Andersen and Forbes on Genesis 1:1-3

It is premature, in one sense, to discuss the Andersen-Forbes Phrase Markup Analysis (AFPMA) available through LOGOS, until the volume by the same authors, Biblical Hebrew Grammar Visualized, to be published by Eisenbrauns, becomes available. That volume will provide a full exposition of Andersen and Forbes’ approach to syntax. On the other hand, a discussion now may help readers who struggle with AFPMA to come to a better understanding of what it accomplishes, and provide Andersen and Forbes with feedback on their project.

In order to make good use of AFPMA, it is necessary to have some familiarity with the Systematic Glossary Andersen and Forbes provide. To be honest, the glossary is not as helpful as it should be. It lacks sufficient illustrations.

The serious researcher needs to do the following: copy selected AFPMA markups onto paper in a readable form for purposes of comparison. In order to do this, it is necessary to click on the item in the upper-left corner of the domain of analysis one is interested in, click on “copy,” paste into an image processor, enlarge the resultant image as desired, and lower contrast and brightness to produce readable copy. In AFPMA, Gen 1:1-1:3 constitutes a single domain. Gen 1:1-3 is, as AFPMA has it, a single sentence. I’ve looked at Gen 1:1-3 before, and have a short list of other passages I think it needs to be compared with. Two syntactical phenomena are of particular interest: (1) the extraposition of clause immediate constituents (such as subjects, objects, and time points) before waw-introduced clauses. Passages of interest include: Gen 2:4b-2:7; 1 Sam 3:1-3:4; 1 Sam 17:24; Gen 27:34; Hos 1:2; Ex 32:34b; Ps 138:3; 2 Chr 28:22; Gen 22:24; Gen 30:29-30; Num 14:36; 1 Kings 12:17; 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 25:22. (2) Nominalization strategies following a nomen regens head noun (a noun in the construct state that governs one or more words – the nomen rectum – which follow) in time point clause immediate constituents, b-introduced or not. Passages of interest include the same as above, plus: Lev 7:16b; Lev 13:46; Lev 14:46; Ps 102:3; Jer 6:15; Jer 50:31.

According to AFPMA’s markup, Gen 1:1-3 contains a single two-clause sentence. Its most important clause (or least oblique clause, in technical terminology) – behind (to the right, in the markup) which sentences and other clauses are assembled – is the following:

1 בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

3 וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר

This clause, or clause plus a preposed element which is not a clause, consists of the following constituents:

(1) An extraposed time point – all of Gen 1:1

(2) A “discourse level” sequential waw – the onset of Gen 1:3

(3) A finite verb (a predicator)

(4) A subject; and

(5) An object, a clause in and of itself.

To be sure, the AFPMA does not explicitly mark the time point as extraposed. This is in contradistinction to its practice, spotty rather than consistent, of marking extraposed subjects and objects as “suspended.” Still, the conclusion that the time point is understood as such is such is inescapable if one reads the diagram from left to right and notes hierarchies and vertical alignments. In a pdf, here is the diagram. For comparison’s sake, here is the AFPMA markup for Gen 2:4b-7.

A perusal of the AFPMA diagram of Gen 1:1-3 is an intensely interesting experience for someone who loves syntax. It is also immensely frustrating – but this is not a complaint. It’s just that homologous syntactical units are not yet marked up in a consistent fashion across AFPMA. But as soon as one begins to work with the diagrams, the thought is inescapable: this tool will eventually revolutionize the study of BH syntax.

As already noted, according to AFPMA’s markup, Gen 1:1-3 contains a single two-clause sentence. AFPMA Gen 1:1-3 diagrams 3 sentences (relatively cohesive supraclausal units): the first takes in all of Gen 1:1-3, as already noted; another, a subset thereof, takes in all of Gen 1:1-2; and a third, a subset of the second, takes in 1:2. This all makes eminent sense. The selfsame division into verses supports it, as do a number of discourse cues at the level of information structure. To be sure, AFPMA does not tag the text in terms of a fine-grained analysis of information structure; but in a sense, an analysis of information structure is implicit in the subdivision of the text into “sentences.”

Excluding an embedded clause – in 1:3; it shows up to the immediate right of a CIC (clause immediate constituent) node, not a sentence node – Gen 1:1-3 contains six clauses. That’s because Gen 1:1 is not a clause, but a time point specifier consisting of a b-introduced head noun + a nominalized complement. The nominalization is specifically noted in AFPMA. That a time point can be preposed to a waw-introduced clause is not often noticed by students of ancient Hebrew, perhaps because in English nothing of the sort is even remotely possible. In accordance with Rob Holmstedt’s excellent analysis, furthermore, we shall see that Gen 1:1 contains an unmarked relative clause. If it were marked, as in Lev 13:46, the marker would be an אשר. The term AFPMA uses for אשר is, quite aptly, nominalizer.

In effect, AFPMA aims to provide a syntactical concordance of the biblical text. It will eventually be possible to investigate syntax in ways that were possible beforehand on the basis of intuition only. Even now, at this initial stage, it is possible to put together syntax queries based on the relatively homologous markups of Gen 1:1-1:3; Gen 2:4b-2:7; 1 Sam 3:1-3:4 (in need, however, of markup to take in the whole unit); Gen 27:34; Hos 1:2; 2 Chr 28:22; and 1 Kings 12:17.

The markups of 1 Sam 17:24 and Ps 138:3, however, were botched, and those of Gen 30:29-30 and Num14:36 are problematic.

Syntax queries built on the syntax of the set of texts with homologous markups will probably turn up other examples of like structured texts – that is, texts with extraposed subjects, objects, or time points followed by a discourse level sequential waw. I am a slow learner when it comes to the LOGOS syntax searches, so I can’t yet offer results.

With or without consistent markups of the passages listed above, they illustrate well the two syntactical phenomena mentioned above – neither of which receives a systematic treatment in reference grammars. Thanks to electronic technology, it is possible to jump across the whole set of examples with ease. Just control-click on all of the hyperlinked references above. Each individual text as presented in the fabulous Westminster Leningrad Codex will show up in a separate window. The thing to do is to set the first window to “text” rather than “chapter” or “verses.” Afterwards, the other windows will default to that.

Once that is done, the following observations are one click away from verification.

(1) The extraposition of a clause immediate constituent = subject before a waw-introduced clause is exemplified by 1 Sam 17:24; Gen 22:24; Num 14:36; 1 Kings 12:17; .

(2) the extraposition of a clause immediate constituent = object before a waw-introduced clause is exemplified by 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 25:22.

(3) the extraposition of a clause immediate constituent = time point before a waw-introduced clause is exemplified by Gen 1:1-1:3; Gen 2:4b-2:7; 1 Sam 17:24; Gen 27:34; Hos 1:2; Ex 32:34b; Ps 138:3; 2 Chr 28:22; Gen 30:29-30;  . A clause = time point may serve the same function: 1 Sam 3:1-3:4. For the sake of comparison, note Lev 7:16b; Lev 13:46, Lev 14:46; Ps 102:3; Jer 6:15; and Jer 50:31, in which there is no extraposition, and in which the ‘in’ preposition b may or may not introduce the time point specification.

Further discussion of nominalization strategies following a nomen regens head noun (a noun in the construct state that governs one or more words – the nomen rectum – which follow) in time point clause immediate constituents, b-introduced or not, is reserved for my next and final point in this series.

Comments

[Robert Holmstedt]

John,

You're doing a nice job of explaining the AFPMA, which, to put it diplomatically, is not easy to use.

By the way, since I think you would agree that terminology can be important, you might be interested to know that "extraposition" is hardly ever used anymore in linguistics to refer to movement or placement of constituents at the front of (or moved "leftward" in) a clause. This is typically referred to as fronting (or with the framework-specific terms "topicalization" or "focus"-fronting -- which are not identical).

Extraposition, in contrast, is almost always used to refer to "rightward" movement (or placement of some constituent at the "end" of a clause"). For example, the placement of a relative clause away from its head, as in "The man died who I saw yesterday" is called relative clause extraposition. Heavy Noun Phrase Shift (HNPS) is another example of extraposition. (For everyone's sake I am here avoiding the complexities of the status of rightward movement in generative syntax!)

It is unfortunate the too many Hebraists use extraposition in the older, Jespersen-influenced way, since it demonstrates little more than how out-of-touch they are with even the simplest of linguistic conventions. Good grief -- someone read Crystal's Dictionary before they publish an article! (No offense, John.)

Your examples above would be better called "fronting," which is also how van der Merwe et al. refer to such constructions (just to show that there is precedent in Hebrew studies besides my own pet theories, if generative linguistics can be called a "pet theory"!).

Since I remained stubbornly narrow in my VT article, focusing on just the first verse, I enjoyed the first post and am looking forward to the remaining post so see where you take the rest.

Cheers,
Rob

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Rob, for your comment on terminology. I didn't know that "extraposition" has come to have the meaning of post-position as opposed to pre-position in some theoretical frameworks.

Your suggestion to refer to the syntactic phenomenon looked at here as an example of fronting is surely correct. I understand it in the same way. However, I'm looking for a term that labels the phenomenon more precisely. That is, here we have fronted preposed subjects, objects, and time points that stand OUTSIDE of the clause to which they relate.

One can't very well refer to the phenomenon as preposition. Perhaps "extraclausal position" would do the trick. Or is that term already taken too?

If not, the above might be reworded:

The extraclausal position of a clause immediate constituent = subject / object / time point before (in linguistic terms, "to the left of") the waw-introduced clause to which it relates is exemplified by . . .

I am open to suggestions, of course. I'm looking for strictly grammatical terminology. I prefer to think of information structure as a distinct domain of description with separate terminology or tags to go along with it.

[Robert Holmstedt]

Hi John,

That's quite a good question. If you *know* that a constituent that has reference within a clause is placed outside of that clause, the generative term is "left-dislocation" when it is at the front clause boundary or "right-dislocation" when it is at the rear clause boundary. Textbook cases often involve a resumptive (anaphoric for LD and cataphoric for RD) element inside the clause proper, but this is not always so (it depends on the language).

For some reason I don't think that it ever crossed my mind but you may be right -- the PP in Gen 1.1 is formally "left-dislocated" IF we take the vav conjunction on the wayyiqtol verb in 1.3 to mark the upper clause boundary. In generative terms, the PP is adjoined to the CP. (Yeah, I know -- that's real clear, eh?) Gen 1.2 presents no problems to the analysis, since circumstantial clauses, like other types of suprasentential items (e.g., vocatives) often "interrupt" normal syntax. Drawing trees for these kind of things gets really, really messy (but it's still fun).

I have no idea what the functional linguistic terms equivalent to LD and RD are these days. Ask Mickey Noonan at UWM -- he's a great fellow and an excellent functionalist syntactician (although he did once tried to "convert" me from generativism).

Rob

[JohnFH]

Now you see what I see.

Open up all the hyperlinked texts into separate tabs and peruse the set. You will eyes will grow wider, I suspect.

The "left-right" language of linguistics, of course, tends to confuse Hebraists who read right to left. But the fact is, you can't do linguistics if you are not prepared to do a lot of mental gymnastics, so the left-right language should not be a show-stopper.

[Mike]

Personally, I find Andersen-Forbes to be extremely helpful. While my Hebrew is strictly limited to the alphabet, I do have a decent grounding in linguistics that helps me follow. I can't read Hebrew (yet), but I can read tree diagrams and grammars.

[JohnFH]

That is astounding, Mike, a real tribute to your linguistic training.

[Mike]

well, I'm not saying that I could write a exegesis paper or anything...more that when I find a difference in translation, between commentaries and AF, I can gain some understanding of what's going on.