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

Overview

This layer is called ‘macrosyntax’ because it analyses syntactic features above the sentence level, across larger sections of discourse: that is, coordination and subordination. Coordination and subordination are themselves determined grammatically by conjunctions, asyndesis, and discourse markers, as well as information flow, insofar as it is determined by syntax (word order).

If, following the approach of Cognitive Grammar, 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 to 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 purpose of the layer is to determine the syntactic features in a psalm that contribute to its discourse structure. 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.

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.
• Add verse numbers in a middle column.
• 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.

Appendix A

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. The B-cola of Ps. 26:4-5 mirror the default order in the A-cola, while in Ps. 11:4a the B-colon replicates the informationally-motivated fronting of יהוה in the A-colon.

לֹא־יָ֭שַׁבְתִּי עִם־מְתֵי־שָׁ֑וְא

וְעִ֥ם נַ֝עֲלָמִ֗ים לֹ֣א אָבֽוֹא׃

שָׂ֭נֵאתִי קְהַ֣ל מְרֵעִ֑ים

וְעִם־רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים לֹ֣א אֵשֵֽׁב׃

(Ps. 26:4-5)

יְהוָ֤ה ׀ בְּֽהֵ֘יכַ֤ל קָדְשׁ֗

יְהוָה֮ בַּשָּׁמַ֪יִם כִּ֫סְא֥וֹ

(Ps. 11:4a)

Appendix B

Vocative Positions

Many of the psalms exhibit vocatives (forms of direct address) in various clause positions. Two models have been proposed in recent years to account for their function. Unfortunately, the literature is slim in this area and one would hope for more comprehensive and linguistically informed treatments in the future. Therefore, consider the following suggested functions as a starting point and apply critically those which reflect the vocative positions found in your Psalm, as it is doubtful that they will accurately reflect all the possible vocative-position functions in the Psalms.

Processing/line delimitation:

• Miller (2010: 360-363) claims that often a vocative assists in delimiting lines phonologically and therefore correctly processing the syntax.

ר֣וּמָה עַל־הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם אֱלֹהִ֑ים עַ֖ל כָּל־הָאָ֣רֶץ כְּבוֹדֶֽךָ׃

Ps 57:6.

וִֽיבֹאֻ֣נִי חֲסָדֶ֣ךָ יְהוָ֑ה תְּ֝שֽׁוּעָתְךָ֗ כְּאִמְרָתֶֽךָ׃

Ps 119:41.

עַד־מָתַ֖י רְשָׁעִ֥ים׀ יְהוָ֑ה עַד־מָ֝תַ֗י רְשָׁעִ֥ים יַעֲלֹֽזוּ׃

Ps 94:3.

אֱלֹהִ֥ים לְהַצִּילֵ֑נִי יְ֝הוָ֗ה לְעֶזְרָ֥תִי חֽוּשָֽׁה׃

Ps 70:2.

Sentence pragmatics:

• If clause-initial (Kim 2022: 213-217), a vocative may (1) signal the beginning of a conversational turn:

וַתִּקֹּ֣ד בַּת־שֶׁ֔בַע וַתִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ לַמֶּ֑לֶךְ וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ מַה־לָּֽךְ׃ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר ל֗וֹ אֲדֹנִי֙ אַתָּ֨ה נִשְׁבַּ֜עְתָּ בַּֽיהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ לַֽאֲמָתֶ֔ךָ כִּֽי־שְׁלֹמֹ֥ה בְנֵ֖ךְ יִמְלֹ֣ךְ אַחֲרָ֑י וְה֖וּא יֵשֵׁ֥ב עַל־כִּסְאִֽי׃

1 Ki 1:16–17.

(2) identify the addressee (perhaps if there are numerous possibilities):

וַֽיִּמְצָאָ֞הּ מַלְאַ֧ךְ יְהוָ֛ה עַל־עֵ֥ין הַמַּ֖יִם בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר עַל־הָעַ֖יִן בְּדֶ֥רֶךְ שֽׁוּר׃ וַיֹּאמַ֗ר הָגָ֞ר שִׁפְחַ֥ת שָׂרַ֛י אֵֽי־מִזֶּ֥ה בָ֖את וְאָ֣נָה תֵלֵ֑כִי

Ge 16:7–8a.

This is probably the case with the first two vocatives of Ps. 22:24, while the third (24c) exhibits a mirroring structure with 24b:

יִרְאֵ֤י יְהוָ֨ה׀ הַֽלְל֗וּהוּ כָּל־זֶ֣רַע יַעֲקֹ֣ב כַּבְּד֑וּהוּ וְג֥וּרוּ מִ֝מֶּ֗נּוּ כָּל־זֶ֥רַע יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

(3) "grab the attention", i.e. prime the addressee for what follows, often an urgent imperative:

עַתָּה֙ עִם־לְבָבִ֔י לִכְר֣וֹת בְּרִ֔ית לַיהוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְיָשֹׁ֥ב מִמֶּ֖נּוּ חֲר֥וֹן אַפּֽוֹ׃ בָּנַ֕י עַתָּ֖ה אַל־תִּשָּׁל֑וּ כִּֽי־בָכֶ֞ם בָּחַ֣ר יְהוָ֗ה לַעֲמֹ֤ד לְפָנָיו֙ לְשָׁ֣רְת֔וֹ וְלִהְי֥וֹת ל֖וֹ מְשָׁרְתִ֥ים וּמַקְטִרִֽים׃

2 Ch 29:10–11.

This seems to be the case in Ps. 22:2-3:

אֵלִ֣י אֵ֭לִי לָמָ֣ה עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי רָח֥וֹק מִֽ֝ישׁוּעָתִ֗י דִּבְרֵ֥י שַׁאֲגָתִֽי׃

אֱֽלֹהַ֗י אֶקְרָ֣א י֖וֹמָם וְלֹ֣א תַעֲנֶ֑ה וְ֝לַ֗יְלָה וְֽלֹא־דֽוּמִיָּ֥ה לִֽי׃

• If the vocative is clause-final, it may be signaling the end of a turn to give the floor to the other interlocutor(s) (Kim 2022: 217-221):

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יִצְחָ֜ק אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֤ם אָבִיו֙ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אָבִ֔י וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִנֶּ֣נִּֽי בְנִ֑י וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הִנֵּ֤ה הָאֵשׁ֙ וְהָ֣עֵצִ֔ים וְאַיֵּ֥ה הַשֶּׂ֖ה לְעֹלָֽה׃ Ge 22:7.

וַ֠יַּעַן הַמַּלְאָ֞ךְ הַדֹּבֵ֥ר בִּי֙ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלַ֔י הֲל֥וֹא יָדַ֖עְתָּ מָה־הֵ֣מָּה אֵ֑לֶּה וָאֹמַ֖ר לֹ֥א אֲדֹנִֽי׃ וַיַּ֜עַן וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלַי֙ Zec 4:5-6a

• If the vocative is clause-medial, it is generally held to focus the "detached" element. In the case of post-clausal adverb or post-fronted constituent, it may "mark" the detached element as conversationally significant (Kim 2022: 227-233):

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יוֹאָ֗ב יוֹסֵף֩ יְהוָ֨ה עַל־עַמֹּ֤ו׀ כָּהֵם֙ מֵאָ֣ה פְעָמִ֔ים הֲלֹא֙ אֲדֹנִ֣י הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ כֻּלָּ֥ם לַאדֹנִ֖י לַעֲבָדִ֑ים לָ֣מָּה יְבַקֵּ֥שׁ זֹאת֙ אֲדֹנִ֔י לָ֛מָּה יִהְיֶ֥ה לְאַשְׁמָ֖ה לְיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

1 Ch 21:3.

וַתֹּ֜אמֶר הָאִשָּׁ֤ה הַתְּקוֹעִית֙ אֶל־הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ עָלַ֞י אֲדֹנִ֥י הַמֶּ֛לֶךְ הֶעָוֺ֖ן וְעַל־בֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑י וְהַמֶּ֥לֶךְ וְכִסְא֖וֹ נָקִֽי׃

2 Sa 14:9.

Miller (2010: 357) claims that if the vocative is the second constituent, the preceding entity is focussed:

כִּֽי־אַתָּה֩ יְהוָ֨ה צְבָא֜וֹת אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל גָּלִ֜יתָה אֶת־אֹ֤זֶן עַבְדְּךָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר בַּ֖יִת אֶבְנֶה־לָּ֑ךְ עַל־כֵּ֗ן מָצָ֤א עַבְדְּךָ֙ אֶת־לִבּ֔וֹ לְהִתְפַּלֵּ֣ל אֵלֶ֔יךָ אֶת־הַתְּפִלָּ֖ה הַזֹּֽאת׃

2 Sa 7:27.

Along similar lines, the pre-vocative and fronted וְאַתָּה in Ps. 22:20 is undoubtedly topical, shifting the discourse from a list of sufferings vv.12-19 to hopeful appeals of help:

וְאַתָּ֣ה יְ֭הוָה אַל־תִּרְחָ֑ק אֱ֝יָלוּתִ֗י לְעֶזְרָ֥תִי חֽוּשָׁה׃

• If the vocative is post-verbal, it may be drawing attention/focussing the following sentence constituent (Kim 2022: 233-235):

הַטֵּ֨ה יְהוָ֤ה׀ אָזְנְךָ֙ וּֽשֲׁמָ֔ע פְּקַ֧ח יְהוָ֛ה עֵינֶ֖יךָ וּרְאֵ֑ה וּשְׁמַ֗ע אֵ֚ת דִּבְרֵ֣י סַנְחֵרִ֔יב אֲשֶׁ֣ר שְׁלָח֔וֹ לְחָרֵ֖ף אֱלֹהִ֥ים חָֽי׃

2 Ki 19:16.

• If the vocative is post-clause-nucleus and preceding only sentence adjuncts, it is "to provide rhetorical highlighting, though of a less specific nature [than focus]" (Miller 2010: 358):

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ל֗וֹ מַדּ֣וּעַ אַ֠תָּה כָּ֣כָה דַּ֤ל בֶּן־הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ בַּבֹּ֣קֶר בַּבֹּ֔קֶר

2 Sa 13:4a.

• Finally, if the vocative precedes a subordinate clause, it is said to focus the content of the subordinate clause (Kim 2022: 235-237):

וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ שְׁבִ֣י בִתִּ֔י עַ֚ד אֲשֶׁ֣ר תֵּֽדְעִ֔ין אֵ֖יךְ יִפֹּ֣ל דָּבָ֑ר כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יִשְׁקֹט֙ הָאִ֔ישׁ כִּֽי־אִם־כִּלָּ֥ה הַדָּבָ֖ר הַיּֽוֹם׃

Ru 3:18.

• Besides these analyses, the function of the clause-medial vocative may be as simple as slowing down the processing of the packaged information and therefore signaling structural significance within the psalm, as is probably the case with Ps. 24:7:

שְׂא֤וּ שְׁעָרִ֨ים׀ רָֽאשֵׁיכֶ֗ם וְֽ֭הִנָּשְׂאוּ פִּתְחֵ֣י עוֹלָ֑ם וְ֝יָב֗וֹא מֶ֣לֶךְ הַכָּבֽוֹד׃

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)