1887
image of In the beginning there was conversation
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores the use of non-quotational direct speech – a construction displaying deictic perspective persistence – in the Hebrew Bible, an ancient text of great cultural significance. We focus on the use of non-quotational direct speech to introduce intentions, hopes, motives, or states of affairs. Special emphasis is laid on the complementizer , grammaticalized from a speaking verb, which introduces the import of an action through direct speech. We claim that such fictive speech is grounded in face-to-face conversation as conceptual model or frame. Beyond the Hebrew Bible itself, we discuss possible extended implications that our findings have for the link between grammatical structures conventionally associated with perspective shift and orality, as well as possible links between the conceptual frame of situated interaction and the notion of linguistic meaning. Ultimately, we hope to advance the view that grammar and discourse are inherently conversational and thus viewpointed in nature.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18047.san
2019-03-19
2019-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alter, Robert
    1999The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: W.W. Norton.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1981 “Discourse in the Novel.” InThe Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, 259–422. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 1986Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaumont, Daniel
    1996 “Hard-Boiled: Narrative Discourse in Early Muslim Tradition.” Studia Islamica83: 5–31. 10.2307/1595734
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1595734 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blyth, Carl, Sigrid Recktenwald, and Jenny Wang
    1990 “I’m like, ‘Say What?!’: A New Quotative in American Oral Narrative.” American Speech65 (3): 215–227. 10.2307/455910
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455910 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig
    1990 “Quotations as Demonstrations.” Language66 (4): 764–805. 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, William
    2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Du Bois, John W.
    2011 “Co-Opting Intersubjectivity: Dialogic Rhetoric of the Self.” InThe Rhetorical Emergence of Culture, ed. byChristian Meyer and Felix Girke, 52–83. Oxford: Berghahn.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dundes, Alan
    1999Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore. Lanham/Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
    2001 “Compression and Global Insight.” Cognitive Linguistics11 (3–4): 283–304.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gasparov, Boris
    2010Speech, Memory, and Meaning: Intertextuality in Everyday Language. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219111
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219111 [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman, Erving
    1963Behavior in Public Places, Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2003 “Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences7 (5): 219–224. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2006Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldenberg, Gideon
    1991 “On Direct Speech and the Hebrew Bible.” Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax, Ed. byKarel Jongeling, Heleen Murre-van den Berg, and van Rompay, 79–96. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Graumann, Carl F. and Werner Kallmeyer
    (eds.) 2002Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.9 [Google Scholar]
  19. Güldemann, Tom, and Manfred von Roncador
    (eds.) 2002Reported Discourse: A Meeting Ground for Different Linguistic Domains. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.52 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hatav, Galia
    2000 “(Free) Direct Discourse in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies41: 7–30. 10.1353/hbr.2000.0063
    https://doi.org/10.1353/hbr.2000.0063 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jarque, Maria Josep, and Esther Pascual
    2016 “Mixed Viewpoints in Factual and Fictive Discourse in Catalan Sign Language Narratives”. InViewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, ed. ByBarbara Dancygier, Wei-lun-Lu and Arie Verhagen, 259–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110365467‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467-012 [Google Scholar]
  22. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1999 “Virtual Reality.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences29 (2): 77–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Linell, Per
    1998Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  25. Louviot, Elise
    2016Direct Speech in Beowulf and other Old English Narrative Poems. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Marnette, Sophie
    1998 Narrateur et Points de Vue dans la Littérature Française Médiévale: Une Approche Linguistique. Berne: Peter Lang.
  27. Miller, Cynthia L.
    2003The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis. 2nd ed.Harvard Semitic Monographs. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Moshavi, Adina
    2010 “‘Is That Your Voice, My Son David?’: Conductive Questions in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages36 (1): 65–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2013 “The Communicative Functions of Content (‘wh’) Questions in Classical Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages39 (2): 69–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ong, Walter J.
    2002Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Pascual, Esther
    2006 “Fictive Interaction within the Sentence: A Communicative Type of Fictivity in Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics17 (2): 245–267. 10.1515/COG.2006.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.006 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2014Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language, and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.47 [Google Scholar]
  33. Pascual, Esther, and Sergeiy Sandler
    (eds.) 2016The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55 [Google Scholar]
  34. Rendsburg, Gary A.
    1990Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rosch, Eleanor H.
    1973 “Natural Categories.” Cognitive Psychology4 (3): 328–350. 10.1016/0010‑0285(73)90017‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sandler, Sergeiy
    2012 “Reenactment: An Embodied Cognition Approach to Meaning and Linguistic Content.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences11 (4): 583–598. 10.1007/s11097‑011‑9229‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-011-9229-8 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2016 “Fictive Interaction and the Nature of Linguistic Meaning.” InThe Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction, ed. byEsther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler, 23–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.02san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.02san [Google Scholar]
  38. Shead, Stephen L.
    2011Radical Frame Semantics and Biblical Hebrew: Exploring Lexical Semantics. Leiden/Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004222182
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004222182 [Google Scholar]
  39. Spronck, Stef
    2016 “Evidential Fictive Interaction in Ungarinyin and Russian.” InThe Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction, ed. byEsther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler, 255–275. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.13spr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.13spr [Google Scholar]
  40. Streeck, Jürgen
    2002 “Grammars, Words, and Embodied Meanings: On the Uses and Evolution of so and like.” Journal of Communication52 (3): 581–596. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02563.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02563.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Talmy, Leonard
    2000 “Fictive Motion in Language and ‘ception.’” InToward a Cognitive Semantics: Concept Structuring Systems, 1.99–1.175. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6847.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  42. Tannen, Deborah
    1986 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narratives.” InDirect and Indirect Speech, ed. byFlorian Coulmans, 311–332. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110871968.311
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.311 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987 [Google Scholar]
  44. Verhagen, Arie
    2005Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
    2008 “The Status of Purpose, Reason and Intended Endpoint in the Typology of Complex Sentences: Implications for Layered Models of Clause Structure.” Linguistics46: 757–788. 10.1515/LING.2008.025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.025 [Google Scholar]
  46. Voloshinov, Valentin Nikolaevich
    1986Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Voort, Hein van der
    2016 “Recursive Inflection and Grammaticalised Fictive Interaction in the Southwestern Amazon.” InThe Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction, ed. byEsther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler, 277–299. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.14voo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.14voo [Google Scholar]
  48. Vries, Lourens de
    2003 “New Guinea Communities without Writing and Views of Primary Orality.” Anthropos98 (2): 397–405.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 2010 “Direct Speech, Fictive Interaction, and Bible Translation.” The Bible Translator61 (1): 31–40. 10.1177/026009351006100104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026009351006100104 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wigram, George V.
    1995The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Zima, Elisabeth, and Geert Brône
    (eds.) 2015 “Cognitive Linguistics and Interactional Discourse.” Special Issue, Language and Cognition7 (4): 485–590. 10.1017/langcog.2015.19
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.19 [Google Scholar]
  52. Zlatev, Jordan, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha, and Esa Itkonen
    (eds.) 2008The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.12 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18047.san
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: conversation frame; fictive interaction; Biblical Hebrew; direct speech; viewpoint
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error