Offprint from

Advances in Biblical
Hebrew Linguistics
Data, Methods, and Analyses

Edited by
Adina Moshavi and Tani a N otari us

Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns
2017
 Copyright © 2017 Eisenbrauns
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Moshavi, A. Mosak (Adina Mosak), editor of compilation. |

Notarius, Tania, 1967– editor of compilation.
Title: Advances in biblical Hebrew linguistics : data, methods, and analyses /
edited by Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius.
Description: Winona Lake, Indiana : Eisenbrauns, [2017] | Series:
Linguistic studies in ancient West Semitic ; 12 | Based on papers
presented at the 16th World Congress of Jewish Studies. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016057813 (print) | LCCN 2016058890 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781575064819 (cloth : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781575064826
(ePDF)
Subjects: LCSH: Hebrew language—Grammar
Classification: LCC PJ4556 .A38 2017 (print) | LCC PJ4556 (ebook) |
DDC 492.45—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016057813

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National
Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI
Z39.48-1984.♾™
 Contents

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Perspectives on Data and Method . . . . . . 1

Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius

Part 1
Linguistics and Philology
Linguistic Change through the Prism of Textual Transmission:
The Case of Exodus 12:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Noam Mizrahi
All Is Not Lost:
Linguistic Periodization in the Face of
Textual and Literary Pluriformity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Aaron Hornkohl

Part 2
Historical Linguistics and Language Contact
Aramaic Influence and Inner Diachronic Development
in Hebrew Inscriptions of the Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Yigal Bloch
The Linguistics of Writings Systems and the
Gap in the Hebrew Scribal Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
William Schniedewind
The Second-Person Nonnegated Jussive in
Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Northwest Semitic . . . . . . . . . 125
Tania Notarius

Part 3
Text-Linguistics and Linguistic Pragmatics
Participant Tracking, Positioning, and
the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Frank H. Polak

vii
viii Contents

Nominal and Verb-Second Clauses Not Introduced by Waw:

A Text-Linguistic Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Gregor Geiger
Verticality in Biblical Hebrew Parallelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
David Toshio Tsumura
The Infinitive Absolute and Topicalization
of Events in Biblical Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Galia Hatav

Part 4
Syntactic Studies
Clause Combining in the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43):
An Example of Archaic Biblical Hebrew Syntax . . . . . . . . . 233
Bo Isaksson
The Syntactic Pattern: Qtol → Wəyiqtol and the Expression
of Indirect Command in Biblical Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Lina Petersson
The Scope of Negation Inside and Outside
the Biblical Hebrew Prepositional Phrase . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé
The Locative Alternation in Biblical (and Modern) Hebrew . . . . . . . 321
Edit Doron and Keren Dubnov

Part 5
Applied Linguistics
Corpus-Driven Valence:
Give and the Meaning of ‫נתן‬, Nātan, in Genesis . . . . . . . . . 363
Nicolai Winther-Nielsen
Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404
Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
 Offprint from:
Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics (LSAWS 12)
© Copyright 2017 Eisenbrauns.
All rights reserved.

Participant Tracking, Positioning, and

the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative

Frank H. Polak
Tel Aviv University

1. Introduction and Objectives

Participant tracking is the complex of ways languages use to keep track of
the various participants referred to in an ongoing discourse (Huang 2000: 8;
Longacre 1989: 141–44). In Biblical Hebrew, as in many other languages, this
complex poses big challenges to linguists, exegetes, and translators. Cross-
linguistically, participants are mentioned explicitly in the form of definite noun
phrases when necessary for clarity but are mostly indicated by pronouns, ver-
bal forms 1 and general terms serving as surrogate (such as “the kid”) when the
participant is known from its mention in previous clauses. Wallace Chafe has
related this principle to human cognition: data that have not been mentioned
previously to the hearer/reader are formulated explicitly, in full noun phrases,
often accented, in order to activate them and thus to serve as starting point. 2
When the data are highly activated (for instance, when they appear in the pre-
vious clause or utterance), they are immediately accessible and consequently
do not require explicit mention. But when they are less highly activated (for
example, when they are mentioned in a previous paragraph) a reminder would
be needed in order to make them accessible again.
However, this description covers only part of the issues. In many languages,
the interpretation of pronominal references may cause thorny problems, and
when ellipsis is involved these problems are even more intricate. In linguistic
theory, these issues are studied under the heading of anaphora (Fox 1987;
Huang 1994, 2000), or, in a cognitive vista, accessibility (Ariel 1990, 2001).
Cross-linguistically, the interpretation of nonexplicit reference often involves
contextual inference and knowledge of the circumstances (Ariel 1990: 169–90;
Huang 2000: 237–53; Fox 1987: 62–75, 132–35).
1. That is to say, the verbal form indicates person and number, like pre- and affixes in
the Semitic languages or the morphs of, for example, Spanish, Italian, or classical Greek and
Latin (Huang 2000: 53–4, 65–67). See p. 155 n. 6 below.
2. Chafe 1987: 21–23; 1994: 53–56, 72–75, 83.

153
154 Frank H. Polak

In Biblical Hebrew narrative, both explicit and nonexplicit reference often

involves severe problems that are only partially accounted for by the various
different theories of anaphora. 3 Some structural aspects of participant tracking
in biblical narrative have been clarified by Robert Longacre (1989) and Lénart
de Regt (1999), who note the explicit mention of the participant in the opening
of a new episode, in structural transitions, or in the closure of an episode. Lon-
gacre also indicates the repeated use of explicit reference for central or domi-
nant participants, or in a sudden and important turn or a decisive intervention.
This study deals with the way the narrator uses mention and nonmention of
the participants in the dialogue, and more precisely, in the “quotation frame,”
the clause by which a spoken segment (a quotation) is introduced (Miller
1996). It is my thesis that the various types of reference in biblical narrative
are related to the position which the narrator allocates to the speakers. The nar-
rator mentions those speakers that attain their goals in the dialogue, explicitly,
by name and/or title. Speakers who obey their interlocutors, do concessions or
comply are indicated implicitly, by verbal form only.
Thus, the main part of this study will be devoted to an analysis of partici-
pant tracking in the dialogue in relation to the participants’ role in the give and
take. Some of the results of this analysis will be applied to the mention and
nonmention of the participants in narrative episodes that recount the actions
of the participants (the action sequence) viewed as an action/reaction pattern
and thus in a sense analogous to dialogue. However, at first I must introduce
some general categories.

2. Accessibility, Overspecification, and Underspecification

The opening of the tale of the purchase of the Machpelah cave introduces
both sides explicitly:
‫ִׁשּתַ חּו ְלעַם־ ָה ָארֶץ ִל ְבנֵי־חֵת‬
ְ ‫ָקם א ְַב ָרהָם ַוּי‬
ָ ‫( ַוּי‬1a)
‫) ַויְדַ ּבֵר ִא ָּתם לֵאמֹר‬1b(
(a) Thereupon Abraham bowed low to the people of the land, the Hittites,
(b) and he-spoke to them saying. (Gen 23:7–8) 4
The explicit references to Abraham and the Hittites (1a) are followed by par-
ticipant indication by means of pronominal suffix (‫)א ָּתם‬ ִ and verbal prefix (“he
spoke” / ‫ ַויְדַ ּבֵר‬‎ [1b]). 5 This is the normal method of reference when the par-

3. Some of the problems have been discussed in Gesenius 1817: 803; Wellhausen 1871:
22–23; 1905: 4–5, 15.
4. The translations used in this study are mostly taken from NRSV or from NJPSV,
sometimes with slight changes, notably the use of “Yhwh” for the Tetragrammaton.
5. The indication of the implied subject by pronoun + hyphen + verb is my solution for
the translation problem that results from the differences between the Hebrew and the English
verbal/anaphora system. In Biblical Hebrew, the subject can be indicated by the finite verbal
forms with pre-/affixed morph only. Because languages such as English do not have finite
 Positioning, and the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative 155

ticipants are known from the previous context (high accessibility; Ariel 1990:
18). 6 But in Biblical Hebrew, we encounter some problematic alternatives that
are not related to accessibility but rather to the role of the participants in the
interaction. The first alternative is the use of an explicit noun, mainly the per-
sonal name (or the title) when the participant is already highly accessible and
well-known, even in consecutive clauses: 7
‫ֶפרֹון‬
ְ ‫ִׁשמַע א ְַב ָרהָם אֶל־ע‬ְ ‫( ַוּי‬2a)
ֶ ‫ֶפרֹן אֶת־ ַה ֶּכסֶף א‬
‫ֲׁשר ִּדּבֶר ְּב ָא ְזנֵי ְבנֵי־חֵת‬ ְ ‫ִׁשק ֹל א ְַב ָרהָם ְלע‬
ְ ‫) ַוּי‬2b(
(a) Here Abraham agreed with Ephron; (b) so Abraham weighed out for
Ephron the silver that he had named in the hearing of the Hittites.
(Gen 23:16)
Both sides to the transaction were already mentioned previously (vv. 7–10,
13–14), but nevertheless they are mentioned again when the silver is weighed
out. 8 This is a case of overspecification, since the role of both participants
would also be clear when they would have been indicated by implicit reference
(pronoun or verbal form). 9 In a structural vista this case of overspecification
could be regarded as a way of marking the diverse stages of the transaction,
but what is even more important is the indication of the roles fulfilled by the
agents in this transaction: the narrator highlights the person paying for the real
estate and the person who received the payment.
On the other hand, in many passages one or both participants are referred to
by pronoun or verbal pre- or affix only (implicit reference). In these cases, the
identity of the speaker must be clarified by contextual interpretation:
‫ וַּיֹאמֶר ְלז ְַרעֲךָ אֶּתֵ ן אֶת־ ָה ָארֶץ הַּזֹאת‬/‫( ַוּיֵרָא יְהוָה אֶל־א ְַברָם‬3a)
‫ׁשם ִמ ְזּב ֵַח לַיהוָה ַהּנ ְִראֶה ֵאלָיו‬
ָ ‫) ַו ִּיבֶן‬3b(
(a) Then Yhwh appeared to Abram, and he-said, “To your offspring I
will give this land.”
(b) So he-built there an altar to Yhwh, who had appeared to him.
(Gen 12:7)
verbs with implied subject, translations into English cannot reflect this form, which is basic
in Biblical Hebrew. Thus, I use the hyphen for the indication of the subject by verbal morph.
6. The indication of the subject by the verbal morph (implied subject), as found in He-
brew, like Spanish, Italian, Latin and Greek, is different from the situation in Chinese, which
does not use verbal morphs for the indication of the subject and thus has real zero anaphora
(Huang 1994: 164–66).
7. On the rhetoric of overspecification in modern languages, see Fox 1987: 40–45,
112–18, 143–44 (for English); Taboada 2008: 26–27 (for Spanish).
8. A financial transaction in which the participants are indicated by pronoun and prefix
is found in Zech 11:12; see Sellin 1922: 510, 513–14; Smith 1984: 265.
9. Overspecification is also found in vv. 5, 10, 12, 13, 14. In this narrative, specific
references are at times required because Abraham interacts with two sides: the Hittites and
Ephron. But that is no explanation for all cases, and certainly not for v. 2.
156 Frank H. Polak

The opening of this verse (3a) mentions speaker and addressee by name, and
continues to indicate the divine speaker by verbal prefix (“he-said”/‫)וַּיֹאמֶר‬,
whereas the addressee, Abram, is not indicated at all (zero anaphora). In the
next clause (3b) the roles change, as the addressee reacts to the divine promise
by erecting an altar. But the change of subject is not formally indicated, for
Abram is referred to by the verbal prefix (“he-built”/‫) ַו ִּיבֶן‬. This passage in-
stances underspecification, because the identity of the acting subject has not
been stated explicitly. The reader has to make a choice between two possibli-
ties. In the present case, the situation is sufficiently clarified by the mention of
the divine honoree of the altar. But not all instances are that simple. Consider
the case of Hazael and Ben-Hadad:
ְ ‫ִטבֹּל ַבּ ַמּיִם ַויּ‬
‫ִפרֹשׂ עַל־ ָפּנָיו‬ ְ ‫( ַויִּקַּ ח ַהמּ ְַכבֵּר ַויּ‬4a)
‫) ַויָּמֹת‬4b(
(a) He-took the bed-cover, dipped (it) in the water and spread (it) over
his face.
(b) So-he-died. (2 Kgs 8:15)
The description of the murder of Ben-Hadad at the hand of Hazael does not
specify the roles of the participants, but the NJPSV renders “[Hazael] took
a piece of netting” and “So [Ben-hadad] died,” whereas the NRSV has “and
spread it over the king’s face.” These translations, then, add explicit references
in order to explain who did what to whom (disambiguation; Ariel 1990: 48–51;
Fox 1987: 45; de Regt 1999: 96–97).
Underspecification is also attested in Akkadian, even in legal texts, such as
Codex Hammurabi §27 (Roth 1997: 86):
(5a) šumma lu rēdûm ulu bāʾirum ša ina dannat šarrim turru, warkīšu
   eqelšu u kirāšu ana šanîm iddinūma
(5b) ilikšu ittalak,
(5c) šumma ittūramma ālšu iktašdam, eqelšu u kirāšu utarrūšumma,
(5d) šūma ilikšu illak.
(5a) If either a soldier or a fisherman (1) who is taken captive during
   his service in a royal fortress, and one gives his field and his
  orchard to another (2) to succeed him (1)
(b) and he-performs (2) his service obligation,
(c) if he (1) should return and arrive in his town, one will return to him
(1) his field and his orchard
(d) and he himself (1) will perform his service obligation.

In (5b), the subject of ittalak is the second person (2) to whom the field has
been given for cultivation. In (c), the subject is the returning soldier (1) who
had been missing as a prisoner of war. In (d) his function as service man (1) is
highlighted by the independent pronoun with focusing clitic šū-ma.
 Positioning, and the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative 157

This example is important because the problems posed by the biblical text
could be attributed to textual corruption (Polak 2015: 226), but the Old Baby-
lonian legal text, which can be matched by similar instances, 10 could hardly
be considered corrupt.
Disambiguation strategies in cases of underspecification merit (and need)
discussion in their own right. The focus of this study is the connection between
participant reference and the social role of the participants in the interaction.
In some cases the connection between interactional role and participant
reference is quite clear:
ָ ‫( וַּיֹאמֶר א ְַברָם א‬6a)
‫ֶל־ׂשרַ י‬
ְ ‫ֲׂשי־לָּה הַּטֹוב ְּבעֵינָי‬
‫ִך‬ ִ ‫ׁש ְפחָתֵ ְך ְּביָדֵ ְך ע‬ ִ ‫) ִהּנֵה‬6b(
‫ׂשרַ י‬ָ ‫) ו ְַּת ַעּנֶ ָה‬6c(
‫) ו ִַּת ְברַ ח ִמ ָּפנֶי ָה‬6d(
(6a) So Abram said to Sarai,
(6b) “Your maid is in your hands. Deal with her as you think right.”
(6c) Then Sarai treated her harshly,
(6d) and she-ran away from her (16:6).
In (c), Sarai is mentioned as agent, whereas her maid, Hagar, the patient of the
action, is indicated by the suffix (5a, ‫ ;לָּה‬5b, ‫)ו ְַּת ַעּנֶ ָה‬. But the description of her
reaction to her abuse is only marked by the verbal form: “she-ran away from
her,” ‫ו ִַּת ְברַ ח ִמ ָּפנֶי ָה‬. 11 Disambiguation is provided by contextual consideration
since the fugitive must be Hagar, but from a purely morpho-syntactical point
of view, Sarai could be meant as well. For the present discussion, the central
issue is the role of the participants. By mentioning Sarai by name while Hagar
is referred to by pronominal suffix or verbal prefix, the narrator emphasizes the
contrasting roles: Sarai is calling the shots, whereas Hagar is the victim who
has to suffer the abuse.
These examples demonstrate the extent to which the role of the participants
affects the way they are referred to. The pragmatics of the interaction stands
out most clearly in the give and take of the dialogue. To this subject I will
devote the next paragraphs.

3. The Dialogue as a Negotiation Process

The narrative dialogue typically is more than the description of an inter-
action between two characters addressing one another in turn. Every speech
10. So also, e.g., Codex Hammurabi §30; Laws of Eshnunna §§9, 18, 22, 28, 30 (Roth
1997: 60–63; Yaron 1969: 58–59); in Sumerian, see, e.g., Laws of Lipit-Ishtar §12–13 (Roth
1997: 28). In biblical law, one notes Exod 21:6, 22. In the Quran, see, for instance, Sura 12
(Yūsuf ):95; Sura 28 (ʾal Qiṣaṣ):18–20, 26–27; 29–30; Reckendorf 1898: 371–72.
11. Shifts of this kind, “rough” though they may be, are rare but not unattested in Span-
ish, English, and Italian (Di Eugenio 1990: 273–74; 1996: 352–53, 355; Taboada 2002: 180–
83; Taboada 2008: 180, 195–200; Taboada and Wiesemann 2010: 1818–19); for Chinese see
Huang 1994: 166, 222–24.
158 Frank H. Polak

event is directed toward an addressee, expresses a content and anticipates a re-

action, in a dynamic of initiative, response or counterproposal. The dynamic of
the literary dialogue is characterized by the organized alternation of the speak-
ing turn, whereby the addressee of one turn is the respondent in the next turn
(turn taking). This structure is analogous to natural conversation as studied
by Conversation Analysis. 12 The narrated exchange leads to a deal, a transac-
tion and thus embodies a goal-oriented negotiation process, which serves for
settling disputes, acquiring rights and, in general, attaining goals vis-à-vis the
other participant in the encounter. 13 Thus the narrative framework containing
the dialogue actually represents a negotiation process with a pragmatic of its
own, in which the reference to the participants is only partly defined by ac-
cessibility. Far more important are the roles of initiator and respondent in the
give and take. 14
In biblical narrative the opening of the dialogue sequence mentions both
initiator and addressee, as demonstrated by the opening of the divine inter-
rogation of Cain:
ָ‫ָחיך‬
ִ ‫( וַּיֹאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־קַ יִן אֵי ֶהבֶל א‬7)
So Yhwh said to Cain, “Where is Abel, your brother?” (Gen 4:9a)
In the continuation both sides are known, and thus it is not necessary to men-
tion them again. Both Cain’s response and the divine riposte are not marked
by the name of the speaker:
‫ָחי אָנ ִֹכי‬
ִ ‫( וַּיֹאמֶר לֹא יָדַ ְע ִּתי הֲׁשֹמֵר א‬8a)
‫ֲדמָה‬
ָ ‫ֲקים ֵאלַי ִמן־ ָהא‬ ָ
ִ ‫ָחיך צֹע‬ ִ ‫ית קֹול ְּדמֵי א‬
ָ ‫ָׂש‬ ִ ‫) וַּיֹאמֶר מֶה ע‬8b(
(8a) But he-said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” (v. 9b),
(8b) So-he-said, “What have you done? Hark, your brother’s blood cries
   out to me from the ground! (v. 10).
Thus, the very indication of the interchange of speaking turns, by a verbal form
such as ‫וַּיֹאמֶר‬, suffices to indicate the speaker’s identity. 15 This basic principle
of biblical narrative is even valid when clarity is impaired:
12. Schegloff 2007; Liddicoat 2007; Sidnell 2009; in biblical context, see Miller 1996:
235–43, 257–61; Person 1996. The rhetorical structure of conversational dialogue is studied
by Taboada 2004. On the use of the methods of interactional sociolinguistics in literary con-
text, see Buck 1997: 89 (with references there); Polak 2010: 171 n. 11. An early systematic
discussion of conversation structure is presented, in a literary context, by Lämmert (1955:
214–33) in his analysis of a passage from Thomas Mann’s Joseph und seine Brüder.
13. See Goffman 1983: 5–54, 60–72; Edmondson 1981: 66–87; Polak 2008: 244–46,
652–65; 2009: 47–55; 2010 (with references to further literature).
14. The initiative largely sets the terms for the ensuing exchange and thus bestows a
dominant role on the initiator, and also serves to guide the reader’s expectations regarding
the continuation; see Edmondson 1981: 86–91; Coulthard 1985: 134–35; Longacre 1996:
127–29, 150.
15. See de Regt 1999: 28–32; for additional examples, see Polak 2013: 363–64.
 Positioning, and the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative 159

‫ישׁע ַויָּבֹא אֶל־אֲדֹנָיו‬ ָ ‫ֱל‬ ְ ‫( ַויֵּל‬9a)

ִ ‫ֶך ֵמאֵת א‬
‫ישׁע‬ ִ ‫) וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו מָה־אָמַר ְלךָ א‬9b(
ָ ‫ֱל‬
‫) וַיֹּאמֶר אָמַר ִלי חָיֹה ִת ְחיֶה‬9c(
(a) Then he-left Elisha, and went to his master Ben-Hadad,
(b) and he-said to him (NRSV: who said to him), “What did Elisha say
to you?”
(c) So-he-said (NRSV: and he answered), “He told me that you would
recover, yes, recover.” (2 Kgs 8:14)
The speaking subject in (9b) could be either Hazael or Ben-Hadad. For dis-
ambiguation the English translations use the relative “who” which makes it
clear that the speaker is Ben-Hadad, and mark Hazael’s response by the verb
“answered.” In this way the translator clarifies the situation which in the MT
needs disambiguation by contextual inference. 16
Thus, when the sides to the dialogue have been mentioned before, implicit
reference to the speaking subject is a basic principle of biblical narrative, even
if the lack of specification creates a gap in the information. This being the case,
the mention of a speaker’s name or title is not merely a matter of specification
or clarification but rather has implications for the rhetoric of the narrative.
The role of narrative rhetoric stands out in the tale of the flight of Hagar
that opens with an expository description of Sarai’s distress and a preparatory
reference to her slave girl:
‫ּוׁשמָּה ָהגָר‬
ְ ‫ׁש ְפחָה ִמ ְצִרית‬ ְ ‫ֵׁשת א ְַברָם לֹא י‬
ִ ‫ָל ָדה לֹו ְולָּה‬ ֶ ‫ׂשרַ י א‬
ָ ‫( ְו‬10)
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children, but she had an
Egyptian maidservant, whose name was Hagar. (Gen 16:1)
This exposition mentions all participants by name, making them all accessible
in the sequel. Nevertheless, the mention of Abram and Sarai is repeated in the
introduction of Sarai’s complaint:
‫ָתי אּולַי‬ ִ ‫ׂשרַ י אֶל־א ְַברָם ִהּנֵה־נָא עֲצָרַ נִי יְהוָה ִמּלֶדֶת ּבֹא־נָא א‬
ִ ‫ֶל־ׁש ְפח‬ ָ ‫) וַּתֹאמֶר‬11a(
‫ִא ָּבנֶה ִמ ֶּמּנָה‬
‫ׂשרָי‬
ָ ‫ִׁשמַע א ְַברָם ְלקֹול‬
ְ ‫) ַוּי‬11b(
(11a) Thus Sarai said to Abram, “Look, Yhwh has kept me from bearing
children. Go in to my maid; perhaps I shall have a son through her.
(11b) And Abram heeded Sarai’s request (v. 2) .
From the point of view of accessibility, the repetition of the names in (10a) is
redundant. 17
16. See pp. 156–157 above. In the Antiochian text of the Septuagint (manuscripts
boc2e2), the acting/speaking subject is added in all three clauses.
17. The indication of the parties in the formal opening of the dialogue framework is
often presented even following their introduction in the exposition (e.g., Gen 25:29–30;
160 Frank H. Polak

But in terms of narrative rhetoric the mention of both parties serves to clar-
ify the roles of complainant and respondent. In the sequel the names of both
sides are mentioned again (8b). This time the roles have changed: Abram gives
his consent, whereas Sarai is represented as beneficiary. Thus, the twofold rep-
etition of the indication of the parties forms an overspecification which serves
to mark the unfolding role of the parties in the transaction. Underspecification
may serve a similar purpose.

4. The Speaking Subjects, Their Position in the

Negotiation Process, and Positioning
The complexities of the representation of the participants in the negotiation
process are demonstrated by the dialogue sequence in which Naomi, the mater
familias and thus the high ranking participant, takes the initiative and urges
her daughters-in-law to return to their country of birth (Ruth 1:8–18). Her
first initiative is rejected by the addressees: “and they-said to her, ‘No, we will
return with you to your people’” (v. 10). Naomi, however, insists and renews
the initiative:
‫ֳמי ׁש ְֹבנָה ְבנֹתַ י ָלּמָה תֵ ל ְַכנָה ִע ִּמי‬
ִ ‫( וַּתֹאמֶר נָע‬12)
But Naomi said, Turn back, my daughters! Why should you go with me?
(v. 11).
This time, her counsel is accepted by Orpah, but not by Ruth:
‫ֲמֹותּה ְורּות ָּד ְב ָקה ּבָּה‬
ָ ‫ָרּפָה ַלח‬
ְ ‫ּׂשנָה קֹולָן ו ִַּת ְבּכֶינָה עֹוד ו ִַּתּׁשַ ק ע‬
ֶ ‫( ו ִַּת‬13)
They broke into weeping again, and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law
farewell. But Ruth clung to her (v. 14b).
On the face of it, Ruth is referred to by name, like Orpah, in order to set her
apart from her sister-in-law. But the sequel shows that the mention of her name
also serves to highlight her role. Although the narrator has Naomi renew her
initiative and urge Ruth again, this time the matriarch is not mentioned by
name:
‫ְב ְמּתֵ ְך‬ ִ ‫ְב ְמּתֵ ְך אֶל־ ַעּמָּה ְואֶל־אֱלֹהֶי ָה‬
ִ ‫ׁשּובי ַאחֲרֵי י‬ ָ ‫( וַּתֹאמֶר ִהּנֵה‬14)
ִ ‫ׁשבָה י‬
So she-said, “See, your sister-in-law has returned to her people and her
gods. Go follow your sister-in-law.” (v. 15)
Why is this renewal of Naomi’s initiative not marked by her name? This
method contrasts sharply with the mention of Ruth by name, although her role
as addressee had already been established before:

31:25–26, 36; Gen 3:1 LXX, but contrast 39:7–8). Hagar is mentioned in v. 9, but because
she is not introduced as subject of the lack, she would not be the one complaining. In the
terms introduced by Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein (1995), the center of attention is Sarai.
 Positioning, and the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative 161

‫ֲׁשר ּתֵ ְל ִכי ֵאל ְֵך‬ ְ ‫ֲרי‬

ֶ ‫ִך ִּכי אֶל־א‬ ָ ‫י־בי ְל ָע ְזב ְֵך לָׁשּוב ֵמ ַאח‬
ִ ‫ְע‬ ִ ‫( וַּתֹאמֶר רּות א‬15)
ִ ‫ַל־ּת ְפּג‬
But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you, to turn back and not follow
you. For wherever you go, I will go.” (v. 16)
At this point Naomi has to give in, but the narrator does not mark her decision
by the mention of her name:
‫י־מ ְת ַא ֶּמצֶת ִהיא ָל ֶלכֶת ִא ָּתּה ו ֶַּת ְחּדַ ל ְלדַ ּבֵר ֵאלֶי ָה‬
ִ ‫( וַּתֵ רֶא ִּכ‬16)
When she-saw that she was determined to go with her, she ceased to
argue with her (v. 18).
In this case, then, reference by name indicates the status of the participant
in the negotiation process. It is Ruth who carries the day, and her counter-
initiative, in which she rejects Naomi’s urgings, is explicitly marked by her
name (‫)וַתֹּאמֶר רּות‬. Naomi’s initiative did not prevail. The narrator marks this
development in (16), by not indicating Naomi by name (‫ ו ֶַּת ְחּדַ ל‬. . . ‫)וַּתֵ רֶא‬. The
same method is used in (14) in the introduction of the proposal that failed
to convince the other side (‫)וַּתֹאמֶר‬. 18 Ruth is likewise mentioned by name
when she proposes to glean after the harvesters (‫וַתֹּאמֶר רּות‬, 2:2); Naomi only
utters consent and is referred to by verbal form only (‫)וַּתֹאמֶר‬. Conversely,
when Naomi convinces her daughter-in-law to persuade Boaz into marrying
her she is mentioned by name (3:1, “Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to
her,” ‫ֲמֹותהּ‬
ָ ‫ֳמי ח‬ִ ‫)וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ נָע‬, whereas Ruth, who accepts her advice, is referred
to by verbal form (3:5, “So-she-said to her,” ‫)וַתֹּאמֶר ֵאלֶי ָה‬.
These episodes demonstrate the way of indicating the speaker that is char-
acteristic for the rhetoric of biblical narrative: the participant whose request,
proposal or command prevails is mentioned by name or title, whereas the iden-
tity of the participant who complies is not indicated explicitly. 19 In other words,
the narrator uses the reference to the different parties in the exchange in order
to point to their position in the interaction. This aspect of reference reflects
“positioning,” which in social psychology and discourse analysis indicates
“the assignment, shaping and negotiations of reciprocal relations between all
parties involved in the interaction” (Weizman 2008: 16), in particular with
regard to the social and emotional stances that individuals take vis-à-vis real
or imagined others (Harré and van Langenhove 1999; Harré et al. 2009; Du
Bois 2007). This concept has been introduced into narrative theory by Michael
Bamberg (1997) and David Herman (2009: 55–63); in biblical context it has
been used by Victor Matthews (2008: 101–7). For narrative theory this means
18. Polak 2001: 210–13; 2002–3: 6–13.
19. See Polak (2013; 2015) on such various episodes as Gen 25:33–34; Exod 4:11–17;
5:1–4; Judg 14:16–17; 16; 1 Sam 15:28–31; 19:6–7; 2 Sam 2:22–23; 13:24–27; 1 Kgs 21:4–
7. In addition the narrator may mention a participant’s name/title if the latter conveys impor-
tant information (2 Sam 9:3–4), renounces certain rights (Gen 31:43; 2 Sam 9:11; Ruth 4:6),
or seems responsible for a certain deed (Gen 3:12–13; see Polak 2002–3: 14–15, 112–13).
162 Frank H. Polak

the molding of internal “qualities” and “place in society” of the various charac-
ters by the narrator, through the interaction as it is shaped. The narrator marks
the position he grants to the parties in the negotiation process, as successful
and persuasive, or as doing concessions, as obeying and as failing to achieve
intended aims.
The way the narrator uses the indication of the speaker’s identity to mark
his position in the interaction is extremely clear in the tale of the Amalekite
announcing Saul’s death to David, and transmitting to him the royal insignia
(2 Sam 1:3–6, 13–14). This scene opens with the arrival of the messenger
and David’s interrogation. The future king has the initiative and is marked
by name, whereas the Amalekite has a subordinate role to play: “David said
to him, ‘Where have you come from?’ He-said to him, ‘I have escaped from
the camp of Israel’” (v. 3). The narrative continues this way in the next round,
when the Amalekite tells him about the outcome of the battle (v. 4). But his
account of the death of Saul and Jonathan changes the order of the discourse:
‫ָתן ְּבנֹו‬
ָ ‫ׁשאּול ִויהֹונ‬ ְ ‫) וַּיֹאמֶר ָּדִוד אֶל־ ַהּנַעַר ַהּמ ִַּגיד לֹו א‬a((17)
ָ ‫ֵיך יָדַ ְע ָּת ִּכי־מֵת‬
‫חנִיתֹו‬
ֲ ‫ִׁשעָן עַל־‬ ָ ‫רֵיתי ְּבהַר ה ִַּג ְלּב ֹ ַע ְו ִהּנֵה‬
ְ ‫ׁשאּול נ‬ ִ ‫ִק‬ ְ ‫) וַּיֹאמֶר ַהּנַעַר ַהּמ ִַּגיד לֹו נ‬b(
ְ ‫ִקרֹא נ‬
(a) Then David asked the naʿar who was reporting to him, “How do you
know that Saul and his son Jonathan died?” (v. 5).
(b) The naʿar reporting to him said, “I happened to be on Mount Gilboa;
and there was Saul leaning on his spear.” (v. 6)
Thus the naʿar’s response to David’s fateful question is marked by an ex-
plicit reference that highlights the importance of the position of the messen-
ger who is explicitly presented as “reporting to him.” Following this message
and the mourning ritual David continues the interrogation: “David said to the
naʿar who had reported to him (‫) ַהּנַעַר ַהּמ ִַּגיד לֹו‬, “Where do you come from?”
(v. 13a). This time the answer is given with no introduction:
‫ֶן־איׁש ּגֵר עֲ ָמל ִֵקי אָנ ִֹכי‬
ִ ‫( וַּיֹאמֶר ּב‬18)
He answered, “I am the son of a resident alien, an Amalekite” (v. 13b).
At this stage the man’s fate is sealed, and David’s question how the naʿar dared
to touch the king is not answered (vv. 14–15).
One of the most striking examples of positioning is the famous dialogue in
which Abraham questions the justice of the divine decision to punish the entire
population of Sodom and Gomorrah. The opening of this exchange shows how
Abraham initiates the question, but does not name the divine addressee. The
identity of the interlocutor is to be established in accord with the preceding
clause and the content of Abraham’s argument: 20

20. According to the apparatus of the Göttingen edition, in Gen 18:23 only the Sahidic
rendering (made from the Greek) adds the divine addressee.
 Positioning, and the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative 163

‫( ְוא ְַב ָרהָם עֹודֶּנּו עֹמֵד ִל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬19a)

ָ ‫) ַו ִּיּגַׁש א ְַב ָרהָם וַּיֹאמַר ַהאַף ִּת ְסּפֶה צ ִַּדיק ִעם־ר‬19b(
. . . ‫ָׁשע‬
‫ׁשּפָט‬
ְ ‫ֲׂשה ִמ‬ ְ ‫ָללָה ּל‬
ֶ ‫ָך הֲׁשֹפֵט ּכָל־ ָה ָארֶץ לֹא יַע‬ ִ ‫ ח‬. . . ‫ָללָה ְּלךָ ֵמעֲׂשֹת ּכַָּדבָר ַהּזֶה‬ ִ‫ח‬
(19a) But Abraham remained standing before Yhwh.
(19b) So Abraham approached and said, “Will you sweep away the inno-
cent along with the guilty? . . . Far be it from you to do such a thing. . . .
Far be it from you! The judge of all the earth—will he not do what is
just?” (Gen 18:22–25) 21
Following Abraham’s peroration—‘‘The judge of all the earth—will he not do
what is just?” the quotation frame introducing the divine consent includes an
explicit mention of the deity as speaker:
‫אתי‬
ִ ‫ָׂש‬
ָ ‫ָעיר ְונ‬ ְ ‫יקם ְּב‬
ִ ‫תֹוך ה‬ ִ ‫ּׁשים צ ִַּד‬ ִ ‫ֶמצָא ִב ְסדֹם ח‬
ִ ‫ֲמ‬ ְ ‫( וַּיֹאמֶר יְהוָה ִאם־א‬20)
‫ְלכָל־ ַהּמָקֹום ַּבעֲבּורָם‬
So Yhwh said, “If I find within the city of Sodom fifty innocent ones, I
will forgive the whole place for their sake.” (v. 26)
This is the authoritative decision. But Abraham persists in his efforts. The
renewed initiative is marked by the repetition of his name, and complemented
by the formula ‫ וַּיֹאמַר‬. . . ‫ ַוּיַעַן‬as a special indication. A particularly deferential
introduction serves to capture the benevolence:
‫ ְואָנ ִֹכי ָעפָר ָו ֵאפֶר‬/ ‫) ַוּיַעַן א ְַב ָרהָם וַּיֹאמַר ִהּנֵה־נָא הֹוא ְַל ִּתי ְלדַ ּבֵר אֶל־אֲדֹנָי‬21(
‫ָעיר‬
ִ ‫ּׁשה אֶת־ּכָל־ה‬ ָ ‫ֲמ‬
ִ ‫ׁש ִחית ַּבח‬
ְ ַ‫ הֲת‬/ ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ֲמ‬
ִ ‫יקם ח‬
ִ ‫ּׁשים ַהּצ ִַּד‬
ִ ‫ֲמ‬
ִ ‫אּולַי י ְַח ְסרּון ח‬
Abraham spoke up, saying, “Here, I venture to speak to my lord, and I am
but dust and ashes. Perhaps of the fifty innocent, five will be lacking—
will you bring ruin upon the whole city because of the five?” (vv. 27–28)
However, there is an additional point: Abraham has gone beyond the bound-
ary of the divine dispensation. 22 In this context it is highly significant that the
divine response is not introduced by an explicit mention of the speaker (‫וַּיֹאמֶר‬,
v. 28b). At this stage of the exchange, it is Abraham who has the upper hand,
whereas the divine respondent is merely complying. However, in the end the
debate remains undecided, and in the sequel none of the speaking turns is
marked by name (vv. 29–32).
One of the most interesting segments in which the mention of the name is
related to the progress of the negotiations is the episode of the wise woman
from Tekoa (2 Sam 14:4–20). 23 She approaches the king, in the guise of a
21. The rendering of v. 25 partly follows Fox 1995.
22. One also notes the introduction of v. 29, ‫וַיּ ֹסֶף עֹוד ְלדַ ֵבּר ֵאלָיו וַיֹּאמַר‬.
23. The high adroitness with which the wise woman from Tekoa succeeds in persuad-
ing the king is described by, e.g., Fokkelman 1981–93: 1.128–42; Hoftijzer 1970: 428–31,
442–44; Greenstein 1999: 157–59.
164 Frank H. Polak

widow in deep mourning, and establishes contact by her prostration, 24 demand-

ing the king’s intervention (“Help, O king!” 2 Sam 14:4). David’s responds
to her outcry in a condescending ‫ָך‬ ְ ‫מַה־ּל‬, 25 introduced by his title (“The king
said to her”). Her answer, the narrative of the case, is marked only by the verb
(‫וַּתֹאמֶר‬, v. 5), a marking that is unequivocal thanks to the gender indication
of the feminine morph. The king is predominant, as was only to be expected.
When David curtly dismisses the Tekoite woman, the narrator marks his re-
sponse by the full identity of both parties:
ְ ‫א ַצּוֶה ָע ָלי‬
‫ִך‬ ֲ ‫ּׁשה ְל ִכי ְלבֵיתֵ ְך ַו‬
ֲ ‫אנִי‬ ָ ‫ָא‬ ְ ‫) וַּיֹאמֶר ַה ֶּמל‬22(
ִ ‫ֶך אֶל־ה‬
Then the king said to the woman, “Go to your house, and I will give
orders concerning you.” (v. 8)
Here, the narrative changes tone: the formerly submissive Tekoite is now resist-
ing the king’s decision, and her resistance is marked by mention of her identity:
‫ָבי‬ ְ ‫ֶך ָעלַי אֲדֹנִי ַה ֶּמל‬
ִ ‫ֶך ֶהעָֹון ְועַל־ּבֵית א‬ ְ ‫קֹועית אֶל־ ַה ֶּמל‬
ִ ‫ּׁשה ה ְַּת‬
ָ ‫ָא‬ִ ‫) וַּתֹאמֶר ה‬23(
‫ָקי‬ ְ ‫ְו ַה ֶּמל‬
ִ ‫ֶך ְו ִכ ְסאֹו נ‬
But the Tekoite woman said to the king, “On me be the guilt, my lord
the king, and on my father’s house; the king and his throne be guilt-
less.” (v. 9)
This response has a hidden subtext. On the face of it, the wise woman assumes
all responsibility, but actually the very mention of “guilt” raises the question of
liability. Thus, in spite of her assurance that “the king and his throne be guilt-
less,” the very use of the terms ‫ עָֹון‬and ‫ָקי‬
ִ ‫ נ‬places the king’s responsibility on
the agenda. It is like the famous assertion “I do not say that y is a communist,
but,” or, for that matter, that “Q is not a traitor, but” (Searle 1969: 124–25).
Raising the issue opens the door for a statement to the contrary, which thus is
indirectly suggested by implication. 26 David’s forceful response is once again
marked by his title:
24. In this case the prostration serves to open the communication between the subject
and her king, as a “paralinguistic act,” that is, an act that does not use language elements
but belongs to the communication framework, as shown by, e.g., Edmondson 1981: 34–37.
25. This response is far less graceful than suggested by the renderings “What troubles
you?” or “What is your trouble” (NJPSV and NRSV). It is used by Caleb to his daughter
Achsah (Josh 15:18; Judg 1:14), by David to Bathsheba (1 Kgs 1:16), by the Israelite king
to the anonymous woman during the siege of Samaria (2 Kgs 6:28), by the prophet to the
ְ ‫ַה־ּלךָ ִּכי ִנ ְזע‬
courtiers (Isa 22:1, 16), and similarly by the Danites to Micah (Judg 18:23, ‫ָק ָּת‬ ְ ‫;מ‬
cf v. 24), by the skipper to Jonah (Jonah 1:6), and by the deity to the wicked (Ps 50:16). It is
to be contrasted with a similar question that includes the name of the addressee (1 Kgs 19:9,
13; Esth 5:3, and similarly Ps 114:5), unlike the cases of Caleb addressing his daughter and
David addressing his wife. In the two cases of anonymous appeal (the Tekoite woman and
2 Kgs 6:28) the king’s ensuing reaction is far from satisfactory to the petitioner.
26. The importance of indirect illocutionary acts is discussed in, for example, Carston
2002: 15–49; Bell 1997. Nicolle and Clark (1999: 351) show that participants in their experi-
 Positioning, and the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative 165

ְ ‫הבֵאתֹו ֵאלַי ְולֹא־י ִֹסיף עֹוד ָל ַגעַת ּב‬

‫ָך‬ ְ ‫ֶך ה ְַמדַ ּבֵר ֵא ַלי‬
ֲ ‫ִך ַו‬ ְ ‫) וַּיֹאמֶר ַה ֶּמל‬24(

Thus the king said, “Anyone troubling you, have him brought to me, and
he will not continue to harass you.” (v. 9)
The wise woman uses the concessions in order to press the king even more.
This time there is a textual difficulty. In the MT her identity is only marked
by the verb:
ְ ‫) וַּתֹאמֶר ִי ְזּכָר־נָא ַה ֶּמל‬25(
‫ֶך אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ ֵמה ְַרּבַת ּגֹאֵל הַָּדם ְלׁשַ חֵת ְולֹא י ְַׁש ִמידּו‬
‫ֶת־ּבנִי‬
ְ ‫א‬
Then she-said, Let the king be mindful of Yhwh your God, that the blood
avenger destroy not any more, and let my son not be killed. (v. 11a)
The allusion to divine authority moves the king to give an explicit assurance:
ְ ‫) וַּיֹאמֶר חַי־יְהוָה ִאם־יִּפֹל ִמּׂשַ עֲרַ ת ְּבנ ְֵך א‬26(
‫ָרצָה‬
Then he-said, “As Yhwh lives, not a hair of your son shall fall to the
ground.” (v. 11a)
According to the MT, the identity of the speakers in both utterances are un-
marked. However, according to a large number of Greek manuscripts (in-
cluding the Antiochian text), (24) is marked as the saying of the woman (ἡ
γυνή), whereas (23) is introduced as the king’s response (ὁ βασιλεύς; Brooke,
McLean, and Thackeray 1927: 151). The form presented by the Greek fits the
pattern of the previous round in its strong opposition of king and petitioner. 27
The version of the MT, on the other hand, mollifies the attitude of the wise
woman, and represents her as taking up and buttressing the king’s concession,
whereas David is represented as giving in further. This version seems more
sophisticated than the variant of the LXX. In any case, in the continuation the
initiative of the Tekoite is marked explicitly:
ְ ‫ָתךָ אֶל־אֲדֹנִי ַה ֶּמל‬
‫ֶך ָּדבָר‬ ְ ‫ׁש ְפח‬
ִ ‫ּׁשה ְּתדַ ּבֶר־נָא‬
ָ ‫ָא‬ִ ‫) וַּתֹאמֶר ה‬27(
So the woman said, 28 “Let your servant speak a word to my lord the
king.” (v. 12a)
As the wise woman assumes full authority, the king merely utters consent: “And
he-said, “Speak” (v. 12b). At this juncture, the wise woman removes all stops:

ments “try to work out the overall communicative intention behind the utterance.” Hurvitz
and Schlesinger (2009: 742, 744–50) speak of “extrapolation.”
27. However, one must take into account that the MT distinguishes between the speak-
ing turns by the gender alternation of ‫ ותאמר‬and ‫( ויאמר‬see above, p. 163). Because this
differentiation does not exist in Greek, the translator may have felt the need to expand the
text for clarification.
28. According to the codex Vaticanus of the LXX, in v. 12 the woman is not indicated
as speaking subject, but in all other important manuscripts her identity is given explicitly.
166 Frank H. Polak

ְ ‫ּומּדַ ּבֵר ַה ֶּמל‬

‫ֶך הַָּדבָר‬ ִ ‫ּׁשה ְו ָלּמָה חָׁשַ ְב ָּתה ּכָזֹאת עַל־עַם אֱל ִֹהים‬
ָ ‫ָא‬ִ ‫) וַּתֹאמֶר ה‬28(
‫ַהּזֶה ְּכ ָאׁשֵם‬
So the woman said, “Why then have you planned such a thing against
the people of God? For in giving this decision the king convicts him-
self.” (vv. 13–17)
When David understands what is happening the narrator uses the long formula:
‫ֲׁשר אָנ ִֹכי ׁשֹאֵל א ָֹת ְך‬
ֶ ‫ֲדי ִמ ֶּמּנִי ָּדבָר א‬
ִ ‫ּׁשה אַל־נָא ְת ַכח‬
ָ ‫ָא‬ ְ ‫) ַוּיַעַן ַה ֶּמל‬29(
ִ ‫ֶך וַּיֹאמֶר אֶל־ה‬
Then the king spoke up and said to the woman, “Do not withhold from
me anything I ask you.” (v. 18a)
The Tekoite agrees to do so, but the narrator continues to stress her authority:
ְ ‫ּׁשה יְדַ ּבֶר־נָא אֲדֹנִי ַה ֶּמל‬
‫ֶך‬ ָ ‫ָא‬ִ ‫) וַּתֹאמֶר ה‬30(
So the woman said, “Let my lord the king speak.” (v. 19b)
And when the king asks her whether she was coached by Joab, she immedi-
ately confirms the assumption in rich and persuasive language. By highlighting
Joab’s way of concealing the real purpose of her intervention, she indicates the
authority behind her performance. She also acknowledges the infinite wisdom
of the king who in the end realized what was at stake. These words of praise
clinch the case: David is virtually obliged to accept the implications of his deci-
sion. In the end, then, it is the king who has to obey the wise woman from Tekoa.
One of the many ways to highlight her success is the reference to her identity.
Positioning by reference, then, is an important aspect of the shaping of the
dialogue and the negotiation process in biblical narrative. 29
One also notes the dialectic of positioning and participant tracking in action
sequences, where dialogue is only partly involved. This is the subject of the
next chapter.

5. Positioning in the Action Sequence

The sequencing of action and reaction is to a certain extent analogous to
the initiative-response sequence in the dialogue. 30 Thus, many narratives re-
veal ways of referring to the participants in action sequences that are similar
to the methods used in dialogue episodes. I have already noted an example
in the narrative of Hagar’s flight (example 4 above): “Then Sarai treated her
ָׂ ‫ַת ַע ּנֶ ָה‬
harshly” (‫שרַ י‬ ּ ְ ‫)ו‬, “and she-ran away from her” (ָ‫ ;ו ִַּת ְברַ ח ִמ ָּפנֶיה‬Gen 16:6).
29. In a broader vista, positioning also pertains to the indication of attitude and inner
world of the characters, to irony, and to the narrators’ stance vis-à-vis her/his audience (Po-
lak 2002–3: 97–102; 2013: 367–71).
30. It would, indeed, be more adequate to represent the sequencing of speaking turns as
a special case of the action-reaction sequence. I gave preference to the spoken interaction,
since it is possible to formalize the structure of the dialogue.
 Positioning, and the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative 167

In her role as mistress and initiator, Sarai is mentioned by name, whereas the
reaction of the slave girl is described by verbal form only (‫)ו ִַּת ְברַ ח‬. In the Ehud
tale one notes the intermingling of speech event and action: 31 a short saying of
the Benjaminite hero is followed by the king’s reaction. Ehud is mentioned by
name, whereas the king is referred to by means of the verbal morph:
ָ‫) וַיֹּאמֶר אֵהוּד ְדּבַר־אֱל ִֹהים ִלי ֵאלֶיך‬31a(
‫ָקם ֵמעַל ה ִַכּסֵּא‬
ָ ‫) ַויּ‬31b(
(31a) Then Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.”
(31b) So he-rose from his seat. (Judg 3:20)
In the continuation Ehud’s name is mentioned once again: 32
‫ִת ָק ֶע ָה ְּב ִב ְטנֹו‬
ְ ‫ְמינֹו ַוּי‬ ְ ‫ִׁשלַח אֵהּוד אֶת־י ַד ְׂשמֹאלֹו ַוּיִּקַ ח אֶת־ ַה ֶחרֶב ֵמעַל יֶר‬
ִ ‫ֶך י‬ ְ ‫) ַוּי‬32(
Then Ehud reached with his left hand, drew the dagger from his (own)
right thigh and drove it into his (the king’s) belly (v. 21).
One encounters a similar structuration in the description of Ehud’s successful
escape. The courtiers looking for their king are mentioned only once: ‫ְוהּוא יָצָא‬
‫ָדיו ָּבאּו‬
ָ ‫“( ַועֲב‬he had left, and his [Eglon’s] servants arrived,” v. 24). But when
the narrator describes Ehud’s escape, the hero is mentioned by name: “Ehud
escaped while they-delayed” (v. 25). Once again the successful participant is
mentioned by name, whereas the party that has the worst of it is mentioned far
less. By the same token, participants whose actions consist in obeying com-
mands or following proposals may remain anonymous, such as the Israelites
following Ehud’s commands. They are mentioned in the description of Ehud’s
call to arms (v. 27), but in the ensuing episode they are referred to by the verbal
morph only (vv. 28–29). 33
The tale of Jael and Sisera reveals another instance:
ִ ‫יסרָא וַּתֹאמֶר ֵאלָיו סּורָה אֲדֹנִי סּורָה ֵאלַי א‬
‫ַל־ּתירָא‬ ְ ‫) וַּתֵ צֵא יָעֵל ִל ְקרַ את ִס‬33a(
‫ַּׂש ִמיכָה‬ ֱֹ ‫) ַוּיָסַר ֵאלֶי ָה הָא‬33b(
ְ ‫הלָה ו ְַּת ַכּסֵהּו ּב‬
(33a) Thus Jael came out to meet Sisera, and said to him, “Turn aside,
my lord, turn aside to me; have no fear.”
(33b) So he-turned aside to her into the tent, and she-covered him with

31. A similar compound of dialogue and action appears in the tale of Samson and Deli-
lah, with a similar dialectic of reference and positioning, particularly in Judg 16:10–18.
32. In Judg 3:19, one notes a similar role indication, with reference to Ehud by means of
the independent pronoun, ‫ילים‬ ִ ‫ׁשב ִמן־ה ְַּפ ִס‬
ָ ‫והּוא‬.ְ
33. A radical example of positioning by reference appears in Judg 7:9–11: Gideon is
only referred to by suffix, prefix, and pronoun and is not mentioned by name until he enters
the Midianite camp (v. 13). In 7:13–20, he is only mentioned in the opening of the episode,
and in v. 22 he is mentioned by name after the challenge by the two Midianite heads, men-
tioned by name (v. 21).
168 Frank H. Polak

a rug. (4:18)
In the ensuing scene Sisera remains nameless, even when he commands Jael
to take post in the tent opening (v. 20). But when the narrator tells how Jael
kills the commander, she is mentioned by name, whereas he is referred to by
pronoun and verbal prefix: 34
‫ָדּה ו ַָּתבֹוא ֵאלָיו‬
ָ ‫ׂשם אֶת־ ַהּמ ֶַּקבֶת ְּבי‬ ֶ ‫ֵׁשת־ ֶחבֶר אֶת־יְתַ ד הָאֹהֶל ו ַָּת‬ ֶ ‫) ו ִַּתּקַ ח יָעֵל א‬34a(
‫ַּבּלָאט‬
ֹ‫) ו ִַּת ְתקַ ע אֶת־ ַהּיָתֵ ד ְּברַ ָּקתֹו ו ִַּת ְצנַח ָּב ָארֶץ ְוהּוא־נ ְִרָּדם ַוּיָעַף ַוּיָמת‬34b(
(34a) But Jael wife of Heber took a tent peg, took a hammer in her hand,
went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, until it went
down into the ground—he was lying fast asleep from weariness—
(34b) and he-died. (4:21)
We encounter a similar case in the tale of Samson in the temple of Dagon
(16:25–30). The description of his dance before the Philistine crowd mentions
his name as object to be brought in, but not as subject:
‫ֲסּורים‬
ִ ‫ׁש ְמׁשֹון ִמּבֵית ָהא‬ ִ ‫ִק ְראּו ְל‬
ְ ‫) ַוּי‬35a(
‫ַּמּודים‬
ִ ‫ֲמידּו אֹותֹו ּבֵין ָהע‬
ִ ‫) ַו ְי ַצחֵק ִל ְפנֵיהֶם ַוּיַע‬35b(
(35a) So they fetched Samson from the prison,
(35b) and-he-danced for them. Then-they-put him between the pillars.
(16:23)
By contrast, when Samson starts resisting and endeavors to make the temple
collapse, his name is mentioned again and again:
‫ֻדים‬
ִ ‫ׁשנִי אֶת־ ָה ַעּמ‬
ֵ ‫ֲמ‬
ִ ‫אֹותי ַוה‬
ִ ‫חזִיק ְּביָדֹו ַהּנִיחָה‬ ִ ‫) וַּיֹאמֶר‬36(
ֲ ‫ׁש ְמׁשֹון אֶל־ ַהּנַעַר ַה ַּמ‬
And Samson said to the boy who was leading him by the hand, “Let go
of me and let me feel the pillars.” (16:26)
The narrative continues to describe the prayer of the hero: “Then Samson
called to Yhwh” (v. 28, ‫שׁ ְמשֹׁון אֶל־יְהוָה‬ ִ ‫ִק ָרא‬
ְ ‫) ַויּ‬, and his final actions: “and
Samson grasped (‫שׁ ְמשֹׁון‬ ִ ‫ִלפֹּת‬ְ ‫ ) ַויּ‬the two middle pillars” (v. 29), “then Samson
ִ ‫)וַיֹּאמֶר‬, all marked by his name: at this moment he finally
said” (v. 30, ‫שׁ ְמשֹׁון‬
achieved his goal.

6. Conclusion: Reference and Positioning

The preceding considerations show that the way in which the biblical nar-
rator refers to a given character as speaking or acting subject is not determined
solely by accessibility or social status. A factor that is no less important is the
position the narrator allocates to this character. The participant who is suc-
34. One notes a similar hierarchy of name mentioning/non-mention when Jael shows
Barak how Sisera died (4:22).
 Positioning, and the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative 169

cessful in his undertaking or prevails in the spoken interaction is marked by

name and/or title, whereas reference to the character who complies or remains
submissive or passive is limited to the verbal form only. In other words, the
stylistic shaping of reference is germane to positioning. Positioning by refer-
ence, then, is a significant component of the interface between literary theory
and the linguistic study of discourse and pragmatics.

References
Ariel, M.
1990 Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
2001 Accessibility. An Overview. Pp. 29–87 in Text Representation: Linguistic and
Psycholinguistic Aspects, ed. T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, and W. Spooren.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
2004 Accessibility Marking: Discourse Functions, Discourse Profiles, and Pro-
cessing Cues. Discourse Processes 37: 91–116.
Bamberg, M.
1997 Positioning between Structure and Performance. Journal of Narrative and
Life History 7: 335–42.
Bell, D. M.
1997 Innuendo. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 35–59.
Brooke, A. E.; McLean, N.; and Thackeray, J.
1927 The Old Testament in Greek, vol. 2: The Later Historical Books, part 1: I and
II Samuel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buck, R. A.
1997 Towards an Extended Theory of Face Action: Analyzing Dialogue in E. M.
Forster’s A Passage to India. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 83–106.
Carston, R.
2002 Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Chafe, W.
1987 Information in Speaking and Writing. Pp. 17–29 in The Linguistics of Lit-
eracy, ed. P. Downing, S. D. Lina, and M. Noonan. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Con-
scious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Coulthard, M.
1985 An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed. London: Longman.
Du Bois, J. W.
2007 The Stance Triangle. Pp. 139–81 in Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity,
Evaluation, Interaction, ed. R. Englebretson. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Edmondson, W.
1981 Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. London: Longman.
Eugenio, B. di
1990 Centering Theory and the Italian Pronominal System. Pp. 270–75 in Papers
Presented to the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics
(COLING-90), ed. H. Karlgren. Helsinki: Helsingiensis Universitas.
170 Frank H. Polak

1996 The Discourse Functions of Italian Subjects: A Centering Approach.

Pp. 352–57 in Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Computational Lin-
guistics. Vol. 1. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Fokkelman, J. P.
1981–93 Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. 4 Vols. SSN 20, 23, 27, 31.
Assen: van Gorcum.
Fox, B. A.
1987 Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, E.
1995 The Five Books of Moses. New York: Schocken.
Gesenius, W.
1817 Ausführliches grammatisch–kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen
Sprache. Leipzig: Vogel.
Giora, R., and Lee, C.-L.
1996 “Written discourse segmentation: The function of unstressed pronouns in
Mandarin Chinese.” Pp. 113–40 in Reference and Reference Accessibility,
ed. J. Gundel and T. Fretheim. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Goffman, E.
1983 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Greenstein, E. L.
1999 Jethro’s Wit: An Interpretation of Wordplay in Exodus 18. Pp. 155–71 in On
the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honor of George M. Landes, ed. S. L. Cook
and S. C. Winter. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Grosz, B. J.; Joshi, A. K.; and Weinstein, S.
1995 Centering: a Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse.
Computational Linguistics 21: 203–25.
Harré, R., and Langenhove, L. van, eds.
1999 Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harré, R. et al.
2009 “Recent Advances in Positioning Theory,” Theory & Psychology 19: 5–31.
Herman, D.
2009 Basic Elements of Narrative. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hoftijzer, J.
1970 David and the Tekoite Woman. VT 20: 419–44.
Huang, Y.
1994 The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora. A Study with Special Reference to
Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2000 Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hurvitz, S., and Schlesinger, I. M.
2009 Studying Implicit Messages: A Different Approach. Journal of Pragmatics
41: 738–52.
Lämmert, E.
1955 Bauformen des Erzählens. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Liddicoat, A. J.
2007 An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.
 Positioning, and the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative 171

Longacre, R. E.
1989 Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence. A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic
Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
1996 The Grammar of Discourse. 2nd ed. New York: Plenum.
Matthews, V. H.
2008 More Than Meets the Ear: Discovering the Hidden Contexts of Old Testa-
ment Conversations. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Miller, C. L.
1996 The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic
Analysis. HSM 55. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Nicolle, S., and Clark, B.
1999 Experimental Pragmatics and What is Said: A Response to Gibbs and Moise.
Cognition 69: 337–54.
Person, R. F., Jr.
1996 In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and
the Book of Jonah. JSOTSup 220. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Polak, F. H.
2001 On Dialogue and Speaker Status in the Scroll of Ruth. Beit Mikra 46: 193–
218. [Hebrew, with summary in English]
2002–3 On Dialogue and Speaker Status in Biblical Narrative. Beit Mikra 48: 1–18,
97–119. [Hebrew, with summary in English]
2008 Negotiating with Ḫammu-rāpi: A Case Study. Pp. 595–617 in Birkat Shalom:
Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature and Postbiblical Ju-
daism Presented to Shalom M. Paul, ed. C. Cohen et al. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
2009 Negotiations, Social Drama and Voices of Memory in Some Samuel Tales.
Pp. 45–64 in Narrative as a Performance of Memory in the Bible and Be-
yond, ed. A. Brenner and F. H. Polak. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.
2010 Forms of Talk in Hebrew Biblical Narrative: Negotiations, Interaction and
Socio-cultural Context. Pp. 167–98 in Literary Fiction and the Construction
of Identity in Ancient Literatures, ed. H. Liss and M. Oeming. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
2013 Speaker, Addressee and Positioning: Dialogue Structure and Pragmatics in
Biblical Narrative. Pp. 359–72 in Interested Readers: Essays on the Bible
in Honor of David J. A. Clines, ed. J. Aitken, J. Clines, and C. M. Maier.
Atlanta: SBL.
2015 Whodunit? From Wellhausen to Pragmatics: Implicit Subject and Discourse
Structure in the Hebrew and Greek Bible. Pp. 223–47 in From Author to
Copyist: Composition, Redaction and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in
Honor of Zippi Talshir, ed. C. Werman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Reckendorf, H.
1898 Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen. Leiden: Brill.
Regt, L. J., de
1999 Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator. Reference Devices
and Their Rhetorical Impact. Assen: van Gorcum.
172 Frank H. Polak

Roth, M. T.
1997 Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2nd ed. SBLWAWS 6.
Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Runge, S. E.
2006 Pragmatic Effects of Semantically Redundant Anchoring Expressions in Bib-
lical Hebrew Narrative. JNSL 32: 55–83.
Schegloff, E. A.
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis I.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2009 One Perspective on Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives.
Pp. 337–406 in Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. J. Sid-
nell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R.
1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Sellin, E.
1922 Das Zwölfprophetenbuch. KAT 12. Erlangen: Deichertsche.
Sidnell, J.
2009 “Comparative Perspectives in Conversation Analysis.” Pp. 3–27 in Conver-
sation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. J. Sidnell. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Smith, R. W.
1984 Micah–Malachi. WBC 32. Waco TX: Word.
Taboada, M.
2002 Centering and Pronominal Reference: In Dialogue, In Spanish. Pp. 177–84
in Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of
Dialogue (EDILOG-2002), ed. J. Bos, M. E. Foster, and C. Matheson. Edin-
burgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
2004 Building Coherence and Cohesion. Task-Oriented Dialogue in English and
Spanish. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
2008 Reference, Centers and Transitions in Spoken Spanish. Pp. 176–215 in Refer-
ence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. J. Gundel and N. Hedberg. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Taboada M., and Wiesemann, L.
2010 Subjects and Topics in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1816–28
Weizman, E.
2008 Positioning in Media Dialogue: Negotiating Roles in the News Interview.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wellhausen, J.
1871 Der Text der Bücher Samuelis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1905 Einleitung in die Drei Ersten Evangelien. Berlin: Reimer.
Wolde, E. van
2009 Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cogni-
tion, and Context. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Yaron, R.
1969 The Laws of Eshnunna. Jerusalem: Magnes.