Christo H.J. Van Der Merwe, «Lexical Meaning in Biblical Hebrew and Cognitive Semantics: a Case Study», Vol. 87 (2006) 85-95
This paper examines the contribution that a cognitive linguistic model of meaning
can make towards the semantic analysis and description of Biblical Hebrew. It
commences with a brief description of some of the basic insights provided by
cognitive semantics. The notion 'semantic potential' is used to capture the
activation potential for all the information (linguistic and encyclopaedic)
connected with each of a set of semantically related lexical items in the Hebrew
Bible, viz. Cm)/Cym),
rbg/hrwbg,
qzx/hqzx,
lyx, xk,
zc/zzc. Commencing with the 'basic
level items' of the set, describing the distribution, the prototypical use and
accompanying contextual frames of each term, the prototypical reading of and
relationship between these terms are then identified.
Lexical Meaning in Biblical Hebrew and Cognitive Semantics:
a Case Study
In a recent survey of Biblical Hebrew lexica (1), it was pointed out that the
theoretical frames of reference underlying both the older classics such as
Brown-Driver-Briggs (=BDB) (2) and Koehler and Baumgartner (=KB) (3), as
well as the more recent Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (=DCH) (4), can be
called into question (5). Two weaknesses were highlighted. Firstly, the layout
and structure of these dictionaries reflect very little of the wealth of insights
provided by theoretical lexicography (i.e. the theoretical reflection about the
practice of dictionary making) and dictionary criticism in recent years (6).
Secondly, the semantic model(s) underlying available Biblical Hebrew
dictionaries are either outdated (in the case of BDB and KB), or represent a very
narrow and inadequate version of what modern linguistics has to offer for
Biblical Hebrew lexicology (in the case of DCH). If one considers, even in very
broad terms, recent developments in the field of semantics, in particular
cognitive semantics, the shortcomings of bilingual Biblical Hebrew–English
dictionaries that provide mere translation glosses (in the case of BDB and KB),
or glosses supplemented with lists of the systematic syntagmatic distribution of
lexical items (in the case of Clines) soon become evident. For example, if one
accepts the insights about the ways in which humans across languages use
linguistic terms to categorize their world, and the cultural embedment of
languages’ lexical stock, a new perspective emerges on the type of information
that is indispensable in a bilingual dictionary of which the source and target
languages are remote in time and space. However, although cognitive semantics
provides promising new perspectives on the notion of “lexical meaningâ€, it does
not present — as any other linguistic theory does — a ready-made model that
can merely be applied to an ancient language like Biblical Hebrew. Issues that
are still debated, for example, are the exact role that syntactic and encyclopedic
information should play in the analysis and interpretation of lexical items (7).
(1) C.H.J. VAN DER MERWE, “Towards a Principled Model for Biblical Hebrew
Lexicologyâ€, JSNL 30/1 (2004) 119-137.
(2) F. BROWN – S.R. DRIVER – C.A. BRIGGS, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament (Oxford 1909).
(3) L. KOEHLER – W. BAUMGARTNER – M.E.J. RICHARDSON – J.J. STAMM, The Hebrew
and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (Volumes 1–4 combined in one electronic
edition) (Leiden – New York 2000).
(4) The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (ed. D.J.A. CLINES) (Sheffield 1993).
(5) This survey complemented a similar overview by M. O’CONNOR, “Semitic
Lexicography: European Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew in the Twentieth Centuryâ€, IOS
20 (2002) 173-212.
(6) T.B. IMBAYARWO, “Existing Biblical Hebrew Dictionaries in the Light of Current
Trends in Lexicographyâ€, Paper read at the Annual Congress of the South African Society
for Near Eastern Studies (Bloemfontein 2003).
(7) Cf. C.H.J. VAN DER MERWE, Biblical Hebrew Lexicology: A Cognitive Linguistic
Perspective (Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt
6) (in the press 2005).