102 representation of that communication is shaped by the cognitive processes which were
operative during the text’s production. One of the most fundamental cognitive notions that affects the analyst’s basic
perception of how language is used is the pervasive representational nature of all language.
5.2.5.1 The Representational Nature of Language
At its most fundamental level, all language is representational. The classes of words such as nouns and verbs that refer respectively to things objects and concepts and
actions are not themselves the things and actions. They are linguistic representations of those things and actions. This representational or metaphorical nature of language is one
of the most powerful, efficient characteristics of language. This does not bring into question the reality of the “real world” or the referential nature of certain linguistic items,
but rather emphasizes the fact that the linguistic elements of language are not themselves the entities they refer to.
Certain linguistic entities such as prepositions and connectors are seen in a new light when analyzed from a metaphorical or representational perspective. For example, a
preposition like “under” not only represents the physical position of one object in relation to another, but is also used metaphorically to represent the situation of being under the
control of something or someone. It is very common for prepositions to have this representational function, which indicates the interconnectedness of the network of
spatial, temporal, and relational terms. In biblical Hebrew, then, it is no surprise that
103 prepositions are used spatially, temporally, and relationally. For example, is used both
spatially and temporally in Gen 6:4:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days,
Pa-ncmp vqp3cp Pp+Pa-ncbs Pp+Pa- ncmp Pa-pi3mp
Gen 6:4
As Anderson and Keenan comment, typically in most languages “spatial expressions are imported directly into the temporal domain by means of the metaphorical
representation of time as a spatial dimension” Anderson and Keenan 1985, 297. One of the consequences of viewing language as essentially metaphorical is an
inevitable shift in perspective regarding the traditional study of metaphor or figurative language. If language is perceived as essentially representational or metaphorical, it
logically follows that metaphor and figurative language will be seen as a normal rather than a special use of language.
Another consequence of the metaphorical view of language is the realization that not only do words represent entities, but a text is a representation or depiction of the
events which occurred in the real world. The text is not the same as the events which it narrates. As Berlin states, “representations of reality do not always correspond in every
detail to reality” Berlin 1994, 14. This does not mean, however, that the representation is inconsistent with the reality it represents, but the representation should never be
confused with the reality itself. Also, certain features of the textual representation of reality are not inherent to that reality. For example, aspect is not an inherent component
of the actions in a text, but rather are a part of the narrative depiction. As Bybee states:
104 …the function of aspect is to allow the temporal dimensions of a situation
to be described from different points of view depending on how the situation is intended to fit into the discourse. Bybee 1985, 142
So in Gen 1:5 referred to above, there is nothing inherently “
WAYYIQTOL
ish” about the first action, nor is the second action inherently “
QATAL
ish.” The use of
WAYYIQTOL
and
QATAL
is part of the narrative depiction of the text. Another important feature of textual representation involves the temporal
structuring of events. As a representation of reality, the temporal structuring of the representation does not correspond exactly to the temporal structure of the reality being
represented. There is, first of all, the obvious mismatch between the real-time duration of events and narrative-time. Typically, narrative-time is shorter in duration than the time it
took for the events to unfold in real-time, but this is not always the case. Under certain circumstances, events which happened in rapid succession may be described in such
detail that the narrative-time actually exceeds the real-time duration of the events themselves. Additionally, events can occur simultaneously in real-time, but they cannot
be narrated simultaneously. There are textual mechanisms for depicting the simultaneity or concurrent nature of events, but the linear nature of text requires that simultaneous
events be narrated one after the other according to the choice of the narrator.
105
5.2.5.2 Information Structure
