Macrosyntax

From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Jump to: navigation, search


Introduction

Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis, sometimes called discourse-pragmatics or text-linguistics, is a wide-ranging approach to the study of communication. Its diverse application makes it difficult to define, but at its foundation, it is concerned with spoken or written text above the clause level. New Testament scholar George Guthrie defines discourse analysis this way: it is “a process of investigation by which one examines the form and function of all the parts and levels of a written discourse, with the aim of better understanding both the parts and the whole of that discourse.”[1]

Macrosyntax

This layer is called ‘macrosyntax’ because we have chosen to limit our analysis here to syntactic features: that is, coordination and subordination, which are themselves determined grammatically by conjunctions, asyndesis, and discourse markers, as well as information flow, insofar as it is determined by syntax (word order).

The purpose of the layer is to determine the syntactic features present that contribute to the discourse structure of the text. The poetic layer will consider non-syntactic features. Macrosyntax is the ‘bottom-up’ approach to discourse analysis, and the poetic layer will represent a ‘top-down’ approach. Final analysis is completed at their meeting point.

Overview

If, as Cognitive Grammar would have it, language use is a symbolic unit consisting of two poles — the phonological pole (what is heard) and the semantic pole (the final resultant meaning) — then we need to apply grammatical analysis not only to the word or clause level, but also to discourse as a whole. The attention given grammatical relations at the Grammar level is here applied to syntax at the clause level and beyond. This consists of observations of formal features, the morphosyntax, and the packaging of information flow as informed by coordination/subordination, vocatives, and clausal word order.

Information flow includes the discernment of presupposed information versus new/unexpected information and how the discourse structure offers an intentional point of view in order to guide the reader’s attention as they process the text as a whole. The clausal hypotaxis, vocatives, and word order shed light on the previous work done on the story behind the Psalm: that is, the understood common ground between the author and model reader, as well as and the participant analysis.

Required Reading

  1. Eep Talstra, “Text Linguistics”
  2. Marco Di Giulio, “Discourse Markers”
  3. Lénart de Regt, “Shifts in Participant Reference” (pp. 5-34)
  4. Elizabeth Robar, The Verb and the Paragraph in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach. Leiden: Brill, 2015. 1-30.

Instructional and Sample Videos

Note: the verbal morphology diagram has now been merged with verbal semantics.

Steps

Note: When the macrostructure visualisation is complete, compare it to the psalm’s grammatical diagram, looking for the floating “discourse particles” that were identified on the grammatical diagram. The discourse particles identified on the grammatical diagram should be fully consistent with those identified in the macrostructure. If not, then a revision(s) is needed on one or both visualisations.

Whereas morphosyntax examines word forms and relationships within clauses and sentences, macrosyntax examines the word order and relationships across larger units of text, that is, above the clause level. Macrosyntax is foundational to the Discourse layer, because it asks questions that can only be answered at the level of the larger discourse, e.g. Why is this constituent fronted? What does this particle signal within the logic flow of this text?

1. Macrosyntax table: columns

Make the table with the following columns (MIRO template):

  1. Verse number
  2. Hebrew
  3. Coordination & subordination
    1. Coordinating conjunctions joining paragraphs
    2. Dynamic translation reflecting coordination and subordination (2-3 columns)
    3. Subordinating conjunctions
    4. Coordinating conjunctions joining adjacent lines
    5. Asyndetic subordination
  4. Discourse markers
    1. Vocatives
    2. (any others that appear in your psalm)
  5. Word Order
    1. Word order
    2. Topic
    3. Focus
    4. Theticity
  6. Comments

Image: Macrosyntax table except (Ps 26)

2. Macrosyntax table: rows

Fill the table as follows. Note that varying opacity is used to indicate the formal marker (with higher opacity) and the lines included within its scope (with lower opacity).

1. Verse number: Use Hebrew versification including ‘b’, ‘c’, ‘d’ as necessary for separate cola. Note that there will be more lines than cola when a single colon has multiple clauses. Leave blank where a line is continuing the previous colon.
2. Hebrew: Use OSHB as in the Grammar layer.
3. Coordination & subordination
a. Coordinating conjunctions joining paragraphs: When paragraphs (i.e., strophes) are explicitly joined by a conjunction, colour the cell in this column next to the first paragraph light blue (#2D9BF0 at 30% opacity) and colour the box of the paragraph with the conjunction dark blue (#2D9BF0 at 60% opacity).
b. Dynamic translation reflecting coordination and subordination (4-5 columns): Use the CBC as much as possible, simply breaking it up to reflect the structure indicated by all macrosyntactic markers. Use indentation and colour to show subordination and coordination as they are determined. Remember that coordinating units (usually waw-conjoined) are always at the same level (words, phrases, clauses, or larger units) and subordinating units are always embedded at a different level.
(Note that our English sense of embedding is not always shared by Hebrew. In Psalm 2, for instance, the introductory frames to direct speech were considered subordinated to the speeches themselves.)

Image: Macrosyntax legend (Ps 26).

Colour baseline text yellow (#FEF445 at 40% opacity), subordinating conjunctions teal (#12CDD4 at 100% opacity), subordinated lines teal (#12CDD4 at 60% opacity), and asyndetically subordinated lines sea green (#0CA789 at 60% opacity).
The number of columns needed will depend on the extent of the subordination. Subordinating conjunctions are put on their own line, indented, and the lines they govern are put indented an additional column beneath them. This makes the subordination visually prominent.
When paragraph breaks are determined, additional lines will be inserted to indicate the paragraph: yellow (#FEF445 at 1000% opacity). The paragraph topic is included in parentheses, insofar as it can be determined. This is tentative but a necessary part of evaluating the semantic effect of the macrosyntax.
c. Subordinating conjunctions: Repeat the subordinating conjunctions in this column, with the corresponding colour as in the previous section. When a line is subordinate, repeat its colour. This provides an additional visual reference for the scope of subordination and provides an at-a-glance for which conjunctions are used.
d. Coordinating conjunctions joining adjacent lines: Similar to above, but when lines (i.e., lines) are explicitly joined by a conjunction, colour the cell in this column next to the first line light blue (#2D9BF0 at 30% opacity) and colour the box of the line with the conjunction dark blue (#2D9BF0 at 60% opacity).
e. Asyndetic subordination: When asyndetic subordination takes place, colour the cell in this column sea green (#0CA789 at 60% opacity) and include a brief description of the type of subordination, e.g. ‘circumstantial’ or ‘relative’.
(Note that this means some relative clauses will be noted under ‘Subordinating conjunctions’ and others under ‘Asyndetic subordination’ — observing patterns regarding the syntactic marking of such constructions is one of the goals of this layer.)
4. Discourse markers
a. Vocatives: Vocatives are often discourse markers in the Psalms. Colour the cell violet (#9510AC at 50% opacity). Use the cell to indicate relevant notes, e.g. ‘YHWH’ vs ‘Elohim’ if variation in vocatives is present, or ‘new ❡’ if the vocative seems to be marking a new paragraph. Part of the Live Review process will be to evaluate the strength of these decisions.
b. (Any others that appear in your psalm): Include additional columns for other discourse markers. Choose colours from the Templates board or, if you add new colours, add your colours to the Templates board to maintain consistency across all psalms.
5. Word Order
a. Word order: For indicating word order, use the following abbreviations:
Subject (S)
Verb (V)
Object (O)
Modifier (M)
Vocative (Voc)
waw (w)
Subject Pronoun - S(pn)
Pronominal Suffix (V-o)
Conjunction (C)
Interogative (Q)
Complement (Comp)
The final two columns, topic and focus, are part of the information structure of discourse. Information structure relates to the presentation of new information versus known information. New information is presented for the first time, whereas known information is assumed or supplied by the speaker.
b. Marked topic:[2] Topic is a noun phrase that expresses what a sentence is about, and to which the rest of the sentence is related as a comment (with predicate focus). Hebrew frequently marks topics with fronting (placing the topic before the verb).
When fronting or another device functions to mark a topic (whether new, resumed or contrastive), include the Hebrew in this column.
c. Marked focus: Focus is the most important or salient change to be made in the hearer’s mental representation. When explicitly marked, this information is:
new (or contrastive, selecting a choice among alternatives)
of high communicative interest
marked by stress
typically occurring at a specific point in the sentence
complementing the presupposed information typically presented early in the sentence
When either fronting or a focus particle functions to mark focus, include the Hebrew in this column.
d. Thetic: when the information flow presents a clause as a unitary state of affairs (not divided into topic and comment), it is called thetic and generally answers the question ‘what happened?’ (See below for more details.) Colour the cell of the column pink (#FFC2DF, 100% opacity). If you can determine the reason for the theticity (e.g. starting a subordinate section, or starting a new paragraph), note it as text within the cell.
6. Comments: Include here any information relevant to the macrosyntax that does not appear elsewhere, including questions to be resolved and observations made that should be kept in mind for future reference. With any less common syntactic phenomenon, include references to grammars explaining the phenomenon.

Macrostyntax table: finalising

Some psalms will have no data for certain columns. Those columns may be removed. In Psalm 150, for instance, there are no conjunctions used to structure the text, but instead recurring prepositions and verbal forms are used. The word ‘Hallelujah’ is also used as an inclusio, here shown functioning as a discourse marker.

The categorisation of repeated prepositions under ‘Coordination & Subordination’ rather than as ‘Discourse Markers’ is not fixed. The logic here is that the patterns that break up the text into sections are considered to coordinate/subordinate, whereas patterns that mark existing structures are discourse markers.

Image: Macrosyntax table (Ps 150)

Abbreviated macrosyntax table

This is a simplified version of the macrosyntax table, which may be particularly helpful for longer psalms. Abbreviated macrosyntax for Psalm 26

Appendices

Excursus on Topic and Focus

Because focus depends on what information is already known, context is often required to determine its scope. The scope of focus can be limited to a clausal constituent - subject, object, or oblique (constituent focus), or it can extend to include the entire predicate (predicate focus) or even the entire sentence (sentence focus).

With V-S-O-(M) being Biblical Hebrew’s default word order, if deviations are caused by information structure, we often have a case of topic shift, reactivating a certain discourse entity, as in :

רַבִּים֮ אֹמְרִ֪ים לְנַ֫פְשִׁ֥י
אֵ֤ין יְֽשׁוּעָ֓תָה לּ֬וֹ בֵֽאלֹהִ֬ים סֶֽלָה׃
וְאַתָּ֣ה יְ֭הוָה מָגֵ֣ן בַּעֲדִ֑י
(Ps 3:3-4a)

A similar case is found in the וַ֭אֲנִי of Ps 26:11 after discussion of the ‘men of blood’:

אַל־תֶּאֱסֹ֣ף עִם־חַטָּאִ֣ים נַפְשִׁ֑י
וְעִם־אַנְשֵׁ֖י דָמִ֣ים חַיָּֽי׃
אֲשֶׁר־בִּידֵיהֶ֥ם זִמָּ֑ה
וִֽ֝ימִינָ֗ם מָ֣לְאָה שֹּֽׁחַד׃
וַ֭אֲנִי בְּתֻמִּ֥י אֵלֵ֗ךְ
(Ps 26:9-11a)

In this last clause, the modifier בְּתֻמִּ֥י is placed before the verb because it is focussed. With ‘I’ being reactivated as topic, the ‘will walk’ is also accessible from the previous discourse (an almost identical phrase is found in v. 1) and the בְּתֻמִּ֥י reaffirms the psalmist’s commitment to how he will walk.

Discourse particles, such as אַף, make clearer the presence of constituent focus (BHRG §47.2):

אֲבָרֵ֗ךְ אֶת־יְ֭הוָה אֲשֶׁ֣ר יְעָצָ֑נִי
אַף־לֵ֝יל֗וֹת יִסְּר֥וּנִי כִלְיוֹתָֽי
(Ps 16:7)

Such argument focus is at work when answering the question, What did John wash? - He washed the dishes. Who washed the dishes? - John washed them.

Since the basic focus function is a choice among alternatives, imperatives can be viewed as setting the clause up to impose a restricting preference on the choice of action moving forward, while interrogatives prepare possible alternative answers.

Nonetheless, the default focus structure is predicate focus, as in, What did John do? - He washed the dishes.

In Ps 16:9, the predicate focus exhibits default order in the first two clauses, while in the third clause the subject is fronted as it is focussed, adding another constituent to the body parts mentioned in clauses A and B:

לָכֵ֤ן ׀ שָׂמַ֣ח לִ֭בִּי
וַיָּ֣גֶלכְּבוֹדִ֑י
אַף־בְּ֝שָׂרִ֗י יִשְׁכֹּ֥ן לָבֶֽטַח׃
(Ps 16:9)

Predicate focus is also found in Ps 26:10b, with the subject fronted in parallel with בִּידֵיהֶ֥ם of the previous clause. ימִינָ֗ם is thus also topically accessible, being primed by the semantic domain of body parts > hands already activated in the first verset.

וִֽ֝ימִינָ֗ם מָ֣לְאָה שֹּֽׁחַד
(Ps 26:10b)

A thetic construction, on the other hand, would be appropriate if I return home expecting a mess and my kitchen is pristine: (What happened?) - John cleaned up.

Thetics are clauses not divided between topic and comment; they are thus presented as a unitary state of affairs. As new or unexpected information, they prototypically answer the implicit discourse question under discussion, “What happened?” Thetics prototypically involve bodily sensations, weather terms and verbs of movement, but they can be any state of affairs in which the information is unexpected/new. Prosodic stress may be as follows: ‘Your shoe’s untied’, ‘The computer’s broken’, ‘My head hurts’, ‘It’s raining’, ‘John’s coming’, etc. Often thetics provide the grounds for a neighbouring imperative or interrogative, as in ‘Speak softly! The baby’s sleeping’ and ‘Be careful, the dog bites’.

In this last example, perhaps the hearer is not aware that the speaker even has a dog, but for the sake of conversational cooperation, the hearer can accommodate this culturally acceptable practice of owning a dog as a pet, so that the previous introduction of the dog as a discourse topic is not necessary (as in, ‘Be careful. I have a dog, and it bites’).

Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that the information will be new/unexpected at this point in the discourse. When telling a joke, we might repeat the punch line, even though its content is no longer new. Or somebody might need to be reminded of an obvious reality: ‘Take it easy, you have a heart condition.’ It is unlikely that the addressee is unaware of his or her heart condition. This repetition for discourse effect is especially prevalent in poetry, which will often blur the simple dichotomy between new and presupposed information.

Besides providing grounds for an imperative/interrogative, thetics also provide thematic pivots (introductions/conclusions) in the discourse, as the following two examples, respectively:

אֲ֭נִי בְּתֻמִּ֣י הָלַ֑כְתִּי
(Ps. 26:1b)
רַ֭גְלִי עָֽמְדָ֣ה בְמִישׁ֑וֹר
(Ps 26:12a)

Sometimes, however, the reading as a thetic construction or a topic-focus construction is not clear. Should the grounding clause, חָסִ֥יתִי בָֽךְ (Ps 16:1), be read as a unitary state of affairs (thetic)? Or should the ‘you’ (ךְ) be read as focal, since it is discourse-presupposed that the psalmist has sought refuge somewhere? Likewise, in יְֽהוָ֗ה מְנָת־חֶלְקִ֥י וְכוֹסִ֑י (Ps 16:5a) is יְֽהוָ֗ה topical with predicate focus? Or is the entire utterance a unified contribution to the information flow? Note any uncertainties in the final ‘Comment’ column, to be discussed with the layer overseer and at the Live Review. As always, all of these discourse conclusions should be confirmed or challenged by work on previous layers.

Another purpose of non-default word order, that does not have to do with information flow, is poetic binding, or enabling syntactic repetition within cola, either to mirror the A-cola’s word order, or replicate it.

לֹא־יָ֭שַׁבְתִּי עִם־מְתֵי־שָׁ֑וְא
וְעִ֥ם נַ֝עֲלָמִ֗ים לֹ֣א אָבֽוֹא׃
שָׂ֭נֵאתִי קְהַ֣ל מְרֵעִ֑ים
וְעִם־רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים לֹ֣א אֵשֵֽׁב׃
(Ps. 26:4-5)
בִּידֵיהֶ֥ם זִמָּ֑ה
וִֽ֝ימִינָ֗ם מָ֣לְאָה שֹּֽׁחַד
(Ps. 26:10)

Additional Resources

For AGENCY and TRANSITIVITY ANALYSIS see §5.1 and §5.3.2 of Peter Richardson, Charles M. Mueller & Stephen Pihlaja, Cognitive Linguistics and Religious Language: An Introduction. NY: Routledge, 2021. (Link)

For DISCOURSE TOPIC and POINT OF VIEW see pp. 120-136 of Wallace Chafe, Discourse, Consciousness and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994 and pp. 457-499 of Ronald Langacker, Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 2008.

For ATTENTION and PERSPECTIVE see pp. 92-116 of Thora Tenbrink, Cognitive Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

For TOPIC-COMMENT CONSTRUCTIONS & THETIC CONSTRUCTIONS see pp. 235-247 of William Croft, Morphosyntax: Constructions of the World’s Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.

For MEANING OF FOCUS see Jenneke van der Wal, “Diagnosing Focus,” in Studies in Language 40:2 (2016): 259-301. (Link)

For the discourse contribution of INTERROGATIVES and IMPERATIVES see Sarah Murray, “Varieties of Update,” in Semantics and Pragmatics 7(2) (2014): 1-53. (Link)

For related studies within BH studies see §47 in Christo van der Merwe & Jacobus Naudé, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. (Link); Geoffrey Khan & Christo van der Merwe, “Towards a Comprehensive Model for Interpreting Word Order in Classical Biblical Hebrew,” in Journal of Semitic Studies LXV/2 (2020): 347-390. (DOI); but for information structure and word order in poetry see Nicholas Lunn, Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Differentiating Pragmatics and Poetics. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006; and Christo van der Merwe & Ernst Wendland, “Marked Word Order in the Book of Joel,” in Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 36/2 (2010): 109-130. (Link)

References

  1. ↑ As clarified by Langacker, “under the rubric phonological structure, I include not only sounds but also gestures and orthographic representations” (2008: 15), i.e. means of expression and conceptualisation (ibid. 457).
  2. ↑ Unless otherwise indicated, definitions are from the SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms. Follow the links for examples.
Retrieved from "https://psalms.scriptura.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Macrosyntax&oldid=15739"