Psalm 44 Macrosyntax

From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Psalm 44/Macrosyntax
Jump to: navigation, search


Macrosyntax

  What is Macrosyntax?

Macrosyntax Diagram

  Legend

(Click diagram to enlarge)


Psalm 044 - Macrosyntax - Ps 44.jpg

  • v. 3a אַתָּה: The fronted subject אַתָּה represents a topic shift, and begins a new section of the discourse.
  • v. 5a: Apart from a debated clause-final vocative (see The Text and Meaning of Ps. 44:5), this verbless clause demonstrates default word order (see Wendland 2002, 63). However, given the combination of a shift to the first-person singular on the suffix of מַלְכִּ֣י, the use of the vocative, and the occurrence of the verbless clause suggests a transition to a new section (Lunn 2006, 243).
  • v. 9ab: The fronted prepositional phrase בֵּאלֹהִים "in God" represents topic shift in v. 9a. Here the topic shifts from Israel's enemies (vv. 6–8) to God. This is reinforced by the fronted topic שִׁמְךָ in v. 9b. These features, along with סֶלָה in v. 9b (see following note), appear to set off v. 9 as a distinct discourse unit within Ps 44.
  • v. 9b: While the meaning of סֶלָה is highly debated, its function is likely musical in nature (DCH; TWOT, 627). As such, it is likely signaling a discourse division of some kind.
  • v. 18a: The fronted subject כָּל־זֹ֣את represents a topic shift. The clause summarizes the preceding situations (which would typically imply God's judgment), then transitions into a new discourse unit that presents the community's innocence.
  • vv. 21–22: The fronted אֱלֹהִים of v. 22 indicates a shift in topic, which becomes the base of predication for the remainder of the sentence (Khan and van der Merwe 2020, 370). Verse 21 constitutes a syntactically dependent protosis to the apodosis of v. 22. Therefore, vv. 21–22 introduce a new discourse unit, which is further marked by a shift from second-person to third-person references to God.
  • v. 2a בְּאָזְנֵינוּ: The fronted position of this phrase marks the prepositional modifier as the "dominant focal element," or pivotal informational element of the clause (Lunn 2006, 43, 241). Given the context of the remainder of the psalm, it is plausible that an implied contrast is intended between, on the one hand, past accounts of God's deliverance received בְּאָזְנֵינוּ "with our ears," and on the other hand, the absence of such deliverance in the psalmist's present experience (e.g., "with our eyes").
  • v. 2b: While אֱלֹהִים is established as the addressee in v. 2a (see previous note), the topic at hand is established in v. 2b with the fronting of אֲבוֹתֵינוּ "our ancestors."
  • v. 3a אַתָּה יָדְךָ גּוֹיִם: This clause features three elements that are fronted in relation to the verb הוֹרַשְׁתָּ "dispossessed." The first, אַתָּה, represents a topic shift. The second item, יָדְךָ, is fronted to indicate restricting focus (i.e., from a presupposed open set of candidates, God's hand/strength is the only possible selection that leads to a true proposition; Khan and van der Merwe 2020, 366). The third item, גּוֹיִם, is likely fronted for poetic purposes. Accounting for the inserted wayyiqtol clauses in v. 3b and 3d, the fronting of גּוֹיִם forces the verb הוֹרַשְׁתָּ to the end of v. 3a, forming a tail-head linkage with the clause-initial verb תָּרַע in v. 3c.
  • v. 4a–b: The fronted constituents בְחַרְבָּם "by their sword" (v. 4a) and וּזְרוֹעָם "and their power" (v. 4b) indicate a corrective (or replacing) focus, in which the presupposition underlying the object argument is highlighted in order to be negated and replaced (Khan and van der Merwe 2020, 367; Lunn 2006, 242). The presupposition that physical might brought victory is negated in v. 4a–b, and then replaced with the proposition that God's might brought victory in v. 4c–d.
  • v. 5a אַתָּה: Unlike the left-dislocated אַתָּה of v. 3a, the clause-initial אַתָּה of v. 5a serves as the subject of a verbless clause (see Method:Grammar Layer note). As such, the position of אַתָּה in v. 5a represents default (unmarked) word order (BHRG §46.2.3.1).
  • vv. 6–7: Each of the four clauses in these verses begins with a fronted adverbial modifier. Taken together, these fronted elements represent corrective (or replacing) focus, in which a presupposed argument is replaced by another (Khan and van der Merwe 2020, 367). The fronted elements בְּךָ "with you" (v. 6a) and בְּשִׁמְךָ "in your name" (v. 6b) correct and replace an implied presupposition (i.e., "something other than God provides victory"). This presupposition is made explicit with the fronted בְקַשְׁתִּי "in my bow" (v. 7a) and וְחַרְבִּי "and my sword" (v. 7b), resulting in the proposition "bows and swords provide victory." This proposition is negated with לֹא particles, while the contrastive elements of v. 6 provide a corrective (i.e., "it is God [and not weapons] who provides victory").
  • v. 6a צָרֵינוּ: In addition to the clause-initial prepositional modifier בְּךָ "with you" (see preceding note), this clause features the fronted object צָרֵינוּ "our adversaries." Such "double fronted" constructions could indicate marked focus and topic shift, respectively (cf. van der Merwe and Wendland 2010, 116). However, it is more likely that the fronted צָרֵינוּ is for poetic purposes, as the change in word order creates (apart from the focal prepositional phrases) an object-verb//verb'-object' structure with v. 6b.
  • v. 8b: While וּמְשַׂנְאֵינוּ "and those who hate us" is fronted in this clause, this is likely for poetic purposes, as the change in word order creates a chiasm with v. 8a.
  • v. 9b: For the fronted phrase וְשִׁמְךָ "and your name," see note on "Discourse Markers and Divisions," above. This clause also features the fronted phrase לְעוֹלָם "forever," which likely represents scalar focus. The preceding temporal statement ("We boast in God all day long") introduces a presupposed set of temporal options (i.e., "When exactly will this boasting/declaring take place?"); the scalar focus provides an extreme selection among those options ("[even] forever") (Khan and van der Merwe 2020, 369).
  • v. 11b: While וּמְשַׂנְאֵינוּ "and those who hate us" is fronted in this clause, this is likely for poetic purposes, as the change in word order creates a chiasm with v. 11a.
  • v. 12b: While the fronted prepositional phrase וּבַגּוֹיִם "and among the nations" could indicate marked focus, it is unclear what the force of such marked focus would be. It seems preferable to see the fronting as poetic, as the change in word order creates a chiasm with v. 12a—a construction that parallels the chiastic pattern in v. 11.
  • v. 16a: The fronted temporal element כָּל־הַיּוֹם "all day long" indicates marked focus. It is possible that the psalmist is introducing an implicit contrast between Israel's constant shame and its constant (כָּל־הַיּוֹם) worship of God in v. 9.
  • v. 16b: It is likely that וּבֹשֶׁת פָּנַי is fronted to indicate topic shift. Coupled with the marked focus of v. 16a (see preceding note), this appears to set off a discourse unit that is contrasted with v. 9.
  • v. 23a עָלֶיךָ: The fronted prepositional phrase עָלֶיךָ indicates exhaustive completive focus. In other words, from an open set of possibilities (completive), the selected element is the only one that leads to a true proposition (exhaustive) (Khan and van der Merwe 2020, 365). In the present context, the fronted עָלֶיךָ indicates, "because of you [and no other possible cause], we are killed..."
  • v. 25a: While the placement of the direct object פָנֶיךָ "your face" before the verb represents non-default word order, it is possible that this is due to poetic binding. The placement of תַסְתִּיר "you hide" at the end of the clause (and crucially, poetic line) forms a tail-head linkage with the following line-initial 2ms yiqtol תִּשְׁכַּ֖ח in v. 25b.
  • v. 2a אֱלֹהִים: The clause-initial position of the vocative אֱלֹהִים serves to identify the addressee of the discourse (Kim 2023, 136).
  • v. 24b: The vocative אֲדֹנָי is likely serving to delimit the end of the clause and signal the end of the poetic line (Miller 2010, 361).
  • v. 4a: When used as a discourse marker, the particle כִּי can function to "hold the floor" to provide a continuation or elaboration of the preceding discourse (Locatell 2017, 274). As this discourse function likely developed from the use of כִּי as a causal connective, the causal translation of "because/for" is appropriate here (Ibid).
  • v. 7a: When used as a discourse marker, the particle כִּי can function to "hold the floor" to provide a continuation or elaboration of the preceding discourse (Locatell 2017, 274). As an elaboration of the preceding discourse, a so-called emphatic rendering such as "indeed/in fact" is warranted.
  • v. 8a: As it governs both clauses of v. 8ab, the particle כִּי could be construed as a discourse marker. However, it has been noted that the lines are sometimes blurred between the use of כִּי as a causal connective on the one hand, and its function as a schematic discourse marker on the other (Locatell 2017, 274). Here, the use of כִּי following a preceding כִּי לֹא clause (v. 7) parallels the adversative כִּי לֹא... כִּי construction of v. 4ac. Thus, it appears that כִּי is functioning as an adversative connective that governs both clauses of v. 8ab, rather than marking a discourse division.
  • v. 10a: The conjunctive adverb אַף functions as a discourse marker when governing multiple sentences (BHRG §40.14), as it does here. In the present context, אַף could be construed as an adversative (e.g., "nonetheless"; cf. DCH), which would not conform to its prototypical sense of addition (van der Merwe 2009, 270n22). However, it has been noted that in certain cases, אַף behaves similarly to the focus particle גַּם, and introduces an extreme or unexpected entity (cf. Ps 68:19; van der Merwe 2009, 281; Lunn 2006, 69). Applied to the current context, אַף should be read as introducing an unexpected addition, rather than a contrastive adversative. This would be in keeping with the sense of irony that pervades this psalm (see Poetic Features), and could be translated along the lines of "even so" (cf. DCH). While similar in semantic content to the adversative, the use of addition could have the rhetorical effect of heightening the sense of incongruity between the praise of v. 9 and the rejection of v. 10.
  • v. 20: As it governs both clauses of v. 20ab, the particle כִּי could be construed as a discourse marker. However, such an understanding would entail a continuation or elaboration of the preceding discourse (Locatell 2017, 270), and would be best translated as a causal ("because") or assertive ("in fact, indeed"; Ibid, 274). As this does appear to fit the context of v. 20, it is preferable to view כִּֽי as an adversative. This would conform with the observation that adversative כִּֽי overwhelmingly occurs after a main clause with a negative particle (Ibid, 258)—in this case v. 19a (with v. 19b functioning as an epexegetical statement with implied negation). Thus, it appears that כִּי is functioning as an adversative connective that governs both clauses of v. 20ab, rather than marking a discourse division.
  • v. 23a כִּי: As the particle כִּי introduces both clauses of v. 23, its function could be construed as a discourse marker that introduces a larger portion of text. However, such an understanding would entail a continuation or elaboration of the preceding discourse (Locatell 2017, 270), and would be best translated as a causal ("because") or assertive ("in fact, indeed"; Ibid, 274). As this does appear to fit the context of v. 23, it is preferable to view כִּֽי as an adversative. This would conform with the observation that adversative כִּֽי overwhelmingly occurs after a main clause with a negative particle (Ibid, 258)—in this case v. 22a. The negative interrogative of v. 22a establishes the community's innocence, while v. 23 introduces the contrastive experience of death, "and yet..."
  • v. 26a: When used as a discourse marker, the particle כִּי can function to "hold the floor" to provide a continuation or elaboration of the preceding discourse (Locatell 2017, 274). As this discourse function likely developed from the use of כִּי as a causal connective, the causal translation of "because/for" is appropriate here (Ibid).

There are no notes on conjunctions for this psalm.



  1. 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.
  2. 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.