79 [a]n excellent reminder of this is Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan in
Luke 10. He tells the parable in order to demonstrate what it means to love neighbor as self, yet the parable does not contain the word ‘love’ or
‘neighbor’ or ‘self’—even though it contains powerfully the concept of loving neighbor as self. Stuart 2001, 21
By implication, then, the repetition of words and phrases is only one feature to consider in the whole analysis of the text. Full distributional analysis considers this
figure and ground nature of the use of linguistic items.
5.2.1.4 Summary
In terms of the present study of , these three analytical perspectives require an
exhaustive taxonomy of for its proper identification, taking any possible variants into
consideration. The factors which potentially affect the distribution of throughout the
text must also be explored. The analysis of a linguistic entity is incomplete unless all aspects are taken into consideration.
5.2.2 An Interactive Morpho-Syntactic Orientation
5.2.2.1 A Unit-in-Context Approach
1
The traditional distinction between morphology and syntax validly recognizes the word as a basic linguistic unit at its level of the hierarchy.
2
Starting with basic word- formation patterns, it is only logical to conceive of lower to higher levels of analysis
1
After this section had been written, while rereading Pike’s Linguistic Concepts 1982, it was discovered that Pike uses the term “unit-in-context.” In 5.2.1, my indebtedness to Pike is
acknowledged, but when I decided to use the expression “a unit-in-context approach,” I was not consciously aware of the use of this term in Linguistic Concepts.
2
See Kenneth L. Pike and Evelyn G. Pike, Grammatical Analysis 1991, 98-99 for a discussion of fundamental principles of word division which include the: 1 Isolatability of
words; 2 Relative mobility of words versus rigidity in the order of parts of words; and, 3 Noninterruptibility of a word by words.
80 based on the relative size of linguistic units. In some models of linguistic analysis, it has
been a matter of principle that these levels be analyzed separately and in order. Newmeyer states that Hockett’s principle of avoiding circularity in phonological analysis
“became known as the prohibition against ‘mixing levels’ in grammatical description” Newmeyer 1980, 6. Certain analytical procedures do require clear separation of levels,
but this needs to be understood as an analytical abstraction. This type of abstraction is like a solution of salt water which the chemist knows can be separated into its component
chemicals, but for the non-analyst it is just salt water. Language use is like the various linguistic items in solution; the separation of these items into different levels is merely an
abstraction for analytical purposes. The usefulness of these analytical abstractions is not denied, but this is not the
same as actual language in use. Language as it is being used is not confined to discrete hierarchical levels, but is more properly conceived of as an intersecting network of
communicative functions. Discourse analysis is often referred to as an approach which goes “beyond the sentence,” distinguishing it from other models which focus on
sentence-level grammar. It is unquestionable that describing the structure or grammar of the hierarchical levels of language beyond the sentence is one of the typical concerns of
discourse analysis, but this characterization can give the impression that discourse is merely another level of study that comes after the lower levels of the hierarchy have been
fully analyzed. In the view of language implemented here, however, discourse doesn’t refer to a discrete hierarchical level, but rather refers to the pervasive communicative
nature and functions of language which intersect with all the other components in the
81 network. Analysis needs to be carried out at each level, but full analysis will always be
provisional until the analysis of all the parts has been informed by the whole. The terms “bottom-up” and “top-down” are sometimes used to describe how analysis proceeds from
lower to higher or from higher to lower levels, but the model presented here is better described as a “unit-in-context” approach. As such, it cannot be characterized as either
“bottom-up” or “top-down,” but rather involves constant attention to part-whole relationships within the text.
For example, in biblical Hebrew, the pronominal suffixes are typically analyzed at the morphological level. This level of analysis is obviously necessary, but this is only
part of the total analysis since their narrative function is not restricted to the morphological level. This is the motivation for the term “unit-in-context,” since the full
analysis of the unit which is realized at the morphological level requires examination of its connection to the broader narrative context.
Then he gave them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them
in the mountain before the LORD, so that the seven of them fell together;
and they were put to death in the first days of harvest at the beginning of
barley harvest. Pc-vqw3msX3mp Pp-ncfsc Pa-np Pc-
vhw3mpX3mp Pp+Pa-ncms Pp-ncbpc np Pc-vqw3mp amd amscX3mp Pd Pc-
pi3mp Pc-pi3mp vHp3cp Pp-ncmpc ncms Pp+Pa-amp ncfsc Pp-ncfsc ncmsc ncfp
G 5
E ; 5
E 8 F
,
2 Sam 21:9
For example in 2 Sam 21:9, the use of the pronominal suffix on 5 and E ;
is not merely the result of the arbitrary application of an optional rule for encoding the
object. The morphological analysis of these verbs as Pc-vqw3msX3mp and Pc- vhw3mpX3mp
respectively, identifies the forms that occur in the text, but explaining
82 their use requires going beyond the surface forms to explore the contextual dimensions
which may influence the use of the pronominal suffix. Lambdin states, for example, that [a] pronominal direct object may be suffixed directly to a verb rather than
to the object marker etc.:
— I saw him.
B C —
BC He killed her.
There is no difference in meaning between the two constructions, though there do appear to be stylistic preferences. Lambdin 1971, 260
In 2 Sam 21:9, the realization of the direct object as a suffix on these verbs is part of the intricate scheme of participant reference and the relative levels of focus assigned in
the narrative. Preliminary research indicates that there are notable differences between the following three, possibly four, ways of expressing the direct object:
Josh 10:40 explicit noun with
E+ Josh 10:41
pronominal suffix . H 1 E+
Gen 18:7 explicit noun
+6 4 1
Num 21:35 explicit pronoun
;3 ;
It is beyond the scope of the present study to discuss these pronominal suffixes at length, but the unit-in-context approach implemented here would seek to explain their use
on the basis of contextual factors rather than as stylistic preferences. One of the other fundamental components of the Morpho-Syntactic Orientation is
an emphasis on syntax at all levels. In 1995, Lowery commented that
…there remains much of syntax, and Biblical Hebrew syntax in particular, which is not well understood. Could it be that this is because syntactic
usage is conditioned by yet another level of language, that of text, which has yet to be taken into consideration? Lowery 1995, 107
83 This perceptive comment reflects the necessity of the analysis of the interaction
between morpho-syntax and textual phenomena. In many of the traditional and descriptive grammars of biblical Hebrew, attention to syntax is minimal or limited to the
consideration of certain clause-level issues. One of the unfortunate consequences of certain textlinguistic approaches is the tendency to move directly from the morphological
base of the traditional and descriptive approach to the analysis of textual features— circumventing important areas of phrase-, clause-, and sentence-level syntax that interact
with and are sensitive to textual phenomena. This is not a new idea; in fact, in Meek’s Presidential Address at the 1944 meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, he
remarked: We may be able to parse correctly every form in a passage and may know
the exact meaning of each word, but if we err at any point in the syntax, even though slightly, our translation and interpretation cannot be correct.
For the correct understanding of the text nothing is so important as the correct understanding of the syntax. Meek 1945, 1
The model implemented here emphasizes the need for thorough syntactic research at all levels, investigating the pervasive interaction between linguistic items and their
contexts of use. Foley and Van Valin comment as follows on the role that grammatical or syntactic constructions can have in the broader textual context:
…many of the morphosyntactic phenomena which have traditionally been at the center of linguistic investigation, e.g., case marking, grammatical
relations, and clause linkage, are crucially involved in reference and predication and therefore play fundamental roles in discourse tracking.
Foley and Van Valin 1984, 2
84 This interactive morpho-syntactic orientation is consistent with and builds on the
descriptive orientation described in the previous section. The goal is the full description of the morpho-syntactic phenomena of biblical Hebrew in their contexts of use.
5.2.2.2 Syntactic Constraints
