Operator CICs

We next take up what we term operator CICs. An operator is a “grammatical element which bears a scoping relation to some part of its [text]. Examples include determiners and quantifiers, negation, tense, aspect and mood.” ¹¹ The scope of an operator refers “to that stretch of language affected by the meaning of a particular form. . . . As a general illustration, in English the scope of negation typically extends from the negative word until the end of the clause.” ¹² For Biblical He-brew, certain operators have as their scope a phrase, an entire clause, or even multiple clauses. Each involves a single part of speech. Our six operator CICs, along with their definitions, are:

• negative. A segment that negates a constituent or constituents.

• closed interrogative. A segment that asks a yes-no question about a constituent.

• ם ַגּ / ם ַג ‘also’. When functioning within a clause, this distributionally complex segment expresses inclusion of some number of following constituents. We keep this lexeme separate from the includer group for reasons given in §3.2.1.3.

• includer (ף ַא ‘also’). When functioning within a clause, this segment expresses inclusion of some number of following constituents.

• restricter (ק ַר ‘only’ and many instances of ךְ ַא). When functioning within a clause, these segments express restriction of some number of following constituents.

• modal. A segment or idiom that expresses the speaker’s (un)certainty or desire with regard to some statement.

The operator CICs exhibit disparate characteristics. While negative, (closed) interrogative, and to a lesser extent ם ַגּ ‘also’, includer, and restricter CICs exhibit classical variable scoping, the scoping of modal CICs is often difficult to establish with confidence (see §9.3.4.4).

9.3.4.1 Negative CICs

The negative part of speech was defined ostensively in §3.2.2.3. For the purposes of this sub-section, we present a trio of phrase markers illustrating the progression of scoping of a negative operator from phrase to clause to multiple clauses.

Phrasal Negative Operators. A negative can operate upon a noun phrase to produce a con-stituent consisting of a negative operator and a noun phrase licensed by inverted modification (^inv mod). The scope of negation is not necessarily to the end of the clause. Phrase marker (9.10) from Jer 5:7 contains the negated noun phrase םי ִהלֹ ֱא אֹל ‘not gods’:

(9.10)

11. Trask, A Dictionary, 195. To align with Biblical Hebrew practice, we have replaced Trask’s “sentence” with

“text” in the definition.

12. David Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (5th ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 2003) 407.

Clausal Negative Operators. There are 5,316 instances in which a negative operator immedi-ately precedes a predicator, such as in (9.11) from 2 Chr 20:33:

(9.11)

Given this very common adjacency behavior, one might be tempted to treat the negative as operat-ing at phrase level to form a negative verbal constituent licensed by inverted modification. For two reasons, we prefer to treat such negatives as operating upon their entire clauses:

1. There are 279 instances in which the negative operator is not adjacent to the predicator.

Any representation of negative operators must handle this sort of separation. Phrase marker (9.12) from Ps 6:2 illustrates the behavior to which we refer:

(9.12)

Combining the negative and the verb to form a constituent would involve “tangling,” producing a non-tree phrase marker (§4.2). We avoid this complication where possible.

2. Polarity is a characteristic of the clause in discourse analysis, where one encounters assertions such as: “Clause₁ and Clause₂ differ in polarity (i.e., one clause is positive and the other negative).” ¹³ Given our interest in discourse analysis, we assign polarity to the clause.

Multiple-Clause Negative Operators. The scope of a negative operator can extend over mul-tiple clauses. Consider phrase marker (9.13) for a pair of juxtaposed clauses from Isa 38:18:

(9.13)

In this and similar instances, we have used the mechanism of multidominance to indicate the ex-tended scope of the negative operator. As a result, the phrase marker is not a tree (this matter is discussed in §20.2).

As an additional example, consider this interesting phrase marker (9.14) from Isa 23:4 (see p. 124).

9.3.4.2 Closed Interrogative CICs

The interrogative part of speech was defined ostensively in §3.2.2.4. Closed interrogatives are operators in that they, like negatives, can exhibit phrasal, clausal, or multi-clausal scoping. ¹⁴

In Biblical Hebrew, the interrogative operators for closed questions are - ֲה ‘yes-no?’ and ם ִא ‘[question]’. Only if we were to introduce a rhetorical question operator, ־אֹל ֲה ‘is not. . . ?’

(^rhet / ^gram), ¹⁵ would the interrogative operator be a phrase level constituent of the rhetorical opera-tor. Phrase markers (9.15a) and (9.15b) from Job 10:20 show the two approaches.

13. Simon Corston-Oliver, “Beyond String Matching and Cue Phrases: Improving Efficiency and Coverage in Discourse Analysis,” Microsoft Research Tech Report, November 1998, 4. http: / / www.research.microsoft.com / apps / pubs / default.aspx?id=69677.

14. Andrew Radford, Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 130–47.

15. We have not yet decided whether to introduce a rhetorical operator CIC.

Most translations render the clause as a rhetorical question: “Are not the days of my life few?”

(^nrsv). The ^njps translates it as having indicative modality: “My days are few.”

Usually, a closed interrogative scopes a single clause, as in (9.16) from Ruth 1:19:

(9.16) (9.14)

(9.15a) (9.15b)

A closed interrogative can also scope multiple clauses. For example, in phrase marker (9.17) from Jer 49:7, the interrogative operator scopes the three juxtaposed clauses making up the sentence.

(9.17)

9.3.4.3 Quantifier CICs

A group of operator CICs, known as quantifiers or focus particles, specifies the domain of inclusion (“includers”) or restriction (“restricters”) of the constituents upon which they operate.

Because “their meaning always indicates that the referent to which they refer is an addition to or limitation of another referent,” ¹⁶ they are termed focus particles by some. We prefer to call them quantifiers.

Includer CICs םַג / םַגּ ‘Also’ and ףַא ‘Also’. These were touched on in §3.2.1.3. We find phrasal instances, as in phrase marker (9.18) from Gen 47:3:

16. C. H. J. van der Merwe, J. A. Naudé, and J. H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 311.

(9.18)

We find ם ַגּ / ם ַג having single-clause scope, as in phrase marker (9.19) from Exod 2:19:

(9.19)

And we find ם ַגּ / ם ַג with multiple-clause scope, such as in phrase marker (9.20) from 1 Sam 15:29.

In this extensive multi-clause phrase marker, ם ַגּ / ם ַג is a supra-clausal cue phrase (this notion is dis-cussed in chap. 21). As noted in §3.2.1.3, the uses of ם ַגּ / ם ַג are many and complex. Consequently, in practice, we have left ם ַגּ / ם ַג as the sole member of its own class (see (9.20), p. 127).

Restricter CICs ךְ ַא ‘Only’ and ק ַר ‘Only’. We have divided ךְ ַא into two classes, epistemic modal adverb (‘surely’, 62×, §3.2.2.1) and restrictive adverb (99×, §3.2.2.2). Each CIC ק ַר (25×) is classified as a restrictive adverb (§3.2.2.2). With one exception (Deut 28:13), the restrictives are clause initial. ¹⁷ Phrase marker (9.21) from Num 12:2 uniquely includes both kinds of restricter.

17. However, in Josh 6:18, ק ַר follows “and.”

(9.21)

9.3.4.4 Modal CICs

A modal is a segment that expresses the speaker’s uncertainty or desire with regard to a particu-lar statement. As defined ostensively in §3.2.2.1, our modals consist of seven lexemes. We know of no modal that operates at phrase level. Single-clause scoping is typical. Multiple-clause scoping is less common. As an example, consider phrase marker (9.22) from 1 Kgs 18:5, which contains an instance of the modal י ַלוּא ‘perhaps’. With modals, we encounter a kind of multiple-clause scop-ing that differs from what we have seen with the previous operator CICs. With the other operators, the extent of scoping is fairly clear-cut in any given case. But with the modals, operator scope is less obvious. What is the scope of the modal in (9.22)? Since the clauses form a discourse unit, the scope of the modal is all three clauses. Hence, in a proper discourse representation, the modal will be supra-clausal.

(9.20)

(9.22)

Since the modals appear only in direct speech, we always know the upper bound on the extent of scoping—the end of the speech. But the actual extent of the scope typically needs working out.

Since multiple-clause scoping is really an issue at discourse level, the working out of the best way of representing scoping can wait until we get into formal discourse analysis. For now, it is enough to alert readers to scoping issues so they can be attentive as they work with the texts.