The Function of the Tautological Infinitive in Classical Biblical Hebrew (review)

Over forty years ago, Takamitsu Muraoka mused doubtfully "whether there is still left any stone unturned" in research upon the Biblical Hebrew infinitive absolute ("Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew" [Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1969], p. 63). Nevertheless, a spate of works produced by other researchers in the past decade militates against such a judgment. Distinguished among them is the volume by Yoo-ki Kim, an update and revision of his doctoral dissertation.

Kim's first chapter introduces the two Biblical Hebrew infinitives, distinguishing between the infinitive construct and the infinitive absolute. The infinitive absolute frequently pairs with a finite verb possessing the same verbal root in a "tautological infinitive" construction. This naming convention underscores the fact that the infinitive absolute morphology neither carries tense, aspect, or modality information, nor does it inflect for person, gender, or number. Only the bare verbal idea resides in the infinitive absolute, which never accepts affixes. Both ancient and modern translations manifest inconsistent interpretations of the tautological infinitive construction, signaling uncertainty among translators concerning its function.

The second chapter constitutes the center of Kim's research, a synchronic analysis of Classical Biblical Hebrew texts. Insights from the generative paradigm of modern linguistics supply a fresh perspective for analyzing the syntax of texts employing the tautological infinitive. However, the elucidation of syntax alone sheds only a limited degree of light upon the communicative function that the tautological infinitive serves for the writers of the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, Kim's further investigation into the function of the tautological infinitive predominantly employs the functional paradigm of modern linguistics. Cumulatively, these methods disprove approaches to the tautological infinitive deriving from traditional Hebrew philology: reading the infinitive absolute as a cognate object or as the generator of an ad hoc "manner adverb" in translation. Instead, the tautological infinitive is a predicate focus marker dealing with the speaker's (or narrator's) strength of assertion, or attitude toward, a proposition. Thus in most cases, the tautological infinitive appears in modal contexts.

The third chapter reviews findings from Kim's synchronic research on Classical Biblical Hebrew against a diachronic tableau of texts drawn from the rest of the Hebrew Bible, Epigraphic Hebrew, Qumran documents, and other related ancient Semitic languages. In the case of tautological infinitives absolute in Chronicles, parallel passages from Samuel and Kings provide apt comparison. Kim correlates treatment of extra-biblical texts with grammatically-similar excerpts from the Hebrew Bible when possible, illuminating the discussion for readers who may lack familiarity with languages other than Hebrew. Two final summary pages list conclusions of the study.

Kim's research method highlights a significant issue worthy of further reflection. The issue at hand concerns how a researcher may synthesize insights deriving from competing schools of linguistics. As previously mentioned, Kim focuses primarily upon generative linguistic theory for analysis of the syntax of the tautological infinitive construction. Then he turns to functional linguistic theory, especially functional grammar, to assess textual data testifying to the function of infinitives absolute in these constructions. Kim's integration of theoretical frameworks is remarkable both for its apparent utility in his study and its relative rarity in the broader field of modern linguistics. As a rule, adherents of the generative and functional paradigms view their approaches as mutually incompatible: not merely differing in surface features such as technical terminology, but also flatly contradicting each other in their fundamental assumptions. Kim's work exhibits significant theoretical rigor for having employed both the generative and functional frameworks, yet the novelty of such an approach gives rise to a methodological dilemma. If generative and functional analyses of the same data differ, what should guide the researcher in disqualifying one set of results in favor of the other? Further research in theoretical and general linguistics should address this question for the benefit of non-linguists.

One of Kim's crucial lines of argumentation depends upon the classification of Classical Biblical Hebrew as a...