Macrosyntax

• Grammar
• Semantics
  • Semantics/Lexical Semantics
  • Phrase-Level Semantics
  • Verbal Semantics
  • Semantics/Story behind the Psalm
• Exegetical Issues
• Discourse
  • Participant Analysis
  • Macrosyntax
  • Speech Act Analysis
  • Emotional Analysis
• Poetics
  • Poetic Structure
  • Poetic Features
• Synthesis
  • Verse-by-Verse Notes
  • Translation and Performance Notes
• Close-but-Clear
• Videos
  • Overview
  • Top 3 Exegetical Issues
  • Top 3 Poetic Features
• Post to wiki

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.”

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 usage events are symbolic units consisting of two poles — the phonological pole (what is heard) and the semantic pole (the constructional meaning, from morphemes to the entire discourse) — 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.

• Discourse 101a
• Discourse 101b
• Discourse 101c
• Discourse 101d
• Psalm 1: Macrosyntax

Steps

Before you begin...

• Copy the macrosyntax template and paste it onto your MIRO board.
• Copy and paste the English and Hebrew texts in the relevant text boxes.
• Delete verse numbers from the text.

1. Clause Delimitation

• Divide the text into clauses.
• When it is unclear where a clause begins or ends, refer to the grammatical diagram.

2. Coordination and Subordination

• Colour all coordinating conjunctions blue, and use blue lines to connect the clauses which are coordinate (see example below). Bold the coordinating conjunctions in the English text.
• Colour all subordinating elements teal. This will include כִּי, relative particles, infinitive constructs that begin with lamed, etc. Anything coloured should also be made bold in the English text.
• Use indentation to indicate syntactic subordination.
• Direct speech, in addition to being indented, should be boxed.
• Using the notes section of the template, take notes explaining and/or defending any difficult or controversial decisions.

3. Vocatives and Other Discourse Markers

• Colour all vocatives purple. Bold the vocatives in the English text.
• Colour any other discourse markers that may have a text-structuring function orange. These should also be bold in the English text.
• In the notes section, take notes on the macrosyntactic significance of the coloured features.

4. Word Order

• Note any instances of non-standard word order.
• Determine, in each case, the reason for the non-standard word-order.
  • Underline any instances of marked topic (including left dislocation).
  • Bold any instances of marked focus.
  • In cases where the word order variation is poetic and not pragmatic, do not mark the text. Instead, make a note in the notes section.
  • Underline cases where the entire clause is in focus (sentence focus, or theticity).
  • (For explanations and examples of these categories see appendix)
• In the notes section, provide a rationale for each decision and explain its significance.

5. Paragraph Delimitation

• On the basis of your observations, divide the text into paragraphs using blank lines.
• Readjust any boxes or other figures that become misaligned during the process.
• In the notes section, give a rationale for each paragraph division. Be sure that your divisions are based primarily on macrosyntax and not on semantics or poetics. In the example below, there is a paragraph break between v. 3 and v. 4 based on (1) the shift from direct speech to the psalmist speaking again, and (2) the thetic statement in v. 4a.

6. Translation Expansion

• Expand the English CBC to highlight the significance of macrosyntactic features. Use grey text and parentheses to mark the expansions.
  • E.g., Ps. 11:4b – "YHWH – his throne is in heaven" >> "YHWH – his throne (and his alone) is in heaven."
  • The expansion in this particular example attempts to draw out the significance of the use of left dislocation.

Appendices

Excursus on Topic and Focus

Because focus depends on what information is already given, context is often required to determine its scope. The scope of focus can be limited to a clausal constituent - subject, object, oblique (constituent focus), or the verb - or it can extend to include the entire predicate (predicate focus). If the entire utterance is new/unexpected it is a thetic sentence.

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 focused. 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 constituent focus is at work when answering the question, What did John wash? - He washed the dishes. Who washed the dishes? - John washed them. Less commonly, the verb would be focused in the answer to, What did John do to the dishes? - He washed them.

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

In Ps 16:9, the predicate focus (in this case, equal with verbal 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

וַיָּ֣גֶל כְּבוֹדִ֑י

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 previous colon.

וִֽ֝ימִינָ֗ם מָ֣לְאָה שֹּֽׁחַד

(Ps 26:10b)

Since the basic focus function is to select 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. Imperatives often contain a verbal focus structure, since it is the semantic content of the verb which the addressor wants the addressee to hear and act upon:

שָׁפְטֵ֤נִי יְהוָ֗ה

Judge me, YHWH. (Ps. 26:1a)

A thetic construction (often called sentence focus), however, would be appropriate if John's wife returns home expecting a mess and her kitchen is pristine. To the implicit "What happened?" John could answer: "I 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-colon’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 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)