S (speaker time or speech act time), just as E (the time of the event

78 Ibid., 18.

79 Cf. Comrie, 78-84.

80 Cf. Hans Reichenbach, Elements of Symbolic Logic (New York: Collier-Macmillian, 1947).

23

or state of affairs) may precede, follow or coincide with R. Reichenbach expresses tenses in

diagrams using a comma to indicate coincidence and an arrow for the line of time:81

Past Perfect Simple Past Present Perfect

I had seen John I saw John I have seen John | | | | | | | E R S R,E S E S,R

Present Simple Future Future Perfect

I see John I shall see John I will have seen John | | | | | | S,R,E S,R E S E R

In biblical Hebrew the relative tense value of the verb is usually indicated

contextually by the clause structure, particularly by subordination or disjunction, and by the

use of temporal adverbs.82 I will show some examples from biblical texts. In these

examples the relationship between those points will be signalled as this: < (precede); >

(follow); = (coincide).83 In the first example the yiqtol denotes the point of the relative

future, in which the relationships between points are R<E<S. In this example R time is the

time of the previous independent verb in the clause sequence. If the relative future is in a

subordinate clause, then R is the time of the verb in the governing clause.

‘taceyO hq"Üb.rI hNE“hiw> yBiªli-la, rBEåd:l. hL,øk;a] ~r<j,’ •ynIa]

“Before I had finished speaking in my heart, there was Rebekah coming out… (Gen 24:45).”84

Although this is a past event in the perspective of the speaker, because the event of

the second verb happens prior to the complete of the event of the first verb, the first verb is

81 Ibid., 290, as cited in Robert I. Binnick, Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect (New

York/Oxford: Oxford University, 1991), 111. 82 R.S. Hendel, “In the Margins of the Hebrew Verbal System: Situation, Tense, Aspect, Mood,” ZAH

9/2 (1996): 159. 83 In using these signs, I will follow Binnick, .

84 The translation is from NRSV, otherwise it is noted.

24

in the form of yiqtol, which denotes that the action is imperfective. The temporal adverb

~r<j, also points out the relative future use in this clause.85

The next example is use of the relative past of qatal. In this case when the event

time is to the speaker (S<E<R), the use of qatal as a relative past is also indicated

contextually, usually by subordination or by temporal adverbs.86

`%l") yTir>B:ßDI-rv,a] taeî ytiyfiê['-~ai rv<åa] d[;… ê̂b.z"[/a,¥ al{å yKi

“…for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you (Gen 28:15).”

In this example the events of the first verb and the second verb are in future to the

speaker but the event of the first verb (^b.z"[/a ,, to leave) is after the event of the second verb

(ytiyfi[', to do). In addition, the temporal adverb d[; compounded with the conjunction rv<a]

indicates the relative time. However, this relative past use of qatal and relative future use of

yiqtol should not be confused with pure aspectual uses of qatal and yiqtol.87 qatal and

yiqtol denote respectively perfectivity in future, so-called prophetic perfect, and

imperfectivity in past time, so-called customary or incipient past.88

The more frequent class of relative past use of qatal is when both the event and the

reference point are past to the speaker (E<R<S).89 This corresponds to the English

pluperfect. The last use of the relative past of qatal is the epistolary perfect. Although the

85 The temporal adverb ~r<j, is usually used with yiqtol. About various temporal expressions, see

C.H.J. van der Merwe, “Reconsidering Biblical Hebrew Temporal Expressions,” ZAH 10 (1997): 42-62; Tal

Goldfajn, Word order and time, 85-88. 86 Hendel, “Margins,” 160.

87 Ibid., 163-68.

88 Cf. Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, 502-4.

89 Hendel, “Margins,” 161.

25

writer is writing one’s message in the present, the writer uses the perfective form which

represents a situation in past time from the view point of the recipient of a message.90

5.3 Discourse Function of the Hebrew Verbal System

In order to fully understand the Hebrew verbal system, we have to know its function

at the level of discourse. Especially in narrative discourse, the Hebrew verbal system

indicates discourse boundaries and prominence in the discourse, and forms the cohesion of

the discourse.

5.3.1 Discourse Boundary

“A discourse boundary is a linguistic means of indicating when a unit of a discourse,

such as a pericope or paragraph, concludes and when a new unit begins.”91 The beginning

and ending of a paragraph are usually found by the means of discourse markers,92 a shift in

grammatical person and main characters, or a shift in verbal forms.93 In biblical Hebrew

narrative, a shift in verbal forms is a very important indicator of topic-shift, or unit-shift. As

seen above, Niccacci and Longacre argued that wayyiqtol is a verb form for main story line

in narrative discourse. Although their arguments have some pitfalls, their arguments still

90 Waltke and O'Connor, Syntax, 489.

91 Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2

nd ed (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,

1999), 301. 92 About the general introduction of discourse marker in language, see D. Schiffrin, Discourse

Markers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); A.H. Jucker, and Y. Ziv, eds. Discourse Markers:

Descriptions and Theory (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998). About Hebrew discourse markers,

see C.H.J. van der Merwe, J.A. Naudé and J.H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 328-33. About the more extensive treat of discourse marker in biblical

Hebrew see L.C. Jonker, Reflections of King Josiah in Chronicles, Textpragmatische Studien zur Hebräischen

Bibel Band 2 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2003), 16-21. 93 See Brown, and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 94-100. Porter, Idioms, 301, argues for the importance

of shift in verb tense-forms in biblical Greek.

26

point out the importance of wayyiqtol in marking boundaries in narrative discourse.94 When

the chain of wayyiqtol is broken by the interruption of another verb form, it means that the

discontinuance of the story line occurs. In fact, the reason of the interruption is not simply

determined by the few options which Niccacci and Longacre proposed, rather it is found by

the careful study of the context. Nevertheless, the broken chain of wayyiqtol may indicate

the shift in the boundary. Judges 3:19-22 is a good example. This is the scene in which

Ehud kills King Eglon of Moab. V. 20 begins a new stage of the story with qatal (aB' he

came back). Then, wayyiqtol verbs continue the story of the killing until the first clause in v.

23 (aceYEw: he went out). However, the last clause of this killing ends with a qatal verb (l['(n"w>

he locked) with waw conjunctive.95 In this case we observe the shift of the story unit by the

shift of verbal forms.

5.3.2. Prominence

Prominence is a technical term for focus which indicates usually new information

or unexpected information through which the writer wants to communicate effectively his

or her own intention.96 Following Lambrecht,

97 Heimerdinger redefines the traditional

94 Although Niccacci argues a main story line and secondary line of information can be determined

by the verbal forms of the sentences, as Talstra and Heimerdinger correctly point out, his argument does not

do justice to cases where main line verbal forms are used in a paragraph referring to background information.

See Talstra, “Clause Types and Textual Structure,”174; Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground, 76-93. 95 This is not a waw relative because the imperfective meaning of waw relative clause with qatal is

not proper in this context but the perfective meaning of qatal is fit well in this context. 96 See Brown, and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 169-89; Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground,

162-70. As Heimerdinger, 162, comments, “Hebraists seem to be content with maintaining the general vague

category of ‘emphasis’ without breaking down the category into ‘emphasis for what purposes?’” However,

some exceptions are seen in B. Bandstra, “Word Order and Emphasis in a Biblical Hebrew Narrative:

Syntactic Observations on Genesis 22 from a Discourse Perspective,” Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. W.

R. Bodine (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 109-23; C.H.J. van der Merwe, “Towards a Better

Understanding of Biblical Hebrew Word Order,” JNSL 25 (1999): 277-300; C.H.J. van der Merwe, and E.

Talstra, “Biblical Hebrew Word Order: The Interface of Information Structure and Formal Features,” ZAH

15/16 (2002/2003): 68-107. 97 Knud Lambrecht, Information Structure and Sentence Form (Cambridge: Cambridge University

27

distinction between old and new information in terms of pragmatic presupposition and

assertion:

The typical sentence is characterized by the coexistence in it of a presupposition, evoked

lexically and grammatically, and an assertion. The presuppositional component consists

of a set of propositions which the speaker believes the hearer knows or is ready to take

for granted. To make an assertion is to establish a relation between the presupposed set of

propositions and a non-presupposed proposition… The definitions of topic and focus in

terms of presupposition and assertion correlate with their pragmatic roles… As for focus,

it is the part of an utterance whereby the presupposition and the assertion differ from each

other.98

As focus is a relational pragmatic category, the property of being new in discourse, i.e.

not previously mentioned, is not defining of focus. A constituent may be in focus even if

its referent cannot be described as new in this sense. The ‘newness’ required for focus is

not the newness of the constituent, but the newness of the role of the constituent in the

abstract presupposed proposition. In contrast to the notion of ‘newness’ of the

constituent,’ such property is pragmatically not recoverable from the context and is

unpredictable.99

Following Lambrecht, he divides focus structures into three categories: predicate-

focus, argument-focus, and sentence-focus.100

The predicate-focus and sentence-focus are

broad foci, which extend each focus domain (that is the syntactic domain which expresses

the focus components of the proposition) over more than one constituent, and argument-

focus is narrow focus, which limits its focus domain to a single constituent.101 These

categories are easily applicable to word order and clause structure in biblical Hebrew.

These three categories can be explained in English examples, as it is shown below.102

1) Debbie visited Venice.

2) Debbie visited Venice.

3) Debbie visited Venice.

Press, 1994).

98 Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground, 130.

99 Ibid., 164. For similar notion, also see van der Merwe and Talstra, “Biblical Hebrew Word Order,”

68-78; Bandstra, “Word Order and Emphasis,” 109-203. 100

Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground, 165 101

Ibid. Focus domains are phrasal categories such as noun phrase, verb phrase, and not lexical ones. 102

Ibid. Italics indicate focus domains.

28

4) Debbie visited Venice.

The predicate-focus structure is exemplified in 2), which answers to the question

What did Debbie do? It is the usual unmarked focus type. The sentence-focus structure is

exemplified in 1), which answers to the question What happened? The argument-focus is

explained by 3) and 4), which answer respectively the questions Which town did Debbie

visit? and Who visited Venice?103

In a spoken discourse these focus structures is usually

indicted by accentuation. However, because a written discourse does not have the prosodic

component, the analysis of the written text has to rely on morphology or syntax, together

with analysis of the context.104 In biblical Hebrew word order and focusing particles are

tools by which focus in the text can be detected. Especially in biblical Hebrew, word order

and the verbal system have a close relationship because the fronting of noun phrases is not

possible without the breaking of waw relative clause. Therefore, following Lambrecht’s

guide, we will examine the functions of the verbal system in marking focus through word

order.

5.3.2.1. Unmarked Word Order

The VSO (Verb-Subject-Object) order represents for biblical Hebrew its most

unmarked order as far as verbal clauses are concerned.105

According to Lambrecht, the

unmarked order means that the clause contains only presupposed information or has

predicate focus. Thus in the Hebrew narrative clause the predicate-focus structure is easily

103

Ibid., 165-66. 104

Ibid., 166. For the analysis of spoken discourse, see Brown, and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 153-69. 105

Although some scholars argue SVO order for unmarked order, most scholars support VSO order

as unmarked order. For the survey of the views, see Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground, 24-26;

Goldfajn, Word Order, 91-104. For the strong argument for VSO order, see R. Buth, “Functional Grammar,”

77-102. For the diachronic development of word order in Hebrew, see T. Givón, “The Drift from VSO to SVO

in Biblical Hebrew: The Pragmatics of Tense-Aspect,” Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, ed. C. N. Li (Austin:

University of Texas, 1977), 181-254.

29

found in the clause of so-called narrative verb form wayyiqtol. In predicate-focus structure

the basic assumption is that the subject and object are presuppositional, that is, established

topics, and the predicates, that is, wayyiqtol verbs, are the focus domains. Therefore, in

narrative discourse continued by wayyiqtol verbs the story advances by the information

contained in wayyiqtol verbs. Thus scholars have often illuminated this progress of the

story line by wayyiqtol clauses as foregrounding. However, this wayyiqtol clause, which

does not allow the fronting of other elements, complicates matters.

Although wayyiqtol clauses may often be interpreted as expressing predicate focus

and progress together, the contexts of progress in wayyiqtol clauses eliminate the possibility

of fronting constituents that refer to brand new entities or argument that is the focus of an

utterance.106

`rx;V'(h; tAlï[] d[;Þ AMê[i ‘vyai qbeîa'YEw: AD=b;l. bqoß[]y: rtEïW"YIw: Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until daybreak (Gen 32:25).

Wnteªar"q.li hl'ä[' vyaiä wyl'øae Wr’m.aYOw: “They answered him, ‘There came a man to meet us…’ (2Kgs 1:6).”

In both examples “a man (vya i)” is a new entity which can front before the verb.

However, because the context of progress in the first example limits the possibility of

fronting the subject, the subject “a man (vya i)” is placed after the verb, keeping VSO order.

This also implies the problem of the term foreground/background, because focus is not

always on wayyiqtol verb forms.

5.3.2.2. Fronted Constituents

106

Van der Merwe and Talstra, “Biblical Hebrew Word Order,” 80.

30

In narrative verbal clauses the fronting of elements other than the verb usually

means that the wayyiqtol verb form is broken and other-focus structure than predicate-focus

structure.107 Then, the meaning of the constructions is detected by either the information

structure of the communicative situation or specific syntactic and semantic

considerations.108

5.3.2.2.1. The argument-focus structure

The argument-focus structure occurs when the argument, or some aspect of it,

represents the semantic element that turns the “presupposed proposition” conveyed in the

clause into a piece of information. It may be divided into several categories: establishing a

relationship between a specific semantic item and the presupposed proposition, showing the

contradicted relationship between a proposition and an entity, and confirming the already

established role of a particular entity in a presupposed proposition.109

`AB* ~x,L'îhil. hL'ÞxiT.B; ynI±[]n:K.h;(-la, WnL'ó-hl,[]y: ymiä “Who shall go up first for us against the Canaanites, to fight against them?”

hl,_[]y: hd"äWhy> hw"ßhy> rm,aYOæw: The LORD said, “Judah shall go up” (Jdg 1:1-2).

In the second clause the subject Judah (hd"Why>) is focused by fronting, establishing a

relationship with the interrogative “Who.”

Wsa'êm' ‘^t.ao) al{Ü yKiä “For they have not rejected you,”

`~h,(yle[] %l{ðM.mi Wsßa]m' ytiîao-yKi( “but they have rejected me from being king over them (1Sam 8:7).”

107

Ibid., 81-85. Contra Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground, 200-12, while having the broad

definition to the predicate-focus structure, he considers some occurrences of ‘fronting’ to belong to the

predicate-focus structure. 108

See Van der Merwe and Talstra, “Biblical Hebrew Word Order,” 81. 109

Ibid.

31

In this example, there are two parallel clauses. Especially the two objects “you”

(^t.ao)) and “me” (ytiao) are fronted in each clause and are focused, emphasizing the referent

rejected by people.

Wnyfiê[' rv<åa]K; ~t'êAa ~rEäx]N:w: “And we utterly destroyed them, as we had done…”

`Wnl'( WnAZðB; ~yrIß['h, ll;îv.W hm'²heB.h;-lk'w> “But all the livestock and the plunder of the towns we kept as spoil for ourselves” (Deut 3:7-8).”

The first one is a wayyiqtol clause but the second one has fronted objects “all the

livestock and the plunder of the towns” which are compared with the object “them” (~t'Aa)

in the first clause, which were destroyed.110

Wnyle_[' ar"äq.nI ~yrIßb.[ih' yheîl{a/ Wrêm.aYOæw: “Then they said, ‘The God of the Hebrews has revealed himself to us…’ (Exod 5:3).”

In this clause, the subject, “The God of the Hebrews,” (~yrIßb.[ih' yhel{a/) is fronted,

confirming the already established role of God.

5.3.2.2.2. The Sentence-Focus Structure

The sentence-focus structure occurs “when the fronted argument refers to a brand

new entity and the predicate refers to a proposition that is neither discourse active nor can

be inferred from the co-text or context.”111 This type of focus structure is found in two

pragmatic functions: it either introduces a new entity or referent in the narrative discourse,

or it asserts the occurrence of an event which necessarily involves a referent, but which is

incidental to the event itself.112

It has been often called the background information. This

110

Ibid., 83, classify this example into separate category because they do not consider these

examples of topic frame to belong to three focus structures. However, I argue that these examples, which are

the topics to be compared or contrasted, belong to argument-focus structure, because fronted elements can be

considered arguments. 111

Ibid., 82. 112

Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground, 214.

32

sentence-focus structure sometimes begins with a temporal clause or phrase which relates

the following event temporally to the preceding context.113

[v'øylia/-la, hq'’[]c' ~yaiybiN>h;û-ynE)b. yveäN>mi tx;äa; hV'äaiw> “Now the wife of a member of the company of prophets cried to Elisha…” (2 Kgs 4:1)

This clause with the fronted subject “the wife” (hV'äaiw >) introduces a new referent and

begins a new story. Thus the whole sentence is focused. Here the referent becomes a topical

participant in the narrative which follows.

An=aco-ta, zzOàg>li %l;êh' !b"ål'w> “Now Laban had gone to shear his sheep… (Gen 31:19).”

This is not a new beginning of the story, but occurs in the middle of the account of

Jacob’s secret flight from Laban. This event took place earlier than the present event of

Jocob’s flight. Therefore, this event is not in the chronological order, but rather introduces a

flashback.

`~Øil'(v'Wry>-l[; ~yIr:ßc.mi-%l,m,( qv;îyvi hl'²[' ~['_b.x;r> %l,M,äl; tyviÞymix]h; hn"ïV'B; yhi²y>w: In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, King Shishak of Egypt came up against Jerusalem (1 Kgs

14:25)

The fronted temporal clause anchors the event asserted in the next clause in a

certain time reference which is mentioned in the previous context. Then the new referent

“King Shishak” occurs, which becomes a topical participant in the following narrative. The

whole sentence begins a new story.

5.3.3. Cohesion

According to Halliday and Hasan, “a text is best regarded as a SEMANTIC unit: a

unit not of form but of meaning… A text does not consist of sentences: it is realized by, or

113

Ibid., 214-18.

33

encoded in, sentences.”114

That is, the primary determinant of whether a set of sentences do

or do not constitute a text depends on cohesive relationships within and between the

sentences.

Cohesive relationships mean semantic relations between two or more elements in a

text which are independent of structure: between the personal pronoun ‘he’ and antecedent

proper noun ‘John.’115

A cohesive tie is a term to refer to a single instance of cohesion.

“Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on

that of another.”116

There are various relations and tools which forms cohesion in a text.117

The first item is “reference” which is a semantic relation. The cohesion is in the

continuity of reference, by which the same thing is repeated in the discourse. There are

three types of reference: Personal reference, Demonstrative reference, and Comparative

reference. The second is “substitution” which refers to a relation between linguistic items,

which can be nominal, verbal or clausal. There are two sub-categories: parallelism and

ellipsis.118

The third is “collocation” which refers to lexical cohesion, which is made by the

reiteration of a same word, synonym, super-ordinate, or general word and by the

collocation of words which belong to the same lexical domain.119

The forth item is

“junction” which is a semantic connection between elements in a text. Last item is “tense

114

Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English (London: Longman Group Limited, 1976), 2. 115

S.A. Groom, Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew (Carlisle/Waynesboro: Paternoster Press,

2003), 138. 116

Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English, 4. 117

I will basically follow Groom’s revised version of Halliday and Hasan’s items, as seen in

Linguistic Analysis, 138-40. 118

Groom, Linguistic Analysis, 139. 119

Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English, 288.

34

and aspect.” Cohesion is further supported by the tense or aspect, which is usually indicated

by verb form.120

Especially in narrative discourse, the Hebrew verbal system is one of most

important items for forming cohesion in the text. The main story line usually consists of

wayyiqtol clauses. The chains of wayyiqtol verbs continually advance the story line, even

after the interruption of other verb forms which may give the flashback information of the

main story. In the surface structure of the text, wayyiqtol verbs make a cohesive

relationship not only by aspectual and temporal effect but also morphological and even

phonological effect through beginning with waw. We will apply these insights to Judges 5.

6. Application to Judges 5

Introduction Information (vv. 1-3): the beginning of the event

The Israelites again did (wayyiqtol)

what was evil in the sight of the LORD, after Ehud

died (qatal).

laeêr"f.yI ynEåB. ‘Wpsi’YOw: 1 hw"+hy> ynEåy[eB. [r:Þh' tAfï[]l;

`tme( dWhßaew>

2 So the LORD sold them (wayyiqtol)

into the hand of King Jabin of Canaan…

hw"©hy> ~rEäK.m.YIw: 2

![;n:ëK.-%l,m,( !ybiäy" ‘dy:B.

3 Then the Israelites cried out to the LORD for help…

(wayyiqtol)

hw"+hy>-la, laeÞr"f.yI-ynE)b. Wqï[]c.YIw: 3

Judgs 4:1 begins a new story with a wayyiqtol clause but the second clause has a

qatal verb form with a fronted subject Ehud. This second clause reports a background event

(the death of the judge Ehud) which indicates the reason why Israelites betray God. That is,

120

R. de Beaugrande and W. Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics (London/New York: Longman,

1981), 69-70.

35

it is the sentence-focus structure. In vv. 2-3 the sequential events is described with

wayyiqtol clauses, which result from Israel’s unfaithfulness to God in v. 1.

Background information (vv. 4-5)

4 At that time Deborah, a prophetess, wife of

Lappidoth, was judging Israel. (qotel-participle)

tAd+yPil; tv,aeÞ ha'êybin> hV'äai ‘hr"Abd>W 4 `ayhi(h; t[eîB' laeÞr"f.yI-ta, hj'îp.vo ayhi²

5 She used to sit under the palm of Deborah…

(qotel)

and the Israelites came up to her for judgment.

(wayyiqtol)

hr"ªAbD> rm,Toø-tx;T;( tb,v,’Ay ayhiw>û 5 `jP'(v.Mil; laeÞr"f.yI ynEïB. h'yl,²ae Wlï[]Y:w:

Vv. 4-5 is the background information reporting the situation in which the following

event happens. In this background information two participles and one sequential wayyiqtol

are used.121

In the first clause a brand new entity “Deborah” is fronted. Then the new

referent becomes a topical participant in the narrative which follows. It is the sentence-

focus structure.

Main Story Line (vv. 6-10)

6 She sent and summoned Barak son of Abinoam …

(wayyiqtol)

and said to him, (wayyiqtol)

“The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you…”

~[;nOëybia]-!B, qr"äb'l. ‘ar"q.Tiw xl;ªv.Tiw: 6 wyl'øae rm,aTo’w:

%lEÜ laeªr"f.yI-yhe(l{a/ hw"åhy> hW"åci al{ïh] 8 Barak said to her, (wayyiqtol)

“If you will go with me, I will go…” qr"êB' ‘h'yl,’ae rm,aYOÝw: 8

yTik.l'_h'w> yMiÞ[i ykiîl.Te-~ai

9 And she said, (wayyiqtol)

“I will surely go with you…

Then Deborah got up

and went with Barak to Kedesh. (wayyiqtol)

rm,aToøw: 9 %M'ª[i %lEåae %l{õh'

hr"²AbD> ~q'T'ów: `hv'd>q<) qr"ÞB'-~[i %l,Teîw:

10 Barak summoned Zebulun… (wayyiqtol)

and ten thousand warriors went up behind him; and

Deborah went up with him. (wayyiqtol)

‘yliT'p.n:-ta,w> !lUÜWbz>-ta, qr"øB' q[e’z>Y:w: 10 vyai_ ypeÞl.a; tr<f,î[] wyl'êg>r:B. l[;Y:åw:

`hr"(AbD> AMß[i l[;T;îw:

121

For the background activity of the participle, see Longacre, Analysis of Genesis, 81.

36

In this unit (vv. 6-10) the main story begins and advances with the chain of

wayyiqtol clauses which contain the direct speeches between Deborah and Barak.

Background Information (v. 11)

11 Now Heber the Kenite had separated from the other

Kenites, (qatal)

and had encamped as far away as Elon-bezaanannim…

(wayyiqtol)

!yIQ;êmi dr"äp.nI ‘ynIyQeh; rb,x,Ûw> 11 ~yNI[;c.B; !Alïae-d[; Alêh\a' jYEåw:

The fronted new referent “Heber” occurs and the new background information

reports, which is related to the following event. It is the sentence-focus information. The

second clause has a wayyiqtol verb form which reports a sequential event from the first

clause.

Main Story Line (vv. 12-15)

12 They told Sisera that Barak son of Abinoam had

gone up … (wayyiqtol)

qr"îB' hl'²[' yKiî ar"_s.ysi(l. WdGIßY:w: 12

13 Sisera called out all his chariots… (wayyiqtol)

ABªk.rI-lK'-ta, ar"øs.ysi( q[e’z>Y:w: 13

14 Then Deborah said to Barak, (wayyiqtol)

“Up!”

So Barak went down from Mount Tabor

(wayyiqtol)

qr"øB'-la, hr"’boD> •rm,aTow: 14 ~Wqª

rAbêT' rh:åme ‘qr"B' dr,YEÜw:

15 And the LORD threw Sisera… (wayyiqtol)

And Sisera got down from his chariot (wayyiqtol)

and fled away on foot, (wayyiqtol)

ar"’s.ysi(-ta, hw"hy>û ~h'Y"åw: 15 hb'ÞK'r>M,h; l[;îme ar"²s.ysi( dr,YEôw:

`wyl'(g>r:B. sn"Y"ïw:

While dealing with the story from the starting of the war between Israel and Canaan

to the fleeing of Sisera, wayyiqtol clauses advance the main story line which is connected to

v. 10.

37

Comparison: Argument-Focus Structure (vv. 16-17)

16 while Barak pursued the chariots… (qatal)

All the army of Sisera fell (wayyiqtol)

no one was left. (qatal)

‘bk,r<’h' yrEÛx]a; @d:úr" qr"ªb'W 16 ‘ar"s.ysi( hnEÜx]m;-lK' lPoúYIw:

`dx'(a,-d[; ra:ßv.nI al{ï

17 Now Sisera had fled away on foot… (qatal)

wyl'êg>r:B. sn"å ‘ar"s.ysi(w> 17

In each verse the subject is fronted. These are not new referents or background

information. Rather, these clauses continue the main story line. These are the argument-

focus structures. This comparison implies Barak’s fail and Sisera’s death, which were

prophesied by Deborah. In v. 16 wayyiqtol (to fall down, lPoYIw:) and qatal (to be left, ra:v.nI)

means respectively a sequential event and a conclusion remark. In v. 17, while Sisera’s

flight is compared with Barak’s pursuing, this flight is connected with v. 18.

Main Story Line (vv.18-21)

18 Jael came out to meet Sisera, (wayyiqtol)

and said to him, (wayyiqtol)

So he turned aside to her into the tent, (wayyiqtol)

and she covered him with a rug. (wayyiqtol)

èar"s.ysi( tar:äq.li él[ey" aceäTew: 18 wyl'ªae rm,aToåw:

hl'h/aoêh' ‘h'yl,’ae rs;Y"Üw: `hk'(ymiF.B; WhSeÞk;T.w:

19 Then he said to her… (wayyiqtol)

So she opened a skin of milk (wayyiqtol)

and gave him a drink (wayyiqtol)

and covered him. (wayyiqtol)

h'yl,²ae rm,aYOõw: 19 bl'²x'h, dwanOõ-ta, xT;úp.Tiw:

WhqEßv.T;w: `WhSe(k;T.w:

20 He said to her… (wayyiqtol)

h'yl,êae rm,aYOæw: 20

21 But Jael wife of Heber took a tent peg, (wayyiqtol)

and took a hammer in her hand, (wayyiqtol)

and went softly to him (wayyiqtol)

and drove the peg into his temple, (wayyiqtol)

and it went down into the ground (wayyiqtol)

and (because) he was lying fast asleep (qotel)

and he was faint (wayyiqtol)

and he died. (wayyiqtol)

rb,x,û-tv,ae( l[eäy" xQ:åTiw: 21

Hd"ªy"B. tb,Q<åM;h;-ta, ~f,T'ów: jaL'êB; ‘wyl'ae aAbÜT'w:

AtêQ'r:B. ‘dteY"h;-ta, [q:Üt.Tiw: #r<a'_B' xn:ßc.Tiw:

`tmo)Y"w: @[;Y"ßw: ~D"îr>nI-aWh)w>

38

This unit is connected with Sisera’s flight in v. 17 and forms the main story line

which consists of the chain of wayyiqtol clauses. In v. 21 the participle ~D"r>nI (to lie fast

asleep) offers the reason why Sisera could not resist Jael’s attack and two wayyiqtol clauses

close this story with the death of Sisera.122

The Fulfillment of Prophecy (v. 22)

22 Then, as Barak came… (qotel)

Jael went out to meet him, (wayyiqtol)

and said to him, “Come…” (wayyiqtol)

So he went into her tent; (wayyiqtol)

and there was Sisera lying dead, (qotel)

èar"s.ysi(-ta, @dEåro éqr"b' hNEåhiw> 22

Atêar"q.li ‘l[ey" aceÛTew: %lEå Alê rm,aToåw:

h'yl,êae aboåY"w: tmeê lpeänO ‘ar"s.ysi( hNEÜhiw>

This verse belongs to the main story line.123

In this verse, the first clause and the last

clause have the focus-argument structures, which consist of waw, interjection (behold, hNEåhi),

subject, and participle, and their subjects are Barak and Sisera respectively. The interjection

hNEåhi usually focuses attention on an utterance that follows it.124

Therefore, it focuses on the

dramatic fulfillment of Deborah’s prophecy (Barak’s fail and Sisera’s death) which is

prophesized in v. 9 and implied in vv. 16-17 (Barak’s pursuing and Sisera’s flee).

Conclusion of the whole story (vv. 23-24)

23 And God subdued King Jabin… (wayyiqtol)

!ybiäy" taeÞ aWhêh; ~AYæB; ‘~yhil{a/ [n:Ük.Y:w: 23

24 Then the hand of the Israelites bore harder

and harder… (wayyiqtol)

hv'êq'w> %Alåh' ‘laer"f.yI-ynE)B. dy:Ü %l,Teøw: 24

122

Although not every participle is a background activity, this may be a background activity which is

pointed in the verbal hierarchy scheme of narrative discourse by Longacre, Analysis of Genesis, 81. 123

Here hNEåhi and a participle structure does not give a background activity but continues the main

story line with focus. 124

van der Merwe, Naudé and Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 328-30.

39

The last two verses conclude the whole story in chapter 4 with two wayyiqtol

clauses.

7. Conclusion

The enigma of the Hebrew verbal system, which McFall mentioned 25years ago, is

still true in terms of its origin and development. However, as seen above, there have been

valuable researches in terms of the function of the Hebrew verbal system with the support

of linguistic theories. Especially the theories of aspect and tense in linguistics give many

insights for clarifying the definitions of aspect and tense in Hebrew studies. In addition, the

use of discourse analysis has given many fruitful results. By means of this method, scholars

have revealed the function of the Hebrew verbal system related to word order and sentence

structure not only at the level of sentence, but also at the level of discourse,

However, because the methodology of discourse analysis still develops, when they

apply the theories of discourse analysis to biblical texts, biblical scholars have made some

mistakes of overstatement and oversimplification. Therefore, although the works of

Niccacci and Longacre have provided many valuable results, we should be careful when we

use their insights. It does not mean that discourse analysis is not a useful method, as some

people argue.125

Rather, it indicates that we have to understand the complexity of human

communication. Moreover, it encourages us to develop more suitable methodology to

biblical Hebrew.

125

Washburn, “Chomsky’s Separation,” 27-46; Hatav, Semantics of Aspect and Modality, 15-16

40

Bibliography

Andersen, F.I. “Salience, Implicature, Ambiguity, and Redundancy in Clause-Clause

Relationships in Biblical Hebrew.” Pp. 99-116 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse

Linguistics. Ed. R.D. Bergen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.

Anderson, T.D. “The Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System.” ZAH 13/1 (2000): 1-66.

Baayen, R. H. “The Pragmatics of the ‘Tenses’ in Biblical Hebrew.” Studies in Language

21/2 (1997): 245-85.

Bandstra, B. “Word Order and Emphasis in a Biblical Hebrew Narrative: Syntactic

Observations on Genesis 22 from a Discourse Perspective.” Pp. 109-23 in

Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Ed. W.R. Bodine; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,

1992.

Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press, 1985.

Bodine, W. R., ed., Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers.

Atlanta: Scholars, 1995.

Bowling, A. C. “Another Brief Overview of the Hebrew Verb.” Journal of Translation and

Textlinguistics 9 (1997): 48-69.

Brown, G. and G. Yule. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Buth, R. “The Hebrew Verb in Current Discussions.” Journal of Translation and

Textlinguistics 5 (1992): 91-105.

--------. “Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis: The

Problem of ‘Unmarked Temporal Overlay’ and the ‘Pluperfect/Nonsequential

wayyiqtol.’” Pp. 138-54 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Ed. R.D.

Bergen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.

--------. “Functional Grammar, Hebrew and Aramaic: An Integrated, Text Linguistic

Approach to Syntax.” Pp. 77-102 in Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature:

What It Is and What It Offers. Ed. W.R. Bodine. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995.

Cook, J. A. “The Hebrew Verb: A Grammaticalization Approach,” ZAH 14/2 (2001) 117-

43.

--------. “The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of WAYYIQTOL and

WEQATAL in Biblical Hebrew.” JSS 49/2 (2004): 247-73.

Dawson, D. A., Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. JSOTSup 177. Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1994.

de Beaugrande R. and W. Dressler. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London/New York:

Longman, 1981.

DeCaen, V. “Ewald and Driver on Biblical Hebrew ‘Aspect’: Anteriority and the

Orientalist Framework.” ZAH 9/2 (1996): 129-51.

41

--------. “On the Placement and Interpretation of the Verbs in Standard Biblical Hebrew

Prose.” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1995.

Dempster, S.G. “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative: A Discourse Analysis of

Narrative from the Classical Period.” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1985.

Den Exter Blokland, A.F. In Search of Text Syntax: Towards a Syntactic Segmentation

Model for Biblical Hebrew. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1995.

Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. “Biblical Hebrew Statives and Situation Aspect.” JSS 45/1 (2000):

21-53.

Driver, S. R., A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew. Repr. The Biblical Resource

Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Endo, Y., The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An Approach from

Discourse Analysis. SSN 32. Assen/Maastricht: van Gorcum, 1996.

Eskhult, M., Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose.

SSU 12. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990.

--------. “Traces of Linguistic Development in Biblical Hebrew.” HS 46 (2005): 353-70.

Gentry, P. J. “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew.” HS 39 (1998):

7-39.

Gianto, A. “Mood and Modality in Classical Hebrew.” Pp. 183-98 in Studies in the

Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East. Eds. S. Izre’el, I. Singer and R.

Zadok. IOS 18. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998.

--------. “Some Notes on Evidentiality in Biblical Hebrew.” Pp. 133-52 in Biblical and

Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran. Ed. A. Gianto. BiOr 48. Rome:

Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2005.

Gibson, J.C.L. “The Anatomy of Hebrew Narrative Poetry.” Pp. 141-48 in Understanding

Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honor of George Wishart Anderson. Ed. A.G. Auld.

JSOTSup 152. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

Givón, T. “The Drift from VSO to SVO in Biblical Hebrew: The Pragmatics of Tense-

Aspect.” Pp. 181-254 in Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Ed. C. N. Li. Austin:

University of Texas, 1977.

Goldfajn, Tal. Word order and time in Biblical Hebrew narrative. Oxford University Press,

1998.

Greenstein, E.L. “On the Prefixed Preterite in Biblical Hebrew.” HS 29 (1988): 7-17.

Groom, S.A. Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew. Carlisle/Waynesboro: Paternoster

Press, 2003.

Gropp, D. M. “The Function of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew.” HAR 13

(1991): 45-62.

Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan. Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Limited,

42

1976.

Hatav, G., The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical

Hebrew. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1997.

--------. “Anchoring World and Time in Biblical Hebrew.” Linguistics 40 (2004): 491-526.

Heimerdinger, J. M., Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives.

JSOTSup 295. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Hendel, R. S. “In the Margins of the Hebrew Verbal System: Situation, Tense, Aspect,

Mood.” ZAH 9/2 (1996): 152-81.

Huehnergard, J. “The Early Hebrew Prefix-Conjugations.” HS 29 (1988): 19-23.

Jonker, L.C. Reflections of King Josiah in Chronicles. Textpragmatische Studien zur

Hebräischen Bibel Band 2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2003.

Joosten, J. “The Indicative System of the Biblical Hebrew Verb and Its Literary

Exploitation.” Pp. 51-83 in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the

Tilburg Conference 1996. Ed. E. van Wolde. Biblical Interpretation Series 29.

Leiden: Brill, 1997.

--------. “The Long Form of the Prefixed Conjugation Referring to the Past in biblical

Hebrew Prose.” HS 40 (1999): 15-26.

--------. “The Distinction between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in

Syntax.” HS 46 (2005): 327-39.

--------. “The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal

System.” Pp. 135-48 in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting:

Typological and Historical Perspectives. Eds. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz.

Winona Lake/Jerusalem: Eisenbrauns/The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2006.

Kuryłowicz, J., Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics. London: Curzon, 1973.

Longacre, R.E. “Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verbs: Affirmation and

Restatement.” Pp. 177-89 in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Ed. W. R. Bodine.

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.

--------. “Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Pp. 50-98 in Biblical Hebrew and

Discourse Linguistics. Ed. R.D. Bergen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.

--------. “Building for the Worship of God: Exodus 25:1-30:10.” Pp. 21-49 in Discourse

Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers. Ed. W. R. Bodine.

Atlanta: Scholars, 1995.

--------. Joseph, A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic

Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989.

McFall, L., The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present

Day. Sheffield: Almond, 1982.

Mettinger, T.N.D. “The Hebrew Verbal System: A Survey of Recent Research.” Annual of

43

the Swedish Theological Institute 9 (1973): 64-84.

Miller, C.L. Ed. The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Approaches. Linguistic

Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999.

Moran, W.L. “The Hebrew Language in its Northwest Semitic Background.” Pp. 59-84 in

The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell

Albright. Ed. G.E. Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961.

Myhill, J. “Non-Emphatic Fronting in Biblical Hebrew.” Theoretical Linguistics 21 (1995):

93-144.

--------. “Word Order and Temporal Sequencing.” Pp. 265-78 in Pragmatics of Word Order

Flexibility. Ed. D.L. Payne. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company, 1992.

--------. Language in Jewish Society: Towards a New Understanding. Clevedon/Buffalo:

Multilingual Matters, 2004.

Niccacci, A. “An Outline of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Prose.” Liber Annuus 39

(1989): 7-26.

--------. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. JSOTSup 86. Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.

--------. “On the Hebrew Verbal System.” Pp. 117-37 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse

Linguistics. Ed. R.D. Bergen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.

--------. “Finite Verb in the Second Position of the Sentence. Coherence of the Hebrew

Verbal System.” ZAW 108 (1996): 434-40.

--------. “Basic Facts and Theory of the biblical Hebrew Verb System in Prose.” Pp. 167-

202 in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference

1996. Ed. E. van Wolde. Biblical Interpretation Series 29. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

----------. “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry.” Pp. 247-68 in Biblical Hebrew

in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Eds.

Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake/Jerusalem: Eisenbrauns/The

Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2006.

Peckham, B. “Tense and Mood in Biblical Hebrew.” ZAH 10/2 (1997): 139-68.

Porter, S.E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1999.

Rainey, A. “The ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amarnah Canaanite.”

HS 27 (1986): 4-19.

--------. “Further Remarks in the Hebrew Verbal System.” HS 29 (1988): 35-42.

--------. “The Prefix Conjugation Patterns of Early Northwest Semitic.” Pp. in Lingering

over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L.

Moran. Scholars Press, 1990.

44

Rata, C.G. “The Verbal System in the Book of Job.” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto,

2004.

Revell, E.J. “The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms in

Biblical Hebrew.” HAR 9 (1985): 277-300.

--------. “The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose.” HUCA 60 (1989): 1-37.

Saenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Trans John Elwolde.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Talstra, E., "Tense, Mood, Aspect and Clause Connections in Biblical Hebrew: A Textual

Approach," JNWSL 23/2 (1997) 81-103.

--------. “A Hierarchy of Clauses in biblical Hebrew Narrative.” Pp. 85-118 in Narrative

Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996. Ed. E. van

Wolde. Biblical Interpretation Series 29. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

--------. “Clause Types and Textual Structure: An Experiment in Narrative Syntax.” Pp. 166-

78 in Narrative and Comment: Contributions Presented to Wolfgang Schneider.

Ed. E. Talstra. Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1995.

Van der Merwe, C.H.J. “Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Grammar.” Pp. 13-49

in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Ed. R.D. Bergen. Winona Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns, 1994.

--------. “An Overview of Hebrew Narrative Syntax.” Pp. 1-20 in Narrative Syntax and the

Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996. Ed. E. van Wolde. Biblical

Interpretation Series 29. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

--------. “A Critical Analysis of Narrative Syntactic Approaches, with Special Attention to

Their Relationship to Discourse Analysis.” Pp. 133-56 in Narrative Syntax. Ed.

Van Wolde.

--------. “Reconsidering Biblical Hebrew Temporal Expressions.” ZAH 10 (1997): 42-62.

--------. “‘Reference Time’ in Some Biblical Hebrew Temporal Expressions.” Bib 78

(1997): 502-24.

--------. “Towards a Better Understanding of Biblical Hebrew Word Order.” JNSL 25

(1999): 277-300.

--------. “Explaining Fronting in Biblical Hebrew.” JNSL 25/2 (1999): 173-86.

--------. “Some Recent Trends in Biblical Hebrew linguistics: A Few Pointers Towards a

More Comprehensive Model of language use.” HS 44 (2003): 7-24.

Van der Merwe, C.H.J., J. A. Naudé and J. H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference

Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Van der Merwe, C.H.J. and E. Talstra, “Biblical Hebrew Word Order: The Interface of

Information Structure and Formal Features.” ZAH 15/16 (2002/2003) 68-107.

Waltke, B., and M. P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake,

45

IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Washburn, D.L. “Chomsky's Separation of Syntax and Semantics,” HS 35 (1994) 27-46.

Wendland, E.R. Ed. Discourse Perspectives on Hebrew Poetry in the Scriptures. UBS

Monograph Series 7. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Zevit, Z., The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew: Literary Applications and

Implications for Hebrew Grammar. SBLMS 50. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1998.