Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry

Linguistic Structure or Rhetorical Device?

Eep Talstra
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
1.

Some Opinions about Linguistics and Poetics

Hebraists with an interest in text grammar cannot escape the question of how to
define the relationship between, on the one hand, grammar as a system guiding
the process of communication in human languages and, on the other hand, the
presence of rhetorical devices that are said to determine the architecture of poetic
texts. Since it is difficult to clearly define this balance between system and device,
between structure and strategy, one can observe a variety of standpoints about
this area where linguistics and literature touch. Some of these will be discussed
in the following sections:
1.1.

Discourse analysis and poetry

It is no secret that in the area of text grammar research concentrates mainly on

the analysis of narrative texts. It is not coincidental that Kirk Lowery (1995: 121)
states in the final paragraph of his paper on discourse analysis:

"The analysis of poetic texts from a discourse grammar perspective has barely
begun."

As a result of the concentration on narrative and prose, the linguistic analysis of

poetic texts tends to be formulated in terms of exceptions. One suggestion is that
the effectiveness of poetry is precisely its non-observance of the rules and regularities assumed by text grammar. Since from the perspective of grammatical
studies it is difficult to fully accept such a position, one is led to question what
could be registered in poetic and in prophetic texts which would reflect a systematic use of language, especially on the level of text linguistics. Should the syntax
of poetic texts be defined as a kind of negation of narrative syntax? Is poetry a
special selection from a standard set of grammatical options? An additional
challenge comes from the main research project I am involved in: the construction of an Old Testament text database capable of presenting more extensive
categories than is thus far the case with the majority of computer projects
currently used in biblical studies (Syring 1998). Some issues that have to be faced
are, for example, how to distinguish between clauses and poetic lines and how
to develop data structures capable of storing both grammatical and rhetorical
information.
1.2.

Stylistic analysis

Frequently literary analists insist that more syntactic studies be done in the area
of poetics. Wilfred Watson (1993: 379), in a recent overview of various topics in
the study in biblical poetry, reserves in total two parallel lines for this:

"Syntax, with a few exceptions, remains a neglected aspect of Hebrew verse.

The verb, in particular, requires investigation".

His statement itself can be read as poetry, since it is a neat bicolon composed of
two parallel statements with an internal semantic contrast. It is, however, also a
somewhat regretful statement: syntax is a neglected aspect of Hebrew verse. Is
Watsons remark justified? His short paragraph does not indicate what he thinks
of the possible interaction of grammatical and rhetorical research. Maybe it is
more effective to ask: what kind of position could the study of syntax have in the
area of stylistic studies?
1.3.

Syntactic analysis

A view quite opposite to Watsons is expressed by Adele Berlin (1985) in her

study of parallelism in biblical Hebrew:
"Almost all current studies of biblical poetry center on syntactic analyses."

Apparently one author or the other is exaggerating somewhat, though since the
magnum opus by OConnor (1997), one might be inclined to claim that Berlins
remark is closer the truth than Watsons. But the reader might give preference to
the more cautious statement by Michael Rosenbaum (1997: 2):
"Syntax, in particular word-order, remains a field which is open to further
study."

Rosenbaum observes that traditional grammars do not present much grammatical analysis on the level of syntax. Secondly, he states that traditional grammars
easily mix prose and poetry. Therefore, he agrees with Niccacci (1997) that prose
and poetry should be dealt with separately. To do so he has chosen Isa. 40-55 as
one of the finest examples of poetry in the Bible.
The diversity of opinions concerning the role of syntax discloses the gap still
present between rhetorical studies and linguistic analysis. They also reveal that
scholars have different expectations. When Watson speaks of syntax as an aspect
of Hebrew verse - be it a neglected one - it is clear that his priority lies with
rhetorical analysis. In the past years we have seen literary or exegetical studies
proceed from form criticism to rhetorical criticism, i.e., from genre to style. In this
movement of literary studies it appears difficult to keep options sufficiently open
in order to let linguistics assume its proper position. The main concentration in
biblical studies is on features of literary constructs, e.g., symmetry, identity or
contrast, expressed by assonance, lexical repetition, parallel lines, inclusion or
chiasm (Walsh 1993: 352). The emphasis is thus on special devices of primarily
lexical and semantic type. The challenge, however, is constituted by the fact that
linguistic studies, and syntactic studies in particular, start from a different angle:
language is analysed as a system and a text as a construct built of elements of
that system, without there being preliminary assumptions made about genre or
style. When OConnor or Berlin emphasise the value of syntactic research of
poetic text they do so from a perspective that is completely different from the
approach advocated by representatives of rhetorical approaches: to the former,

syntax has priority over lexical or semantical analysis. This fact creates the
dilemma formulated in the following section.
2.

Linguistic System or Literary Device?

It is interesting to see that also for Hebrew grammar, poetry creates an

uncertainty as of whether to start from certain assumptions concerning poetic
texts and then to try to find a linguistic system, or whether to analyse the
linguistic system from phonology up to text syntax first and then to see next
whether poetry reflects certain preferences.
Niccacci (1997) clearly feels the need to make a choice. He rightly states that
analysing poetry is not an easy task. In order to explain the reason why that is the
case, he mentions some features of poetic texts. In comparison to prose texts,
according to Nicaccci, poetic texts have three special characteristics.
First, poetic texts are segmented, not linear, that is, they are divided into verses
or strophes and they exhibit much lexical or semantic repetition.
Second, they show extensive parallel use of similar elements, not a sequence of
different elements as do prose texts.
To substantiate these two claims, Niccacci refers to R. Jakobsons statement about
linguistic features of poetry. Whereas prose texts are characterised by sequence,
which demands the selection of linguistically diverse elements in order to carry
the text along, poetic texts are characterised by repetition, which requires the
selection of linguistically equivalent elements for the creation of parallel
expressions. In summary, prose proceeds, poetry repeats; in stead of sequence,
there is equivalence (cf. Berlin 1985: 7). When applied to words this idea of the
selection of corresponding elements implies a predominant concentration on
semantics.
In my view it remains to be seen how preponderate repetition and parallelism
are in poetry, and whether prose is indeed primarily linear. It is my experience
that both poetry and prose exhibit a strong hierarchical organisation, marked by
lexical and syntactic features.
A third feature of poetic texts in comparion to prose texts, according to Nicacci,
is the presence of an undetectable verbal system.
I wonder whether this last characteristic is really a feature of poetry or just one
of the Hebraists themselves. This third characteristic looks somewhat like a case
of blaming the victim, with implications that would be discouraging. Assuming
an undetectable verbal system in poetry would mean that one gives up the
possibility of a syntactically based discourse analysis of poetic texts.
Nevertheless, the grammatical differences between prose texts and poetry need
not be denied. Niccacci expresses formulates the dilemma as it is strongly felt in
exegesis and in literary analysis: when we are unable to find a clear textgrammatical system in poetry, should we take that absence itself to be defining
characteristics of poetry? Should we search for regularity in terms of semantics
and rhetorical devices?

In actual research the main point of difference between linguists and literary is
whether our starting point is in grammar or in stylistics.
One option might be to disengage linguistics and poetics. Research practice
seems to suggest that linguists must leave the reading of poetic texts to the
rhetorically well-equipped, to the exegete with artistic expertise.
An example of that is the close reading of the text of Isaiah 41 by J.T.Walsh (1993)
published in the same volume of VT as the survey article by Watson. In this
article Walsh reveals a great number of chiastic patterns, an architecture
dominated by inclusion, and quite a few subtle thematic allusions. In 3.2.2 I will
compare these results with thos of text grammatical analysis, but in the context
of this section I will restrict myself to a remark on methodology. Biblical exegetes
speak frequently of art, device and strategy. This recent trend of an almost
exclusive concentration on rhetorical features effectively blocks a systematic
syntactic analysis of poetic texts. A first reaction to Watsons statement could be:
it is not possible to continue the concentration on phonological, rhetorical and
semantic features and to demand for insights based on syntactic system as well.
By definition, rhetorical criticism concentrates on literary tradition and on an
authors skills of composition. Grammar and syntax, however, are about the
system, and not about devices. In research of the type which Walsh presents,
it seems impossible to allow for more syntactic analysis, although that is what
Watson wishes.
Another option is to search for regularity in poetic texts in terms of the
composition of lines and strophes.
De Moor (1993: xiv), quotes and translates into English a statement by Van der
Lugt:
" The systematic analysis of Biblical-Hebrew poetry which arrives at the
conclusion that a "regular architecture of strophes" often belongs to its formal
characteristics is preferable over any other analytical method which arrives at the
assumption that usually a regular architecture is absent from this poetry."

This implies that ancient Hebrew poetry is not to be viewed as primarily a

semantic world, without linguistic regularities. However, the regularity is taken
to be in the first place a matter of textual art, rather than a component part of the
linguistic system. In this type of research one looks for a variety of linguistic
phenomena that can contribute to the construction of verse, i.e., phonological,
semantic and syntactic observations in combination with rhetorical patterns that
govern the composition of lines and larger segments of text, such as strophes and
stanzas.
This approach entails syntax being studied as instrumental to textual art (De
Moor 1993: 191-202. On page 193 De Moor starts a paragraph headed: The Joy
of Disorder.). It opens many more possibilities, although it also raises some
methodological questions: Is structure built exclusively from parallel lines and
strophes? Are there other linguistic markers? Does the analysis of rhetorical

design precede syntax? Clearly, it is not a matter of either linguistic system or

rhetorical skills, of either text grammar or literary art. It is a matter of ordering:
which comes first, and which comes later within the process of analysis.
A third option, the one adopted in this paper, is to concentrate on the analysis of
poetic texts as discourse before analysing them as pieces of art. In this contribution, I intend to demonstrate that in poetic texts, as in other texts,
morphological, lexical and syntactic data serve as guides in reading and understanding the passage. My claim is that also in poetry it is possible to find a fair
amount of formally registerable text-grammatical patterns. For a first list of
linguistic features that may help to detect linguistic structure in a poetic texts, see
Talstra 1994: 333f. In my view a discourse analysis of poetic texts implies that
linguistic system comes before literary device, i.e. one does not start the analysis
with semantics or rhetorical criticism. The priority lies with the linguistic system.
(OConnor 1997: 640: "the primary force in parallelism is syntax, not lexicon".
Poetic devices make use of the same grammar as do prose texts, though they
exhibit a different selection, making repeated and preferred choices from the
available possibilities.
The main challenge is to differentiate between a linguistic system in general and
special markers which together create a specific poetic composition. It is
necessary to try to describe a poetic text as a discourse, as a process, rather than
as a beautiful, though more or less static, picture as is often done in proposals on
rhetorical analysis. The challenge, therefore, is to begin the analyzis of pieces of
literary art in terms of linguistic system: clause patterns, verbal system, pronominal reference, topicalisation, etc.
In the next paragraphs I will concentrate on the procedure of registrating
linguistic patterns in poetic texts:
3.1. Phrases in poetic and in non poetic sections of the book of Deuteronomy;
3.2. Clauses and Clause Types in Isaiah 41;
3.3. Text structure and the interaction of syntactic, lexical and semantic
observations.
3.

Some Projects and Procedures

3.1.

Phrase Types in the book of Deuteronomy

Part of my present research in computer-assisted analysis of the Hebrew Bible is

to produce a full text-grammatical analysis of the book of Deuteronomy. One of
the necessary steps towards that goal is the grammatical analysis of phrases and
phrase types. The registration of the phrase types in the book of Deuteronomy
produces material that can be used to compare the poetic sections in chapters 32
and 33 (Dtn 32,1-43; 33,2-29) with the rest of the book.

Do the poetic sections use completely different phrase types? Can one speak of
consistency in the choices here? A well known general observation about poetry
in grammars is that the definite article is avoided. To this statement a further
question should be added: what kind of phrases are involved?
Below, I present a list of the main phrase types in the book. The criterion for the
selection made is that they should consist of at least two elements of the type
Noun, proper Name or Adjective.
In discussing the use of the definite article in Biblical Hebrew, Muraoka (Joon
P and Muraoka T 1993: 507) states that "In poetry the use of the article is very
free". He observes a tendency to leave it out when it would lengthen a word by
one syllable and suggests that this might be due to metrical considerations.
Although that may be true, it can also be observed that the length of a phrase in
itself does not seem to be a problem. The examples from Deuteronomy 32 and 33
show that indeed the tendency is to avoid phrases with a definite article.
However, long phrases, produced by repetition of elements, occur frequently.
Maybe metre can account for this, but then without the aditional argument of
length.
The fact that phrases of almost any length occur in the poetic sections of
Deuteronomy indicates that the interaction of metre and length cannot account
for the avoidance of the definite article. One can observe, however, that the
longer phrases found are all segmented by a conjunction . This indicates that
also at phrase level the use of parallel elements is a strong feature. It may be the
case that longer phrases strung together by and the repetition of elements can
easily be divided over poetic lines, whereas phrases with a genetive construction,
using
can not. This helps to describe the poetic freedom in linguistics more
precisely: rhetorical constraints having to do with the performance of a text, lead
to preferred morphosyntactic choices. This would indicate that the poetry in
Deuteronomy does not create special phrase types, but makes a certain selection
from the options offered by the Hebrew grammar in general.
In my opinion, these insights at the level of morphosyntax indicate that it is
advantageous to begin the analysis of poetic texts by the observation of
grammatical phenomena. Data such as phrase structure can be described in
terms of the linguistic system, not in terms of understanding the special strategy
employed by an artist, the author. It implies that special features in poetic texts
may be the result of a preference in the choices made possible by a regular
linguistic system rather than the result of a skilful production. Clearly, more
research in the transmission of texts is needed, especially about instances in
poetic texts where the punctuation suggests the presence of an article (Barr 1989).
Although the idea of a poetic preference in the choices from the regular system
may be found valid on the level of morpho-syntax, more important for the
present paper is the question, to what extent this is also valid on the level of
clauses and texts.

Phrases in the book of Deuteronomy:

Phrase Patterns

Art

Prp

Nm

Prp
Prp
Prp
Nm

Poetic

Nm Nm
38
Nm NmPr
13
Nm Adj
2
Ng
Nm
1
Nm Art
Nm
1
Nm Art
NmPr
-Nm Nm Adj
1
Nm Cj
Nm
5
Art
Nm Art
DemP
-Art
Nm Art
Adj
-Nm Nm Art
Nm
-Nm Nm Cj
Nm
2
[{ ( )  (
  ) } 
Nm Adj Cj
Adj
1
[{ (  )  (  ) }

Art
Nm Cj
Art
Nm
-Nm
Art
Nm Art
DemP
-Nm
Nm Cj
Nm Nm
2
[{ (  )  ( !"$#% ) } &
Nm
Adj Cj
Ng
Adj
1
[{ ('(%)*& )  ( ++ ) } '
Cj
Art
Nm Cj
Art
Nm
-Prp Nm Nm
9
Prp Nm NmPr
11
Prp Nm Adj
2
Prp Ng
Nm
2
Prp Nm Art
Nm
-Prp Nm Art
NmPr
-Prp Nm Art
Adj
-Prp Nm Nm Nm
8
Prp Nm Nm NPr
3
Prp
Art
Nm Art
DemP
-Prp
Art
Nm Art
Adj
-Prp
Nm Nm Cj
Nm
3
[{ ( ,$ )  (.-/ ) 0 ! } &
Prp Nm
Art
Nm Art
DemP
-Nm Nm
Art
Nm Art
DemP
-Art
Nm
Cj
Prp Art
Nm
-Nm Art
Nm Cj
Art
Nm
-NmP Cj
Prp Nm Nm Nm
1
[ { ($)1 234&&& )  }  { (5&+67& )  }

Comparable phrases in the non poetic sections:

Prp Nm NmSfx Cj
Prp Nm Nm Nm
-[ { (8&9:)#;9( )  }  { ( 8<=#
+( )
[ { (8&9:<7#;9( )  }  { ( 8*9( )
*

phrase patterns present only in the poetic sections.

Totals Dtn

]
]

]
]

167
37
2 *
1 *
61
5
6
72
20
10
8
7
Dtn 32,36
8
Dtn 32,05
13
9
17
Dtn 32,04
1 *
Dtn 32,06
6
146
170
24
2 *
112
12
5
37
20
91
17
7
Dtn 33,28
38
1
21
4
1 *
Dtn 33,16

2
} ] Dtn 15,10
} ] Dtn 16,15

3.2.

Clause types: word order, parallelism

At clause level the registering of data can begin similarly to that at phrase level,
i.e., by concentrating on form and distribution. What kind of clause types and
what kind of clause sequences occur? An important additional demand is, to
postpone a paradigmatic (or taxonomic) approach, where one collects sets of similar, though more or less isolated data, thus sorting individual clauses by particular features of word order or of predication type. Clauses should be taken from
a full text because the special contribution clauses could make to a text can only
be described on the basis of the sequence of clauses found, not the clause type
alone. The text chosen as illustration is Isaiah 41. The segment of text listed here
is Isaiah 41:21-24. The text is presented here as it has been produced with the
help of computer programmes for syntactic analysis. The first column at the left
gives the colometric labels, the second column the clause types according to the
study of Rosenbaum (1997).
Isaiah 41, 21-24: Clauses and Clause Types
Colon

Clause Pattern

21Aa
21Ab
21Ba
21Bb

V-O

22Aa
=
22Ab

V
w-V-PP

22Ba
=
=
22Ba
22Bb

P2

22Bb
=

V-S
V-O
V-S

[O]

[O]
V
w-V-O
w-V-O

FK

Grammatical Parsing Text.Ref.

[<Ob> >@?!ACBED ]
[<Su> I2FI,B ]
[<Ob> >@?CBL2FJ@M+N ]
[<Su> AGHN2BSRT@J ]

F3A
DHG ]
HD JHK2B ]
FO!BQP"I ]
DHJHK2B ]
[<Pr> FO!BQPB ]
[<Co> FVUT ] [<Pr> FW,BQPB ] [<Cj>-F ]
[<Pr> IXUBEDHG!L ] [<Cj> DHO9KYLHK ]
[<Fr> L2FVU"O9KZDHI ]
XI U"I ] [<PC> I!J ]
[<Pr> FW,BQP"I ]
[<Co> FVUA9T ] [<Pr> I!J,B[,U ] [<Cj>-F ]
[<Ob> \3L,BEDH]HK ] [<Pr> IHNCWXU ] [<Cj>-F ]
[<Su>

-P1
V

[<Fr>

23Aa
=
23Ab
=

23Ba
=
23Bb
=

Pdp-V
w-V
w-V
w-V-P3

24Aa
24Ab
24B
=

Pdp-S-PC
w-S-PC
PC
[S]

[O]
w-V
[O]

[<Pr>
[<Pr>
[<Pr>
[<Pr>

Is
Is
Is
Is

41,21.a
41,21.b
41,21.c
41,21.d

Is 41,22.a
Is 41,22.b
Is 41,22.c
Is
Is
Is
Is
Is

41,22.d
41,22.e
41,22.f
41,22.g
41,22.h

L2FK,AI

] [<Cj> FK ] Is 41,22.i
[<PC> FVU$N2BJ!O+I ] Is 41,22.j

[<Pr> FW,BQP"I ]
D,F]HKHT ] [<PC> L2F^BLHK ] [<Re>-I ]
[<Pr> IHNCWXU ] [<Cj>-F ]
[<Su> _!`Ha ] [<PC> >,BITCK ] [<Cj> B^? ]

[<Aj>

[<Pr> F3ACBb2BL ]
[<Pr> FNZDHL
[<Pr> IHNCL!O,U
[<Mo> FW!],B ] [<Pr> KZD
U

Is
Is
Is
Is

41,23.a
41,23.b
41,23.c
41,23.d

[<Mo> cHd
] [<Cj>-F
] [<Cj>-F
] [<Cj>-F

]
]
]
]

Is
Is
Is
Is

41,23.e
41,23.f
41,23.g
41,23.h

[<PC> \eBKCJ ] [<Su> f!gHh ] [<Ij> i3j

[<PC> N,k+KCJ ] [<Su> >@?9TCN,k ] [<Cj>-F
[<PC> I@A+N
FL
[<Co> >@?!A ] [<Pr> DH]@ACB

]
]
]
]

Is
Is
Is
Is

41,24.a
41,24.b
41,24.c
41,24.d

With respect to the tension between linguistic system and literary device, two
observations are relevant:
a. It is crucial to make a precise distinction between linguistic categories and
poetic categories of description. From a linguistic point of view the basic
syntactic unit of analysis is not the poetic line (or colon), but the syntactic clause
( 3.2.1.);
b. Once the clause has been chosen as fundamental linguistic category, it is
questionable whether one should describe clauses in terms of variations of one
basic clause type, such as V-S-O. As the text presentation makes clear, if clauses
used in poetry should be explained in terms of their relation to a default clause
type, it would appear that the majority of clauses deviate from that pattern. For
example, if one scans the entire chapter Isaiah 41 for full clauses of the type V-SO, one would find only one case (41,7a). Working from a standard only creates
exceptions in poetry. It would seem more appropriate to start from registration
and distribution of actual forms ( 3.2.2.).
3.2.1. Clause or Colon?
The conventional way of analysing poetry is to start from special basic units for
the description of poetic texts, i.e., the poetic line or colon and to describe
sequences of colons in terms of parallel lines: the couplet (Berlin 1985: 6f. 25). See
the use of the term line in the discussion reported by Korpel and De Moor, 1988:
4-14 and 60; Berlin 1985: 19ff. and OConnor 1997: 32, 297, 643. This reliance on
poetic categories creates problems for a grammatical approach, not because it
would be unfitting for poetry, but because it is premature in the procedure. The
relationship between syntactic units (clauses) and poetic lines is not ont-to-one.
As the listed texts show, there is often more than one clause within a colon
(22.a.b, 22.d.e.f), frequently there is a colon that is not parallel, but is related as
an attribute or as an object of the preceding colon (22.a.b and 22.c), and
sometimes there are larger sequences of parallel sections (21.a.b and 21.c.d). This
leads us to the question of how basic the poetic line is and how basic parallelism
is. I do not suggest that the existence of rhetorical categories should be denied,
but that they cannot be a proper basis for linguistic analysis (Berlin 1985: 18-27
on Collins, OConnor and others; Talstra 1978). Rosenbaum (1997: 26f., 157) in a
way conceals and, therefore, also reveals the problem by the more or less silent
shift within his book from linguistic categories to poetic categories. Chapters 2
to 5 of his book analyse linguistic features in terms of word order, i.e., as clauselevel patterns such as topic, focus, parenthesis, etc. At the beginning of that
section (p. 27) he writes:
"The clause is the basic information processing unit and chains of clauses may be
combined into a larger unit called discourse span, ..."

In chapter 6 of his book he concentrates on poetic features, such as parallelism,

gapping, etc. At the beginning of that section (p. 157) he writes about parallelism:
"As a consequence, the basic unit of Is 40-55 is not the single line but the couplet".

10

My main objection is not to the category couplet, but to the introduction of the
category line instead of the category clause used by him initially. Rosenbaum
does not clarify the relationship between clause and line, nor does he explain
why this transition has been made. Up to this point, his analysis dealt with
clauses, not with lines. Rosenbaum did complicate matters somewhat by
presenting the examples of his clause analysis not in clauses but in poetic lines.
Nevertheless, his analysis clearly treated clauses, including the position of Pred.,
Subj., Obj., or the phenomenon of topicalisation. His analysis in chapters 2 to 5
represents the model of functional grammar, in which the phenomena of a particular language are explained by explicit reference to universal linguistic
phenomena.1 In that context, the clause is taken as the basic unit of description.
When in chapter 6 Rosenbaum shifts from universal phenomena of linguistic
communication to language-dependent poetic features, the clause as a category
of description is replaced by line. The poetic line comes into focus, and, due to
parallelism, the sequence of two lines, the couplet as well.
In this way, Rosenbaum, perhaps unintentionally, demonstrates the problem:
once poetic categories have been chosen, an analysis in text-linguistic or textgrammatical terms becomes very difficult.
In spite of that, an analysis that proceeds in the contrary direction, i.e., from
linguistic to poetic categories, is. in my view, a very plausible and fruitful
approach (Talstra 1996). Rosenbaum, I think, begins on that road, and his book
deserves much credit for this, nonetheless his chapter 6 is confusing because its
lack of further motivation of the categories used.
My suggestion is that, also at the level of syntax, we should continue the line of
thinking which Adele Berlin follows in her study of parallelism: there is not just
one type of parallelism, e.g., a semantic type, but many types, including syntactic
and phonological parallelism. Moreover, parallelism is not the only feature of
poetry: there are other features, the most important of which being terseness the compact, concentrated way of using language in poetry. In analogy one could
state that lines and couplets may be fundamental to the presentation, the
performance, of poetry, but that from a linguistic point of view, they are not clear
analytical categories. There are many kinds of poetic lines, constructed in a
variety of ways from different kinds of grammatical building blocks. It may be
more effective to counter the existing scholarly tradition and to analyse poetry
first in syntactic terms, i.e., in clauses, rather than in terms of lines or colons. The
segment of text presented above has been thus analysed. In spite of the criticism

Rosenbaum (1997: 17ff) describes his usage of the Functional Model. It works empirically,
analysing an attested human language by explaining its phenomena from "universal patterns of
structure", not in "abstract structural terms". From language universals four preferential
tendencies influencing word order can be observed:
- elements with the same communicative function will have the same structural position;
- topicalised information is posited before less topicalised information;
- special categories will have special positions;
- the order of a clause follows from left to right an order of increasing complexity.

11

expressed above, I consider Rosenbaums study to be a significant contribution.

His book is a serious attempt to describe linguistic system prior to rhetorical
devices or poetic skills. The fact that he marks the transition from linguistic to
poetic analysis as he proceeds to chapter 6 of his book is helpful, even though, in
my view, he does not address the shift of categories properly. His study can be
compared to an estafette: Rosenbaum may come close to losing the stick at the
exchange, but his race - starting from linguistics and going to poetics - is certainly
the race to be run.
3.2.2. Default Clause Type?
The decision to start the analysis of poetry in terms of categories of grammar
entails addressing yet another problem. Should one start from assumptions about
default clause types, e.g., the claim, basic to Rosenbaums work (1997: 21ff.), that
the default word order in classical Hebrew is V-S-O? Would this help: to explain
clauses as variations with respect to a basic order? Such a method implies that
from special patterns of word order, or from deviations from the default pattern,
one could describe the syntax of poetry and the pragmatic effects of special cases.
Special patterns, e.g., a fronted NP with Subject or Object, would imply a special
functional or pragmatic contribution to a text.
In an Appendix Rosenbaum (1997: 217ff. 223) gives some interesting statistics on
clauses and patterns of word order which reveals the tension between a default
functional model and the actual surface texts. In Isaiah 40-55 the default V-S-O
pattern is used less frequently (31.37% of all the full clauses) than the S-V-O
clauses are (42.48%). Rosenbaum: "this is an example of how surface statistics of
word-order can be deceptive. (...) such surface statistics may be the result of the
frequent use of special positions." For the confessional distributionalist reader
this statement on deceptive is a painful admission. Why would the registration
of a low frequency be deceptive? Maybe the method of functional linguistics
should be slightly amended from clause grammar to text grammar, before
complaining about the datas insufficient cooperation. One should not count and
test individual clauses against a proposed standard model, rather one should
register actually occurring clauses and their connections.
A critical look at the segment of text presented above shows that there are no
examples of the basic V-S-O type occurring int this poetic text? Would that mean
that by definition all the clauses used here have a special function? It would seem
preferable to describe the occurring clauses in comparison to their context, rather
than in comparison to a model.
In order to facilitate the discussion on methods, I have added a labelling of wordorder patterns similar to Rosenbaums type of analysis. One difference with
Rosenbaums approach remains: I do not present or rearrange clauses into the
format of poetic lines.

12

Relation to the basic V-S-O pattern.

The text has no full V-S-O clauses; 2 times a VCl with Subject marking [V-S]
occurs: 21.b 21.d; and 3 times a NCl with Subject marking: 23.d 24.a.b.
(Unfortunately, Rosenbaum does not deal with Nominal Clauses.)
Furthermore, 3 times a VCl with a NP Object [V-O]: (21.a 21.c 22.h ) and 4 times
a VCl with a clause as Object (22.c 22.e 23.b 23.d). In these cases the combination of clauses results in rather common complex sentences without parallelism.
The parallelism is on a higher level: three object clauses are connected to plural
imperative clauses.
It may be better to start from the observation that usually clauses do not have all
the slots filled. The implication is, that usually gapping is not a special case, the
actual filling of all of the slots of a clause model would be much more of a
conscious choice! This would mean that much of the textual cohesion2 is
achieved by the absence of new marking, e.g., verses 22 and 23 take over the
person number and gender from the imperatives and pronominal suffixes in
verse 21. In the process of reading, rather than being a problem, the absence of
certain constituents is helpful. It is the exceptional case where verb, subject and
object slots have been filled that requires a description of the textual effect. Thus,
when the object slot is filled by a clause, and this pattern is repeated, this may
have the same effect of markedness as would a special word order.
Examples of special positions.
Rosenbaum (1997: 135ff.) presents the basic functional clause pattern found in
Isaiah 40-55. As the main additional elements around the V-S-O kernel he lists:
P2 (initial position, external to the predication: Theme), P1 (initial special position,
e.g., Topic), Pdp (discourse particles), [V-S-O], P3 Tail, e.g., adverbial expressions).
Model:

P2

| Pdp

| P1

| V S O

| P3

P2 (initial position, external to the predication: Theme),

Pdp (discourse particles),
P1 (initial special position, e.g., Topic),
V-S-O kernel,
P3 Tail, e.g., adverbial expressions).

When applied to the text segment presented above, one finds:

two cases of Pdp (discourse particles): in 23.e lnm and in 24.a op ;
two cases of fronted NPs: P2 (Theme, external to the predication) in 22.d
and P1 (Obj = Topic) in 22.i;
one case of P3 (Tail): q/rts7u in 23.h (cf. 20).
One could add the explicit marking of actors: Topic in the NCls of 23.d 24.a.

Lyons (1995: 263) cohesion, corresponds to form, coherence to content.

13

This type of clause analysis limits our possibilities of explaining the contribution
of these phenomena at text level. For example, according to clause level analysis
the fronted elements of 22.d and 22.i will receive different labels: P2 and P1
respectively. Would it help textual analysis to know that in 22.d we have a case
of an extra-clausal constituent and in 22.i a case of topicalisation? In such cases
a description in terms of formal parallellism (fronted elements) may be more
effective than an analysis in terms of functional slots. Here again Rosenbaum
is heading into the direction
of the Tail
wvyx{of
z text-level linguistics. In his discussion
wvyx{z
slot being filled by word
, he mentions examples where
has an impact
on a set of parallel clauses, not just on the last one (Rosenbaum 1997: 111f. Cf Isa.
41,18-19; 41,20). In my view, research should indeed proceed in this direction.
One may want to use a model to describe clauses, but one needs the full linguistic context to explain them. It is regretable that Rosenbaum only mentiones the
discourse particle (p. 22 N.35) in his clause model, but does not integrate it into
his study. For example, |y} is present in 23.e, used to introduce the final plural
imperative of the text; ~
is used in 24.a in combination with a direct address of
the opponents (} , introducing the conclusion). (Cf. Talstra 1994: 334f.) In a
similar way one could ask why a shift of actors (verse 22.b.c), or the imperative
clauses without any conjunction, should not be treated as discourse markers as
well.
There are two conclusions to be drawn from this section:
1. A grammatical study of poetic texts should postpone the analysis in terms of
poetic lines or parallelism until after the syntactic analysis.
2. The great variety of clause patterns requires an explanation not in terms of
decisions made with respect to a model, but in terms of linguistic mechanisms
used to construct and decode a text. Phenomena such as word order, discourse
particles or topicalisation are related to text structure, not to clause type.
3.3. Discourse markers, Sentences, Tenses, Textual Hierarchy.
The text-grammatical approach proposed here implies that it is not effective to
have a preliminary division of grammar into poetic and narrative grammar. The
mechanism for reading poetry is in principle the same as the mechanism for
reading other text types.
Poetry makes its own selection of phrases and clauses, showing a preference for
combinations of linguistic possibilities and a great variety of lexical expressions
and clause building patterns to construct the world of the text. Following Berlin,
I find that the special feature of poetry is the coprocessing of syntactic, lexical and
phonological patterns. This certainly includes extra-grammatical elements:
metrical patterns used to rearrange syntactic patterns for reason of performance.
The same holds true for the use of refrains or for an acrostic structure.

14

Below, I present again the same segment of text, now in its text grammatical
organisation: the hierarchy of clauses. To facilitate comparison I have again
added labels indicative of the poetic lines. After the overview of the text, the
linguistic arguments are listed. It is an attempt to understand what linguistic
features are available to help the reader follow the build up of the world of the
text and to define its internal network of grammatical and lexical relations.
At text level, lexical and syntactic marking cooperate. In poetic texts this is even
stronger due to the features of terseness and parallelism mentioned by Berlin.
The task is to understand the coprocessing of grammatical, syntactic, semantic
and phonological features. Parallelism is an important feature, but only within
the text-grammatical patterns and then it is not the only one. One also has to
observe text-grammatical or discourse markers that are not repeated in a parallel
clause since they structure the discourse at a level beyond the individual clauses.
An overview of the set of markers used for analysis is listed below (Cf. Talstra
1994). Once a structure has been established with the help of linguistic arguments, it is worthwhile to compare the results with textual divisions as presented
by the Massoretic text or with an analysis of a rhetorical-thematic type as
presented in exegetical studies. If regular patterns of a rhetorical nature are used
in the text, such as chiasm, inclusion or parallelism, they should be detected by
their linguistic characteristics, and not be assumed in advance as an overall
poetic feature. Examples pf such linguistic markings are new sections in the text
which start without a conjunction, or by being marked by a discourse particle,
such as ~
. Parallel lines can be detected on the basis of combined fetaures:
semantic overlap, similar word order, use of the conjunction . The text
grammatical analysis also may make clear that from a linguistic point of view
there is no argument to assume a regularity of text divisions in a poetic text. Text
segments need not be equal in length or organised sequentially; they may as well
be different in length and be syntactically dependent on each other.
The aim of this presentation is
a. to demonstrate that also at the level of text poetry makes use of general
syntactic and lexical markers to help the reader navigate through a text. Text
grammatical analysis is needed to find the linguistic architecture of a text. This
in turn may help to reveal the texts rhetorical device as the result of a number
of preferred choices from among the grammatical options.
b. to compare the text-grammatical approach critically with a stylistic-thematic
approach. A grammatical approach may disturb the neat rhetorical balance
aimed at by a stylistic approach, but it may contribute more to the understanding
of the text as a poetic discourse.

15

Text syntactical Hierarchy T12

]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

[<Ob>
] [<Pr>
[<Su>
] [<Pr>
]
] [<Pr>
[<Ob>
[<Su>
] [<Pr>
] |
==============================================+
|
] |
|
22Aa
[<Pr>
=
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
|
|
] [<Re>
]
|
|
22Ab
[<Pr>
==============================================+
|
]
22Ba
[<Fr>
=
[<Su>
] [<PC>
] |
|
=
[<Pr>
] |
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
|
22Ba
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
|
22Bb
[<Ob>
] [<Cj>
]
22Bb
[<Fr>
=
[<PO>
]
23Aa
[<Pr>
] [<PC>
] [<Re> ] |
|
=
[<Aj>
23Ab
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
|
|
] [<PC>
] [<Cj>
]
|
|
=
[<Su>
23Ba
[<Pr>
] [<Mo>
] |
] [<Cj> ]
|
=
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
|
23Bb
[<Pr>
=
[<Mo>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
|
] [<Su>
] [<Ij>
]
24Aa
[<PC>
] [<Su>
] [<Cj> ] |
24Ab
[<PC>
24B
[<PC>
]
] [<Pr>
]
24B
[<Co>

21Aa
21Ab
21Ba
21Bb

colon

Ln

DCl

rel MCl

imp.
MSyn
imp.
MSyn

3.q 102 20
4.. 103 20
5.. 104 20

0yqt << MSyn 3plM 41,22.a

Wey0 << 0yqt 3plM 41,22.b
Xyqt [object ] 3plF 41,22.c

1c.
4.\
3..
4..
4..
2c.
3..
0..
3..
4..
5..
2..
3..
4..
4..
1.#
3..
2..
3..

CPen
NmCl
imp.
WeyX
WeyX
CPen
imp.
imp.
ptc.
Wey0
NmCl
0yqt
Wey0
Wey0
Wey0
NmCl
NmCl
NmCl
0yqt

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
21
21
21
21

imp.
imp.
imp.
imp.

<< imp.
[object ]
[resumpt]
<< imp.
<< WeyX
<< CPen
[resumpt]
<< imp.
[object ]
<< ptc.
[object ]
<< imp.
<< 0yqt
<< Wey0
<< Wey0
<< imp.
<< NmCl
<< NmCl
[subject]

2plM
3sgM
2plM
3sgM

Txt.ref

0.# 98 2
1m. 99 2
0.. 100 2
2m. 101 2

105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123

<<
<<
<<
<<

VPNG

------2plM
1pl1pl---2plM
2plM
-plF
1pl---2plM
2plM
1pl1pl---------3sgM

41,21.a
41,21.b
41,21.c
41,21.d

41,22.d
41,22.e
41,22.f
41,22.g
41,22.h
41,22.i
41,22.j
41,23.a
41,23.b
41,23.c
41,23.d
41,23.e
41,23.f
41,23.g
41,23.h
41,24.a
41,24.b
41,24.c
41,24.d

16

3.3.1. Isaiah 41, 21-24: Analysing Textual Hierarchy

This overview lists the arguments for the text segments and the resulting textual
hierarchy.
I.
21.a+b // 21.c+d

morphological, syntactic and lexical parallels

actors: you(plur) and He

22.a / / 22.b + Obj.Cl 22.c 3plF

actors: they; us; the things that happen 3plF
different audience; definition of the case
22.d-f / / 22.i-j 3plF + imp. plur
actors: you (plur); 3plF (from 22.c)
new (22.j): 1st plur: we
syntactic parallel; semantic contrast: the first things the things
coming; combined set of actors

22.g / / 22.h
we the things 3plF
syntactic parallel; lexical change

II.
23.a-23.d, repeating part of 22.f-h; -imp // -imp
asyndetic imp 2 plur (H-/ ); We-yiQtol 1 plur ( H" )
syntactic parallel; lexical parallel
actors: we and you ('& )
23.e / / 23.f

5 + imp referring to 23.a

actors: you (plur)
syntactic parallel; lexical parallel
23.g / / 23.h
we we-yiQtol
syntactic parallel; lexical parallel
related to 23.e.f:
syntactic sequence imp WeyiQtol
lexical marking: 5 (begin) &)9 (end)

III.
24.a  24.b + closing N.Cl

" + Parallel nominal clauses;

Syntactic parallel, lexical variation
actors: you (plur) '&

The description of this segment of text may help to clarify what is meant by the
coprocessing of various linguistic patterns. The text architecture is built up of
the combined effects of different sets of linguistic markers.

17

Grammatical markers:
asyndetic clauses: imperative clauses and yiQtol clauses, starting
segments; nominal clauses in the closing section making the concluding
statements.
We-clauses: indicate parallels (WeyiQtol WeyiQtol) or sequences (imp
we-yiQtol 23).
Lexical markers of discourse segments:
~
(renewing the
vyxaddress);
z
(end)
|} (begin)
Shift of actors:
The first lines of the text report two different
dialogues implying two
z
different sets z of actors: the speaker (

and referred to by 3rd person
singular 7} ) addressing a 2nd person plural;
and the same speaker(?) referring to them and to us.
From 22.d the two sets of actors are combined: you (plural) should
demonstrate past things and future things toz us. Is this us marking a
process of identification of the speaker

with the audience Israel,
mentioned earlier in the text? This change of the set of actors is more or
less hidden by the fact that the plural imperatives are continued and by the
fact that prior things and coming things are presented in fronted
position.
At the end one finds a newly introduced 3rd person, anyone who choses
you.
Semantic changes, pragmatic effects:
the first sequence of: announce, that we may know mentions: their end
(22.h). The second sequence directly refers to the opponents: whether you
(} ) are gods (23.d). At the start, the gods are mentioned in 3rd person
in an aside to Israel(?). At the end, the idolator is mentioned as a 3rd
person in connection with the gods. Apparently, the unnamed participant
Israel is to watch closely.
As a result of these linguistic observations we see parallels of various kinds within
the text patterns. The combined sets of linguistic markers create larger segments
of texts containing embedded smaller sections. We also see a text which is not to
be regarded as a well-balanced unity composed of couplets or other elements
of equal length. Rather than as a thing of beauty the text is to be approached as
a process; the reader proceeds from one argument to the next and from one set
of actors to another. A regular or balanced surface text is not the main feature of
its architecture. Parallellism, certainly a part of the architecture, does not create
the overall structure, but is used in various ways and at different levels. For that
reason OConnor (1997) prefers the term matching, to avoid the semantic
connotation of the word parallelism.

18

3.3.2. Linguistic Structure and Rhetorical Device

A text-grammatical analysis of a prophetic-poetic text provides a concrete basis
for further discussion of translation and interpretation. In my view it is important
to distinguish carefully between a discussion of a colometrical presentation of a
poetic text and one of a more general stylistic-rhetorical interpretation of a poetic
text. In the first case it is fruitful to discuss interpretation on the basis of a
registration of linguistic data, whereas with interpretations of a more general
stylistic type, based on word-level semantics, inclusions or chiasms, it is hardly
possible to agree upon a common linguistic ground needed for the discussion.
Commentators and translators are uncertain about the structure of the text of
Isaiah 41, 21-24 in terms of colometry. Is the clause in verse 22.i starting with }
a main division in this section, or is it with the clause in verse 23.a. (-imp.) ?
NIV (New International Version) starts a new sentence at 22.i: "Or declare us the
things to come." If one makes this choice, one may also be tempted, as some
commentators do, to move verse 22.h to after 22.i. (Beuken 1979: 96f., and Koole
1985: 127). The argument is that it seems strange to say about the former things
[22.d] that we may know their end, whereas saying such a thing about the
coming things would fit better. If one postpones 22.h, the result at the rhetorical
level would be three bicola: one about the past (22Ba) and two about the future
(22Bb and 23A).
Attractive as it may be from the point of view of poetic parallelism and
regularity, text-grammatical arguments do not support this. In the hierarchy
presented above, clause 22.i, starting with wv{} z, has a lower position in the
hierarchy than clause 23.a. The clause with

has no conjunction, which
indicates a new start (cf. 21.a.c) and it has a word order that differs from the
clauses with fronted elements in 22.d and 22.i. In 23.a the verb is in initial
position, the object follows and has the form of an object clause. The format of
23.a-23.d and the explicit addressee yy} closing it indicate that this is the main
challenge to the gods: explain to us what is going to happen! As the description
of text segmentation demonstrates, we have two main segments in verse 21-24:
21-22 (including smaller sections) and 23. After that a short closing statement
consisting of nominal clauses (24), again with an explicit adressee yy} .
In this way the text is analysed by emphasising the linguistic elements in the
process of reading. Through reading one gains access to the text as discourse. The
reader is guided by grammatical markers and relations and by lexical parallels,
but also becomes involved in the pattern of actors: the reader is being located
somewhere in the audience, where he is spoken to by questions, challenges and
conclusions. In my view this linguistic approach need not necessarily conflict
with a colometric analysis. I will restrict myself here to one single remark. A
number of differences existing between syntactic and colometric analysis could
be explained by referring to performance, i.e., the recitation of a text. A rhetorical,
sequential procedure presents the text in more or less regular segments, whereas

19

a syntactic analysis in the approach defended here, aims at a description of how

the text is organised as discourse, as a hierarchy of actors and arguments,
independent from how the text has been written down as a document or may
have been performed orally. No doubt the question of how poetry makes use of
syntax as an instrument, or how it contrasts syntax to achieve a rhetorical effect
is an interesting challenge for further research.
The comparison of a text-syntactic analysis with a stylistic-rhetorical interpretation, concentrating on themes and semantic concepts that are presented or
contrasted in the text, is in my experience much less fruitful. Here we see two
conflicting methods of discourse analysis, the one based on arguments of text
linguistics, the other based almost exclusively on word-level semantics and on
theological themes. A syntactic analysis relies on linguistic markers guiding the
process of reading, whereas the semantic-rhetorical analysis gives most credit to
what it perceives as the texts architecture: a well-balanced text structured by
themes, inclusions and chiasms.
The table below compares the results of a text-grammatical analysis of Isaiah 41
with a stylistic-rhetorical analysis (Walsh 1993).

20
Syntactic Marking

41,01 -imper.(+Voc) [+yiQtol]

------41,02 -Intrg.Pron.("# )-Qatal
41,04 -Intrg.Pron.("# )-Qatal
------41,04 -Pers.Pron.(^ )-Adj NCL
41,05 -Qatal-NP [weyiQtol ..]
-Qatal [wayiQtol; NP-yiQtol;
wayiQtol ..]
------41,08  -Pers.Pron. && (+Voc)
41,10 - & -yiQtol
41,11 -" -yiQtol
41,13 ( -Pers.Pron. . -Ptc

Thematic-Rhetorical Segmentation
A introduction

____

____

____

B idolators

[questions]

[theme is: strength]

C Consolation
C1 announcement
[2nd person]
C2 reassuring
C3 future
D emphatic "I" between "you" in verses 8
and 16
[center; inclusion]

------____ C Consolation
C2reassuring
[repetition]
41,14 - & -yiQtol (+Voc)
41,15 - H -Qatal, 1Sg yiQtol
C3future
[assymmetry]
41,16  -& -yiQtol
C1announcement
------____
41,17 -NP-ptc
B God helps the poor and weak
41,17 -Pers.Pron. ^ -yiQtol
____
[alliteration; synonymy]
41,20 $#% -yiqtol 3rd person
A conclusion
41,20 ( -NP-Qatal
[repetition of $&)9 , vs1]
------________________________
41,21 -imperative-Obj.
dir. Speech [+yiQtol 3rd person + yiQtol 1st plur]
------41,22 fronted NP-imperative-Obj [+yiQtol 1st plur]
41,22  -fronted NP-imperative-Obj
41,24 " -Pers.Pron. '
------41,24 -Qatal 1st person [WayyiQtol]
41,26 -Intrg.Pron."# - Qatal [WeyiQtol]
41,28 We-yiQtol 1st person
41,29 " -NP '9(

From a linguistic point of view the stylistic and thematic argumentation

presented by Walsh (1993) is ad hoc, either using or skipping grammaticallinguistic arguments as needed for the texts assumed semantic symmetry.
An example is his argument for the central position of D (verse 13) posited
between the
} of verse 8 and of verse 16. This inclusion is a regularity fully
based on word semantics.
Grammatically speaking D can not be a main
z/
statement since it is a
clause, closing a section. Walsh neglects this type of
argumentation.

21

The fact that Walsh ends his analysis

atz verse 20 is also doubtful, from a syntactic
wvyx{
point of view. The argument that
which occurs in verse 1 is repeated here
is not relevant. This word is also used in verse 23 with a first person plural,
where the speaker, JHWH, is included, as is the case in verse 1. Moreover it is not
verse 20, but the section of verse 21f. that resumes the situation of verse 1.
In this way, the thematic-rhetorical analysis performed from an theological bias
runs counter to the text-linguistic markings present in the text. There is no reason
to deny the existence of rhetorical instruments such as inclusion, chiasm, etc., but
they should not be assumed to function contrary to the linguistic system of grammatical marking. It is certainly true that poetry tends to exploit linguistic
instruments extenesively, but it is unlikely that within one text the linguistic
system and literary devices should be in conflict.
4.

Conclusions

Give priority to the analysis of poetic texts in terms of rhetorical or semantic

analysis and simultaneously demanding for more syntactic analysis of poetry
creates a paradox. When the textual analysis is approached in terms of rhetorical
design, it becomes impossible to allow syntax its proper place as a part of the
linguistic system.
Syntactic or text-grammatical analysis of poetry can be performed in terms of
general grammatical categories, without making a priori assumptions about a
separate grammar for poetic texts. Poetry shows preferences in its selection
grammatical forms from general grammar. It differs with prose texts in its
selections, but not in its grammatical system.
When neglecting grammar, rhetorical or stylistic analysis tends to freeze a text
into an artistic, but static picture. Giving priority to a text-grammatical analysis
allows for access to the text as a discourse, as a communicative process.
Text-grammatical analysis can help clarify exactly how rhetorical or stichometrical techniques enhance the structure and the performance of a text. Further
research is needed to analyse the relationship between categories of grammar
and categories of rhetorics.
prof. dr. E. Talstra
Vrije Universiteit
Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, Werkgroep Informatica
De Boelelaan 1105
1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands

22

Literature
Barr, J 1989
Determination and the definite article in Biblical Hebrew, JSS 34 (1989) 307-335
Berlin, A 1985
The Dynamics of Biblical Parallellism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985
Beuken, W A M 1979
Jesaja, IIA (POT), Nijkerk, 1979
Joon, J and Muraoka, T 1991
A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 14/1-2), Rome, 1991
Koole, J L 1985
Jesaja II/1 (COT), Kampen, 1985
Korpel, M C A and De Moor, J C 1988
Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry, in: W. van der Meer, J.C. de
Moor (ed.), The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry, JSOT Suppl.
Series 74, Sheffield, 1988, p.1-61
Lowery, K 1995
The Theoretical Foundations of Hebrew Discourse Grammar, in: Discourse
Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers (SBL, Semeia Studies),
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995, p.103 - 130
Lyons, J 1995
Linguistic Semantics. An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995
De Moor, J C and Watson, W G E 1993
General Introduction, in: J.C. de Moor, W.G.E. Watson (eds.), Verse in Ancient
Near Eastern Prose (AOAT 43), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1993, ix-xviii
De Moor, J C 1993
Syntax Peculiar to Ugaritic Poetry, in: J.C. de Moor, W.G.E. Watson (eds.), Verse
in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (AOAT 43), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1993, 191-205
Niccacci, A 1997
Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry, JSOT 74 (1997) 77-93
NIV: The Holy Bible. New International Version, Grand Rapids, 1973, 1978, 1984.
OConnor, M 1997
Hebrew Verse Structure, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 19972
Rosenbaum, M 1997
Word-Order Variation in Isaiah 40-55. A functional Perspective (SSN (Studia Semitica
Neerlandica)), Assen: Van Gorcum, 1997
Syring, W-D 1998
QUEST 2 - Computergesttzte Philologie und Exegese, Zeitschrift fr
Althebraistik 11 (1998) 85-89.
Talstra, E 1978
review of: T. Collins, Lineforms in Hebrew Poetry. A grammatical approach to the
stylistic study of the Hebrew prophets, Rome, 1978, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 41 (1984)
453-457
Talstra, E 1994
Dialogue in Job 21. "Virtual Quotations" or text grammatical markers? in: The
Book of Job (BETL (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium)) 94

23

(1994) 329 - 348

Talstra, E 1996
Singers and Syntax. On the Balance of Grammar and Poetry in Psalm 8, in: J.W.
Dyk (ed.), Give Ear to My Words. Psalms and other Poetry in and around the Hebrew
Bible. Essays in honour of Professor N.A. van Uchelen, Amsterdam/ Kampen, 1996,
p. 11-22
Waltke B and OConnor M 1991
An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, 1991.
Walsh, J T 1993
Summons to judgement: a close reading of Isaiah xli 1-20, VT 43 (1993) 351-371
Watson, W G E 1993
Problems and Solutions in Hebrew verse: A Survey of Recent Work, VT 43
(1993) 372-384

24

Eep Talstra
Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry. Linguistic Structure or Rhetorical Device?
Summary
The question of this paper is how to find a proper balance of linguistic structure
and rhetorical strategy in the analysis of biblical Hebrew poetry.
The question is: what kind of position could the study of syntax have in the area
of stylistic studies? What are the options of a syntactically based discourse
analysis of poetic texts? Research practice often seems to suggest that linguists
must leave the reading of poetic texts to the rhetorically well-equipped, to the
exegete with artistic expertise.
This paper proposes the following line of argumentation:
Poetic devices make use of the same grammar as do prose texts, though they
exhibit a different selection, making repeated and preferred choices from the
available possibilities.
One should differentiate between linguistic system in general and special
markers which together create a specific poetic composition. This will help in the
description a poetic text as a discourse, i.e., as a process rather than as a thing of
beauty, i.e., a more or less static, picture as is often done in proposals on
rhetorical analysis. The task, therefore, is to begin the analyzis of pieces of
literary art in terms of linguistic system: clause patterns, verbal system, pronominal reference, topicalisation, etc., before entering the world of lexical repetition,
chiasms and inclusions.
The discussion of the composition of Isaiah 41 is taken as an example of the
procedures of the discourse analysis proposed.