results, particularly in poetry, which is so
methodological sophistry really worth it? Are the results
significant enough to warrant such tediousness?
The following results were generated from the
methodology presented above. It should be stated that the
analysis of the data base (tagmemic analysis of the
corpus of Proverbs 10-15) was not carried out in a
scientifically exhaustive manner, yet the results were
significant. The last two chapters (ch. 9 [Literary
Cohesion in Proverbs 10?] and ch. 10 [A Linguistic
Synthesis of the Syntax of Proverbial Poetry]) present
the discoveries as a result of the utilization of the
above methodology.
Literary Cohesion in Proverbs 10?
Chapter nine asks whether there is literary cohesion in
Proverbs 10. Most major commentators on
Proverbs (Toy, McKane, Whybray, Oesterley, Delitzsch, et
al.) have concluded that Proverbs 10-15 are haphazard
proverbs thrown together without any real literary
cohesion. From the linguistically sensitized framework
proposed in this paper, it was demonstrated that there is
indeed literary cohesion in Proverbs 10. Literary
arguments were generated suggesting that a totally
haphazard order is extremely unlikely due to principles of
literary uniformitarianism, selection procedures, and
psychological realities. The sages were demonstrated to
be capable of and aware of larger literary units in that
such structures are the rule in the rest of the book of
Proverbs (1:20-33, 8:22ff.; ch. 1-9; 16, 25 as well as the
well-known acrostic of 31:10-31). The collection
principles in other ancient Near Eastern proverb
collections were examined (Alster) and several features
noted (catch words, common initial signs, thematic
connections, and proverbial pairs). Modern proverbial
collections were also surveyed for general principles of
organization (Kuusi). Finally, the model of Skehan and
his follower, Brown, was examined. Skehan suggested that
the number of Solomon's name is equivalent to 375, that is
exactly the number of proverbs in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, and
that there were 15 columns of 25 proverbs each. The
potential of Skehan's suggestion was recently developed by
Brown. While Brown was able to locate correctly some
major structural divisions, his simplistic equation of
semantic repetition to structural markers was inadequate.
His method was totally based on semantic repetitions and
unfortunately he did not do a good job even at that, as he
seemed to skip repetitions which did not fit his theory.
Brown's hypothesis demonstrates once again the problem of
coming to the text with a preconceived structure in mind,
rather than allowing the structure to rise from the text.
Structures should be built up from smaller to larger units
(words, phrases, to discourse) rather than being forced down
(from discourse to words).
Several cohesional principles help assess how the
sage ordered the canonical text. Phonological repetitions
frequently played key roles in connecting proverbs
(11:9-12; 10:17-18, 25-26 et al.) and were also used to
bind stichs together (10:18; 11:15 et al.). Lexical
repetitions or catch words were numerous (10:2-3, 14-15;
11:5, 6 et al.). Repetition of whole phrases and clauses
were found as well (10:6, 11 et al.). Syntactic parallels
between proverbs also appeared (10:2-3, 31-32) as did some
topical cohesions (11:9-11). The cohesions took three forms:
(1) single proverb; (2) proverbial pair (10:2-3;
26:4-5); and (3) proverbial cluster (10:18-21; 11:9-11.
This is the first time that the literary unity and
structure of Proverbs 10:1-11:1 has been linguistically
demonstrated, although Bostrom's and Murphy's works have
made strides in that direction. Because this unity has
been almost universally denied or ignored, such techniques
hold much potential for the other chapters of proverbs
that have been labelled "helter skelter" and "thrown
together."
A Linguistic Synthesis of the
Syntax of Proverbial Poetry
The final chapter analyzed the mountain of
linguistic minutia compiled in the corpus in order to
discover significant syntactic patterns employed in
proverbial poetry. It began with a comparison with the
results of Collins' 1900 lines of prophetic poetry.
Several remarkable differences were discovered. First,
while Collins found an even distribution over the four
line types (I, II, III, IV), Proverbs manifested a
substantial shift in avoidance of I and III and favoring
II and IV. From this it may be deduced that proverbial
sayings tend to be composed of syntactically separate and
complete stichs. Secondly, there was a marked movement
away from basic sentence types D (SVOM) and A (SV) toward
an increased use of C (SVO) and nominal (SPsc) sentence
types. A discussion of the ordering patterns of each of
the basic sentence types followed (A, B, C, D). It was
observed that the prophets favored verb initial orderings,
repetition of pattern, S initial forms occurring in the
second line rather than the first, and an SO order when
following a verb. Proverbs, on the other hand, evinces a
strong tendency to put the subject first. Proverbs also
favors repetition of patterns, but frequently allows for
an SO order when following the verb. This is often due to
chiastic ordering constraints. Proverbs also had less
diversity in the ordering of its syntactic units, favoring
certain orders to the exclusion of others. In line type
IV two significant differences were observed from what
Collins found in the prophets: (1) Proverbs had a
substantial tendency to include explicitly the subject
element (i) whereas the prophets frequently allowed for it
to be dropped or affixed (ii, ii, iv); and (2) when there
was a subject deletion or affixation it was often found to
be a D (SVOM) sentence type, suggesting that some
O'Connorian syntactic constraints are at work. Such exact
syntactic differences provided the basis for the rather
sensational suggestion that one may be able to specify
explicitly genre differences on the basis of syntactical
patterns employed. The differences between the proverbial
and prophetic use of syntactical patterns as just observed
specify exact points of syntactic genre differentia.
Thus, not only the poetic line is syntactically
constrained, but genre may be also.
A comparison with the results of O'Connor's more
normative sample of Hebrew poetry (1225 lines) also
reveals several marked features of the proverbial sayings.
First, O'Connor found a large percentage (20%) of 122
configured lines (1 clause, 2 constituents, 2 units),
whereas these were found in Proverbs 10-15 only rarely
(0.5%). This is compatible with the marked increase in
Proverbs 10-15 of the 134 configuration (20%) over
O'Connor's corpus' 6.5%. These also may demonstrate
syntactic constraints which may be characteristic of the
proverbial sayings. This again evinces the principle that
genre may be a function of syntactical constraints.
Explanations for this--specifically how these
differences were achieved syntactically--led to a study of
noun phrase patterns. It was discovered that Proverbs in
the subject slot employed a two-membered noun phrase,
whereas O'Connor's corpus manifested a dominant single
nominal unit. This shift would push the 122 configuration
to 123 and the 133 configuration to 134, which is what was
observed. Note again the prominence of the subject
tagmeme, not only by its initial position (contra Collins'
prophetic corpus), but also in the number of units that
the subject contains (contra O'Connor's corpus). There
was also a substantial increase in nominal sentences (023, 024)
in Proverbs 10-15 (20%) as compared with O'Connor's corpus
(2.1%).
O'Connor's methodology also helped isolate another
feature of the proverbial corpus: the second line of the
bi-colon showed a marked tendency to be shorter than the
first. One might suggest that such a finding is rather
obvious in that the second line often gaps features
contained in the first, as noted in the comparison with
Collins. Proverbs 10-15 seems to avoid the extensive use
of gapping, favoring complete stichs instead. Thus, there
seems to be a purposeful tendency for the longer syntactic
units to be found in the first line, with the shorter
units in the second. Four-unit lines were found first 73%
of the time and often when found in the second line they
were matched with a 4 or 5 unit first line. Three unit
lines were found in the second stich 73% of the time and
often when they were found in the first line they were
matched with a 3 unit second line. What is being
fashioned here is the exact nature of syntactic
constraints under which the sages operated as they crafted
their sayings. By moving closer to how they formulated
their message, we move closer to an experience of the
original creative moment of these artistic expressions.
Having gained substantial results from a
comparison with the prophetic corpus of Collins and the
normative corpus of O'Connor, the study went on to dip
below the line level to observe sub-lineal syntactic
matches via the phenomena which have been labeled
isomorphic and homomorphic syntactic mappings between the
lines. While only about 33% of the lines exhibited
syntactic matching (O'Connor, Line type II [Collins]),
87.5% exhibited the sub-lineal syntactic features of
isomorphism and homomorphism. It was of interest that
there were more isomorphic relationships which demand both
surface and deep structure equivalence than there were
homomorphic parallels which allow for variation in surface
structure (slot and/or filler) or deep grammar
(role/case). Select examples were analyzed, illustrating
how the isomorphisms (Prov. 10:5, 8; 14:18) functioned.
Examples were provided of homomorphic cases, which varied
the deep structure while maintaining surface grammar
equivalence (10:8), and structures observing a common deep
grammar but with surface variations (10:15; 11:1, 18). The
cataloging of all isomorphisms and homomorphic variations into
patterns is a project for future study.
Because the great frequency of the two-membered
noun phrase was an endemic feature of proverbial poetry,
it was felt that it should be studied in more detail.
What was found was that the two-membered noun phrase was
rarely used in the object slot (10%), while the single
nominal unit occurred more frequently as an object (31%).
The subject was filled with either a single or
two-membered nominal. Typical noun phrase tagmemes were examined:
Hd : N Mod : N[Adj] Hd : N Mod : N/Adj/Ptc
(1) ----------- + --------------------, (2) ------------- + ----------------------
It : Pos : It : Qual : Qual:
Hd : N Mod : PS/N/PN Hd : N + Mod : PS/PN/N
(3) ----------- + -----------------------, (4) --------- ------------------------
It: Pos : It : Sp :
Examples of each were provided ([1] 10:4, 16, 20, 24; [2] 11:1,
18, 30; [3] 11:9, 12, 19, 28, 29; and [4] 12:11, 15). It was of
interest that the first, (1), was found 75% of the time in
subject slot positions and 75% in isomorphic mappings. The
second form, (2), was located most often in non-homomorphic
mappings in subject and subject complement slots. The third
occurs in non-homomorphic settings in object, prepositional
phrase, and subject complement positions. The fourth noun phrase
tagmeme group occurs mostly in non-homomorphic settings in all
slots, but is especially common in subject complements. It was
also observed that the proper name tagmeme was found exclusively
in first colon positions. Noun phrase morphological variation
was examined, which demonstrated that isomorphic mappings favored
number variation (66%). Secondly, it was discovered that the
number variation was normally from a first colon singular to a
second colon plural.
A final experiment was carried out on the (1) noun
phrase tagmeme. A cataloging of semantic fillers
characteristic of this tagmeme was attempted to see if
there was a semantic-syntactic correspondence. It was
found that for the case grammar formula It + Pos [Qual],
the following semantic patterns surfaced:
It = body parts (10:4; esp. mouth parts)
mental phenomena (12:5; e.g., thoughts)
material possessions (10:16; e.g., wages)
way (12:26)
Pos = qualities (major wisdom words; e.g., righteous,
wicked, wise, foolish, etc.)
One final study was done attempting to isolate
various types of syntactical transformations that occurred
in homomorphic structures. Four noun phrase
transforamtions were discovered: (1) N:Item + N:Quality
---> N: Quality (where the item term was often a body part
[10:18]; metaphorical term [10:11]; or transparent filler
term [11:16]); (2) N:Item + N:Quality ---> N:Item (10:20);
(3) S:NP + O:N ---> S:NP[N1 + N2] (10:27); and (4)
N:Item + N:Pos ---> N:Item + PS:Pos (10:15). Verbal
collapsing transformations were also observed: (1) S + V
---> V(S affixed) (10:3); (2) S + V(trans) + O ---> S
+ V(Intrans) (10:4, 21; 11:12); (3) S + V(active) ---> S +
V(passive) (10:8); and (4) SVO ---> SPsc where V ---> PSC
[Nv + No] (10:1). Other transformations observed are
reflected in the following formulae: (1) A + B ---> A'
+ B' + PP/Adv (10:2, 9; 11:7); (2) A + B + PPron ---> A' +
B` (10:22, 24; 11:25, 28); and (3) N ---> NP[N`1conjN2]
(11:31). The tagmemic approach facilitated not only the
identification of syntactic and morphological parallels between
sub-lineal units, but also encouraged the exact specification of
syntactic techniquest of transformation employed by the wise men
as they varied the syntactic line structures.
The primary goal of this study has been the
generation of a syntactic model which would be a
satisfactory tool for deictically revealing the intricate
and beautiful hues of poetic symmetries. The tagmemic
approach has proven itself to be such a tool--result of
which were merely sampled in this study. Presently, a
systematic analysis of the data base compiled on Proverbs
10-15 is needed. There is also a need for the generation
of a satisfactory way of linguistically monitoring the
semantic features of Hebrew poetry. Then there should be
a synthesis between the syntactic, semantic, and phonetic
features, to attain a wholistic appreciation for the
poetic genius of the sages who ordered divinely inspired
dyads to describe the order of the created cosmos.
Appendix 1
Collins' Line Types
Line Type II [Matching]
11:25 SV / SV II A: i)1,1
13:9 SV / SV II A: i)1,1
13:11 SV / SV II A: i)1,1 Total 5
13:20 SV / SV II A: i)1,1
14:11 SV / SV II A: i)1,1
13:19 SVP / SVP II B: i)1,1
11:8 SPV / VSP II B: i)2,3 Total 4
11:4 VSP / SVP II B: i)3,1
14:32 PVS / VPS II B: i)6,4
11:3 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
11:13 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
11:16 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
12:6 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
12:23 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
13:6 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
14:2 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
14:15 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
15:1 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
15:2 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
15:14 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1 Total 23
15:18 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
15:20 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
15:30 SVO / SVO II C: i)1,1
10:12 SVO / OVS II C: i)1,6
12:27 VSO / OVS II C: i)1,6
14:10 SVO / OVS II C: i)1,6
14:18 VSO / SVO II C: i)3,1
12:21 VOS / SVO II C: i)4,1
12:26 VOS / SVO II C: i)4,1
11:17 VOS / VOS II C: i)4,4
14:25 VOS / VOS II C: i)4,4
13:21 OVS / OVS II C: i)6,6
10:5 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
10:16 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
10:18 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
11:1 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
11:19 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
11:23 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
11:30 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1 Total 29
12:1 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
12:5 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
14:21 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
14:24 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
14:28 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
15:4 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
15:8 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
Line Type II
Matching
15:15 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
15:19 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
15:32 SPsc / SPsc II nom.: i)1,1
10:15 SPsc / PscS II nom.: i)1,2
12:4 SPsc / PscS II nom.: i)1,2
13:24 SPsc / PscS II nom.: i)1,2
10:20 PscS / SPsc II nom.: i)2,1
11:20 PscS / PscS II nom.: i)2,2
12:22 PscS / SPsc II nom.: i)2,1
14:30 PscS / PscS II nom.: i)2,2
15:26 PscS / PscS II nom.: i)2,2
12:28 PPsc / PPsc II nom.: ii)2,2
14:4 PPsc / PscP II nom.: ii)2,1
15:6 PPsc / PPsc II nom.: ii)2,2
12:20 PscP / PPsc II nom.: ii)1,2
Line Types I, III, and ?
Contiguous, Gapping, and Non-Fitting Forms
15:31 S / PV I B: iii)2
15:3 SP / VO I D: iii)3 Total 5
14:27 SPsc / P I nom.: i)1
11:22 Psc / S I nom.: iv)2
13:14 SPsc / P I mod nom.: iii)1
12:19 SVP / PS III B: i)1,2
11:31 SPV / S III B: i)2,1
14:19 VSP / SP III B: i)3,1
14:14 PVS / PS III B: i)6,2 Total 7
15:22 VSP / PV III B: iii)3,2
11:11 PVS / PV III B: iii)6,2
14:33 PVS / PV III B: III)6,2
10:32 SVO / SV III C: i)1,1
11:18 SVO / SO III C: i)1,1
12:17 SVO / SO III C: i)1,1
13:1 SO / SVO III C: i)1,1
14:35 SO / SVO III C: i)1,1 Total 8
11:27 SVO / OVO III C: iii)1,2
10:3 VSO / OV III C: iii)3,2
15:25 OVS / VO III C: iii)6,1
14:23 PVO / PO III D: ii)5,2
12:15 SPscp / SPsc III nom.: i)1,1
15:11 SPsc / S III nom.: i)1,1 Total 5
10:23 SPsc / Psc III nom.: iii)1,1
15:33 SPsc / PscS III nom.: iii)1,2
10:29 PscPS / PscP III nom.: iii)4,1
Double Predication and other Variational Forms
10:25 PP + PscS / SPsc ?
10:26 SPsc + SPsc / SPsc ?
11:24 PscS + VO / SP ?
12:7 VO + PscS / SV ? Total 17
11:2 VS + VS / PscS ?
11:15 AV + VO / SPsc ?
13:7 ExstCl + ExstCl / ExstCl + ExstCl ?
14:6 VSO + Psc / SPV ?
12:9 Aug Comp / Dim Comp ?
13:4 VPscS / SV ?
13:5 OVS / SVV ?
14:16 SVVP / SPsc ?
13:23 PscP / VPscP ?
14:12 VPscP / SPsc ?
15:16 PscSP / SA ?
15:17 PscS / SA ?
15:23 PscPP / SPPsc ?
Line Type IV
Mixing
11:28 SV / PSV IV A/B: i)1,5
10:2 VS / SVP IV A/B: i)2,1
12:24 SV / SVO IV A/C: i)1,1 Total 6
14:5 SV / VOS IV A/C: i)1,4
10:22 SV / VOP IV A/D: iii)1,1
14:22 VS / PscS IV A/nom.: i)1,2
10:9 SVA / SV IV B/A: i)1,1
13:13 SVP / SV IV B/A: i)1,1
13:25 SVP / SV IV B/A: i)1,1
12:3 VSP / SV IV B/A: i)3,1
11:7 PVS / SV IV B/A: i)6,1
11:21 AVS / SV IV B/A: i)6,1
13:16 SVP / SVO IV B/C: i)1,1
15:28 SVP / SVO IV B/C: i)1,1
10:30 SPV / SVO IV B/C: i)2,1 Total 19
12:8 PVS / SVO IV B/C: i)6,1
14:7 VP / VO IV B/C: ii)1,1
13:17 SVP / SPsc IV B/nom.: i)1,1
10:13 PVS / SPsc IV B/nom.: i)6,1
10:19 PVS / SPsc IV B/nom.: i)6,1
11:14 PVS / PscP IV B/nom.: i)6,1
14:20 PVS / SPsc IV B/nom.: i)6,1
11:10 PVS / PPsc IV B/nom.: i)6,2
14:13 PVS / PSPsc IV B/nom.: i)6,5
12:18 VSP / SPsc IV B/nom.: i)3,1
10:8 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1
10:10 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1
10:24 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1
10:27 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1
10:31 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1 Total 10
14:17 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1
15:5 SVO / SV IV C/A: i)1,1
12:12 VSO / SV IV C/A: i)3,1
11:12 VOS / SV IV C/A: i)4,1
10:4 OVS / SV IV C/A: i)6,1
10:21 SVO / SPV IV C/B: i)1,2
13:22 SVO / VPS IV C/B: i)1,3 Total 5
11:5 SVO / PVS IV C/B: i)1,6
11:6 SVO / PV IV C/B: iii)1,2
15:12 VSO / PV IV C/B: iii)3,2
14:1 SVO / SPVO IV C/D: i)1,3
10:1 SVO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)1,1
10:14 SVO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)1,1
12:11 SVO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)1,1
13:3 SVO / SPscP IV C/nom.: i)1,1
Line Type IV
Mixing
13:15 SVO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)1,1
14:8 SVO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)1,1
15:7 SVO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)1,1
14:31 SVO / PscS IV C/nom.: i)1,2 Total 15
14:34 SVO / PscS IV C/nom.: i)1,2
13:12 SVO / PscS IV C/nom.: i)1,2
11:29 SVO / PscSP IV C/nom.: i)1,3
12:10 VSO / SPsc IV C/nom.: i)3,1
11:26 OVS / PscP IV C/nom.: i)5,1
14:9 SVO / PPsc IV C/nom.: iii)1,2
15:13 SVO / PPsc IV C/nom.: iii)1,2
11:9 PSVO / PSV IV D/B: i)13,5
12:25 SPVO / SVO IV D/C: i)3,1
12:16 SPVO / VOS IV D/C: i)3,4 Total 7
12:2 SVOP / OV IV D/C: iii)1,2
12:14 PVO / SVO IV D/C: iv)5,1
13:2 PVO / SO IV D/C: iv)5,1
13:10 PVO / PPsc IV D/nom.: ii)5,2
10:7 SPsc / SV IV nom./A: i)1,1
10:28 SPsc / SV IV nom./A: i)1,1
10:17 PscS / SV IV nom./A: i)2,1 Total 6
13:18 PscS / SV IV nom./A: i)2,1
15:27 PscS / SV IV nom./A: i)2,1
15:10 PscP / SV IV nom./A: iv)1,1
12:13 PPscS / VPS IV nom./B: i)6,4
15:24 SPscP / VP IV nom./B: iii)1,1
14:29 SPsc / SVO IV nom./C: i)1,1
15:21 SPscP / SVO IV nom./C: i)1,1
10:6 SPsc / OVS IV nom./C: i)1,6
10:11 PscS / SVO IV nom./C: i)2,1 Total 8
13:8 PscS / SVO IV nom./C: i)2,1
15:9 PscS / OV IV nom./C: iii)2,2
15:29 PscSP / OV IV nom./C: iii)3,2
14:3 PPsc / SVO IV nom./C: iv)2,1
14:26 SPsc / PVO IV nom./D: iii)1,5
Appendix II
An O'Connorian Analysis of the Lines of Proverbs 10-15
10:1a SVO 134
10:1b SPsc 024
10:2a VS 123
10:2b SVP 133
10:3a VSO 134
10:3b OV 123
10:4a OVS 134
10:4b SV 123
10:5a SPsc 234
10:5b SPsc 234
10:6a SPsc 023
10:6b OVS 134
10:7a SPsc 023
10:7b SV 123
10:8a SVO 134
10:8b SV 123
10:9a SVA 244
10:9b SV 233
10:10a SVO 234
Dostları ilə paylaş: |