Cover not available

Article published In: Irregular perspective shifts and perspective persistence: Discourse-oriented and theoretical approaches
Edited by Caroline Gentens, María Sol Sansiñena, Stef Spronck and An Van linden
[Pragmatics 29:2] 2019
► pp. 250–276

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

In the beginning there was conversation

Fictive direct speech in the Hebrew Bible

 | Independent scholar, Israel
ORCiD logo with link | Zhejiang University, China
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 19 March 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18047.san
Abstract
This paper explores the use of non-quotational direct speech – a construction displaying deictic perspective persistence – in the Hebrew Bible, an ancient text of great cultural significance. We focus on the use of non-quotational direct speech to introduce intentions, hopes, motives, or states of affairs. Special emphasis is laid on the complementizer lemor, grammaticalized from a speaking verb, which introduces the import of an action through direct speech. We claim that such fictive speech is grounded in face-to-face conversation as conceptual model or frame. Beyond the Hebrew Bible itself, we discuss possible extended implications that our findings have for the link between grammatical structures conventionally associated with perspective shift and orality, as well as possible links between the conceptual frame of situated interaction and the notion of linguistic meaning. Ultimately, we hope to advance the view that grammar and discourse are inherently conversational and thus viewpointed in nature.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The conversation frame in the Hebrew Bible
    • 2.1Fictive direct speech to express mental states
    • 2.2Choral speech
    • 2.3Fictive direct speech for reason: The ki amar construction
    • 2.4‘Etymological’ naming of characters
  • 3.The lemor construction
    • 3.1The lemor construction and fictive direct speech
    • 3.2The lemor construction and meaning
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (52)
References
Alter, Robert. 1999. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. “Discourse in the Novel.” In The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, 259–422. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beaumont, Daniel. 1996. “Hard-Boiled: Narrative Discourse in Early Muslim Tradition.” Studia Islamica 831: 5–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blyth, Carl, Sigrid Recktenwald, and Jenny Wang. 1990. “I’m like, ‘Say What?!’: A New Quotative in American Oral Narrative.” American Speech 65 (3): 215–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. “Quotations as Demonstrations.” Language 66 (4): 764–805. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2011. “Co-Opting Intersubjectivity: Dialogic Rhetoric of the Self.” In The Rhetorical Emergence of Culture, ed. by Christian Meyer and Felix Girke, 52–83. Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dundes, Alan. 1999. Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore. Lanham/Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2001. “Compression and Global Insight.” Cognitive Linguistics 11 (3–4): 283–304.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gasparov, Boris. 2010. Speech, Memory, and Meaning: Intertextuality in Everyday Language. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in Public Places, Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. “Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (5): 219–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon. 1991. “On Direct Speech and the Hebrew Bible.” Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax, Ed. by Karel Jongeling, Heleen Murre-van den Berg, and van Rompay, 79–96. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graumann, Carl F. and Werner Kallmeyer (eds.) 2002. Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom, and Manfred von Roncador (eds.). 2002. Reported Discourse: A Meeting Ground for Different Linguistic Domains. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hatav, Galia. 2000. “(Free) Direct Discourse in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 411: 7–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jarque, Maria Josep, and Esther Pascual. 2016. “Mixed Viewpoints in Factual and Fictive Discourse in Catalan Sign Language Narratives”. In Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, ed. By Barbara Dancygier, Wei-lun-Lu and Arie Verhagen, 259–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. “Virtual Reality.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29 (2): 77–104.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Louviot, Elise. 2016. Direct Speech in Beowulf and other Old English Narrative Poems. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marnette, Sophie. 1998. Narrateur et Points de Vue dans la Littérature Française Médiévale: Une Approche Linguistique. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Cynthia L. 2003. The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis. 2nd ed. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moshavi, Adina. 2010. “‘Is That Your Voice, My Son David?’: Conductive Questions in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 36 (1): 65–81.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “The Communicative Functions of Content (‘wh’) Questions in Classical Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 39 (2): 69–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ong, Walter J. 2002. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pascual, Esther. 2006. “Fictive Interaction within the Sentence: A Communicative Type of Fictivity in Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 17 (2): 245–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pascual, Esther, and Sergeiy Sandler (eds.). 2016. The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rendsburg, Gary A. 1990. Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor H. 1973. “Natural Categories.” Cognitive Psychology 4 (3): 328–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, Sergeiy. 2012. “Reenactment: An Embodied Cognition Approach to Meaning and Linguistic Content.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 11 (4): 583–598. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Fictive Interaction and the Nature of Linguistic Meaning.” In The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction, ed. by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler, 23–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shead, Stephen L. 2011. Radical Frame Semantics and Biblical Hebrew: Exploring Lexical Semantics. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spronck, Stef. 2016. “Evidential Fictive Interaction in Ungarinyin and Russian.” In The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction, ed. by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler, 255–275. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen. 2002. “Grammars, Words, and Embodied Meanings: On the Uses and Evolution of so and like .” Journal of Communication 52 (3): 581–596. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. “Fictive Motion in Language and ‘ception.’” In Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Concept Structuring Systems, 1.99–1.175. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1986. “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narratives.” In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmans, 311–332. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2008. “The Status of Purpose, Reason and Intended Endpoint in the Typology of Complex Sentences: Implications for Layered Models of Clause Structure.” Linguistics 461: 757–788. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Voloshinov, Valentin Nikolaevich. 1986. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Voort, Hein van der. 2016. “Recursive Inflection and Grammaticalised Fictive Interaction in the Southwestern Amazon.” In The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction, ed. by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler, 277–299. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vries, Lourens de. 2003. “New Guinea Communities without Writing and Views of Primary Orality.” Anthropos 98 (2): 397–405.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Direct Speech, Fictive Interaction, and Bible Translation.” The Bible Translator 61 (1): 31–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wigram, George V. 1995. The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zima, Elisabeth, and Geert Brône (eds.). 2015. “Cognitive Linguistics and Interactional Discourse.” Special Issue, Language and Cognition 7 (4): 485–590. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha, and Esa Itkonen (eds.). 2008. The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Fotiou, Constantina
2024. Didn’t she say to you, “Oh my God! In Pafos?”. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 34:1 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Lee, John S Y & Carol Webster
2024. Conversational networks: prophets and kings in the Old Testament. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 39:4 ► pp. 1043 ff. DOI logo
Reynolds, Gabriel Said
2023. Their Very Words? A Preliminary Evaluation of Reported Speech in the Qurʾan. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 82:2 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Ling & Cheng Yu
2022. 2022 6th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS), ► pp. 525 ff. DOI logo
Spronck, Stef & Daniela Casartelli
2021. In a Manner of Speaking: How Reported Speech May Have Shaped Grammar. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Fictive Interaction [Human Cognitive Processing, 47], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue