[Slot] Mod Hd Mod Hd
[Role] Exp It Qual It
[Filler] NP N Adj N
[Coh.] >s/>m s>/m>
Mod Hd
Spc It
PS N
>s/>m
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
The formulae derived from the above tree will be
____________________
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
monitored. Its formula is: Link Conj
------------------
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:
Sub NP
----------------
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
is: NP = Hd N (msa) Mod Adj (msa)
----------------------- + ----------------------------------
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
is:
NP = Hd N (fsc) Mod NP
------------------------ + ------------------
It תּוּגַת Exp אִמּוֹ
The modifying noun phrase (NP) אִמּוֹ i is composed of a head
(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:
NP = Hd N (msc) Mod PS (3ms)
-------------------------- + --------------------------
It אִמּ Spc >s/>m וֹ
The total resultant formula for Proverbs 10:1b is:
Hd N (msc) Mod Adj (msa)
------------------------ + ---------------------------
It m>s> בֵן Qual >m>s כְּסִיל
S NP
------------------------------------------------------------------------ +
Ca
Hd N fsc Mod PS 3ms
------------- + ------------------
It אִמּ Spc >s/>m וֹ
Hd N (fsc) Mod NP
----------------- + ----------------------------------------------------
It תִּוּגַת Exp
Psc NP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Res
Though the initial impression of the linguistic
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
works on all levels and hierarchically describes how units
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
study will not be just the corroboration of O'Connor's and
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.
____________________
1Geller (Parallelism In Early Biblical Poetry) has
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 ]
"A wise son makes a father happy"
Hd N Mod Adj
---------- + --------------
It Qual
S NP P V O N
------------------------------------------ + ---------- + ----------
Ca AP/ Exp
T/A
Isomorphism
Homomorphism
Isomorphism
Hd N Mod PS
-------- + ------------
It Spc
Hd N Mod Adj Hd N Mod NP
-------- + -------------- --------- + -----------------------------------
It Qual It Exp
S NP Psc NP
-------------------------------- + -------------------------------------------------------
Ca Res
Proverbs 10:1b NVCRt [ וּבֶן כְּסִיל תּוּגַת אִמּוֹ ]
"A foolish son is grief to his mother."
Two types of grammatical phenomena are observed between
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
____________________
1Williams, Hebrew Syntax, p. 15, sec. 66.
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
____________________
1O'Connor suggested this to the writer during
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
CHAPTER IX
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
Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching, p.
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,
Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
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.
2R. Gordon, "Motivation in Proverbs," Biblical
at the "lack of order."1 McKane maintains that the
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.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |