Adjusting Our Focus

ADJUSTING OUR FOCUS Robert O. Holmstedt Ullil'ersilY ofWiSCOIISill- Milwaukee rdho[nw@yahoo.com A review of Focus Struclllre ill Biblical Hebrew: A SllIdy of Word Order alld Information Strllclllre. By Katsuomi Shimasaki. Pp. xvi + 314. Bethesda, Md.: COL Press, 2002. Cloth, $35.00. Is there a reason why Biblical Hebrew sometimes exhibits verb-subject word order (e.g., c';:i';~ iiJ~) and other times subject-verb order (iiJ~ c';:i';~)? Are there discernible patterns and motivations for such word order variation in Biblical Hebrew? These questions have been asked with increasing frequency in the last few years in a number of studies.I These studies have reminded Hebmists that word order is much more than merely a syntactic issue-word order is intimately connected to discourse concerns. Kutsuomi Shimasaki's Focus Structure in Biblical Hebrew is the most recent addition to this growing body of research. In this article I will address the contributions and shortcomings of Shimasaki's monograph, and in the process highlight some of the theoretical issues regarding word order and information structure within Biblical Hebrew grammar that must be addressed by Hebraists. The central thesis of Shimasaki's monograph is well-articulated in the introductory chapter: while significant advances have been made in the analysis of Biblical Hebrew word order in the past two decades, no single approach has been able to account for the complexity of the word order variation witnessed in the Hebrew Bible. Shimasaki's goal is clear-Uto answer some of the questions raised in the past concerning the word order of Biblical Hebrew" (p. 30). He specifies four aims for his analysis: U( I) to discover the underlying principle for both nominal and verbal clause word order; (2) to ascertain the role of the clause-initial position; (3) to elucidate the functional difference of different word orders (SP/PS, XVNX); and (4) to clarify the relationship among word order, emphasis, and contrast as reflected in the use of Biblical Hebrew" (p. 30). Shimasaki's methodology and corpus I For example. see C. H. 1. Vim del" Mcrwc. "The Function of Won! Onler in Old Hebrew- With Sped,,1 Reference to Cases where a Syntagmeme Pnx:cdcs a Verb in Joshua." JNSL 17 (1991): 129-144; B. L. Band~trn. "Wonl OnIcr lind Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: Synlactic Observations on Genesis 22 from a Discourse Perspective." in Lillguistics (lIId Bibliml Hebrew. ed. W. R. Bodine (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), pp. 109-124; M. Rosenbaum. Word-Order Vari(l/ioll ill Isaiah 40-55 (Assen. The Netherlands: Van Goreum, 1997); T. Goldfajn. Word Order alld Time ill Biblical Hebrew Narrari\'e (New York: O)((onl University Press. 1998); 1.-M. Heimenlinger. Topic, Foclls ami Foregroulld ill Allcient Hebrew Narratil'es (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1999); A. Moshavi. 'The Pragmatics of Word Order in Biblical Hebrew: A StalisticlII Analysis" (Ph.D. diss.; YI.'shiva University. 2000). Hebrew Studies 44 (2003) 204 Review Essay of data are detailed in sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the fIrst chapter (pp. 30-35). The list of "central interests" in the discussion of his methodology is quite helpful in understanding which proposals and theories have influenced his linguistic framework. The majority of chapter 1 consists of a review of the central studies on Biblical Hebrew word order. The review is divided into two sections, one treating the study of verbless clause word order (which Shimasaki refers to as the nominal clause), the other treating the study of verbal clause word order. In the former, the study of the verbless clause is further divided into four periods: before the 1970s, the 19705 and 1980s, the early 19905, and the close of the 1990s. While the discussion of works before the 1970s is rather brief, the overview of the works of Andersen (1970), Hoftijzer (1973), Muraoka (1985), Revell (1989), and Niccacci (1993) is helpfu1.2 Shimasaki compares the different proposals to one another, and deals admirably with the bewildering array of often idiosyncratic definitions used in these previous studies. At the close of this section, Shimasaki hints that he will be building upon the works of Revell (1989) and Niccacci (1993), a position that he later...