Psalm 32 Macrosyntax
From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Psalm 32/Macrosyntax
Choose a PsalmNavigate Psalm 32
Joy of Confession
Psalm 32
Macrosyntax
Macrosyntax Diagram
| Macrosyntax legend | |
|---|---|
| Vocatives | Vocatives are indicated by purple text. |
| Discourse marker | Discourse markers (such as כִּי, הִנֵּה, לָכֵן) are indicated by orange text. |
 |
The scope governed by the discourse marker is indicated by a dashed orange bracket connecting the discourse marker to its scope. |
 |
The preceding discourse grounding the discourse marker is indicated by a solid orange bracket encompassing the relevant clauses. |
| Subordinating conjunction | The subordinating conjunction is indicated by teal text. |
 |
Subordination is indicated by a solid teal bracket connecting the subordinating conjunction with the clause to which it is subordinate. |
| Coordinating conjunction | The coordinating conjunction is indicated by blue text. |
 |
Coordination is indicated by a solid blue line connecting the coordinating clauses. |
 |
Coordination without an explicit conjunction is indicated by a dashed blue line connecting the coordinated clauses. |
 |
Marked topic is indicated by a black dashed rounded rectangle around the marked words. |
 |
The scope of the activated topic is indicated by a black dashed bracket encompassing the relevant clauses. |
| Marked focus or thetic sentence | Marked focus (if one constituent) or thetic sentences[1] are indicated by bold text. |
 |
Frame setters[2] are indicated by a solid gray rounded rectangle around the marked words. |
| [blank line] | Discourse discontinuity is indicated by a blank line. |
| [indentation] | Syntactic subordination is indicated by indentation. |
 |
Direct speech is indicated by a solid black rectangle surrounding all relevant clauses. |
| (text to elucidate the meaning of the macrosyntactic structures) | Within the CBC, any text elucidating the meaning of macrosyntax is indicated in gray text inside parentheses. |
If an emendation or revocalization is preferred, that emendation or revocalization will be marked in the Hebrew text of all the visuals.
| Emendations/Revocalizations legend | |
|---|---|
| *Emended text* | Emended text, text in which the consonants differ from the consonants of the Masoretic text, is indicated by blue asterisks on either side of the emendation. |
| *Revocalized text* | Revocalized text, text in which only the vowels differ from the vowels of the Masoretic text, is indicated by purple asterisks on either side of the revocalization. |
(Click diagram to enlarge)
- vv. 1-2 and vv. 3-4 are separated by the conclusion of the relativized content which dominates v. 2 and the subordinating כִּי beginning v. 3.
- For the discourse units of vv. 3-4, 5 and 6-7, see the three instances of Selah and the discourse markers in v. 6.
- v. 4 – Although יוֹמָ֣ם וָלַיְלָה֮ could simply be understood as a temporal frame setter, as part of the grounds for the psalmist groaning "all day" (see the previous line), it more likely provides a scalar focus description of the permanency and persistency of YHWH's corrective action.
- v. 5a-b – The two-fold fronting in these two lines loosely resembles a poetic structure of repetition, though the two fronted constituents, חַטָּאתִ֨י "my sin" and עֲוֺ֘נִ֤י "my guilt," are simply read as the clause topic in each case.
- v. 5e – The fronted וְאַתָּ֨ה provides a topic shift, from the psalmist's actions throughout the verse to YHWH's action in this final line.
- v. 6b – The double fronting of לְ֭שֵׁטֶף מַ֣יִם רַבִּ֑ים אֵ֝לָ֗יו is best interpreted as a temporal frame setter, encoded by the לְ prepositional phrase (see the grammar notes), followed by the narrow focus constituent "to him" (see the same information structural configuration in Ps 61:3).
- v. 7b-c – The fronting of both מִצַּ֪ר and רָנֵּ֥י פַלֵּ֑ט creates a pattern of repetition between the two lines. Further, the placement of מִצַּ֪ר before תִּ֫צְּרֵ֥נִי creates phonological cohesion between the sounds miṣṣar and tiṣṣər, and the placement of רָנֵּ֥י פַלֵּ֑ט following תִּ֫צְּרֵ֥נִי creates phonological cohesion between the sounds rēnî and ronnê. Finally, line-(and discourse unit-)final תְּס֖וֹבְבֵ֣נִי provides correspondence to the verse-final יְסוֹבְבֶֽנּוּ of v. 10.
- מִצַּ֪ר תִּ֫צְּרֵ֥נִי
- רָנֵּ֥י פַלֵּ֑ט תְּס֖וֹבְבֵ֣נִי
- v. 9c – The double fronting of בְּמֶֽתֶג־וָרֶ֣סֶן עֶדְי֣וֹ precedes the infinitive, which, as an impersonal, requires an unspecified agent: "it is to restrict" ➞ "one must restrict" (as discussed in the grammar notes). The first and second constituents are unambiguously read as focus followed by topic.
- v. 10a – As discussed in the grammar notes, רַבִּ֥ים is best understood as the comment of this verbless clause (against the Masoretic accents), such that the comment-topic order brings it into prominence.
- v. 10b – The left-dislocated phrase הַבּוֹטֵ֥חַ בַּיהוָ֑ה, resumed by the suffix on יְסוֹבְבֶֽנּוּ, introduces a topic shift from the רָשָׁע of the previous line. (This structure could also have been employed to ensure a suffix on the verb as a poetic connection to תְּס֖וֹבְבֵ֣נִי of v. 7—see above.)
- The only two vocatives in the psalm are found in v. 11. Their positions are both clause- and line-final, such that they function to delimit lines phonologically and facilitate processing of the syntax (Miller 2010, 360-363). The final vocative, including the construct head יִשְׁרֵי, also provides a phonological inclusio with אַשְׁרֵי in vv. 1-2 (see poetic structure).
- vv. 3-4 – As discussed in the grammar notes, the initial כִּי of v. 3 is a subordinator to the following clause, whereas the כִּי of v. 4 grounds the entirety of v. 3, so has been considered a discourse marker grounding the previous discourse, rather than a subordinator.
- v. 6 – As discussed in the grammar notes, the prepositional phrase עַל־זֹ֡את has been grammaticalized (at least received as such in translation) to a logical connector with what precedes.
- v. 6 – The particle רַ֗ק scopes over the entire second line of this verse, such that it has been considered a discourse marker, rather than a focus particle of an individual constituent. It is "interpreted as limiting and countering something in the context."[3] In other words, it "sets a limit and counters the implications of the content of a directly preceding utterance."[4] In the present case, it limits the (mistaken) implications of the previous clause—viz., that the expected outcome of confession of sin is disaster and counters that disaster will not, in fact, come upon the one who confesses. Although this instance of רַק has been deemed "difficult to interpret,"[5] it is one of only two in the Psalms, the other of which (Ps 91:8) is also unambiguously a sentence-level adversative particle.
- See Discourse Markers for a discussion of the כִּי in v. 3.
- ↑ When the entire utterance is new/unexpected, it is a thetic sentence (often called "sentence focus"). See our Creator Guidelines for more information on topic and focus.
- ↑ Frame setters are any orientational constituent – typically, but not limited to, spatio-temporal adverbials – function to "limit the applicability of the main predication to a certain restricted domain" and "indicate the general type of information that can be given" in the clause nucleus (Krifka & Musan 2012: 31-32). In previous scholarship, they have been referred to as contextualizing constituents (see, e.g., Buth (1994), “Contextualizing Constituents as Topic, Non-Sequential Background and Dramatic Pause: Hebrew and Aramaic evidence,” in E. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Falster Jakobsen and L. Schack Rasmussen (eds.) Function and expression in Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 215-231; Buth (2023), “Functional Grammar and the Pragmatics of Information Structure for Biblical Languages,” in W. A. Ross & E. Robar (eds.) Linguistic Theory and the Biblical Text. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 67-116), but this has been conflated with the function of topic. In brief: sentence topics, belonging to the clause nucleus, are the entity or event about which the clause provides a new predication; frame setters do not belong in the clause nucleus and rather provide a contextual orientation by which to understand the following clause.
- ↑ Levinsohn 2011, 102.
- ↑ BHRG §40.41.1.b, emphasis added.
- ↑ van der Merwe et al. 1999, §41.4.7.2.