Proverbial poetry: its settings and syntax
Yüklə 6,58 Mb.
|
| [Slot] Mod Hd Mod Hd
[Role] Exp It Qual It [Filler] NP N Adj N [ 
Mod Hd Spc It
PS N > 
3ms fsc fsc msa msa [Parsing] 
וֹ אִמ תּוּגַת כְּסִיל בֵן וּ (his) (mother) (grief) (foolish) (son) (but) "But a foolish son is grief to his mother."1
____________________ 1Other abbreviations added here are: cl = class, Cl = clause, ctr = contrastive, Psc = Predicate subject complement, PS = pronominal suffix. As in most linguistic analyses one of the most frustrating features is the myriad of obscure abbreviations. Thus, this study will provide a list of abbreviations both at the beginning of the dissertation and at the beginning of the corpus proper.
described in detail. First, the contrastive clause linker is obviously the conjunction waw. Because of the repetitiveness of this feature, it will not be closely m ------------------ Ctr
The subject (S) tagmeme is filled by a noun phrase (NP), which is in the role of the causer (Ca) of the mother's grief. The formula for בֵּן כְּסִיל is:
---------------- Ca The Noun Phrase (NP) that fills the subject (S) tagmeme is composed of a head (Hd)--which is filled by a Noun (N), which plays the role of the Item (It) of discussion--and a modifier (Mod) filled by an adjective (Adj), which gives the quality (Qual) of the head noun. The formula for בֵּן כְּסִיל i ----------------------- + ---------------------------------- It m>s> בֵּן Qual >m>s כְּסִיל The parsing boxes show that the head noun and modifying noun are both masculine, singular and absolute The predicate subject complement ( תּוּגַת אִמּוֹ) is filled by a noun phrase (NP), which is in the role of a result subject. Thus it has the formula: Psc NP
--------------- Res The predicate subject complement noun phrase תּוּגַת אִמּוֹ is composed of a head (Hd) noun (N) תּוּגַת as the item (It) of discussion and a noun phrase (NP) אִמּוֹ modifying (Mod) the head noun as an experiencer (Exp). The formula for תּוּגַת i NP = Hd N (fsc) Mod NP
------------------------ + ------------------ It תּוּגַת Exp אִמּוֹ
(Hd) noun אִמ i as the item (It) of discussion and a modifying, possessive, third masculine singular suffix, specifying whose mother is being talked about. Note that in the cohesion box, the suffix is governed in number (sing.) and gender (masc.) by the head noun of the subject. The formula for אִמּוֹ is:
-------------------------- + -------------------------- It אִמּ Spc >s/>m וֹ
------------------------ + ---------------------------  It m>s> בֵן Qual >m>s כְּסִיל
S NP
------------------------------------------------------------------------ + Ca
------------- + ------------------
Hd N (fsc) Mod NP ----------------- + ----------------------------------------------------
Psc NP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Res
abbreviations and specifications may be intimidating, all of the datum are significant for grammatical analysis. Again the basic, four-box tagmeme simply specifies the slot (subject, predicate, object, etc.), the class which fills that slot (nouns, noun phrases, adjectives), the role (experiencer, agent, qualifier, etc.), and the cohesive relationships which govern the forms (agreement in gender and number). The tagmeme Slot Filler
------------------ Role Cohesion
are built up from the words to the phrases to the clause. It also has the ability to trace the clause into sentences, sentences into paragraphs and paragraphs into whole discourses, although the higher levels will not be scientifically examined in this study on bi-colonic relationships. It should be apparent that the tagmeme is rather comprehensive in its grammatical description of form and relationships. Hence, much data could be generated from the data base of the tagmemic description of the 368 clauses. O'Connor has suggested that there are bi-colonic constraints which are grammatical in nature and formative in terms of the poetic line. This study desires to monitor the proverbial corpus (Proverbs 10-15) using O'Connor's constraint system as well as implementing Collins' line type analysis. The contribution of this
Collins' results, but will be the careful observation of the bi-colonic grammatical relationships--employing tagmemics as the most exacting way of doing this. Tagmemics not only exactly specifies surface grammatical relationships, but also through the medium of an embedded case grammar, allows for a closer look at deep grammar relationships. Finally, this writer has not given up on a semantic modeling of the bi-colon, but is rather disenamoured with the intuitive semantic approaches normally utilized in the Lowth-Gray-Robinson model. This study is calling for a syntagmatic semantic analysis of the bi-colon, fixed on a firm, scientific, grammatical base. It is possible that two semantic boxes could be added to the tagmeme in order to accommodate such semantic data. This idea is only in the experimental stage and will not be pursued in this study.1 The stage is set to examine the grammatical relationship between the two lines of Proverbs 10:1. For the sake of space, the four-box system will be used. It should be clear at this point that there is no match in Proverbs 10:1, as the first colon is a S V O type and the second is a verbless clause (S Psc). Thus, according to O'Connor's scheme, there is no match on the line level. ____________________
begun to move in this direction, although his ineptness in semantic analysis leaves his attempt rather anemic. In that the focus of his attention was the Hebrew verse structure, he is correct. However, as O'Connor is well aware, there are other levels of grammatical analysis which may demonstrate other types of relationships. This study will describe the units of poetic grammatical equivalence from whole lines (O'Connor's matching) down to the phrase and word levels. Prov 10:1a TCRt [ בֵּן חָכָם יְשַׂמַח אָב ]
S ------------------------------------------ + ---------- + ---------- Ca AP/ Exp T/A Isomorphism Homomorphism Isomorphism Hd N Mod PS
-------- + ------------ It Spc
-------- + -------------- --------- + ----------------------------------- It Qual It Exp S -------------------------------- + ------------------------------------------------------- Ca Res
"A foolish son is grief to his mother."
these two non-matching cola: (1) isomorphic relationships, which are exact tagmemic correspondences; and (2) homomorphisms, which are correspondences which have a common feature but which vary at one point or another. This is in harmony with O'Connor's discussion of the syntagmatic mapping of equivalent units onto the line. Both units which are exactly similar (isomorphic) and those which are similar yet have a point of difference (homomorphic) must be monitored. One should note on the above diagram that the subjects are isomorphic. Both of the subjects are filled by noun phrases, so their surface structure is isomorphic and both are the causers of the emotive response in their parents. Thus, a deep structure isomorphism is revealed. The fillers for both subject tagmemes are noun phrases and both are head nouns modified by quality oriented noun/adjective in a construct relationship. Hence, the two noun phrases (בֵּן חָכָם; בֵּן כְּסִיל) are isomorphic. The two constituents of the noun phrases are isomorphic, even down to there being an adjective (חָכָם) in 10:1b which matches with the adjective of 10:1a (חָכָם). Because the noun is being used appositively as an adjective, this will be considered an isomorphic match as well.1 For the verb in 10:1a, there is no match in 10:1b, which is verbless. It is interesting, however, to observe the semantic similarity between the verb יְשַׂמַּח (make happy) in 10:1a and the noun תּוּגַת (grief) in 10:1b. While a ____________________
semantic specification has been abandoned due to its inherent complexity, solid lined arrows will be used between the cola to point out semantically corresponding units. In the corpus, for analytic purposes, a seventh box could have been added, which will employ an ABC/A'B'C' approach for the sole purpose of deictically marking semantically corresponding units, with no specification of what the nature of the semantic cohesion is. This will be done so that semantic-syntactic interweaving may be made explicit. Thus, in Proverbs 10:1, there is a semantic line drawn for the correspondence between the verb יְשַׂמַּח (make happy) in the first line and the noun תּוּגַת (grief) in the second (syntactically divergent but semantically "equivalent"). In the last constituents of the lines there is a homomorphism between the object אָב (father), who is the experiencer of joy, and the modifier אִמּוֹ (his mother), which specifies who experiences the grief in 10:1b. The homomorphism highlights a divergent surface grammar since the first (אָב ) is an object and the second (אִמּוֹ) is a modifier. The first stands alone as noun, while the second is a noun phrase composed of a noun and a pronominal suffix, which is absent in the first. The role shows that in the deep structure they are equivalent, in that both are experiencers of emotion as a result of the character of their sons. The sage varies the normal father-mother pair by changing the grammatical positioning (object, modifier) and also by leaving one simple (אָב ) while the other is compounded with a pronominal suffix (אִמּוֹ). O'Connor is undoubtedly correct when he suggested that the pronominal suffix is a double duty suffix and should, therefore, be understood in the first line as well, even though it is elided.1 So, again, the surface structure is varied while the deep structure is similar. (Gapped and double duty elements will be indicated by an arrow into the corresponding line with no corresponding tagmeme.) Thus bi-colonic elements of grammatical equivalence in Proverbs 10:1 are: (1) both have subjects filled by noun phrases (wise son/foolish son); (2) both subject noun phrases are in head-modifier relationships, with the modifiers in both cases specifying the quality of the causer being discussed; (3) morphologically, in both lines the subjects are singular and the experiencers are also both singular; and (4) an experiencer is present in both cases (father/mother). Features of syntactic variation are: (1) the verb ( יְשַׂמַּח ) is syntactically varied from the noun ( תּוּגַת) although there is a semantic relationship; (2) the object noun (אָב ) is syntactically ____________________
conversation about Hebrew poetics (1983) arranged by a mutual friend, Jim Eisenbraun. diverse from the modifier noun phrase ( אִמּוֹ ), both in terms of simple/compound and in terms of function (object, modifier); and (3) the elision of the pronominal suffix (his mother) in the first line, which is made up by the double duty suffix in the second. Thus, there is a delicate balance of equivalence and variation, which prevents both a degeneration into the banality of total equivalence or a loss of cohesiveness in total variation. While there is no strict "match" on the line level, it is apparent that there is, nevertheless, a syntactic constraint here being worked out in the principles of equivalence and variation. This should be construed as a corroboration that O'Connor's suggestion for the operation of a syntactic constraint system as a key factor in understanding the poetic line is well-founded. This study will monitor isomorphic and homomorphic relations and attempt to isolate specific homogeneous syntactic patterns which were evoked as the sages plied their poetic craft. Several intuitive comments are in order, after having treated Proverbs 10:1 from a more scientifically linguistic perspective. First, one should not miss the inclusio effect of the familial members which begin and end each line (son-father//son-mother). The repetition of "son" and the parental pairing (father-mother) obviously provide lexical cohesiveness from head-to-head and tail- to-tail. Note that although this verse would correctly have been designated as an antithetical parallelism, several of its units are not antithetically parallel, but are in fact repetitional (son) and normal word pairs (father/mother). Hence, the outer units provide not for antithesis but for sameness between the two lines. This draws attention to the internal elements (wise, makes happy//foolish, grief), which is where the antithetic flip-flopping takes place. The repetitional "son" is reversed by the antithetical qualifiers wise/foolish. The resultant emotive effect (joy, grief) also antithetically contrasts the parental response, providing the point of contact so that the antithesis may be experienced. Left for further study is the precise content of each word and the specific semantic relationship between the antithetical pairs. There is need for a study to match C. K. Ogden's and other semanticists' works on the nature and various types of antithesis to the proverbial corpus.1 The picture of antithesis is complex and blurred by a mere lumping into a singular category of "antithetical" parallelism. If the proverbial poetic artistry is to be appreciated fully, phenomena such as those described above ____________________ 1Charles K. Ogden, Opposition: A Linguistic and Psychological Analysis (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1932). must be part of our method of reading. Poetry activates all levels of language--phonetic, syntactic, morphological, graphemic, lexical, semantic, rhetorical, and pragmatic. If one is to read poetry correctly, he must develop sensitivities on all of these levels in an attempt to recapture the initial poetic moment. Woe be to the one who castrates the proverbial expression by merely seeking its main point or its kernel of truth without appreciating the artistic medium by which that truth is expressed. Somehow the atmospheric freezing of H2O is not the same as the synaesthetic beauty of a snowflake. The corpus to follow will be somewhat anticlimatic (H2O approach) in the sense that it will only examine one feature of poetry: the grammatical correspondence between the cola. CHAPTER VIII CORPUS See "Corpus Document" 64 meg download pp. 427-614
LITERARY COHESION IN PROVERBS 10? Hugger-mugger Advocates One of the most common comments concerning the corpus of Proverbs 10-15 has been that these proverbs are perceived to be a chaotic confusion thrown together without any conceptual cohesion. The following remarks are representative of those who reject any architectonic structure in Proverbs 10-15. Oesterley writes in his commentary on Proverbs, "but generally speaking the proverbs are thrown together in a very haphazard fashion in this collection."1 R. Gordon explains that Proverbs is difficult to read because "there is little continuity or progression."2 Even von Rad expresses his annoyance ____________________ 1W. O. E. Oesterly, The Book of Proverbs, p. 125 (cf. also pp. 73, 77). Other writers who have expressed similar sentiments are: W. C. Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical
93; Keil and Delitzsch, Proverbs, p. 208; Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition, p. 67; W. S. LaSor, D. A. Hubbard, and F. W. Bush, Old Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), p. 552; R. K. Harrison,
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969), p. 1017; B. H. Kelly, "The Book of Proverbs," Int 2 (1948):347; and J. L. McKenzie, "The Wisdom of the Hebrews," in The Two-Edged Sword (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1959), p. 217.
sentences are independent and atomistic and labels all vincula between the proverbs as "secondary" and nugatory for interpretation.2 Some interpreters have allowed for small proverbial clusters, having detected some common theme, catch word, or letter, but they quickly go on to minimize the importance of such a canonical collectional process. Yüklə 6,58 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|
Coh.] >s/>m s>/m>
s/>m 
---------- + --------------
It Qual