67 In certain sections, however, where the exact phrase is repeated numerous times,
just the references are given. This is the case, for example with the possessive phrases, ;
he had, especially since there is nothing in the broader context that affects these verbal uses of
.
4.3 The Contribution of this Study
What difference would it make if were left untranslated? If it is seen as an
idiosyncratic “Once upon a time” structure for Hebrew, what implications does that have for modern understanding of the Hebrew text? If
were just left untranslated in most of its “and it came to pass” occurrences, what would be the net loss?
One of the main goals here is to move beyond previous studies by considering the syntax and pragmatics of all the occurrences of
in BHS. This involves testing the claims and proposals of previous studies in the wider corpus of BHS. Van der Merwe’s
study is the most significant and focused textlinguistic study of to date, but it is
limited in its scope, dealing only with 1 Samuel. For example, van der Merwe’s analysis of
as a marker allowing the “updating or specification of the reference time of an event” van der Merwe 1999, 113 is novel and helpful, but in biblical Hebrew narrative
there are transition points or specifications of time that appear to be updating the reference time without
. These examples—and other syntactic and pragmatic features of
invite further analysis and description, which will be carried out within the multidimensional, functional and typological model of discourse analysis presented in
the chapter on Theoretical Considerations.
68 The discourse-pragmatic analysis implemented here requires that
not be considered on the basis of the individual clauses in which it occurs, isolated from the
surrounding context. In this framework, will be considered within the whole “textual
web” of biblical Hebrew. Attention will also be paid to the narrative flow and the function of other textlinguistic indicators in the global context in which
occurs, considering the
WAYYIQTOL
and
WEQATAL
forms in particular. The discourse distribution and occasional clustering of occurrences of
is another aspect that will require analysis.
One of the other goals of this study is methodological in nature. The primary goal is, of course, to analyze
, but a secondary objective is that the analysis of be seen
as a case study to demonstrate the benefits of the multidimensional discourse-pragmatic analysis implemented here See section 5.2. This analytical model can be applied to any
aspect of biblical Hebrew. In fact, one of the greatest needs in current discourse studies of biblical Hebrew is a comprehensive model capable of dealing with the multifaceted
features of the biblical Hebrew text. This may seem like an unattainable goal, but one of the factors that has hindered wider acceptance of discourse studies is the perceived
fragmentary character of many individual studies of specific features. Of course, it is possible to err in the opposite extreme if the model presented here is perceived as the
only model to answer all questions about biblical Hebrew discourse. The goal here is not that ambitious, but at the same time what is implemented here is presented with the firm
conviction that satisfying answers to questions related to biblical Hebrew discourse
69 features can only be obtained by some type of multi-perspectival communicative model
of language in use. Some may react to the eclectic nature of this model, but having a variety of
analytical tools at one’s disposal is the best way to deal with the variety of features in the biblical Hebrew text. Another potential criticism is that the analytical model appears to
be much more complex than even the Hebrew text itself. Complexity, in and of itself, is not what validates a model of linguistic analysis, but all too often the inherent complexity
of language is minimized because of the automatic, subconscious way in which we as speakers use language. Care needs to be exercised to avoid rejecting an analytical model
merely because of its apparent complexity. This, however, does not justify unnecessary complexity in linguistic description; any analysis should always strive for simplicity
whenever possible. It is also possible that some may dispute the emphasis on linguistic analysis
employed in this study, but the linguistic nature of the problem calls for the use of appropriate linguistic tools. The reader is free to judge whether there is any benefit to be
derived from the use of these analytical perspectives and tools, but even if this study does no more than further define the questions that remain about
, a contribution will be made. It is the goal and expectation of the author, however, that at the very minimum,
certain parameters for the study of an entity like will be at least clearly explicated.
In linguistic description, as in many scientific endeavors, “fuzzy” analysis is extremely difficult to either refute or verify; the most verifiable analysis, then, is one which clearly
states its hypotheses and conclusions. This, then, is the goal here.
70
CHAPTER 5
GENERAL THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
5.1 Introduction
