A Linguistic Reappraisal of the Biblical Hebrew Accusative by Jacques E. J
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
a linguistic reappraisal of the biblical hebrew accusative by Jacques E. J. Boulet A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto © Copyright 2019 by Jacques E. J. Boulet Abstract A Linguistic Reappraisal of the Biblical Hebrew Accusative Jacques E. J. Boulet Doctor of Philosophy Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto 2019 This study applies generative linguistics to the Biblical Hebrew (BH) accusative. The standard BH grammars have treated accusative noun phrases under two broad categories, roughly object/complement and adverbial/adjunct. Not only do they disagree about which are objects and which are adverbial, but they have also tended to define subcat- egories without a clear methodology, usually based on lexical semantics. By contrast, my approach emphasizes syntactic definitions for the major categories, which I argue are three: secondary predicates, arguments, and modifiers. The syntactic and semantic framework of this study depends on the unified approach to predication of Bowers. Un- der that framework every predicate, whether primary or secondary, is assumed to have a predication phrase (PrP) structure. Secondary predicates are therefore defined very basically to be PrP structures which are somehow subordinate to a primary predication, and thus they may be adjuncts or they may be complements of the verb. Arguments are constituents which are selected by the verb according to one of its recognized valency patterns. There is a limited number of specific syntactic positions for arguments, and the underlying syntax of a verb’s arguments depends on its semantics. In particular, I aim to show that there are four different trivalent structures in BH: prepositional ditransitives, double object constructions, causatives, and complementatives. Modifiers, since they are adjoined, may exist in any number. I assume that modifiers are predicates of one of four conceptual primitives (propositions, situations, events, and manners) and that modifiers attach in the domain which corresponds to the appropriate primitive (CP, TP, PrP, and vP respectively). This study also treats cognate accusatives, where the head noun is ii formed from the same root as the verb. I argue here that cognateness is not itself rele- vant for syntax, but rather cognate accusatives may function as arguments, modifiers, or secondary predicates. The analysis of cognate accusatives depends on the transitivity of the verb. This study treats the above categories in turn, providing ample examples from the biblical corpus (Genesis-Deuteronomy). The text of the dissertation is supplemented by a digital appendix of analysed examples from the corpus. iii For Paige כי מצאתי את־חיל (cf. Prov 31:10) iv Acknowledgements The first thanks go to my parents Louis and Helena who were there at the beginning. Though they possessed no advanced education themselves, they ever encouraged me in my love of reading, of the sciences, and of far off places. It is self-evident that I could have not achieved this feat without their influence in my life. Nevertheless, thanks and acknowledgment are never empty. Thank you Mom and Dad for all that you’ve done and all that you’ve given. The second round goes to acquaintances, friends, and teachers who are too numerous to name. They are the ones who inspired me to reach high, some of them by positive example and some of them by negative example. Few of us are islands in this world, and those that are can go nowhere in life. My dissertation committee members deserve special thanks. I thank my advisor Robert Holmstedt for his counsel and dependability over the years. I have learned much from him. Thanks also to Diane Massam for taking in a student from another department for a linguistic project. I have appreciated her time, warmth, and advice. Thanks equally to Elizabeth Cowper for her time, keen eye, and constructive feedback. Additional thanks go to the other members of the examination committee. Jacobus Naudé, Elan Dresher, and Glen Taylor all provided helpful comments that led to a stronger final form of the text. Support of all kinds has come from certain individuals. These have borne our burdens with us like family. Special mention must be made of Joel and Grace, Neil and Robyn, Brandon and Beckei, Chris and Leah, Joel and Jess, and Tim and Ruth, whose love was manifest to us in very practical ways on many occasions. I am grateful also for Ben, Jak, and Yongle, whose special friendship I shall remember always. My children are not to be forgotten. Their lives bear the inevitable marks of the journey which I have set them on with my own quest. Little Lily was our sanity when the night was darkest. Little Julie’s fierce emotions inspire us in a complacent world. v Baby Tristan’s happy smile melts us when the day has made us hard. The final thanks go to one who has carried my burden as her own for many years now. One might half expect her support to have waned now and again, especially when it could not be discerned whether it was the work that consumed me or I myself who consumed my work. Thank you Paige for your friendship and love, for your work inside and outside our home, and for taking such good care of our kids. We sometimes wound deepest those who are closest. No one should be so taken for granted as I have, all too often, taken you for granted. Soli Deo gloria This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. vi Contents List of Tables xiii List of Figures xiv Symbols and Abbreviations xv 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The Object of Study . 1 1.2 Accusative Case in Biblical Hebrew . 2 1.3 Intended Audience and Conventions . 6 1.4 Linguistic Framework . 7 1.4.1 Syntactic and Semantic Theory . 7 1.4.2 Approach to Adjunction . 8 1.4.3 Model of the BH Clause . 9 1.5 Corpus and Database . 10 1.6 Plan of the Dissertation . 10 2 Secondary Predicates 13 2.1 A Unified Approach to Predication . 13 2.1.1 The Basics of Predication . 13 2.1.2 PrP and the Minimalist Tradition . 15 2.1.2.1 The Verb Phrase in Two Parts . 15 vii 2.1.2.2 The Verb Phrase in Three Parts . 16 2.1.3 The Essential Properties of Pr . 17 2.1.4 Mapping Between Syntax and Semantics . 18 2.1.4.1 Neo-Davidsonian Event Semantics . 18 2.1.4.2 Mapping Pr Heads to Event Variables . 19 2.1.5 Cross-Linguistic Data Supporting the PrP Structure . 22 2.2 Secondary Predication . 26 2.2.1 A Syntactic Definition for Secondary Predicates . 26 2.2.2 Argument Sharing and Orientation . 29 2.3 A Typology of Secondary Predicates . 31 2.3.1 Depictives . 31 2.3.2 Circumstantials . 34 2.3.3 Explicit Creation Productives . 35 2.3.4 Resultatives: Transitive and Intransitive . 36 2.3.5 SPs of Accompaniment . 40 2.3.6 Capacitives . 41 2.3.7 Implicit Creation Productives . 44 2.3.8 Manner Predications . 46 2.3.9 Complementatives: Static and Dynamic . 48 2.3.10 Summary of SP Types . 50 2.4 Secondary Predicates in Biblical Hebrew . 54 2.4.1 Scholarly Recognition of SPs in BH . 54 2.4.2 BH Depictives . 56 2.4.2.1 BH Depictives: Examples and Data . 56 2.4.2.2 Distinguishing the Semantics of Depictives and Adverbials 59 2.4.3 BH Circumstantials . 61 2.4.4 BH Explicit Creation Productives . 63 viii 2.4.5 BH Resultatives . 65 2.4.6 BH Capacitives . 67 2.4.7 BH Manner PrPs . 71 2.4.8 BH Complementatives . 72 2.5 Summary . 75 3 Arguments and Valency 78 3.1 Arguments and Valency . 79 3.1.1 Valency . 79 3.1.2 Syntactic Constructions . 81 3.2 Argument Structure . 83 3.2.1 Simple and Complex Events . 85 3.2.2 Low Applicatives and Indirect Objects . 88 3.3 BH Binyanim and Structure: rʾy as Case Study . 91 3.3.1 Qal of rʾy: Simple Action . 92 3.3.2 Niphal of rʾy: Two Patterns . 93 3.3.3 Hithpael of rʾy: Reciprocal . 95 3.3.4 Hiphil of rʾy: Complex Causative . 96 3.3.5 Hophal of rʾy: Complex Passive Causative . 98 3.4 The Distinct Structures for BH Trivalent Verbs . 99 3.4.1 Prepositional Ditransitives . 99 3.4.2 Double Object Construction (or Low Applicatives) . 101 3.4.3 Causatives . 104 3.4.4 Complementatives . 106 3.5 Pattern Variation in the Qal of mlʾ ..................... 108 3.6 Summary . 112 ix 4 Modifiers 115 4.1 Introduction . 115 4.2 Neo-Davidsonianism and Conceptual Primitives . 116 4.2.1 Manners . 116 4.2.2 Situations . 119 4.2.3 Propositions . 121 4.3 Four Kinds of Modifier . 122 4.3.1 (Frame-Setting) Propositional Modifiers . 122 4.3.2 Situational Modifiers . 124 4.3.3 Eventive Modifiers . 125 4.3.4 Adverbial Modifiers . 128 4.3.5 Regarding Durational Modifiers and Telicity . 130 4.4 Bare NP Modifiers . 132 4.4.1 Terminology and Traditional Expectations . 132 4.4.2 English NP Modifiers . 135 4.5 NP Modifiers in BH . 136 4.5.1 NP Propositional Modifiers in BH . 139 4.5.2 NP Situational Modifiers in BH . 142 4.5.2.1 Duration Modifiers . 143 4.5.2.2 Point in Time Modifiers . 143 4.5.2.3 Quantification Modifiers . 144 4.5.2.4 Specific Situation Modifiers . 145 4.5.3 NP Event Modifiers in BH .