Definiteness, information structure, and the particle את in BH

In a new series of posts I would like to introduce the research project behind my dissertation. My hope is that in being transparent during the writing process I can receive good feedback beyond my primary readers. The danger of being too transparent, of course, is that someone may borrow some of my ideas. I will hunt you down and force you to listen to the entire Left Behind series on tape as read by Kirk Cameron (I’m sure it exists somewhere).

In Biblical Hebrew, the particle את is used primarily to mark the direct object. However, the distribution of its use does not seem to follow any obvious pattern. It occurs overwhelmingly with objects that are definite, but it is not obligatory with a definite object. Many have suggested that את developed from an emphatic particle, similar to the Greek αὐτός or Latin ipse, and that this use is retained in certain situations. Others, however, have explained the use or non-use of את as a matter of style and authorial choice.

In fact, the use of את for object marking in Biblical Hebrew is typical of a phenomenon that has been found in over 300 diverse languages, termed Differential Object Marking (DOM) by Georg Bossong. Unlike languages with full case systems, such as Classical Arabic or Latin, in DOM systems only a certain set of objects is overtly marked. While languages vary in their sensitivity to a particular parameter, the primary factors conditioning object marking seem to be the definiteness and animacy of the object.

The function of definiteness has proven complex to explain because it has roles in multiple levels of language. As a grammatical category, definiteness is generally considered binary – a given noun phrase is either marked definite or it is not. However, within the broader context of discourse, there is also a sense that definiteness can be a matter of degree based on the type of referring expression used (for instance, pronouns and proper nouns are generally taken to be higher in definiteness than noun phrases marked by the definite article).

This is especially noticeable in the interaction between definiteness and certain other grammatical processes, often termed a “definiteness effect”. For instance, in DOM languages sensitive to definiteness, there is a correlation between the relative “definiteness” of an object and the frequency of marking – the higher an object falls on the definiteness scale, the more likely it is to be marked.

In Biblical Hebrew, the study of definiteness has been somewhat neglected. The grammars suggest that definiteness in Hebrew is similar to English, and thus scholars only work with only an intuitive notion of definiteness. In my research, I will provide an overview of recent work on definiteness and use the profile of object marking to develop the notion of definiteness as a scalar within BH.

Information structure comes into play in the explanation of DOM. Some have argued that DOM serves to help differentiate the subject from the object, while others have suggested that it is related to the transitivity of a clause. However, the influence of definiteness and animacy on grammatical structures seems to be related to the pragmatic role of topic. Topics must be definite, and topic-worthiness is also related to animacy.  Roles such as subject and object seem to grammaticalize the structure of a proposition related to the topic, specifically subjects are overwhelmingly definite and animate and are usually taken to be the topic by default. I will argue, therefore, that the role of DOM is not to differentiate subject from object per se, but to specially mark the grammatical role of object when it might compete with the subject in topic-worthiness.

 

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

8 Comments on “Definiteness, information structure, and the particle את in BH”


  1. I was somewhat taken aback the other day when reading that the direct object marker seemed to point to what I would term an indirect object in English. I think It was in Ruth but I forget. If in Ruth there are only a few possible places so with primitive tools I searched and found this repeated phrase following the DOM – אֵת אֲשֶׁר־לִקֵּטָה – all that she had gleaned. (2:18-19 repeated). Also in Ruth 3:16 אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר עָֽשָׂה־לָהּ seems to be a phrase where the DOM is not ‘required’ and the direct object is a whole phrase. This construct occurs again in 4:9. There must be more direct objects in Ruth than this – it is after all a story in narrative. So I am glad you are researching this and look forward to any posts you might make.

  2. Ahavah-Shimeon Says:

    ooooo – now this promises to prove to be fascinating.

    (is this topic worthy of getting its own ‘category;?)

  3. Ahavah-Shimeon Says:

    on second thoughts… don’t categorise it… I’ve just found your ‘home’ page… oh my there’s tons to read :0D

  4. ed Says:

    Sounds like a good topic, looking forward to hearing more. I’d be interested to see if there is any correlation with number (sg/pl) and definiteness.

    • Peter Bekins Says:

      Ed,

      I think number will largely come into play in the way languages express generics. Rather than having specific markers of genericness, there are often several options including combinations of definite/indefinite/bare and sg/pl.


  5. […] while glancing at headlines, I did see one item that I simply must keep up on: Peter’s series on definiteness in biblical Hebrew (links are to main page and to first post in series, […]

  6. Jennifer Says:

    I didn’t find Left Behind read by Kirk Cameron, but this looked equally promising for any offenders:
    Left Behind, book 1 – “Professional radio drama actors and high production values combine to bring listeners a dynamic experience.”

  7. Giorgio Says:

    Hello,

    I just found this post. I’m working on my dissertation on DOM, it’s a typological study based on a sample of 120 languages. I’d really appreciate it if you could send me something on Biblical Hebrew.
    Best
    G


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: