HEAD-DEPENDENT ASYMMETRY AND GENERATIVE METRICS FOR BIBLICAL HEBREW:

TETRAMETER, PENTAMETER, HEXAMETER, HEPTAMETER1

VINCENT DECAENDepartment of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations

University of Torontodecaen@chass.utoronto.ca

<draft 6.2, w ¾ of apparatus, May 2002>

2

—Josephus, Jewish Antiquities VII

1. Introduction

1.1. There is no meter in Biblical Hebrew (BH) poetry: “one may safely conclude that

the poetry of the Hebrew Bible does not contain meter” (Vance 2001: 496); “one must

reject meter as an element in the poetics of classical Hebrew poetry as it is found in the

1 I would like to thank Nila Friedberg and Elan Dresher, convenors of the international conference held at the University of Toronto, “Formal Approaches to Poetry and Recent Developments in Generative Metrics” (8-10 Oct. 1999). They encouraged me to participate, and I gave a paper entitled, “On the Biblical Pentameter in Jonah 2” (10 Oct.), which is now completely revised here. I had followed this up with a presentation in the Jewish Studies Colloquia, “The Linguistic and Musical Reality behind the Tiberian Hebrew Accents” (2 Feb. 1999). Since then, I have been able to pursue this programme only now and then. This past year, however, I was once again inspired to study generative metrics through editing Michael Getty’s forthcoming book on Old English metrics (Getty 2002).

I would also like to thank .......who have kindly offered criticism on earlier drafts. I remain solely responsible for the opinions expressed.

Finally, I would like to thank my friend, Michael Rumack, who serves as cantor at the First Narayever, downtown Toronto and to whom this paper is dedicated. It was Michael who first introduced me to the haunting beauty of the biblical cantillation, and who made concrete the abstractions I had found in dusty books.

My work is made possible by a generous donation from the nonprofit GRAMCORD Institute www.gramcord.org; and by the continued generosity of Albert (Dov) Friedberg.

2 “David, being now free from wars and dangers, and enjoying profound peace from this time on, composed songs and hymns to God [Psalms] in varied meters—some he made in trimeters, and others in pentameters” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books V-VIII, Loeb Classical Library).

Bible” (p. 497). In fact, there is nothing vaguely prosodic about BH poetry whatsoever—

assuming there even is poetry! There may still be one or two flat-earthers around, but

respectable scholars subscribe to the three-C consensus (or , concensus) of the early

1980s: Collins (1978), O’Connor (1980) and Kugel (1981).3 BH poetry, according to

this consensus, can be defined—if at all—in terms of semantic and syntactic parallelism;

such parallelism is further constrained by the syntax.

1.2. This consensus position, I would argue, is bizarre on many counts, at least two

that are relevant to the no-phonology position. First, BH in its several ancient reading

traditions is inherently prosodic: by “inherently prosodic” I mean that its phonology

refers to several distinct prosodic domains: the organization of syllables into feet (F);

the phonological word or clitic group (); the combination of words into phonological

phrases (); pausal phonology at the right edges of the intonational phrase (I); and the

connection between the biblical verse and the phonological utterance (U) (Dresher 1994:

esp. §3; cf. Hayes 1989). BH’s three sandhi rules in particular (spirantization, stress

retraction and external gemination) are sensitive to boundaries (Dresher 1994: §3.2).

1.3. Second, and perhaps more suggestive, the biblical text is not read but chanted. It

is the cantillation system that regulates BH prosodic phonology. There can be no doubt

3 Dion concludes, “The flourishing of theses and monographs in Hebrew Poetics that took place in the eighties seems to have come to an end, and no recent publication has seriously challenged the quasi-consensus on which the first edition of this Guide was based” (Dion 1992: 1).

Pedersen and Richards similarly conclude, “... it is possible to discern an emerging scholarly consensus that denies the existence of meter in classical Hebrew poetry. In sum, it seems appropriate to delete meter as a category for understanding biblical Hebrew poetry” (Pedersen, Richards 1992: 42).

2

that this cantillation should be understood as a fine-grained prosodic representation,

following Dresher (1994). What is interesting about prosody is it operates at the syntax-

phonology interface: generally the prosodic representation is isomorphic with the syntax;

but it often deviates systematically from the syntax in satisfaction of phonological

constraints. The suggestion, then, is that O’Connor-style syntactic constraints should be

reformulated as prosodic constraints.

1.4. Furthermore, there are two separate cantillation systems: one for prose; and one

for the so-called “poetry” (the three books of Truth: Job, Proverbs and Psalms4). The

poetic system is somewhat different: more constrained, yet with a finer grain and

sensitivity to word shape, than the prose cantillation. Both systems organize

phonological words into phrases by means of conjunctive and disjunctive accents, but the

prose system permits quite complex nesting of such phrases.

1.5. It only stands to reason, in this light, that the organizing principles of BH

prosodics have some relation to the organizing principles of BH poetry; that the inherent

music of the language is reflected in the chanting of poetry, and vice versa. It only stands

to reason that the several prosodic domains serve jointly to regulate metrical lines.5

1.6. I advance this working hypothesis in the present, programmatic paper within the

framework of generative metrics, understood here as the intersection of linguistics

4 The acronym formed by taking the books in this order, Job, Proverbs and Psalms, spells “truth” in Hebrew.

5 This is in keeping with the spirit of Kuryłowicz’s proposals (19xx, 19xx). For surveys of previous studies, see the articles by Kuntz (1998, 1999) and Donald Vance’s dissertation (2001).

3

(phonology), literature (poetry) and music (theory of tonal music) (cf. Youmans 1989;

see further, e.g., Rice 2000; Fabb 1997: ch. 2). In this paper, I begin the task of

replacing syntactic constraints with the prosodic constraints independently motivated by

the phrase-structure grammar of BH cantillation: constraints on the branching of

prosodic constituents in prominent positions. I exploit the prosodic principle of head-

dependent asymmetry (HDA), specifically the visibility HDA (or HDA-V), as defined by

Dresher and van der Hulst (1998).

1.7. This paper has a tripartite organization. In §2 I establish the basic tetrametric

template from first principles. This basic metrical template can be expanded in limited

ways. I then show in §3 how the properties of the pentameter in Jonah 2 follow from the

principle of HDA-V. Finally, the maximal expansion to the hexameter (e.g.,

Lamentations 3) and heptameter (e.g., Job 3) is examined in §4 to determine which

constituent is in fact being “counted.” The intermediate prosodic domains of foot and

metron must carry the explanatory burden, as it turns out. There is a sharp contrast in the

behaviour and distribution of prosodic words of one, two or more than two feet. The

apparent gaps in metric lines fall out as a consequence of the HDA-V and the refined,

word-internal prosodic hierarchy. The conclusion in §5 sets forth a research programme

in BH generative metrics. There is no pretension here to an exhaustive treatment: the

goal here is to advance interesting claims at the expense of empirical coverage.

4

2. Tetrameter and the Metrical Template

2.1. The foundation of BH cantillation is the organization of prosodic words () into

phonological phrases (). Invoking the prosodic principles of HIERARCHY and

CONTINUOUS DICHOTOMY,6 we can define the BH metrical template as in (1).

(1) VERSE U

LINE I I

COLA

2.2. The initial claim, then, is that no more, nor no less, than the structure in (1) may

count as a BH VERSE. The BH verse is equivalent to a prosodic utterance (U) which

dominates two METRICAL LINES, equivalent to two intonational phrases (I). The BH

verse, then, is essentially a couplet of intonation contours. Each BH metrical line

dominates two COLA, equivalent to two phonological phrases (). As a first

approximation, let us assume the terminal nodes (“feet”) are also prosodic words () as

in (2).

6 Selkirk (1984) refers to the principle of Rhythmic Alternation (§1.2.1, p. 12). Hayes (1988), citing the 1980 dissertation by Piera, refers instead to the principle of Even Distribution; he states Piera’s constraint as follows.

Even DistributionThe cardinality of sister nodes in a metrical pattern must:a. differ by at most one (marked case);b. be equal (unmarked case).

(Hayes 1988: 242)

5

(2) U

I I

2.3. BH phonology is, furthermore, right-headed at every level. The implicit, global

iambic rhythm of (2) is made explicit in (3) (in which strong nodes (s) contrast with weak

nodes (w)).

(3) U

Iw Is

w s w s

w s w s w s w s

2.4. The metrical tree in (3) is isomorphic with a poetic-accentual parsing presented

schematically in (4) (the Tiberian conjunctive accent (C) contrasts with four degrees of

disjunctive accent (0-3)).

6

(4) 0

1 0

2 1 1 0

C 2 C 1 C 1 C 7 0

2.5 The resulting “2+2” tetrametric couplet seems to be unmarked in some

fundamental sense, not only in BH and related Semitic languages, but universally. “The

lines of this archetype have four feet, and from syntactic evidence appear to be divided

into two-foot cola. Lines are grouped by both rhyme and syntax into couplets, and the

couplets pair off into quatrains” (Hayes 1988: 244).

2.6. A much beloved couplet in Genesis 1:27 is also a parade example of this basic

tetrameter. The couplet has been rendered into the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)

in (5) and supplied with a morphological parse and translation.

(5) (a) | in-image God create.PAST3MS ACC.3MSIn the image of God he created him;

7 This node may be promoted to a disjunctive D1 based on secondary principles that are distracting in the present context; this and similar phenomena are ignored for the balance of this discussion.

7

(b) | male and-female create.PAST3MS ACC.3MPmale and female he created them.

(NIV)8

2.7. This particular example highlights a characteristic BH asymmetry between freer

first cola and rigid second cola. Such asymmetry is cross-linguistically well attested:

e.g., the asymmetry of the ancient Sanskrit meters (Fabb 1997: ch. 3, esp. §3.3.2., pp. 64-

68; cf. §4.1.2., esp. p. 91). In all such cases, we contrast the free initial with the fixed

cadence. In (5) we see that the fixed cadences are strictly syllabic iambs; whereas, the

free initials permit words with more than two syllables. The line in (5a) is given a foot-

syllable parse in (6) to make the asymmetry clearer.

(6) F F F F

W S W S W S W S

S W W S

|

2.8. The asymmetry made explicit in (6) can be derived from the prosodic principle of

head-dependent asymmetry (HDA). As Dresher and van der Hulst observed, Tiberian

phonology is characterized by an HDA: specifically, a visibility HDA or HDA-V (1998:

§2, pp. 328-335, esp. §2.1 “Tiberian (Biblical) Hebrew,” pp. 329-332). The metrical

8 I employ the New International Version (NIV) here for convenience. Its use does not imply any judgement on its value as a translation.

8

horizon suggested in (5)-(6) is indicated in (7) by the dotted line cutting across the

representation. Assuming some sort of HDA-V, we need only ban branching on “visible

nodes.” This insight is employed in the next section to derive the properties of the BH

pentameter.

(7) F F F F

W S W S W S W S

S W W S

|

2.9. In addition to the asymmetrical syllable count in Genesis 1:27, it is also worth

noting in passing the alliterative aspect of this particular verse: bbzb (indicated by the

double underscoring in the transcription in (5)). This pattern has a certain Germanic ring

to it, reminiscent of one of the Beowulf patterns: AAAz (or AAzA, adjusting for the

directionality in headedness: Fabb 1997, §§5.4.1-5.4.2, esp. pp. 121, 125).

3. Pentameter and Head-Dependent Asymmetry

3.1. Let us posit a Tiberian HDA-V, already implicit in (4), and let us assume that this

prosodic constraint is grounded in Universal Grammar (UG). This HDA-V-T, as it were,

is presented graphically in (8), and is assumed in the remainder of this discussion. With

9

our HDA-V-T spelled out, we need only one global constraint againt branching on visible

nodes.

(8) GENERALIZED TIBERIAN VISIBILITY HEAD-DEPENDENT ASYMMETRY (HDA-V-T)

3.2. It follows from the constraint in (8), therefore, that the creation of a pentameter is

highly constrained. Consider how the constraint will apply to the second metrical line or

strong b-line of the BH couplet, as shown in (9). One and only one node is available for

the docking of the fifth prosodic word (the node is marked by the dagger “†”). Cf. (10)

for a constraint on feet and syllables.

10

(9) I

†

F F F F

(10) F F

w s w s

9

3.3. Notice that the weaker a-line is subject to a weaker constraint, as shown in (12).

In fact, we can continue to posit further degrees of the relaxing HDA-V-T, as in (13).

The distribution of variation across a stanza cannot be random, therefore, but must follow

from this sliding scale of the HDA-V-T.

9 The Minimum Word Constraint required for Hebrew is a natural consequence of (10): a word must be visibly branching; and therefore, must contain at least two moras ().

11

(12) I

F F F F

(13) I

F F F F

3.4. The famous Danklied (thanksgiving psalm) in Jonah 2, the centrepiece of the

biblical opusculum, is transcribed in Appendix A. This IPA transcription is

supplemented by a syllable count in Appendix B and a word count in Appendix C. Each

section of the appendices is supplied with detailed notes on the tables provided.

3.5. The psalm () in Jonah 2 consists of seven verses (N.B. renumbered vv. 1-7 for

the purposes of this paper). There are two stanzas () of three verses each, with an

additional verse for an introduction. The overall architecture is represented in (14).

(Notice that a triplet is found dominated by the strongest node of the psalm in v. 7.10)

10 According to the poetic system, a triplet must be parsed as follows:

12

(14)

w s

w s

w s w s

w s w s

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3.6. The verses are all decametric and the lone triplet consists of three lines of fifteen

word-feet.11 The seven verses are all isometric “5+5,” with the one exception of the

heterometric “6+4” verse in the weakest position in (14), viz. v. 2. Crucially, this 6+4

verse conforms to the only possibility for the heterometric verse in the system here (see

(12) above).

3.7. In this system, the only lines permitted are 3+2 (and 4+2 as just noted) and 2+3 at

the extreme. There is, however, no provision for 4+1 (v. 1a) or 1+4 (v. 5a) (see

0 / \1 0 / \ 1 0

This asymmetric structure is comfirmed by at least two facts (pace Price 199x: xx). First, the prose system lacks provision for a triplet; and in such cases the first line is given its own verse.

Second, my unpublished studies of major pause vs. minor pause confirm this asymmetry: major pause is only found in lines 1 and 3; whereas, major pause does not occur in line 2 of the triplet.11 note on note having to emend the text

13

Appendix C)—of course, it still would not be a coincidence that these oddballs appear in

such weak positions. These apparent violations have an interesting property, though, that

admits of another scansion, consistent with an acceptable pentametric line. According to

the principle of continuous dichotomy, these 4s are egregious offenders. Contrast the

expected, balanced colon in (15b) with the offending 4+1 in v. 1a (15a). I claim,

however, that the scansion of such a line is actually that given in (15c)—the result of re-

associating a free prosodic word (as indicated by the broken arrow). The treatment of v.

5a follows mutatis mutandis (15d).

(15) (a) 1 (b) 1

2 1 2 1

3 2 3 2

3 3 C 3 C 2

C 3

14

(c) 1

2 1

3 2 2 1

C 2

(d) 1

2 1

3 2 2 1

C 2

3.8. The distribution of syllables and feet is not random either: head-dependent

asymmetry holds at all levels ex hypothesi. The detailed examination would be too much

of a digression at this point, but see the full notes to Appendix B for a preliminary

examination below the level of the phonological word.

4. Hexa- and Heptameter and Word-Internal Prosody

4.1. To summarize to this point, the tetrameter falls out from basic prosodic principles.

The BH pentameter requires further branching on one node; and this branching is

constrained by HDA. Crucially, the pentameter requires a trimetric colon. Whether

prosaic or poetic, the cantillation requires a nested phonological-phrase construction, as

15

illustrated in (16). (We know independently that the left-recursive (16a) is preferred to

the right-recursive (16b), according to the HDA.)

(16) (a) (b)

4.2. Expansions to hexameter and heptameter, therefore, demand no further machinery

than that already provided for: no leap of imagination is required. We simply provide

for a trimetric colon in strong positions. Distribution of types, (16a) vs. (16b), etc., is

predicted to follow straightforwardly from the visibility HDA-V-T. This paper does not

explore further the distribution of variation beyond the study of Jonah 2 undertaken for

§3. Rather, we take up problems with the phonological word as the counted unit: more

than one word counted as one metrical position; and one word counted as more than one

metrical position.

4.3. We will take as representative of proclitic behaviour that of the negative particle

/laa/ “not.” Sometimes it counts as a beat, but sometimes it does not: often within

the same line. Consider the example offered in (17) that establishes a principled

distinction between counting and not counting.

16

(17) | | F F | /\ | | |

(a) or like-stillborn hide.PASS.3MS not be.1SOr why was I not hidden in the ground like a stillborn child,

| | F F

/ \ / \ | | | |

(b) —like-infants not see.PAST.3PL lightlike an infant who never saw the light of day? (Job 3:16)

4.4. The contrast in (17) follows from the basic Tiberian foot (F), which is essentially

bisyllabic. If we assume the principle of STRESS CLASH and the resulting refooting, we

derive the contrast: a full, independent word in (17a), vs. an incorporated proclitic in

(17b).

4.5. The second and critical loose end is the ubiquity of gaps, lapses, failures—what

have you, in the metrical line, especially in what would otherwise be good hexameters.

The solution to this problem has been identified by several scholars, rejected by as many,

but in any case is yet without a theoretical foundation. Robert Alter, e.g., draws attention

to a representative lapse (Genesis 4: 23-24; Alter 19xx: xx) that we can easily handle

with the system developed thus far. The relevant hexameter is given in (18).

(18) (a) |

17

for man kill.PAST.1S for-wound.1s &-boy for-injury.1SI have killed a man for wounding me,and a young man for injuring me

(b) — | for seven-times he-avenge.PASSIVE.3MS Cain &-Lamech seventy &-sevenIf Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times. (NIV)

4.6. Since his working papers in the early 1980s, Dresher has been promoting the idea

of a LONG WORD in Tiberian Hebrew. Long words, in terms of understanding the

cantillation, force divisions in prominant phonological phrases that are otherwise

unwarranted: hence, the motivation for the theory of head-dependent asymmetry. The

long word, for our purposes, is a phonological word () that is visibly branching. In

effect, two prosodic feet are behaving as if (as if!) two phonological words. The analysis

is presented in (19) with the visibility horizon again indicated with the dotted line (cf. (9)

above).

(19) (a) SHORT WORD (b) LONG WORD

F F F

4.7. So, two feet sometimes behave as two phonological words, but we now claim that

this follows systematically from HDA-V-T. We also find, just to keep things interesting,

one phonological word behaving as two word-feet. In these cases we observe extremely

long words, long enough to encompass three feet or more (notice that in Jonah 2 all

18

phonological words were either one or two feet, and so the problem does not arise). To

remain faithful to the approach adopted, we must introduce one further prosodic domain

to organize feet into words. I borrow the term metron from Greek metrics for a prosodic

domain organizing metrical feet (cf. Fabb 1997: §2.5.1, pp. 49-50, and §3.3.1, 62-64). I

will call such a word an EXTRA LONG WORD, in keeping with Dresher’s usage. The

three-way distinction is set out in (20) with maximal binary expansions.

(20) (a) SHORT WORD (b) LONG WORD (c) EXTRA LONG WORD

WORD ()

METRON (M) M M M M

FOOT (F) F F F

SYLLABLE ()

4.8. We simply need, in light of (20), to revize our prosodic hierarchy to intercalate

the domain of metron (M). In this way we can unite diverse prosodic phenomena, and at

the same time account for BH meters: ironically, we count metra. It just so happens that

most of the time the BH words are limited to one, sometimes two feet (see n. B4 below).

An example is borrowed from Watson (1995: in this case Psalm 59:2), as presented in

(21).

(21) (a)

19

deliver.IMP.MS.OBJ:1S from-enemy.PL.1S god.1SDeliver me from my enemies, O God;

M M

F F F

(b) from-rise.against.PART.MPL.OBJ:1S protect.2ms.OBJ:1Sprotect me from those who rise up against me. (NIV)

4.9. We thus come full-circle. What we were calling a couplet of two tetrametric

lines, e.g., becomes, on this view, one tetrametric verse (simply dividing by two).

Similarly, the decametric verses in Jonah 2 become pentametric verses. Hexametric

psalms are really trimeters. And thus we arrive where we began, at the epigramme from

Josephus: BH poetry is composed primarily in trimeters and pentameters.

5. Conclusion

5.1. This paper has outlined a programme for BH metrics based on three simple

prosodic principles, summarized in (22). The principles are combined with the

intermediate metrical units, the foot (F) and the metron (M), to account for the various

BH meters.

(22) (a) HIERARCHY(b) DICHOTOMY(c) ASYMMETRY

20

5.2. Principles (22a) and (22b) supply the basic metrical template as explained in §2.

More complicated patterns are then constrained by principle (22c); the asymmetrical

properties of the BH pentameter, as we saw in §3, can be explained by means of this

principle. The BH trimeter/hexameter and heptameter also fall out from first principles

(§4). Again, this account relies crucially on a supplemental refinement in the timing unit,

dubbed here the metron, intercalated between the phonological word and foot. The

connections with classical meters remain to be explored.

5.3. The ultimate goal is to develop a principled and parameterized BH metrics to

support biblical exegesis as well as the more literary study of stylistics (or poetics in

structuralist perspective). There are ways that such a basic system might be

parameterized: e.g., degrees of visibility; counting of degenerate feet; etc. It remains an

empirical question. We should eventually be able to tell the difference between poets the

way students of English distinguish Milton from Shakespeare.12 But there should be no

doubt that head-dependent asymmetry (HDA) holds the key to understanding variation in

BH metrical patterns. Further, the cross-pollination in the studies of Tiberian cantillation

and BH generative metrics can only enrich and advance both specializations.

draft 6: May 2002

12 Add note from Fabb 1997: pp. ?

21

6. Bibliography

Alonso Schökel, Luis. 1988. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Subsidia biblica, no. 11. Rome: Pontifical Institute.

Alter, Robert. 1985. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic Books.Aronoff, Mark. 1985. “Orthography and Linguistic Theory: The Syntactic Basis of

Masoretic Hebrew Punctuation. Language 61.1: 28-72.Berlin, Adele. 1985. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.Borg, Alexander. 1977. “Reflexes of Pausal Forms in Maltese Rural Dialects?” Israel

Oriental Studies 7: 211-225.Boulanger, Richard Charles. 1985. The Transformation of Speech into Music: A Musical

Exploration and Interpretation of Two Recent Digital Filtering Techniques. Ph.D. diss., University of California, San Diego.

Brown, Gillain, Karen L. Currie. Questions of Intonation. Croom Helm Linguistics Series. London: Croom Helm.

Christensen, Duane L. 1985. “The Song of Jonah: A Metrical Analysis.” Journal of Biblical Literature 104.2: 217-231.

Christensen, Duane L. 1987. “Narrative Poetics and the Interpretation of the Book of Jonah.” Pp. 29-48 in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry. JSOT Supplement Series, no. 40 Edited by Elaine R. Follis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Cohen, Miles B. 1969. The System of Accentuation in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Milco.

Collins, Terence. 1978. Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry: A Grammatical Approach to the Stylistic Study of the Hebrew Prophets. Studia Pohl, Series Maior, no. 7. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.

Craig, Kenneth M., Jr. 1993. A Poetics of Jonah: Art in the Service of Ideology. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Craig, Kenneth M., Jr. 1999. “Jonah in Recent Research.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 7: 97-118.

Cross, Frank M. 1983. “Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Verse: The Prosody of the Psalm of Jonah.” Pp. 159-167 in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall. Edited by H. B. Huffmon, F. A. Spina and A. R. W. Green. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.

Cross, Frank Moore. 1995. “Toward a History of Hebrew Prosody.” Pp. 298-309 in Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans.

Cross, Frank Moore, Jr., and David Noel Freedman. 1997 [1975]. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans.

Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation. 2d ed. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dion, Paul E. 1992. Hebrew Poetics. 2d ed. Mississauga ON: Benben.Dresher, B. Elan. 1983. “Postlexical Phonology in Tiberian Hebrew.” Pp. 67-78 in

Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Edited by Michael Barlow et al. Stanford CA.

22

Dresher, B. Elan. 1994. “The Prosodic Basis of the Tiberian Hebrew System of Accents.” Language 70.1: 1-52.

Dresher, B. Elan, and Harry van der Hulst. 1998. “Head-dependent asymmetries in phonology: complexity and visibility.” Phonology 15: 317-352.

Fabb, Nigel. 1997. Linguistics and Literature: Language in the Verbal Arts of the World. Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics, no. 12. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fecht, Gerhard. 1990. Metrik des Hebräischen und Phönizischen. Ägypten und Altes Testament, no. 19. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Fokkelman, J. P. 1998. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: at the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis. 2 vols. Studia Semitica Neerlandica. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Friedberg, Nila. 1999. “Constraints, complexity, and the grammar of poetry.” Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 17: 111-133.

Frolov, Dmitry. 2000. Classical Arabic Verse: History and Theory of `Arud. Studies in Arabic Literature, no. 21. Brill: Leiden.

Fussell, Paul. 1979. Poetic Meter and Poetic Form. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Getty, Michael. 2002. The Metre of Beowulf: A Constraint-Based Approach. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.Gillingham, S. E. 1994. The Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford Bible

Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Golston, Chris. 1998. “Constraint-Based Metrics.” Natural Language and Linguistic

Theory 16: 719-770.Golston, Chris, and Tomas Riad. 1997. “The Phonology of Classical Arabic Meter.”

Linguistics 35: 111-132.Halle, Morris. 1989. “Addendum to Prince’s “Metrical Forms”.” Pp. 81-86 in Kiparsky,

Youmans (1989).Halle, Morris. 1997. “Metrical Verse in the Psalms.” Ch. 12, pp. 207-225 in India and

Beyond: Aspects of Literature, Meaning, Ritual and Thought. Edited by Dick van der Meij. Studies from the International Institute for Asian Studies. London: Kegan Paul.

Halle, Morris, and John J. McCarthy. 1981. “The Metrical Structure of Psalm 137.” Journal of Biblical Literature 100.2: 161-167.

Halle, Morris, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1971. English Stress: Its Form, Its Growth, and Its Role in Verse. Studies in Language. New York: Harper and Row.

Hanson, Kristin, and Paul Kiparsky. 1996. “A Parametric Theory of Poetic Meter.” Language 72.2: 287-335.

’t Hart, Johan, Rene Collier and Antoine Cohen. 1990. A perceptual study of intonation: An experimental-phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge studies in speech science and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hayes, Bruce. 1988. “Metrics and Phonological Theory.” Ch. 12, pp. 220-249 in Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. 2, Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications. Edited by Frederick J. Newmeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hayes, Bruce. 1989. “The Prosodic Hierarchy in Meter.” Pp. 201-260 in Kiparsky and Youmans (1989).

23

Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Helsloot, Karijn. 1997. “Poetic Meter is Metrical Prosody: Phonological Phrasing in Italian Bound and Free Verse.” Certamen Phonologicum 3: 111-135.

Hoberman, Robert D., and Alexis Manaster Ramer. 1999. “Sephardic Scansion and Phonological Theory.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 119.2: 211-217.

Hobsbaum, Philip. 1996. Metre, Rhythm and Verse Form. The New Critical Idiom. London: Routledge.

de Hoop, Raymond. 2000a. “The Colometry of Hebrew Verse and the Masoretic Accents: Evaluation of a Recent Approach (Part 1).” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26.1: 47-73.

de Hoop, Raymond. 2000b. “The Colometry of Hebrew Verse and the Masoretic Accents: Evaluation of a Recent Approach, Part II.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26.2: 65-100.

de Hoop, Raymond. 2000c. “Lamentations : The Qinah-Metre Questioned.” Pp. 80-104 in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship. Edited by Marjo Korpel and Josef Oesch. Pericope, no. 1. Assen: Van Gorcum.

House, David. 1990. Tonal Perception in Speech. Travaux de l’Institut de linguistique de Lund, no.24. Lund: Lund University Press.

Hrushovski, Benjamin. 1971. “Prosody, Hebrew.” Cols. 1195-1240 in Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 13 (P-Rec). Jerusalem: Keter.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1989. “A Comparison of Rhythmic Structures in Music and Language.” Pp. 15-44 in Kiparsky and Youmans (1989).

Jackendoff, Ray, and Fred Lerdahl. 1980. A Deep Parallel Between Music and Language. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1975. “Stress, Syntax, and Meter.” Language 51.3: 576-616.Kiparsky, Paul, and Gilbert Youmans, eds. 1989. Rhythm and Meter. Phonetics and

Phonology, no. 1. San Diego: Academic.Korpel, Marjo C.A., and Johannes C. de Moor. 1998. The Structure of Classical Hebrew

Poetry: Isaiah 40-55. Oudtestamentische Studiën, no. 41. Leiden: Brill.Kosmala, H. 2000 [1964]. “Form and Structure in Ancient Hebrew Poetry.” Pp. 1-23 in

Orton (2000).Kraft, Charles Franklin. 1938. The Strophic Structure of Hebrew Poetry: As Illustrated

in the First Book of the Psalter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Kugel, James L. 1981. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. New

Haven: Yale University Press.Kuntz, J. Kenneth. 1994. “Engaging the Psalms: Gains and Trends in Recent

Research.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 2: 77-106.Kuntz, J. Kenneth. 1998. “Biblical Hebrew Poetry in Recent Research, Part I.”

Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 6: 31-64.Kuntz, J. Kenneth. 1999. “Biblical Hebrew Poetry in Recent Research, Part II.”

Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 7: 35-79.Ladd, Robert D. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, no.79.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Leech, Geoffrey N. 1981. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. Longman English

Language Series. London: Longman.

24

Lerdahl, Fred, and Ray Jackendoff. 1983. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. MIT Press Series on Cognitive Theory and Mental Representations. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Limburg, James. 1993. Jonah: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster.

Lowth, Robert. 1971 [1787]. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. 2 vols. New York: Garland.

Mester, R. Armin. 1994. “The Quantitative Trochee in Latin.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 1-61.

Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Studies in Generative Grammar, no. 28. Dordrecht: Foris.

O’Connor, M. 1980. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Opgen-Rhein, Hermann J. 1997. Jonapsalm und Jonabuch: Sprachgestalt,

Entstehungsgeschichte and Kontextbedeutung von Jona 2. Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge (SBB), no. 38. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH.

Orton, David E, comp. 2000. Poetry in the Hebrew Bible: Selected Studies from Vetus Testamentum. Brill’s Readers in Biblical Studies, no. 6. Leiden: Brill.

Pardee, Dennis. 1981. “Ugaritic and Hebrew Metrics.” Pp. 113-130 in Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic. Edited by Young, Gordon Douglas. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.

Pardee, Dennis. 1988. Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut (‘nt I and Proverbs 2). Vetus Testamentum, Supplements, no. 39. Leiden: Brill.

Petersen, David, and Kent Harold Richards. 1992. Interpreting Hebrew Poetry. Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Old Testament Series. Minneapolis MN: Fortress.

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1987. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistic Club.

Price, James D. 1990. The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, no.27. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.

Price, James D. 1996. Concordance of the Hebrew Accents in the Hebrew Bible. 5 vols. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, vols. 34A-E. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.

Prince, Alan. 1989. “Metrical Forms.” Pp. 45-80 in Kiparsky and Youmans (1989).Revell, E. J. 2000 [1981]. “Pausal Forms and the Structure of Biblical Poetry.” Pp. 172-

185 in Orton (2000).Rice, Curt. 2000. “Generative Metrics.” Pp. 229-347 in The First Glot International

State-of-the-Article Book: The Latest in Linguistics. Edited by Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma. Studies in Generative Grammar, no. 48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sagisaka, Yoshinori, Nick Campbell, Norio Higuchi, eds. 1997. Computing Prosody: Computational Models for Processing Spontaneous Speech, with 75 Illustrations. Springer.

Sasson, Jack M. 1990. Jonah. Anchor Bible 24B. New York: Doubleday.Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and

Structure. Current Studies in Linguistics Series, no. 10. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

25

Sievers, Eduard. 1901. Metrische Studien. Vol. 1, Studien zur hebräischen Metrik. Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Classe der Königl. Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, no. 21. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.

Steele, Timothy. 1999. All the fun’s in how you say a thing: an explanation of meter and versification. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Stuart, Douglas K. 1976. Studies in Early Hebrew Meter. Harvard Semitic Monograph Series, no. 13. Scholars Press.

Vance, Donald R. 2001. The Question of Meter in Biblical Hebrew Poetry. Studies in Bible and Early Christianity, no. 46. Lewiston NY: Edwin Mellen.

Walsh, Jerome T. 1982. “Jonah 2,3-10: A Rhetorical Critical Study.” Biblica 63.2: 219-229.

Walter, Mary Ann. 2002. “Final Position, Prominence, and Licensing of Contrast.” Second International Conference on Contrast in Phonology, University of Toronto, Friday 3 May 2002. <walterma@mit.edu>

Watson, Wilfred G. E. 1995. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. 2d corrected ed. JSOT Supplement Series, no. 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Weil, Daniel Meir. 1995. The Masoretic Chant of the Bible. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass.Youmans, Gilbert. 1983. “Generative Tests for Generative Meter.” Language 59.1: 67-

92.Youmans, Gilbert. 1989. “Introduction: Rhythm and Meter.” Pp. 1-14 in Kiparsky and

Youmans (1989).Zec, Draga, and Sharon Inkelas. 1990. “Prosodically Constrained Syntax.” Pp. 365-378

in The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Edited by Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

26

Appendix AIPA Transcription of Jonah 2

(Phonological-Phrase Boundaries (0-3))

-COLON -COLON

1a 3 2 =2 1

1b 21 0

2a 3 2 21

2b =1 0

3a 2 2 1

3b 2 1 =10

4a 32 21

4b 2 1 0

5a 3 221

5b 21 0

6a 32 =21

6b 21 =10

7a 3—2 21

7b 3 2 —1

7c 21 10

Notes

A1. For ease of reference, the verses have been renumbered 1-7. The grade of accent corresponds to a regularized accentuation vs. the actual prose accentuation found in the canonical text that has somewhat different demands.

A2. Proclitics are marked =, while enclitics are marked — in contrast. (See further note B6 below.)

A3. Whether or not the sister of a D0 receives a conjunctive or is secondarily promoted to a disjunctive is a complex matter and not directly relevant to this study.

27

Appendix BSyllable Count in Jonah 2

(with Morphological Boundaries and Accents)

-COLON -COLON

W S

1a (<>) () ( ) (X) (<><>)

1b (<>) (<>) (<>) (<>) ()

2a (<>) (<>) () () (<>) (<><><>)2b (<>) (<><>) () (<>)3a (<>) (<>) (<>) (<>) (<>)3b ( ) () (<>) () (<>)4a (<><>) (<>)(<>) (<>) (<><><>)4b ( ) () (<>) (<>) ()

5a (<>) (<>) (<><>) (<>) (<>)5b (<>) (<>) () (X) (<>)6a (<>) () () (X) (<>)6b () (<>) (<>) () (<>)7a (<><>) () ( ) () (<><>)7b (<>) (<>) () (<>) ( ) 7c (<>) (<>) (<><>) (<><>) (<> X )

X = ()? cf. standard rendering []; eventually [] and even []

28

NotesB1. Extrametrical <> vs. metrical syllables are identified by two rules (cf. Halle 1997: (5)).

(a) post-tonic syllables are extrametrical (except those derived by stress retraction)

(b) surface-short, open syllables ([CV] vs. [CV]) are extrametrical(those syllables marked by Tiberian schwa)

B2. The distribution of syllables per word is indicated in the following chart; mean, median and mode all equal 3. The most common trisyllabic architecture is the amphibrachic <>.

1 (5) xxxxx2 (19) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx3 (37) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx4 (9) xxxxxxxxx5 (5) xxxxx

B3. The prosodic foot (F) is limited to two metrical syllables. Primary stress is assigned to the rightmost F; secondary stresses are assigned to remaining Fs.

B4. The distribution of feet per word is indicated in the following chart (mean, median and mode all equal 2F).

1F (64) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx . . . xxxxx2F (11) xxxxxxxxxxx3F+ (0)

B5. A phonological word containing three F (or more) behaves as two words in the scansion (see further the treatment in §4 above).

B6. Typology of Clitics. I distinguish two basic types of clitics. The crucial distinction is between proclitc vs. enclitic, as diagrammed below. I further distinguish subtypes based on the use of the Tiberian hyphen (maqqef): the hyphen is employed when the secondary stress does not fall on a surface-long vowel [V], depriving the word of a musical trope (cf. [ ] (v. 1a) with stress retraction to the surface-long syllable, contrasting with[—] (v. 7a) where stress retraction is not permitted).

PROCLITIC ENCLITIC

P

29

F F

B7. Notice that a true lexical monosyllable can only appear independently in the following trimetric construction (the two cases are double-underscored in vv. 3b and 4b in the table). The two cases are found at the left margin (#) of the metrical b-line.

P

P P

F

#

B8. Another metrical oddball <> (with two full prosodic feet) is similarly distributed: the weak member of a phonological phrase, at the left margin of the metrical lines 2a and 2b.

P

F F

# <>

B9. While post-tonic extrametricality is quite common, it is not found in the strong final positions in lines 1b, 4b and 7c. No doubt it is not a coincidence that the divine name is the final word of the psalm.

30

Appendix CDistribution of Beats per Line

(with Totals)

-COLON -COLON LINE VERSE COUNT TOTAL

1a 1 2 1 1 4! + 1 = 51b 2 1 2 3 + 2 = 5 = 10

2a 2 2 2 4! + 2 = 6!2b 2 2 2 + 2 = 4! = 103a 2 1 2 2 + 3! = 53b 1 2 2 3 + 2 = 5 = 104a 2 1 2 3 + 2 = 54b 1 2 2 3 + 2 = 5 = 10

5a 1 1 2 1 1 + 4! = 55b 2 1 2 3 + 2 = 5 = 106a 2 1 2 3 + 2 = 56b 2 1 2 3 + 2 = 5 = 107a 1 2 2 3 + 2 = 57b 1 2 2 3 + 2 = 57c 2 1 2 3 + 2 = 5 = 15

GRAND TOTAL = 75

Notes

C1. The important obversation is the divisibility of 75 by 5. The global pattern must be a pentameter. Only v.2 is heterometric. The final v.7 is the only triplet.

C2. The problematic scansions are marked with the exclamation marks. Notice how these are distributed to the weakest lines.

C3. The most regular lines are 1b and 7c. This structure is paradigmatic.

31