Alexey Lyavdansky. Discourse Particles in Biblical Hebrew Directives

Discourse Particles in Biblical Hebrew Directives

By Alexey Lyavdansky

(Russian State University for the Humanities)

Source: Judaica Ukrainica 1 (2012): 928

Publication date: December 1, 2012

Publication type: article

Language: English

Full text: 

 

Abstract

Discourse particles in Biblical Hebrew are a relatively recent subject of study. It is yet to be determined, which linguistic expressions in Biblical Hebrew should be counted as discourse particles, or discourse markers. Moreover, the functions of already known discourse particles in Biblical Hebrew were not properly assessed. The present paper is focused on the functions of discourse particles in Biblical Hebrew directive utterances (requests, commands, suggestions, permissions). The study was carried out on the basis of the analysis of all directive utterances (directive turns in dialogue) within the biblical Book of Judges. Contrary to the previous studies of Biblical Hebrew discourse particles, the attention is drawn not only to the functioning of a certain particle (form-to-function approach), but the attempt is made to determine a slot, which may be filled with a particle or its synonym, or left unfilled (function-to-form approach). The functional slots for discourse particles are created by discourse structure of a turn in dialogue. Most of the directive utterances in dialogue are composed of the core discourse act(s), represented by imperative clause(s), and the supportive discourse act(s), usually represented by assertive clause(s). Discourse particles are put either before the core discourse act in the directive utterance, or before the supportive discourse act. The main part of the article is dedicated to the analysis of seven discourse particles used in Biblical Hebrew directive utterances: ki, ʔaḥăre ʔăšär, (wǝ)ʕattå, , hinnehălo, and raq. The result of the study shows, that some of these particles may be grouped together as synonyms, because they are used in the same positions: ki and ʔaḥăre ʔăšär; (wǝ)ʕattå and ; hinne and hălo. On the other hand, they are not absolute synonyms, which is exemplified by the contrastive analysis of ki and ʔaḥăre ʔăšär. Since the particle raq is used rarely as a discourse marker, the examples in the Book of Judges are not sufficient to formulate even a preliminary conclusion. The status of as a discourse particle is not yet clear; the question needs further investigation. The results of this study are preliminary and will be tested in a future publication, based on a broader source material.

 

References

Fischer, Kerstin. “Towards an Understanding of the Spectrum of Approaches to Discourse Particles: Introduction to the Volume.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, edited by Kerstin Fischer, 1–20. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.

Kohnen. Thomas. “Directives in Old English: Beyond politeness?” In Speech acts in the history of English, edited by Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen, 27–44. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2008.

Kreidler, Charles W. Introducing English Semantics. London: Routledge, 1998.

Kroon, Caroline. “Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at.” Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 4 (1995): 409–411.

Longacre, Robert E. “Sentences as combinations of clauses.” In Complex constructions, vol. 2 of Language typology and syntactic description, edited by Timothy Shopen, 235–286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Lyavdansky, Alexey. “Inferential Markers in Biblical Hebrew.” Paper presented in the Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Section at the Society of Biblical Literature Internetional Meeting, July 2007, Vienna.

Lyavdansky, Alexey. “Temporal Deictic Adverbs as Discourse Markers in Hebrew, Aramaic and Akkadian.” Journal of Language Relationship 3 (2010): 22–42.

Redeker, Gisela. “Coherence and structure in text and discourse.” In Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue. Studies in Computational Pragmatics, edited by William Black and Harry Bunt, 233–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000.