Psalm 44 Discourse

Psalm Overview

• Grammar
• Semantics
• Story behind the Psalm
• Discourse
• Poetics

About the Discourse Layer

Our Discourse layer includes four analyses: macrosyntax, speech act analysis, emotional analysis, and participant analysis. (For more information, click 'Expand' to the right.)

Macrosyntax

The macrosyntax layer rests on the belief that human communicators desire their addressees to receive a coherent picture of their message and will cooperatively provide clues to lead the addressee into a correct understanding. So, in the case of macrosyntax of the Psalms, the psalmist has explicitly left syntactic clues for the reader regarding the discourse structure of the entire psalm. Here we aim to account for the function of these elements, including the identification of conjunctions which either coordinate or subordinate entire clauses (as the analysis of coordinated individual phrases is carried out at the phrase-level semantics layer), vocatives, other discourse markers, direct speech, and clausal word order.

For a detailed explanation of our method, see the Macrosyntax Creator Guidelines.

Speech Act Analysis

The Speech Act layer presents the text in terms of what it does, following the findings of Speech Act Theory. It builds on the recognition that there is more to communication than the exchange of propositions. Speech act analysis is particularly important when communicating cross-culturally, and lack of understanding can lead to serious misunderstandings, since the ways languages and cultures perform speech acts varies widely.

For a detailed explanation of our method, see the Speech Act Analysis Creator Guidelines.

Emotional Analysis

This layer explores the emotional dimension of the biblical text and seeks to uncover the clues within the text itself that are part of the communicative intent of its author. The goal of this analysis is to chart the basic emotional tone and/or progression of the psalm.

For a detailed explanation of our method, see the Emotional Analysis Creator Guidelines.

Participant Analysis

Participant Analysis focuses on the characters in the psalm and asks, “Who are the main participants (or characters) in this psalm, and what are they saying or doing? It is often helpful for understanding literary structure, speaker identification, etc.

For a detailed explanation of our method, see the Participant Analysis Creator Guidelines.

Discourse Visuals for Psalm 44

Macrosyntax

Notes

• **v. 5: For the emendation of the MT אֱלֹהִ֑ים צַ֝וֵּ֗ה see Grammar Layer note.
• **v. 15b: For the emendation of the MT בַּל־אֻמִּֽים׃ see Grammar Layer note.
• v. 2a אֱלֹהִים: The clause-initial position of the vocative אֱלֹהִים serves to identify the addressee of the discourse (Kim 2023, 136).
• 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Discourse Markers and Divisions

• v. 3a אַתָּה: The fronted subject אַתָּה represents a topic shift, and begins a new section of the discourse.
• 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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).

Speech Act Analysis

Summary Visual

Speech Act Chart

Emotional Analysis

Summary visual

Emotional Analysis Chart

Participant analysis

There are 4 participants/characters in Psalm 44:

• Leader/Psalmist: The first-person singular references throughout this psalm are best construed as the voice of a liturgical leader (see The Speaker of Ps. 44:5, 7, and 16). According to the superscription of v. 1, this is best identified as the collective voice of the leadership group descended from Korah.
• Israel: While constituting a distinct participant (see The Speaker of Ps. 44:5, 7, and 16), the first-person plural references throughout the psalm indicate that the psalmist should be included within this participant set. Thus Israel and the psalmist are here presented as related participants.
• Non-Agentive Participants - Physical might / Physical might / Body parts / Physical might / God's power / Experience of shame: While not agentive participants per se, included in this list of participants are inanimate entities personified as performing relational actions, or entities representing a metonymy for an agentive participant.
• Israel's ancestors: By recounting God's past dealings with their ancestors, Israel can look ahead to future continuation of such works (Craigie 2004, 333). Based on this continuity of experience, it would be plausible to combine Israel and Israel's ancestors into a single participant set. However, it seems that Israel's ancestors play a sufficiently distinct relational role to warrant treating them as a separate participant.

Participant Relations Diagram

The relationships among the participants may be abstracted and summarized as follows:

Participant Analysis Table

Notes

v. 3a: you dispossessed or your strength dispossessed?

1. Most modern translations render אַתָּה "you" as the subject of the verb הוֹרַשְׁתָּ "dispossessed," with יָדְךָ "your hand >> your strength" functioning as an adverbial accusative (i.e., "You dispossessed the nations by your hand"; cf. GKC §144l–m). However, the LXX renders יָדְךָ as the verb's subject (ἡ χείρ σου ἔθνη ἐξωλέθρευσεν; "your hand destroyed nations," NETS).
2. In favor of taking God as the subject of this clause, the 2ms pronoun אַתָּה agrees in gender and number with the verb הוֹרַשְׁתָּ.
3. However, it is preferable to understand God's strength as the subject of this clause. In Hebrew poetry, when nouns expressing parts of an individual are followed by a first- or second-person suffix, they can be taken as equivalent to the individuals themselves, and are predicated with a verb that agrees in person with the suffix (cf. Ps 57:5; JM §151c). Here in v. 3, if יָדְךָ functions as the subject, then the 2ms verb הוֹרַשְׁתָּ would agree with its 2ms suffix. This would explain the LXX rendering, which recasts the verb into a third-person form: ἡ χείρ σου ἔθνη ἐξωλέθρευσεν ("your hand destroyed nations," NETS). This understanding of the clause would also imply that אַתָּה is left-dislocated (i.e., "as for you, your hand..."). For a discussion on the function of this left-dislocation, see Macrosyntax notes above.

v. 3b, 3d: Ancestors or nations?

1. There is some ambiguity as to the referent of the 3mp pronominal suffixes of וַתִּטָּעֵם and וַתְּשַׁלְּחֵם. Most modern translations interpret them as referring to the ancestors of v. 2 (e.g., "... and planted our ancestors... and made our ancestors flourish," NIV; see also ESV, NRSV, NET, CSB). This would require understanding the wayyiqtol verbs, in relation to their respective preceding clauses, as adversative ("but them you planted... but them you set free...," NRSV) or purpose/resultative ("in order to plant them... in order to settle them...," CSB). Alternatively, a temporally sequential reading of the wayyiqtols would suggest that the suffixes refer to the גּוֹיִם "nations" and לְאֻמִּים "peoples" (so NASB95, LSB, KJV).
2. In favor of taking the suffixes as references to the nations, the masculine plural גּוֹיִם "nations" and לְאֻמִּים "peoples" agree with the suffixes in gender and number, and are nearer syntactically. Furthermore, there is syntactic parallelism in the use of a 2ms verb and a direct object across all four clauses of this verse, suggesting that all four objects are coreferential.
3. It is preferable to understand the suffixes as references to Israel's ancestors. It has been observed that, in cases where the subject of a verb is specified, but the referent of its object is unspecified, the object will tend to refer back to a previously mentioned, discourse-active subject (de Regt 2020, 12). In v. 3b and 3d, the subject of וַתִּטָּעֵם and וַתְּשַׁלְּחֵם is clearly God, as the 2ms verb forms refer back to the vocative אֱלֹהִים in v. 2. The 3mp suffixes, on the other hand, refer back to the discourse-active subjects of the verb סִפְּרוּ "recounted" in v. 2, viz. אֲבוֹתֵינוּ "our ancestors." As v. 3 describes the content of the recounting, the ancestors remain discourse-active, and are anaphorically recalled using the 3mp suffixes.

Participant Distribution Table

The table below demonstrates the participant distribution throughout Psalm 44.

Notes

• It is noteworthy that references to Israel's (present) enemies are clustered in vv. 6–17 (v. 3, on the other hand, refers to enemies in the previous era of the ancestors). This seems to imply a shift in v. 18, where God and Israel are the primary remaining participants. The isolation of these two participants seems to culminate in the cluster of supplications in vv. 24–27.
• The clustering of references to Israel's ancestors in vv. 2–4 coincides with the recounting of past experiences of God's deliverance. V. 5 appears to transition into a discussion of present circumstances.

Bibliography

Craigie, Peter. 2004. Psalms 1–50. 2nd ed. WBC 19. Nashville: Nelson.

de Regt, Lénart. 2020. Linguistic Coherence in Biblical Hebrew Texts. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

Khan, Geoffrey, and Christo H.J. Van Der Merwe. 2020. “Towards A Comprehensive Model For Interpreting Word Order In Classical Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of Semitic Studies 65 (2):347–90.

Kim, Young Bok. 2023. Hebrew Forms of Address: A Sociolinguistic Analysis. Atlanta: SBL Press.

Locatell, Christian S. 2017. “Grammatical Polysemy in the Hebrew Bible: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to כי.” PhD Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch.

Lunn, Nicholas P. 2006. Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Differentiating Pragmatics and Poetics. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster.

Miller, Cynthia L. 2010. "Vocative Syntax in Biblical Hebrew Prose and Poetry: A Preliminary Analysis." Journal of Semitic Studies 55 (2):347–364.

Wendland, Ernst R. 2002. Analyzing the Psalms: With Exercises for Bible Students and Translators. 2nd ed. Dallas: SIL International.