Psalm 91.3a – Text and Translation
כִּי הוּא יַצִּילְךָ מִפַּח יָקוּשׁ
…for he removes you from the fowler’s trapping net
Most Hebraists describe BH as using a Verb-Subject-Object (VSO) word order. When word order deviates from this “standard”, many say the word order is marked. Marked is the new word Hebraists use because they didn’t like emphasis. Its true, emphasis is a vague term on its own. But language like marked, fronted, focused, contrasted, and, in light of all these, even emphasized can be used to describe the form and function of many BH sentences that do not adhere to the typical VSO pattern.
Our example above does not adhere to VSO word order. It goes SVO, like English. However, the thesis of this post is that the SVO word order of this clause is not the markedness. Rather, the markedness in this case is the use of the personal pronoun הוא. Of the 526 instances where הוא is immediately used with a verb, הוא is initial in 431 cases (come before the verb). Only in 95 cases does the pronoun follow a verb. One may conclude that when הוא is used with a verb, its typical position is before the verb. So, the word order of this clause is not unique, but rather expected from the markedness of הוא.
What’s the point? Markedness is not always a product of word order. In fact, sometimes word order is a product of markedness.
D&T,
Just a quick question to get some clarification on what you’re saying. Are you concluding that in this particular verse, the presence of הוּא prior to the verb is *unmarked*, since this is the standard position of said pronoun? You said above, “Rather, the markedness in this case is the use of the personal pronoun הוא.” It sounds like you’re saying that this use of הוא is marked, but you said at the beginning of the verse that things are *unmarked* that are standard, and *marked* when they deviate from the standard or norm. Since the pronoun is where it normally goes, in what sense are you calling it marked? What’s it deviating from?
Its deviating from its normal null-subject to an explicit “unnecessary” subject הוא.
The markedness is the הוא itself, so we think. The “marked” word order that results (SVO) is by itself not the markedness, but rather a result of the markedness.
This is a good observation, but another element that I think should be explored is what’s going on in the so-called “marked” phrases. Formal markedness is certainly not disinteresting, but is any function being performed in the marked phrase? Does that function differ between instances? How do the marked and unmarked phrases compare, particularly when found in similar kinds of literature? Markedness is getting a lot of press among Hebrew linguists these days, but I am always led to wonder whether it is helpful or just an interesting side note (i.e. hey look, this doesn’t happen very often).
As an aside, every day I am less and less convinced that Hebrew has a standard word order (maybe we can say it’s a V primary language). Arguments in favor of canonical word order just need to make too many adjustments involving components that don’t fit, and seldom if ever take seriously questions of linguistic register.
Absolutely. As titled, this is a quick and specific thought on markedness, word order, and הוא. We’ll get more into it.
When I first got into linguistics, I thought word order was a bunch of hooey (mainly because of my simplification of Jackendoff). And with Hebrew (and Greek), we tend to go with the “free” word order approach. However, one cannot miss the overwhelming evidence of VSO in BH narrative.
Thanks for your comment.
I thoroughly agree that VSO is the dominant order in narrative, but I tend to reject the suggestion that narrative should be our benchmark for what’s normative in the language. It just happens to dominate our extant evidence of ancient Hebrew. I just think discussions about word order should be nuanced based on some concept of context or genre (form, register, lots of not-very-interchangeable terms here).
In any case the basic point of your post is an excellent observation. I think we’re on the same page here…there’s more to markedness than just word order. Though I’m also still working through what I think of markedness generally.
Can you give a breakdown of your 526 examples by genre? I’d be interested to see if the pronoun-verb vs verb-pronoun follow a specific genre (or for that matter, different developmental stages of BH).
הוא plus verb
gen – 32x
ex – 8x
lev – 12x
num – 17x
dt – 26x
jos – 10x
jdg – 17x
1sam – 18x
2sam – 22x
1kin – 21x
2kin – 20x
isa – 48x
jer – 9x
ezk – 23x
hos – 8x
joel – 1x
amos – 2x
jon – 1x
mic – 2x
nah – 1x
hab – 2x
zeph – 1x
zech – 18x
mal – 1x
psa – 22x
job – 17x
prov – 17x
rt – 2x
qoh – 2x
est – 3x
dan – 5x
ezr – 4x
neh – 5x
1chr – 20x
2chr – 14x
Verb plus הוא
gen – 6x
ex – 7x
lev – 4x
num – 8x
dt – 5x
jos – 2x
jdg – 5x
1sam – 9x
1kin – 3x
2kin – 5x
isa – 4x
ezk – 1x
hos – 2x
mic – 1x
nah – 1x
hab – 1x
zec – 1x
mal – 1x
psa – 4x
job – 4x
rt – 1x
qoh – 4x
lam – 1x
est – 1x
dan – 1x
neh – 1x
1chr – 3x
2chr – 2
Quite right. Narrative is normative for narrative. But the other extreme (which ought to be resisted) is that narrative and poetry are so different that we almost need a different grammar, syntax, and lexicon for poetry. That can’t be the case.
You’ve been added to the Student Biblioblog list.
Hmmmm, maybe not a different syntax/lexicon/etc…different is the wrong word as it suggests that we’ve jumped languages (into Aramaic say). You’re right, that’s not the case. But it’s also not the same syntax/etc. That suggests a normative syntax for the whole language abstracted from social context…that’s an idea I’d resist. But, of course, my linguistics teachers are sociolinguists so that’s to be expected
.
Ah, my poor languishing blog. Do I have to post there now that I’m on a list?