Proverbial poetry: its settings and syntax
Yüklə 6,58 Mb.
|
|
the A sentences are lowest not only explicitly in the A/X type but also in the X/A rows as well. Thus A is distributed in 14% of the lines of type IV overall which in the prophets is significantly lower that the other three, (B, C, D). B (33%) is predominant with C (26%) as a close runner-up, as seen in the percentages at the bottom of the chart. D is found in 23% of the bi-colonic mixes and D/X accounts for 28% of this line type. These results may now be compared and contrasted with a similar summary from the text of Proverbs 10-15. The Proverbs 10-15 chart, however, will contain two sets of mixed line type data: (1) without reckoning the nominal sentence types, to facilitate a direct comparison with Collins' figures; and (2) including nom./X and X/nom. types. The tendencies observed in the first will be augmented by including the results of the second, thereby confirming the results of the first by further corroborating them by doubling the number of examples. The frequent use of basic sentence B (18%) is found in Proverbs 10-15, yet its predominance clearly gives way to type C (31.5%). It is interesting that the nominal sentences occur rather frequently as well (26.5%). Thus, there is a B (SVM) to C (SVO) shift from the prophets to the Proverbs 10-15. This shift is found not only in the mixing line type IV but is remarkably apparent also in chart 10.1 in the matching line type II and, somewhat less strikingly, in the gapping line type III. Secondly, there is again--as in line types II and III--an aversion for the use of D (SVOM) sentences (6.2%) in line type IV. This confirms suspicions aroused elsewhere. Therefore, the predominance of C (SVO) and nom. (SPsc) basic sentences and the lack of D (SVOM) provide clear points of syntactic differentiation between Proverbs 10-15 and the prophet materials. The shift from the prophets' B/X (36%) and C/X (22.2%) to the proverbial B/X (23.4%) and C/X (42.1%) shows this also. Another more subtle difference is the distribution of whether or not there is an explicit subject or not. Collins uses the following system: i) [subject in both cola], ii) [subject in neither colon], iii) [subject in the first colon only], and iv) [subject in the second colon only]. In the prophets, one can notice the patterns in A/X types which emphasize i) and iii); B/X which emphasize i), ii) and iii); C/X which is distributed across all four; and D/X which emphasizes ii) and iv). In Proverbs A/X is almost solely concentrated in i) with one mention of iii). Likewise B (SVM) and C (SVO) are characterized by i). D (SVOM), which is the longest form, manifests itself in a more distributed way. One should not forget, however, that D is rather rare in Proverbs 10-15. Thus, Proverbs 10-15 shows a marked tendency to include a subject in both cola whereas the prophets allow for greater freedom and frequency in the use of non-explicit subjects. This again provides another specific distinguishing feature between the prophets and the Proverbs 10-15. Note again the emphasis of the subject element in Proverbs not only in terms of position, as seen above, but also in terms of its explicit presence. This may be a result of the antithetical character of the proverbs, which frequently contrast subject elements; whereas in the prophets there may be some contiguity and identity between the subject of the first colon and the second. Here again there is a correlation between syntactic form and meaning--between message and linguistic construction. The presence of explicit subjects also adds to the independence of each stich. The totals at the bottom of both charts (10.5 and 10.6) reveal ii) (38.5%) as the leading one in the prophets with i) (24.2%) and iii) (23.9%) as following but still significant. In Proverbs 10-15, however, i) (79%) clearly stands alone with its next runner-up being iii) (12.3%), and ii) and iv) only being rarely used. The prophets use ii) (38.5%) as a major mode while Proverbs 10-15 rarely uses it (2.5%). Proverbs 10-15 has a much more restrictive pattern while the prophets allow for more variation in the distribution percentages. One final observation should be made on the distribution of D/X types, which show substantially higher usages of iv) (subject in the second colon only). Since Proverbs 10-15 normally desires to have a subject but does not normally favor basic sentence D (SVOM), when D is used it frequently has the subject deleted, showing that there may be an effort to reduce the number of syntactic elements to a proverbially acceptable level by deleting the subject. This may indicate that there are syntactic line constraints toward a lower standard number of constituents than the D sentence usually allows for. This is especially true when, as it will be shown, the subject is a two member noun phrase dominated which would necessarily push the syntactic unit count of D type stichs to five which is exceedingly rare in Proverbs 10-15. This may corroborate O'Connor's suggestion that syntactical constraints are determinative for Hebrew verse structure. CHART 10.7 Ordering of Subject, Verb and Object Comparison of Collins, O'Connor and Proverbs [Collins, p. 204; O'Connor, p. 335] 1 2 3 4 5 6 SVO SOV VSO VOS OSV OVS I C:i) 19 0 7 11 1 9 IIC:i) 26 9 15 0 3 1 IIIC:i) 23 1 24 5 0 3 IV A/C:i) 4 0 0 0 1 0 B/C:i) 3 1 2 1 2 1 C/A:i) 3 0 3 0 0 0 C/B:i) 4 3 5 3 1 2 C/D:i) 1 0 0 0 0 1 D/C:i) 1 0 0 0 0 0 C/A:iii) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C/B:iii) 4 1 2 1 0 0 C/D:iii) 4 2 4 0 0 0 B/C:iv) 0 0 0 0 0 0 D/C:iv) 4 0 0 0 0 1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Collins 96 17 63 21 8 18 =223 % 43% 7.6% 28.3% 9.4% 3.6% 8.1% O'Connor 21 1 9 2 1 6 = 40 % 53% 2% 23% 5% 2% 15% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proverbs Ordering of Subject, Verb and Object 1 2 3 4 5 6 SVO SOV VSO VOS OSV OVS I C:i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 IIC:i) 34 0 1 6 0 5 IIIC:i) 6 0 1 0 0 1 IVA/C:i) 1 0 0 1 0 0 B/C:i) 4 0 0 0 0 0 nom/C:i) 4 0 0 0 0 1 C/A:i) 7 0 1 1 0 1 C/B:i) 3 0 0 0 0 0 C/D:i) 1 0 0 1 0 0 C/nom.i) 11 0 1 0 0 1 D/C:i) 1 0 0 1 0 0 C/A:iii) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C/B:iii) 1 0 1 0 0 0 C/D:iii) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C/nom:iii) 2 0 0 0 0 0 B/C:iv) 0 0 0 0 0 0 D/C:iv) 1 0 0 0 0 0 nom/C:iv) 1 0 0 0 0 0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 77 0 5 10 0 9 =101 76% 0% 5% 10% 0% 9%
Ordering of Subject, Verb and Modifier Comparison of Collins, O'Connor and Proverbs [Collins p. 203; O'Connor p. 335] 1 2 3 4 5 6 SVM SMV VSM VMS MSV MVS I B:i) 24 10 22 18 8 30 IB:i)var 7 2 11 5 4 6 IIB:i) 36 43 36 26 4 19 IIIB:i) 32 23 35 30 2 35 IV A/B:i)10 3 1 3 0 3 B/A:i) 4 2 13 6 0 3 B/C:i) 2 2 9 8 0 3 B/D:i) 1 2 0 2 0 0 C/B:i) 5 6 5 1 0 4 D/B:i) 0 0 1 0 0 0 B/A:iii) 1 0 3 0 0 0 B/C:iii) 7 3 7 7 0 1 B/D:iii) 6 4 5 0 0 1 C/B:iv) 3 1 1 1 0 2 D/B:iv) 5 6 5 1 2 0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Collins 143 107 154 108 20 107 =639 % 22.4% 16.8% 24% 16.9% 3.1% 16.8% O'Connor 16 22 27 23 5 16 =109 % 15% 20% 25% 21% 4% 15% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proverbs SVM Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 SVM SMV VSM VMS MSV MVS IB:i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 IIB:i) 3 1 2 1 0 1 IIIB:i) 3 3 1 0 0 1 IIIB:iii) 0 0 1 0 0 2 IVA/B:i) 1 0 0 0 1 0 B/A:i) 3 0 1 0 0 2 B/C:i) 2 1 0 0 0 1 B/D:i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 B/nom:i) 1 0 1 0 0 6 C/B:i) 0 1 1 0 0 1 D/B:i) 0 0 0 0 1 0 nom/B:i) 0 0 0 1 0 0 B/A:iii) 0 0 0 0 0 0 B/C:iii) 0 0 0 0 0 0 B/D:iii) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C/B:iv) 0 0 0 0 0 0 D/B:iv) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 13 6 7 2 2 14 = 44 29.5% 13.6% 15.9% 4.6% 4.6% 31.8% CHART 10.9 Ordering of Subject and Verb Comparison of Collins, O'Connor and Proverbs [Collins, p. 202; O'Connor, p. 327] Collins Proverbs 1 2 1 2
SV VS SV VS IA:i) 6 2 0 0 IIA:i) 67 111 10 0 IIIA:i) 3 17 0 0 IVA/B:i) 12 8 1 1 A/C:i) 5 4 2 0 A/D:i) 0 0 1 0 A/nom:i) - - 0 1 B/A:i) 18 10 6 0 C/A:i) 2 4 10 0 D/A:i) 0 1 0 0 nom/A:i) - - 5 0 A/B:iii) 8 12 0 0 A/C:iii) 6 6 0 0 A/D:iii) 4 2 1 0 B/A:iv) 3 7 0 0 C/A:iv) 2 6 0 0 D/A:iv) 4 3 0 0 nom/A:iv) - - 1 0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 140 193 37 2 42% 58% 95% 5% =333 =39
% 33% 67% A Comparison of the Ordering of Syntactic Elements The final series of charts will monitor the location, rather than the presence, of the subject and verbal elements. Because O'Connor gives easily accessible tables from which, a tri-lateral comparison of the corpora of Collins, O'Connor, and Proverbs 10-15 may be made, strengthening the results of each in that these three will provide a more extensive and representative data base. Chart 10.7 gives the number of occurrences of the single colon C (SVO) type. Collins is attempting to make statements as to which ordering is preferred (SVO, OVS, VSO, etc.). Several features are of interest. First is the sustained dominance of the SVO order in all three (Collins 43%; O'Connor 53%; Proverbs 76%), with a substantial increase in the percentage in Proverbs. Where basic sentence C is contained in Proverbs, the normal ordering is SVO. In both Collins' and O'Connor's corpora the VSO ordering is seated firmly in second place (Collins 28.3%; O'Connor 23%), with a substantial decrease in VOS types (Collins 9.4%; O'Connor 5%). Proverbs, on the other hand, has twice as many VOS (10%) as VSO (5%) and both are rather infrequent compared to the SVO order. There seems to be an avoidance of the VSO form in Proverbs 10-15 as compared to the prophets and other poetry. The OVS type is rather well represented (9%) when compared with VSO and VOS types and the clear hegemony of SVO in Proverbs 10-15. In summary, Proverbs 10-15 normally manifests an SVO ordering with three variations in decreasing use--VOS, OVS, and VSO. All three analyses confirm the sparsity of SOV and OSV orders. Chart 10.8 treats all B (SVM) sentence types. While all three studies show a much broader distribution of ordering patterns for this basic sentence than for C (SVO), there are some interesting patterns. First, both Collins and O'Connor found VSM to be the chief order by a slight margin. In Proverbs, the VSM (15.9%) ordering lags significantly behind not only the SVM (29.5%) order, but also, more remarkably, behind MVS (31.8%). There is a significantly higher use of MVS in Proverbs than in the corpora of Collins (16.8%) and O'Connor (15%), which closely agree. It is interesting that SVM and MVS, the two dominant forms in Proverbs, are chiastic orderings although one would have to check the text to see whether chiastic considerations could be proposed as a reason for the odd frequency of the MVS order in Proverbs 10-15. The MSV order is rare in all corpora. There is a salient decrease in Proverbs' use of VMS (4.6%) as compared to Collins (16.9%) and O'Connor (21%). This would confirm the suspicion of the proverbial bent against V initial patterns.
units of the A (VS). It is of import that both Collins (58% to 42%) and O'Connor (67% to 33%) favor VS ordering over SV. While both are substantially represented, the VS ordering comes out as the primal form by a healthy margin. Narrative discussions would also even more strongly favor a VS ordering.1 Proverbs 10-15 provides quite a contrast. 95% are SV and only 5% are VS. Again there seems to be a striking syntactic contrast between Proverbs and the other poetic corpora favoring an S initial orientation. Hypotheses for this marked S fronting as opposed to the normal V initial which predominates narrative as well as many of the poetic sections should be generated. One suggestion may be that the S focus reflects the sages' concentration on analyzing various characters (wicked, foolish, wise, righteous) and things (tongue, heart, wealth) and/or that the sages are simply following conventionally fixed proverbial patterns which were normally S initial. The S initial emphasis would show that the sages were freer from the normal patterns of colloquial speech (VSO) but the rather narrow distributions of orderings would suggest that this "freedom" is exercised within the bounds of other ____________________ 1Ibid., p. 205. constraints, which actually restrict the patterns to an even more homogeneous use of line types. Since much more work needs to be done on these differences let it suffice merely to observe the differences and leave the rationale behind them as a matter for further study.
drawn from the above discussion? Perhaps most consequential is the notion that there is a quantifiable nexus between genre and syntax. It has been shown that, while the prophets manifest an even distribution between the four line types (I, II, III, IV), Proverbs 10-15 uses II and IV heavily while ignoring I. The prophets use D (SVOM) sentences evenly with the other types of basic sentences (A, B, C), while Proverbs 10-15 seems to have an aversion for the longer D form. C (SV0) and especially nom. (SPsc) dominate Proverbs. Both the prophets and Proverbs favor repetition of pattern (SV/SV; SVO/SVO; etc.). While the prophets in A, B sentences favor a V initial, Proverbs very heavily manifests an S initial. The emphasis on S initial orderings can be seen in the C type as well, where SVO is the standard form (76%). Similarly, while the prophets have the highest percentage of ii) type lines, with non-explicit subjects in both lines, Proverbs has i) as its major form, which demands
Proverbs shows, at least in these two regards, an S dominance. This may be accounted for as more necessary because of the antithetical character of Proverbs 10-15, or because of genre constraints, or philosophically because of its pedagogical focus of attention on subjects, or other reasons which may be hypothesized. Proverbs has a bias for two complete, separate, and independent types of syntactic relationships between the cola, whereas the prophets seem to manifest more bi-colonic, syntactic interaction and dependence. The ordering of syntactic elements in Proverbs seems to be more constrained into bunches than in the prophets which frequently allow for diverse order variations. In line type IV the B/X of the prophets gives way to the C/X, nom./X, and X/nom. patterns of Proverbs. There is a general B (prophets) to C (Proverbs 10-15) shift also present in the overall picture. These are some differences that have been supported with varying degrees of certainty based on the data of Proverbs 10-15. Because of the probablistic nature of the data, these conclusions should not be taken as absolutes, but as suggested tendencies. The magnitude of the conclusions reached shows the fructiferous nature of the methodology employed and also the need to check these suggestions via a further examination of antithetical proverbial material--perhaps from Proverbs 16-21 or 25-29. This writer suspects that the results of Proverbs 1-9 would be substantially different and more in line with the prophetic tradition. The above suggestions may also be helpful in pointing the way to the addition of a syntactic component in the structural definition of a Hebrew proverb. Since this is merely a nascent launching of these ideas in embryonic form, if it does nothing more than to call for further studies which ask these same kinds of questions, it will have accomplished its purpose. If indeed genre is a function of syntax, as well as of semantic structure, then much more work needs to be done on all alleged genre to discover and explicate these syntactic constraints of equivalence and variation both within and between genres.
lines of poetic text from a cross-section of Hebrew poetry (e.g., Exod 15; Num 23-24; Deut 33; Zeph; Pss 78, 106, 107 et al.). He has attempted to obtain a "representative" sample of Hebrew poetry, in contrast to Collins, who dealt strictly with a prophetic corpus. While Collins' work simply proffers a scheme which provides a method for packaging Hebrew poetry, O'Connor's work offers much more in terms of a general literary theory of poetics, a sound
of various approaches to Hebrew poetic theory. O'Connor concentrates his acute poetic sensitivities on the rudimentary problem of Hebrew poetry--the determination of the constraints which determine the line itself. One misreads O'Connor if he thinks that O'Connor is proposing his constraints as his method of reading poetry. Rather, he is focusing his efforts in the attempt to isolate and describe lineal constraints. His constraint matrix handles all lines found in Proverbs 10-15, although there are some differences in terms of the frequency with which those constraints manifest themselves in Proverbs 10-15. Clause predicators Constituents 1 2 3 4 Units 2 3 4 51
may be seen in Chart 10.10, which also contains a comparison of percentages generated from O'Connor's more comprehensive corpus. Several differences occur which this writer attributes to differences in genre. Again it will be proffered that genre is a function of syntax or vice versa. From Chart 10.10 several differences are manifest ____________________
O'Connor's Analysis Organized by Line Weight [O'Connor, pp. 317-18]
0.3% (65 cases; 5.3%) 11:2b PscS 10:26b SPsc 13:10b PPsc 14:9b PPsc 10:6a SPsc 10:7a SPsc 10:15b PscS 10:16a SPsc 10:16b SPsc 10:20b SPsc 10:25b SPsc 10:28a SPsc 10:29b PscP 11:1b SPsc 11:14b PscP 11:19a SPsc 11:20b PscS 11:23a SPsc 11:23b SPsc 11:26b PscP 12:5a SPsc 12:5b SPsc 12:9b Dim Comp 12:10b SPsc 12:18b SPsc 12:20b PPsc 12:22b SPsc 13:15b SPsc 13:17b SPsc 13:24b PscS 14:4a PPsc 14:8b SPsc 14:12b SPsc 14:20b SPsc 14:24a SPsc 14:24b SPsc 14:30b PscS 14:34b PscS 15:6b PPsc 15:7b SPsc 15:8b SPsc 15:19b SPsc 15:26b PscS 15:33b PscS 10:1b SPsc 10:11a PscS 10:13b SPsc 10:14b SPsc 10:15a SPsc 10:20a PscS 11:1a SPsc 11:20a PscS 11:22a Psc 11:30a SPsc 12:20a PscP 12:22a PscS 12:4a SPsc 13:8a PscS 13:12b PscS 13:14a SPsc 13:23a PscP 13:24a SPsc 14:3a PPsc 14:30a PscS 14:26a SPsc 14:27a SPsc 14:28a SPsc 14:28b SPsc 14:29a SPsc 14:4b PscP 15:3a SP 15:4a SPsc 15:6a PPsc 15:8a SPsc 15:9a PscS 15:13b PPsc 15:15a SPsc 15:15b SPsc 15:16a PscSP 15:16b SA 15:19a SPsc 15:26a PscS 15:33a SPsc 15:17b SA 12:4b PscS 13:23b VPscP 14:13b PSPsc 14:16b SPsc 15:11a SPsc 15:29a PscSP 15:23b SPPsc Yüklə 6,58 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|