## Anaphora and Deixis in Tiberian Hebrew: Semantically Mapping the Case for a Distance-Neutral Demonstrative

David Kummerow Trinity Theological College, Perth david.kummerow@ttc.wa.edu.au

Abstract : This article focusses on the issue of deixis and anaphora in Tiberian Hebrew, with the particular  aim  of  ascertaining  the  functions  of  the  demonstrative  paradigm  of ז ֶה and  the paradigm of the independent third-person pronoun הוּא , which is often also said to have a remote demonstrative  function.  Using  typological  works  on  demonstratives,  a  semantic  map  for demonstrative-anaphoric  functions  is  proposed,  which  helps  to  concretely  represent  the functions of the two paradigms. The finding is that in terms of deictic function, the ז ֶה paradigm is  unmarked  for  distance,  being  used  for  both  distal  and  near  referents.  In  contrast,  the הוּא paradigm does not have a deictic function, but is primarily used for various anaphoric functions, as well as having a recognitional function.

Keywords : demonstratives; anaphora; Tiberian Hebrew; Biblical Hebrew.

## 1. Introduction 1

Language arises due to the fundamental human need to communicate. Linguistic communication facilitates speakers to achieve all sorts of aims, desires, thoughts, and intentions that they may have, for  others  as  well  as  themselves.  Broadly  speaking,  communicative intent may have informative, social, and aesthetic characteristics (Keller 1998: 195), and language aids a speaker to fulfil their respective communicative aims. 2

Language is thus an inherently social phenomenon. The prototypical speech-act has minimally a speaker and an addressee who are both jointly involved: the speaker formulates and contributes the linguistic content of the speech-act, while the hearer receives and comprehends it. The prototypical speech-act  is therefore intrinsically situational, involving  people, time, place,  et  cetera.-a 'spatiotemporal context', to use Lyons' terminology (1977: 2.637; cf. 1968: 275). Speech-acts may arise between participants of same or different social status and sex, at varied times and locations, and  on  diverse  topics.  Given  the  shifting  situational  nature  of  speech-acts,  languages  regularly employ expressions which may be solely understood only in reference to the actual speech-act in which  they  occurred:  deictic  expressions. 3 Levinson  (1983:  54)  explains  succinctly:  '[D]eixis concerns the ways in which languages grammaticalize features of the context of utterance or speech event'. A vast growing body of linguistic literature relates to this phenomenon (e.g., Diewald 1991; Ehlich 2007b; Fillmore 1986; Fricke 2007; Jarvalla and Klein 1982; Lenz 2003; Levinson 1983, 2003; Lyons 1977; Morel and Danon-Boileau 1992; Perkins 1992; Rauh 1983; Weissenborn and Klein 1982). Table 1 illustrates from English some common deictic speech-act features:

1 Translations of Hebrew throughout are my own renderings. Language classification follows that of The World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS; Haspelmath, et al. 2005). Thanks to Johannes Helmbrecht for helping to obtain a copy of his  important  Habilitationsschrift.  I  am  grateful  for  the  comments  of  Matthew  Anstey,  John  Davies,  and  Martin Haspelmath on previous drafts of the research presented here, which represents a revision of the second chapter of my doctoral  thesis  for  a  primarily  Hebrew  linguist  audience  for HIPHIL  Novum (Kummerow  2011;  interested  general linguists are directed there, where all examples are represented in IPA transcription and morphemically glossed). An earlier  version  was  presented  at  the  Annual  Australasian  Christian  Conference  for  the  Academy  and  the  Church (AACC), July 2009, at Emmanuel College, St. Lucia, Queensland, and I am grateful for the comments of participants there. A revised version was then distributed at the First Australian Workshop on Afro-Asiatic Linguistics (AWAAL), held  at  The  University  of  Queensland,  September  2009,  as  I  was  unable  to  present  due  to  unforeseen  personal circumstances.

2 Abbreviations:  DEF,  definite  article; ,  demonstrative;  DIST,  distal;  F,  feminine;  H,  hearer;  M,  masculine;  MED, medial; NP, noun phrase; PL, plural; S, speaker; SG, singular; TH, Tiberian Hebrew.

Table 1.  Deictic categories and expressions in English

| Deictic category   | Deictic expression                                                                             |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Person             | I, you, we here, there, behind, before, left, right now, today, yesterday, tomorrow this, that |
| Place              |                                                                                                |
| Time               |                                                                                                |
| Object             |                                                                                                |
| Tense              | Past, Present, Future                                                                          |
| Movement           | come, go                                                                                       |

For example, the sentence Can you grab that for me and bring it here? is  only  intelligible  with reference to the original speech-act: the referents of the deictic expressions you , me , that , and here are  only  understandable  at  the  moment  of  the  speech-act.  By  removing  them  from  the  original speech-act,  we  lose  the  very  mechanism  by  which  they  may  be  interpreted,  as  the  expressions directly refer to the speech-act participants in the case of you and me , an object pointed out by the expression that , and a location expressed by here .

The deictic nature of demonstratives has long been studied. Diessel (1999: 2) succinctly observes that '[t]he most basic function of demonstratives is […] to orient the hearer outside of discourse in the surrounding situation.' That is to say, the deictic orientational nature of demonstratives is their basic and prototypical function ( pace Enfield 2003; Himmelmann 1996). Diachronically, the nondeictic  functions  of  demonstratives-recognitional,  anaphoric,  and  discourse  deictic  functionsemerge from this basic deictic function (see esp. Diessel 1999: 109-113; cf. Bühler 1934; Lyons 1977). This broad definition of demonstratives covers the syntactic distribution of demonstratives, namely, pronominal, adnominal, identificational, and adverbial.

Pronominal  demonstratives  are independent  and  occur in argument  position of verbs and adpositions. Adnominal demonstratives, on the other hand, are not independent, but rather modify a cooccuring  noun.  English  uses  the  same  demonstratives  as  both  pronominal  and  adnominal demonstratives,  while  other  languages  such  as  French  use  different  demonstratives  for  the  two syntactic functions. 4

3 The preference for using the term 'deictic' is shown here rather than the somewhat synonymously used 'indexical' (cf., e.g., Nunberg 1993) since the term 'indexical' has been shown to not fit well with the definition used in semiotics; see Helmbrecht 2004: 84-94.

4 While Diessel consistently calls adnominal demonstratives 'demonstrative determiners,' it seems better to allow for greater variability. In some languages, like English, adnominal demonstratives syntactically pattern like determinersdeterminative adnominal modification-while for others, like Tiberian Hebrew, adnominal demonstratives syntactically pattern like adjectives-attributive adnominal modification (cf. Lehmann 1983).

- (1) Diessel 2005b: 174
- a. Donne-moi ce livre-la et garde celui -ci pour toi.
- b. Give me that book and keep this for you.

Identificational  demonstratives  are  independent  demonstratives  used  in  copular  and  nonverbal clauses. Again, some languages like English use the same demonstratives as both pronominal and identificational demonstratives, while other languages like French have separate forms, hence the general  need  for  terminological  differentiation.  In  the  present  research,  the  vast  majority  of languages mentioned use the same form for pronominal and identificational demonstratives. Hence the following will use 'pronominal' to also describe nonverbal clauses and will use 'identificational' only where necessary.

- (2) Diessel 1999: 5
- a. C' est Pascal
- b. This is Pascal

Adverbial demonstratives are locational deictics and thus modify verbs. English here and there are examples of adverbial demonstratives.

The task of the present research is to investigate in typological perspective object deixis in Tiberian Hebrew (Semitic, Afro-Asiatic), the classical language of the Hebrew Bible. 5 The particular aim is to provide a typological assessment of the contrast between the demonstrative paradigm of ז ֶה and the paradigm of the independent third-person marker הוּא , 6 which under most accounts is also said to have a deictic function in addition to an anaphoric function. The Tiberian Hebrew (TH) corpus used  is  that  of Biblia  Hebraica  Stuttgartensia in  electronic  format  known  as The  Westminster Leningrad Codex ,  version  4.10,  and  as  morphologically annotated by the database known as The Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Bible Morphology ,  version  4.10,  which  has  been  primarily accessed through the Bible software program BibleWorks , versions 7 and 8. 7

This study is organised as follows: §2 introduces the two views on TH object deixis in the literature and sets some parameters for the investigation; §3 follows the methodology of semantic mapping from  linguistic  typology  in  order  to  construct  a  semantic  map  of  demonstrative  and  anaphoric functions  upon  which  the  functions  of  the  paradigm  of ז ֶה and  the  paradigm  of  the  independent third-person markers in TH may be mapped; and §4 provides an account of the functions of these two paradigms and maps the functions expressed upon the semantic map, thus visually representing the similarity and dissimilarity of the two paradigms and aiding typological comparison.

5 Anstey (2006: 1) explains the particular choice of terminology well: 'Because Biblical Hebrew (BH) is arguably a misnomer, the term Tiberian Hebrew (TH) is preferable. TH refers to BH, most of which was written down probably originally from 800-300 BCE, as annotated with vowels and chanting instructions by Jewish scholars in Tiberias circa

750 CE. These diacritics are the main source of our knowledge of TH prosody and phonology (Dresher 2008; Khan 1997). Scribal practices from Qumran, Masada, and elsewhere suggest that TH lexicophonology was fixed circa 70 CE but that TH syntax and semantics represents [ sic ] BH in a form understandable in 515-300 BCE (see Young 2003, 2005 for details).' Of course, these dates may be adjusted, but the basic outline is firm.

7 I here must make special mention of Mike Bushell and Glenn Weaver, both of BibleWorks, who greatly assisted me in my  quest  to  compile  the  latest  Groves-Wheeler  Westminster  Hebrew  Bible  Morphology  version  for  use  in  their BibleWorks software. Also, I would like to thank Dr Kirk Lowery of the J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research, Westminster Theological Seminary, for granting me access to the latest morphological releases. Copyright notice  is  as  follows:  Groves-Wheeler  Westminster  Hebrew  Morphology  © 1991-2013  Westminster  Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. All rights reserved.

6 As  argued  in  Kummerow  2012, the  language  of  'person  marker'  is  preferable  to  the  traditional  and  (mostly) synonymous 'personal pronoun,' and as such the following adopts this choice of terminology.

## 2. Two views on object deixis in Tiberian Hebrew

ָ

As Hasselbach (2007: 1) has noted, 'Semitic languages employ a wide variety of demonstrative pronouns to express basic deictic categories.' This is true of TH, where a number of demonstrative forms are used within the corpus, namely, the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms (the primary object of study here); זוּ and זוֹ / זֹה ;  and ז ֶה ה ַ לּ , ֵ זוּ ה ַ לּ ,  and ָ ז ה ַ לּ .  Discussion  is  briefly  oriented  to  these  forms  before moving to the crucial issue of semantics and paradigmatic function of the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms. (The suppletive nature of the ז ֶה paradigm with its inclusion of the plural לּ ֶ ה א ֵ is here left aside as it does not have bearing on the issues discussed in this article; one may consult the brief comments in Huehnergard [2004: 151] and Blau [2010: 176].)

ָ

Concerning  the  rare  TH  forms זוּ and זוֹ / זֹה ,  Huehnergard  (2006:  110-114)  argues  that  they  are reflexes of the Proto-West Semitic declined determinative-relative pronoun * ð -. Rendsburg (1990: 89, 2007: 89-90), on the other hand, seems to differentiate the forms in that he understands זוֹ to be a demonstrative and זוּ to be a relative pronoun. Huehnergard and Pat-El (2007: 329-330 n.23) suggest that זוּ and  relative ז ֶה are  frozen  forms  of  the  once  declined  determinative-relative  pronoun  * ð -, with זוּ traceable  to  the  nominative  and  relative ז ֶה traceable  to  the  genitive.  But  as  Huehnergard noted  elsewhere  (2006:  113  n.60),  we  would  have  expected  the  masculine  singular  genitive determinative-relative *ð ī to  appear  in  Hebrew  as **zi .  There  is,  of  course,  other  evidence  to support the reconstruction of relative ז ֶה to *ð ī in that ז ֶה ה ַ לּ is cognate with Arabic allað ī , where the shift ī > e is again apparent. Stated briefly, in other words, זוּ , זוֹ / זֹה , and relative ז ֶה are cognate with the Akkadian relative ša (< * θ -). 8

זוּ as  a  masculine  demonstrative  occurs  twice  (Hab  1:11;  Ps  12:8; pace Allegro  1955:  311-312; Ehlich  1979:  2.624-639;  Huehnergard  2006:  110-111  n.46)  and  is  used  another  13  times  as  a relative, that is, a nominaliser (Exod 15:13, 16; Isa 42:24; 43:21; Pss 9:16; 10:2; 17:9; 31:5; 32:8; 62:12; 68:29; 142:4; 143:8). זוֹ occurs once as a feminine demonstrative (Hos 7:16) and once as a relative, that is, with nominalising function (Ps 132:12), while זֹה is consistently used as a feminine demonstrative (Judg 18:4; 2 Sam 11:25; 1 Kgs 14:5; 2 Kgs 6:19; Ezek 40:45; Eccl 2:2, 24; 5:15, 18; 7:23; 9:13). Such forms are rare and essentially non-standard to the corpus. Young, et al. (2008: 1.229, 2.95) understand them to be the occasional surfacing of a non-literary dialect. The precise relationship and reconstruction of זוּ and זוֹ / זֹה to demonstrative ז ֶה and ז ֹ את remains unclear, although it  seems  likely  that  Huehnergard  (2006:  114)  is  correct,  given  the  typology  outlined  below regarding  the  grammaticalisation  of  demonstratives,  in  which  the  relative  function  represents  a derivation  and  extension  from  an  original  deictic  function  (cf.  Rubin  2005:  48-49).  Indeed,  in Ugaritic we find the cognate morpheme dused as a relative marker, as well as forming part of the proximal pronominal/adnominal demonstrative hnd 'this' (cf. Pardee 2007).

ָ

Given  the  scarcity  of  these  forms,  however,  this  is  all  that  shall  be  said  on  these  in  the  present research. This is also the case for the rare adnominal ֵ ל ה ָ א (occurring once pronominally in 1 Chron 20:8),  a  by-form  of  the  plural לּ ֶ ה א ֵ ,  which  occurs  8  times  in  the  Pentateuch.  Further,  the  same applies for the other rare adnominal deictics ז ֶה ה ַ לּ , ֵ זוּ ה ַ לּ , and ָ ז ה ַ לּ , which, given the argument below, can  really  only  be  meaningfully  discussed  once  the  function  of  the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms  are properly  understood  in  the  corpus.  Garr  (2008:  385-386)  provides  a  helpful  overview  of  these forms,  and  he  shows  that ז ֶה ה ַ לּ is  masculine, ֵ זוּ ה ַ לּ is  feminine,  and ָ ז ה ַ לּ is  gender-neutral. Interestingly, these forms  are consistently deictic-without  anaphoric,  discourse deictic, or

ָ

8 As too is TH שׁ ֶ (see Holmstedt 2007) and Phoenician š / ʾ š if the latter is not a grammaticalisation of the word 'man' (cf. Gevirtz 1957).

ָ

ֵ

recognitional function-although this could simply be due to the infrequency of attestation. In (3) some examples are provided:

- (3) a. Gen 24:65 (masculine ז ֶה ה ַ לּ )

נוּ ְ ר ָ את ל ִ ק ֶ ה ָ ד בּ ַ שּׂ ֤ךְ ה ַ הֹל ז ֶה ה ַ לּ ִ ֤ ישׁ י־ה ָ א מ ִ ֶ ד ָ ע ֶ֗ ב א ֶ ל־ה ֣ אמ ֶ ר ו ַתּ ֹ

'And she said to the servant, 'Who is that man who is walking in the field to meet us?''

- b. Ezek 36:35 (feminine ֵ זוּ ה ַ לּ )

- ן ֵ ֑ד ג ַ ן־ע כּ ְ ָ ֖ ה י ְת ה ָ ַ מּ ָ֔ ה נּ ְשׁ ה ַ ֵ ֙ זוּ ה ַ לּ ר ֶ ץ ה ָ א ֗ וּ ָ מ ְ ר ו ְא '… and they will say, 'This desolate land has become like the garden of Eden.''

- c. 2 Kings 23:17 (

- ָ ז ה ַ לּ modifying masculine noun) ֶ ֑ה רֹא ֣י א ֲ נ ֶ ֖ ר א ֲ שׁ ָ֔ ז ה ַ לּ יּ ֣ וּן ה ַ צּ מ ָ֚ ה ֶ ר ֹ ֕אמ ו ַ יּ 'And he said, 'What is that gravestone I see?''

- d. 2 Kings 4:25 ( ָ ז ה ַ לּ modifying feminine noun)

ָ ֽ ז׃ ה ַ לּ ִ ֥ ית ה ַ שּׁוּנ ַמּ ֵ ֖ה ה ִ נּ ֔ וֹ נ ַ ע ֲ ר ֣י ז ִ ל־גּ ֵ יח א ֶ ֙ אמ ֶ ר ֙ ו ַ יּ

'And he said to Gehazi his servant, 'See that Shunammite.''

As far as the syntactic distribution of the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms are concerned, it is as follows. First, both are used pronominally, that is, in argument position of verbs. A couple of examples are given in (4):

- (4) a. Gen 5:29

וּ ֙ ֵ נ ע ֲ שׂ מ ִ ֽ מּ ֤ נוּ ֲ מ י ְ נ ַח ֠ה ז ֶ ֑ ר ל ֵ אמֹ נֹ ֖ח וֹ ְ מ ֛ א ֶ ת־שׁ ָ ֧א ְ ר ו ַ יּ ִק

'And he named him Noah, saying, 'This one will comfort us from our labour …'

- b. Deut 9:3

֑יךָ ָ נ ל ְ פ ֵ ֖ם נ ִ יע י ַכ ה ֥ וּא ו ְ ֵ ֛ם ִ יד ְ מ יַשׁ ה ֧ וּא

- ''… He will destroy them and he will humble them before you.''

Second, both the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms are used identificationally, that is, independently in copular and nonverbal clauses, examples of which are given in (5):

- (5) a. Exod 3:15

ָ֔ ם ל ְ עֹל ֣ י ־שּׁ ְ מ ז ֶה

''This is my name forever.''

- b. Gen 9:18

׃ ן ָ ֽע כ ְ נ ִ ֥ י א ֲ ב ה ֖ וּא ָ֕ ם ו ְח

'And Ham, he was the father of Canaan.'

Third, all members of the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms are used in adnominal function. Both the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms are used attributively, as in example (6), while the ז ֶה paradigm also sporadically occurs determinatively (i.e., as an adnominal demonstrative in determinative position rather than attributive position), as in example (7a). 9 The only instance in the corpus of a member of the הוּא paradigm possibly used determinatively is found in Leviticus 25:11 in example (7b).

- (6) a. Gen 19:14

זּ ֶ֔ה ה ַ ֣ וֹם ָ ק ן־ה ַ מּ מ ִ צּ ְ אוּ ק ֤ וּמוּ ֙ אמ ֶ ר ֙ ו ַ יּ

֔

'And he said, 'Stand up! Flee from this place!''

9 It  is  difficult to agree with Pat-El and Treiger (2008: 277) who argue that * ðas  a determinative pronoun does not modify a noun. Rather, determinative and attributive are both adnominal (that is, modifying) in function and the labels 'determinative' and 'attributive' essentially refer to different syntax (cf. Lehmann 1983).

֙

֙

ֶ

ַ

ֵ

ֵ

֙

ָ

ֶ

ִ

֞

ְ

ֽ

֙

ַ

ַ

֙

ִ

ֲ

֤

ָ

ִ

ֹ

ֹ

ָ

ָ

- b. Gen 28:19

ֵ ֑ל בּ ֵ ֽ ית־א ֖ וּא ה ַ ה ֥ וֹם ָ ק ֵ ֽ ם־ה ַ מּ א ֶ ת־שׁ ָ ֛א ְ ר ו ַ יּ ִק

'And he called the name of that place Bethel.'

- (7) a. Judg 16:15

בּ ִ֔ י ֣ ל ְ תּ ה ֵ ת ִ ים ע ָ מ פּ ְ לֹ ֤שׁ שׁ ָ ז ֶ ֣ה

''This three times you have deceived me.''

- b. Lev 25:11

ֶ ֑ם ל ָ כ י ֶ ֣ה תּ ִ ה ָ ֖ה שׁ ָ נ ִ ֥ ים מ ִ שּׁ ה ַ ח ַ ֛ת שׁ ְ נ ה ִ֗ וא ֵ ֣ל יוֹב

''That fiftieth year will be a jubilee for you.''

In attributive function, the overwhelming tendency is for agreement in definiteness, that is, either [DEF-NP DEF-DEM] or [NP DEM], as in example (6). However, there is some slight variability in the corpus, as examples (8) and (9) illustrate. Jeremiah 40:3 even witnesses this variability in a kethib- qere distinction, reproduced as example (10).

- (8) a. 1 Sam 2:23

א ֵ ֽ לּ ֶ ה׃ ָ ֥ם ָ ע כּ ָ ל־ה

''… all these people.''

- b. Gen 19:33

ה ֑ וּא ֣ י ְ ל ָ ה בּ ַ לּ

'… on that night.'

- (9) a. 1 Sam 14:29

ֶ ֽה׃ ה ַ זּ ַ ֥שׁ דּ ְ ב

''… this honey.''

- b. Mic 7:11

֖ וּא ה ַ ה י ֥וֹם

'That day …'

- (10) a. Jer 40:3 kethib

ֶ ֽה׃ ה ַ זּ ָ ֥ ר דּ ָ ב ֶ ֖ם ל ָ כ י ָ ֥ה ו ְה וֹ בּ ְ קוֹל ֶ ֣ם ע ְ תּ א־שׁ ְ מ ַ ו ְ ל ל ַ ֽ יהו ָה ֶ ֤ם ט ָ את כּ ִ ֽ י־ח

''Because you sinned against Yahweh and did not hear his voice, then this thing has happened to you.''

- b. Jer 40:3 qere

ֶ ֽה׃ ה ַ זּ ָ ֥ ר דּ ָ ב ה ַ ֶ ֖ם ל ָ כ י ָ ֥ה ו ְה וֹ בּ ְ קוֹל ֶ ֣ם ע ְ תּ ֽ א־שׁ ְ מ ו ְ ל ל ַ ֽ יהו ָה ֶ ֤ם ט ָ את כּ ִ ֽ י־ח

''Because you sinned against Yahweh and did not hear his voice, then this thing has happened to you.''

֔

ַ

ֹ

֙

ֲ

It  remains unclear whether these would have been perceived as grammatical errors or something else.

Regarding the determinative function of ז ֶה , the latest suggestion is that this function is a remnant of an  earlier  adverbial  prepositional  possessive  construction  (Pat-El  2004-2007).  However,  not  all examples involve an adverbial phrase, and it seems that often the demonstrative in this construction functions as a recognitional demonstrative (see further below). The occurrences of members of the ז ֶה paradigm in determinative function in the corpus are as follows: Gen 27:21, 24, 36; 31:38, 41; 43:10;  45:6;  Exod  32:1,  23;  Num  14:22;  22:28,  32,  33;  24:10;  Deut  2:7;  3:5;  8:2,  4;  Josh  9:13; 14:10; 22:3; Judg 5:5; 16:15; 1 Sam 29:3; 2 Sam 14:2; Jer 25:3; Zech 1:12; 7:3, 5; Job 19:3; Est 4:11; Pss 24:10; 25:12; 68:9.

֔

ְ

ָ

ֹ

ֽ

ַ

ֲ

֙

֙

ֲ

ַ

Fourth,  members  of  the ז ֶה paradigm  occur  a  number  of  times  adverbially,  as  in  example  (11a), which involves place deixis, and example (11b), which is a manner adverb. Such examples shall be excluded  from  the  discussion  as  the  primarily  interest  is  in  determining  the  function  of  the pronominal and adnominal forms.

## (11) a. Num 23:1

֑ ת ז ְ בּ ְ חֹ מ ִ ָ ֣ה ב ְ ע שׁ ִ ֶ ֖ה ב ָ ז ִ ֥ י נ ֵ ה־ל בּ ְ ָ ל ָ֔ ק א ֶ ל־בּ ע ָ ם בּ ִ ל אמ ֶ ר ו ַ יּ 'And Balaam said to Balak, 'Build me seven altars here …''

֥

ַ

֑

֖

ֹ

֙

ְ

֤

ֹ

## b. Lev 16:3 ׃ ָ ֽה ל ְ עֹל י ִל ו ְא ָ ֖את ַ טּ ל ְ ח ָ ֛ ר ָ  ק בּ ֶ ן־בּ ַ ֧ר בּ ְ פ ד ֶ שׁ ַ קֹּ א ֶ ל־ה ן ֲ רֹ א ַ ה ֥ א י ָב ֹ ֛את בּ ְ ז ''In this way Aaron will enter the sanctuary: with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for

a burnt offering.''

Fifth, as Huehnergard (2006: 111) notes, ז ֶה occurs 8 times in the corpus as a relative marker (Exod 13:8; Pss 74:2; 78:54; 104:8, 26; Prov 23:22; Job 15:17; 19:19), to which לּ ֶ ה א ֵ of Exodus 5:3 should be added. An example is provided in (12).

(12) Ps 104:8

'… to the place that you appointed for them.'

ָ

ֶ ֽ ם׃ ל ָ ה ְ תּ ַ֬ ד י ָס ז ֶ ֤ה׀ ֗ וֹם ְ֜ ק א ֶ ל־מ

ָ

Barth (1913: 153), followed by Allegro (1955: 309 n.1), made the suggestion that ז ֶה is a secondary development from זוּ , while Huehnergard and Pat-El (2007: 329-330 n.23) understand the forms to be frozen vestiges of the earlier * ð -  paradigm, as noted above. However, as Huehnergard (2006: 114) points out, the reconstruction is not entirely certain, further complicated by the fact that (a) the masculine  genitive  singular  determinative-relative  * ð ī should  have  appeared  in  Hebrew  as **zi (Huehnergard 2006: 113 n.60; although cf. ז ֶה ה ַ לּ which is cognate with Arabic allað ī ) and (b) זוּ is used a couple of times in demonstrative function anyway. Given the diachronic uncertainty here, such examples shall be excluded from the discussion. The issue here primarily relates to whether ז ֶה as a demonstrative is homophonous with ז ֶה as  a  relative, traceable to the Proto-West Semitic * ð -paradigm, or whether the relative function is a grammaticalised extension of demonstrative זֶה (or even  whether  the  determinative-relative  * ð -  and  diachronic  descendents  originate  from  a  deictic source).

Sixth, related to this relative function is the further use of MSG ז ֶה (and ז ֹ את only in quite restricted syntactic  circumstances)  in  clefted  interrogative  constructions,  as  in  (13a),  and  possible  clefted constructions  with נּ ֵה ה ִ 'behold',  as  in  (13b)  (see  Huehnergard  2005:  186-189,  2006:  111  n.49; Huehnergard and Pat-El 2007). However, again such examples will be excluded from discussion given the diachronic uncertainty noted above.

- (13) a. Gen 18:13

֩

֙

ר ָ ֜ ה שׂ ָ ָ֙ ה ֲ ק צ ָ ח זּ ֶה ָ ה ל ָ ֣מּ ָ ֑ם ָ ה ַ ב ְ ר א ֶ ל־א ָ ֖ה י ְהו ֶ ר ֹ ֥אמ ו ַ יּ

'And Yahweh said, 'Why (is it) that Sarah laughed?''

- b. Isa 21:9

''And see here (it is) that riding men are coming!''

Seventh, as argued in Kummerow 2013 (cf. also Holmstedt 2013; Holmstedt and Jones 2014), TH uses the independent third-person markers as a nonverbal copula in some predicate nominal clauses and  predicate  adjectival  clauses.  An  example  is  provided  in  (14)  where ה ֵ ם is  not  referential  but rather functions as a copula in the predicate nominal clause. Because such a function represents a

א ִ֔ ישׁ ֣ כ ֶ ב ר ֶ ב ָ א ֶ ֥ה נּ ֵ ה־ז ו ְה

ִ

grammaticalisation beyond that of anaphora such examples shall be excluded from discussion in this article.

(14) Num 3:20

## ָ ֽ ם׃ א ֲ בֹת ֵ ֥ ית ל ְ ב ֖ י ֵ ו ה ַ לּ ֥ ת פּ ְ חֹ מ ִ שׁ ה ֵ ֛ם ֥ לּ ֶ ה א ֵ וּמוּשׁ ִ ֑ י ֣ י ְ ל מ ַ ח ָ ֖ ם פּ ְ חֹת ל ְ מ ִ שׁ ֛ י ָ ר מ ְ ר ֧י וּב ְ נ

ִ

ְ

ִ

ְ

ִ

ֵ

'And the sons of Merari by their clans were Mahli and Mushi. These were the clans of the Levites by the house of their fathers.'

Turning now to the semantics and paradigmatic function of the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms, under the majority  of  accounts  of  TH  object  deixis  there  are  understood  to  be  both  proximal  and  distal demonstratives (e.g., Hasselbach 2007: 12; Walker-Jones 2003: 44):

Table 2.  TH pronominal/adnominal demonstratives (majority account)

| Proximal   |         | Distal             |
|------------|---------|--------------------|
| MSG ֶה ז   | MSG     | הוּא                |
| FSG את ז   | FSG     | יא ה               |
| PL ה לּ א   | MPL FPL | ה מּ ה / ם ה ָה נּ ה |

A syntactic difference is generally discerned in which the proximal demonstratives can be used both pronominally in argument position of verbs and adpositions as well as adnominally, while the distal demonstratives are only used adnominally. The examples below from Futato 2003 illustrate these syntactic  differences.  Note  that  example  (15d)-which  Futato  confusingly  calls  a  'predicate demonstrative  pronoun'-is  listed  by  Futato  alongside  the  other  examples  as  syntactically acceptable (cf. also, e.g., McCarter 2004: 345). The important thing to note in this regard, however, is  that  the  examples of (15) are not drawn from actual examples in the corpus and only (15a) to (15c)  represent  syntax  actually  found  in  the  corpus.  Further,  semantically  it  is  questionable  that (15b) is reflective of the corpus as well and is the subject of the present research. Examples (15b) and (15d) are asterisked for these reasons.

- (15) a. Futato 2003: 102

'This horse'

- b. Futato 2003: 103

'That horse'

- c. Futato 2003: 103

'This is the horse.'

- d. Futato 2003: 103

'That is the horse.'

For  this  reason,  the  distal  demonstratives  are  commonly  called  'quasi-demonstratives'  (van  der Merwe, et al. 1999: 257; cf. Waltke and O'Connor 1990: §§17.3, 17.5; Joüon and Muraoka 2006:

זּ ֶה ה ַ ה ַ סּוּס

ה ַ הוּא ה ַ סּוּס *

ה ַ סּוּס ז ֶה

ה ַ סּוּס הוּא *

§143j) not least because they also form part of the paradigm of independent person markers where they  figure  as  independent  third-person  markers  (so  Waltke  and  O'Connor  1990:  §§17.3,  17.5). Under this view TH is thus like Akkadian, where distal demonstratives serve also as third-person markers (cf. Huehnergard 2000; Diakonoff and Kogan 2007), this particular language feature being traceable to Proto-Semitic (cf. Huehnergard 2004). A case in point is the recent work of Blau: while it  is  admitted  that  'the  third  person  pronouns  differ  from  the  other  persons  in  being  originally demonstrative in function' which came about 'by excessive anaphoric use', nevertheless he goes on to assert that '[t]he presumably archaic demonstrative usage of the third person pronoun is still WELL PRESERVED in Biblical Hebrew', citing Genesis 22:14 and Genesis 19:33 as examples (Blau 2010: 164 [emphasis mine]; see also 176).

The use of the term 'quasi-demonstrative' can be traced back to Joüon 1923, which is then taken up in  Muraoka's  translation  (Joüon  and  Muraoka  1993,  2006)  and  by  Waltke  and  O'Connor  1990, inter alios . Joüon had written on the adnominal use of the independent third-person marker-which he  labelled  'adjectif  d'identité',  'quasi  démonstratif',  and  'démonstratif  faible'-that  '[l]e  sens propre de ההוּא semble être le même , en particulier le même dont on a parlé, d'où ce…là (dont il est question)' (1923: §143j). Perceptively, Ehlich suggests that it is precisely this difference identified by Joüon which led him astray, arguing that 'er amalgamiert eine Beobachtung zu dem hebräischen Ausdruck hahu mit einer Beobachtung zur Frage der Übersetzung dieses Ausdrucks ins Französische'  (Ehlich  1979:  2.761).  However,  '[d]er  Übersetzungsvorschlag  'le  même'  liegt  auf einer anderen Ebene als die analytische Beobachtung, daß hahu das bezeichnet, 'dont on a parlé' bzw.  'dont  il  est  question''  (Ehlich  1979:  2.761-762).  In  contradistinction  to  almost  every  other Hebraist, Ehlich argues that the paradigm of ז ֶה is unmarked for distance: 'Nähe und Ferne bei ZÄ nicht  geschieden  sind'  (Ehlich  1979:  2.776;  cf.  also  Ehlich  1982,  1983,  2007a). 10 Like  Ehlich, Brockelmann (1956: §§23b-c) and Seow (1995: §10.1) take ז ֶה to be a demonstrative used of both proximal and distal referents. The position of all three is that the contrast between ז ֶה and הוּא is not one of distance in a system of object deixis, but instead the contrast between an object deictic term ז ֶה and an anaphoric term הוּא . 11

Table 3.  TH pronominal/adnominal demonstratives and anaphoric markers (minority account)

| Demonstrative   | Demonstrative   | Anaphoric                  |
|-----------------|-----------------|----------------------------|
| MSG             | ֶה ז            | MSG הוּא                    |
| FSG             | את ז            | FSG יא ה                   |
| PL              | ה לּ א           | MPL ה מּ ה / ם ה FPL ָה נּ ה |

ָ

11 Although  Kalisch  (1884),  like  Joüon,  understood  that  the  TH  third-person  independent  person  marker  could  be employed as a demonstrative, he also, like Joüon, seemed to have become confused with the translational equivalent since he also understood a difference in meaning between the person marker and the demonstrative. The difference in meaning he  discerned  is  better  understood  as  the  difference  between  deixis  and  anaphora.  He  writes:  'the  personal pronouns הוּא , ה ִ יא , ה ֵ ם , ן ה ֵ (or מּ ָ ה ה ֵ , נּ ָה ה ֵ ) are employed as DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS; e.g. ה ַ יּוֹם ה ַ הוּא that day ; נ ָה ה ַ שׁ ִ יא ה ַ ה that year ; ִ ים יּ ָמ ה ַ ֵ ם ה ָ ה those days ; but with this difference in meaning, that ה ַ הוּא , ִ יא ה ַ ה denote an object known and already spoken of, while זּ ֶה ה ַ , זּ ֹ את ה ַ point to an object present or near; e.g. ִ ישׁ ה ָ א ה ַ הוּא , ע ֵ ת ה ָ ִ יא ה ַ ה is the man or the time referred to before ,  but ִ ישׁ ה ָ א זּ ֶה ה ַ , ע ֵ ת ה ָ זּ ֹ את ה ַ the person near or present ,  and the  present  time '  (Kalisch 1884: 1.224 [emphasis mine]).

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          10

ָ

While Brockelmann and Seow merely state their position, Ehlich argues for it in great depth and with sophistication. Somewhat surprisingly, given the extent and argumentation of Ehlich's work, he  is  unreferenced  by  all  grammars-introductory,  intermediate,  and  reference  alike-and  only marginally referenced outside (e.g., Diehl 2004; Diesel 2006; Disse 1998; Gross 1996; Hardmeier 1991;  Hasselbach  2007;  Michel  2004;  Miller  2003;  Müller  1997;  Vanoni  1984;  Wagner  1997), generally in footnotes. Research to date on the demonstrative ז ֶה in TH has predominantly focused on issues of syntagmatic structure (e.g., Allegro 1955; Barth 1913; Blake 1912; Huehnergard 2005: 186-189,  2006:  110-119;  Huehnergard  and  Pat-El  2007;  Muraoka  1985:  134-137;  Pat-El  20042007; Pennacchietti 1968, 1980) to the neglect of paradigmatic structure. The article of Garr 2008 is an  exception,  where  the  paradigmatic  status  of  the  rare  demonstratives ז ֶה ה ַ לּ , ֵ זוּ ה ַ לּ ,  and ָ ז ה ַ לּ is investigated.  Garr  argues  that  these  demonstratives  are  medial  demonstratives,  contrasting  with proximal ז ֶה and  distal הוּא .  However,  Garr  takes  for  granted  the  paradigmatic  deictic  contrast between ז ֶה and הוּא and does not seem aware that his posited contrasts are doubtful given Ehlich's research.

Ehlich (1979) for his part provides a detailed account of the paradigmatic functions of the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms, which he summarises in his later work (Ehlich 1982, 1983, 2007a). He bases his conclusions  upon  a  detailed  study  of  all  the  occurrences  of  members  of  the ז ֶה paradigm  in  the corpus  and  all  the  occurrences  of  members  of  the הוּא paradigm  in  the  Pentateuch.  All  the occurrences  in  the  Pentateuch  of  both  are  discussed  individually  at  some  point  in  the  work.  His most  significant  finding  is  that  members  of  the הוּא paradigm  are  consistently  anaphoric  and members of the ז ֶה paradigm are consistently deictic. However, Ehlich realised that understanding the ז ֶה paradigm as consistently deictic was challenged by particular phenomena in the corpus.

The first of these are occurrences of members of the ז ֶה paradigm which refer textually but occur in direct  speech.  Ehlich  showed  that  these  could  be  understood  to  be  a  subtype  of  deixis,  called discourse deixis. Here Ehlich demonstrates that the illocution or proposition of a speech-act may be referred to by the demonstrative used in another subsequent speech-act.

However,  Ehlich  noted  that  a  more  significant  challenge  to  understanding  the ז ֶה paradigm  as consistently deictic came from examples which refer textually and do not occur in direct speech and so  as  a  result  cannot  be  successfully  construed  deictically  against  the  original  speech-act.  Ehlich demonstrated that texts may form a conceptually deictic space in their own right, the elements of which may be referred to by a demonstrative. For such functions of demonstratives Ehlich coined the terms 'anadeixis' for the anaphoric referral of a demonstrative in a text and 'catadeixis' for the cataphoric  referral  of  a  demonstrative  in  a  text.  Ehlich  noted  that  such  demonstratives  were particularly  found  to  establish  textual  frames  in  lists,  often  found  in  summary  statements  and comments.  Ehlich  showed  how  further  examples  that  involve  the  construal  of  a  demonstrative against various other deictic spaces such as the imagination, here following Bühler with his 'Deixis am  Phantasma,'  or  other  inferencing,  could  still  be  related  to  the  deictic  function  of  the ז ֶה paradigm.

In summary, then, Ehlich's work represents a sophisticated linguistic treatment of object deixis in TH. Indeed, it will be shown below that Ehlich was correct in his contention that the ז ֶה paradigm in TH functions  as  a  distance-neutral  demonstrative.  However,  since  the  time  of  Ehlich's  research, much cross-linguistic and typological study in linguistics into demonstratives has been carried out, represented  particularly  by  the  works  of  Diessel  (1997,  1999,  2005a,  2005b)  and  Himmelmann (1996,  1997).  Of  course,  both  Diessel  and  Himmelmann  may  be  considered  representative  of  a 'geographical' approach to demonstrates-where classification is in line with the location of the referent-whereas Ehlich can be considered a proponent of a 'cognitive' approach to demonstratives-which emphasises the cognitive motivation for the use of expression-also found in representative works like Ariel 1990; Cornish 1999; Givón 1983; Gundel, et al. 1993; Lambrecht 1994;  van  Hoek  1997.  Goedegebuure  (2003:  17-22)  provides  a  good  overview  of  the  two perspectives  and  combines  both  (2003:  22-59)  into  an  approach  that  integrates  the  information structure  theory  of  Lambrecht  (1994).  As  will  be  apparent  below,  the  present  analysis  of  TH  is informed by Goedegebuure's approach.

Regarding the cross-linguistic and typological study of demonstratives, it has been shown that it is quite common for languages to utilise demonstratives for additional related functions. Nowadays it is  common  to  view  examples  of  Ehlich's  textual,  anadeixis,  and  catadeixis  as  all  constituting  a discourse deictic function of demonstratives. Indeed, Ehlich's findings can be restated today in a way that avoids the pitfalls Ehlich noted where scholarship on TH object deixis became confused with translational issues and that at the same time adequately describe TH object deixis in relation to other languages.

Referral is made here to the methodology of semantic mapping as used in linguistic typology. Such methodology  provides  a  framework  in  which  an  evaluation  of  the  two  competing  views  of  TH object  deixis  can  proceed  and  in  which  the  similarities  and  differences  of  TH  object  deixis  with other languages can be accurately described. In §3 a semantic map for the general functional region of  object  deixis  and  anaphora is constructed based primarily on the typological works of Diessel (1997, 1999, 2005a, 2005b) and Himmelmann (1996, 1997). §4 investigates the range of functions expressed by the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms, and maps the functions onto the semantic map proposed in §3. In particular, the study is interested in determining whether any examples of the הוּא paradigm outside  of  the  Pentateuch  can  be  seen  to  be  deictic  and  if  not  deictic  thus  corroborate  Ehlich's finding  in  relation  to  the  Pentateuch.  As  such,  this  study  shall  investigate  the  entire  corpus  for deictic examples, but shall primarily limit itself to the Pentateuch for describing the other functions typical  of  demonstratives  as  these  are  not  essentially  at  issue.  §4.6  charts  the  similarities  and differences between TH and a range of diverse languages, thus demonstrating both the usefulness and  appropriateness  of  the  method,  while  at  the  same  time  providing  further  support  for  the mapping given in the preceding section of §4.

## 3. Functional diversity and semantic mapping

## 3.1. The methodology of semantic mapping

Linguistic typology may be defined as 'the systematic study of the ways in which the languages of the world vary structurally and of the limits to this variation' (Comrie, et al. 2005: 1a). It is thus empirical and cross-linguistic in investigation, committed to the view that language universals are only to be found in broad cross-linguistic comparison (Croft 2007c: 80) and not in the atomistic study of an individual language. Cross-linguistic comparison in typology proceeds on semantic/functional grounds (cf. Croft 2003; Haspelmath 1997b; Stassen 1997) rather than formal categories. That  is, a semantic/functional  area  of  investigation  is firstly defined,  generally intuitively  (cf.  Haspelmath  2010a,  2010b,  2010c;  Lazard  2002,  2004,  2006a,  2006b),  and  then cross-linguistic comparison investigates the formal realisation of the semantic/functional area across individual  languages.  Cross-linguistic  generalisations  usually  follow,  and  often  in  the  form  of implicational universals (cf. Moravcsik 2007).

One method utilised in linguistic typology to simultaneously capture correspondence and difference across  languages  is  the  methodology  of  semantic  mapping  (e.g.,  Croft  2002:  84-104,  2003:  122- vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          12

156; Croft, et al. 1987; Haspelmath 1997a, 1997b, 2003; Narrog and Ito 2007; Stassen 1997). The method facilitates  cross-linguistic  comparison  in  the  face  of  linguistic  multifunctionality  and  the mounting  argument  in  functionalist  research  as  to  the  non-universality  of  formal  grammatical primitives (cf. Cristofaro 2009; Croft 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2007a, 2007b, 2010a, 2010b,  2010c;  Dryer  1997;  Foley  and  van  Valin  1977;  Haspelmath  2007,  2008,  2010a,  2010b, 2010c;  Helmbrecht  2005;  Lazard  2004,  2006a,  2006b; contra ,  e.g.,  Newmeyer  2007,  2010). Recently, the first steps of establishing the mathematical basis of the method have been conducted using  multidimensional  scaling  (Croft  and  Poole  2008a,  2008b;  cf.  Cysouw  and  Forker  2009; Levinson, et al. 2003), although this is in its infancy and would still seem to suffer in research areas with  limited  data  (cf.  Haspelmath  1997b:  15-16).  Semantic  mapping  involves  the  mapping  of functions expressed by formal grammatical and lexical constructions-understood here broadly as the conventionalised pairing of form and meaning-onto a geometric representation of (a region of) semantic space, which is itself hypothesised to reflect linguistic universality (cf. Haspelmath 2003: 220).

As an example, Anstey (2005: 74-75, 2006: 96-97) presents a semantic map of reflexive-middle functions modified from Haspelmath (2003: 255):

passive

Figure 1.  Semantic map of reflexive-middle functions

<!-- image -->

Each separate function is represented on the map, with connecting lines indicating the network of functions. Onto this geometric functional map Anstey maps the boundaries of French se , Russian sja , and the TH Hithpael binyan, reproduced below as Figure 2. Connecting lines have been omitted following common practice when adjacency of functions is self-evident. Closed boxing indicates the functional boundaries of a construction.

Hithpael;

<!-- image -->

se

Figure 2.  Boundaries of French se , Russian sja , and TH Hithpael

As can be seen from Figure 2, constructions may make same or different semantic distinctions and thus the boundaries of any given construction may be different, both language-internally and cross- vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          13

linguistically. Though some languages may have a construction that covers a large area of a map, others  might  have  constructions  covering  small  regions  or  may  be  overlapping.  Haspelmath's (2003: 229) map of instrumentals and related functions demonstrates this well; mapped are English with ,  German von ,  French par and aus ,  Seychelles  Creole ek ,  and  Russian s and  Instrumental Case: 12

Figure 3.  Instrumentals and related functions

<!-- image -->

Figure 3 illustrates that functions expressed by a single construction occupy a contiguous region on a semantic map. That is, the geometric representation of the semantic space under consideration is organised  in  such  a  way  that  multifunctional  constructions  map  contiguously  and  so  represent similarity  in  function.  Non-contiguous  mapping  of  a  construction  is  possible  if  a  function  of  a construction has been eroded due to diachronic change (Haspelmath 2003: 236; van der Auwera and Malchukov 2005: 396-397). Each map is a mapped network or channel of hypothesised universal semantic functions which different languages and different constructions choose to variously group or divide. Different constructions may thus display different degrees of multifunctionality, and the geometric semantic map allows this multifunctionality and (dis)similarity between constructions to be expressed.

The construction of a semantic map involves an inductive process of cross-linguistic comparison and  testing.  Each  function  expressed  by  a  construction  in  a  given  language  is  mapped  so  as  to preserve contiguity of functions when more than one function is expressed. With regard to Figure 3, the functions co-agent, comitative and instrumental are arranged contiguously since English with , Seychelles Creole ek , and Russian s all express these functions. Contiguity is shown by connecting lines, as in Figure 1, and not by distance, which is a limitation of the geometrical representation in order  to  preserve  readability.  Readability  is  also  generally  enhanced  by  the  common  removal  of connecting lines when a construction's functions are mapped, as in Figures 2 and 3, and also by the preference  for  the  construction  of  one-  and  two-dimensional  maps,  although  multi-dimensional maps are certainly possible (cf. Haspelmath 1997a: 106). A function is an element on a semantic map when two (or more) languages treat that function differently. In Figure 3, passive and source are elements on the map since French, for example, differs with respect to these two functions: par expresses  passive  and aus expresses  source.  Consequently,  whilst  a  semantic  map  is  useful  for expressing similarity and divergence between different languages, it also presents itself in a testable vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          14

12 Note that the liberty of removing the 'beneficiary' function has been taken to simplify the map here as the languages mapped do not employ this function with these constructions. See Narrog and Ito 2007 for improvements to the map based on a larger language sample.

and reproducible fashion. Because semantic maps present themselves concretely, they are open to testing, improvement, and falsification.

## 3.2. Semantic mapping and diachronic change

Haspelmath  (2003:  233)  notes  that  '[i]n  addition  to  summarizing  the  synchronic  relationships between  different  grammatical  meanings,  semantic  maps  can  also  be  an  important  tool  for diachrony, in particular grammaticalization studies.' Given the unidirectionality of grammaticalisation  (cf.  Haspelmath  1998,  1999,  2004),  some  semantic  maps  evidence  this directionality  of  change  between  the  mapped  semantic  functions.  In  grammaticalisation  studies, arrows  are  typically  used  to  indicate  direction  of  diachronic  development  (cf.  Lehmann  1995, 2002).  Semantic  maps  which  evidence  directionality  of  semantic  change  can  adopt  the  use  of arrows to represent direction of diachronic development by replacing the connecting lines where necessary.

For example, Haspelmath (2003: 234-236) discusses the reflexive-middle map as given above in Figure 1 and argues that the map is a good example of unidirectional diachronic change. Given that the source of full reflexives is typically an emphatic reflexive, Haspelmath provides the following semantic map: 13

<!-- formula-not-decoded -->

Figure 4.  Semantic map of reflexive-middle functions indicating diachronic directionality

The  arrows  indicate  that  diachronic  change  moves  from  left  to  right  and  never  the  opposite direction:  passives  never  expand  across  to  generic  passive,  to  anticausative,  and  so  on.  The development of Classical Latin to French demonstrates diachronic change on the map (Haspelmath 2003: 235):

Figure 5.  Diachronic development of se from Classical Latin to French

<!-- image -->

What this  means,  then,  is  that  grammaticalisation  studies  may  play  a  role  in  the  construction  of semantic  maps.  Provided  the  area  of  investigation  evidences  observable  semantic  development, grammaticalisation studies may provide both the necessary semantic functions of a particular map, as  well  as  the  language  data  supporting  the  direction  of  diachronic  change  between functions. In vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          15

13 Haspelmath omits naturally reciprocal due to insufficient diachronic data.

other  words,  grammaticalisation  studies  present  a  convenient  source  from  which  to  construct semantic maps.

## 3.3. Demonstratives and diachronic change

The typological works of Diessel (1997, 1999, 2005a, 2005b) and Himmelmann (1996, 1997) are arguably  the  best  sources  of  cross-linguistic  data  on  the  functions  and  grammaticalisation  of demonstratives. Diessel's monograph, for example, is based on a sample of 85 diverse languages, and is a particularly convenient source of language data supporting the functions of demonstratives as well as diachronic change between various functions.

Figure 6.  The grammaticalisation of demonstratives

<!-- image -->

Figure  6  above  presents  a  grammaticalisation  channel  based  upon  the  works  above. 14 While  the grammaticalisation  channel  can  quite  likely  be  filled  out  even  further  (see  below  for  some modification), 15 the grammaticalisation changes listed figure prominently in Diessel's and Himmelmann's works. As should be readily apparent, demonstratives-given a generic 'DEM'are  the  source  of  many  different  grammatical  markers.  Crucially,  they  should  not  be  regarded  as grammatical  markers  which  have  themselves  undergone  grammaticalisation  from  some  lexical source, but together with interrogatives and lexical expressions should be taken as a source domain of particular grammatical markers (Diessel 1999: 109-113, 115-160, 2003). Diessel (1999: ch. 6) argues  that  grammaticalisation  from  demonstratives  flows  from  specific  syntactic  configurations, namely pronominal, adnominal, adverbial, and identificational demonstratives. Among other things, these syntactic functions could flesh out the label 'DEM' above, but the decision has been made to simplify  the  network  to  represent  only  the  functional  changes  which  may  emerge  from  a demonstrative source over time.

14 The  language  of  grammaticalisation  channel  follows  that  established  by  Lehmann  (1995,  2002).  One  may  notice, given the preference for the terminology of 'person marker' over the traditional 'personal pronoun', the retention of the term 'pronoun' in the label 'relative pronoun.' The terminology of 'relative pronoun' has come to be something of a technical term for the relativising strategy where the relativised position is marked inside the relative clause by an initial  case-marked  (understood  broadly  to  also  include  adpositions  in  addition  to  morphological  case-marking) pronominal morpheme (cf. Comrie 1998b; Comrie and Kuteva 2005). The terminology is thus retained to contrast with the other function labelled here 'relative marker', which is a relativiser that may be inflected or uninflected, albeit if inflected  it  does  not  mark  the  relativised  position  inside  the  relative  clause  and  hence  it  is  distinct  from  a  relative pronoun.

15 For example, see Helmbrecht (2004: 384-395) for discussion of the grammaticalisation of third-person markers from nouns, verbs of saying, and other pronouns; and see Frajzyngier (1997) for the grammaticalisation of plural markers from demonstratives.

While most of the labels in Figure 6 should be understandable or self-evident, explanation of labels which will figure prominently in the analysis below is necessary. First, anaphoric demonstratives are coreferential with a previous noun or noun phrase in the prior discourse:

- (16) Stirling and Huddleston 2002: 1506
- a. There was a glass pane in the front door, and through this he could see into a hallway where a plump woman with red hair was arranging flowers.
- b. I raised some money by hocking the good clothes I had left, but when that was gone I didn't have a cent.

Such  anaphoric  demonstratives  (called  'tracking  use'  in  Himmelmann  1996)  interact  with  other means of tracking  such  as  definite  articles,  third-person  markers,  et  cetera  (cf.,  e.g.,  Ariel  1990; Becher  2010;  Bosch  and  Umbach  2007;  Comrie  1997,  1998a;  Diessel  1999:  95-100;  Gagarina 2007;  Gundel,  et  al.  1993;  Himmelmann  1996;  Kaiser  and  Trueswell  2004;  Lichtenberk  1988, 1996). As such, the anaphoric function in Figure 6 has been prised apart into distinct categories, following  Goedegebuure  (2003):  'contrastive  topic  anaphora',  'focus  anaphora',  and  'non-topic anaphora',  to  which  'topic  anaphora'  is  added  below  in  Figures  7  and  8.  Topic  and  focus  are information structure labels: '[t]he topic of a sentence is the thing which the proposition expressed by the sentence is about' (Lambrecht 1994: 118); and the focus is '[t]he semantic component of a pragmatically  structured  proposition  whereby  the  assertion  differs  from  the  presupposition' (Lambrecht  1994:  231).  Thus  topic  anaphora  is  the  anaphoric  referral  to  the  current  topic,  the domain of the prototypical function of third-person markers:

## (17) Stirling and Huddleston 2002: 1457

My daughter i tells me that her i car has been giving her i a lot of trouble recently. She i thinks she i may have to start cycling to work.

By using the label 'topic anaphora' (see below Figures 7 and 8) this intentionally leaves open the degree to which the expression is grammaticalised (or linguistically realised), that is, whether it is free/independent,  cliticised,  referential  inflection  marking  (in  the  case  of  so-called  pro-drop languages), or even  entirely constructionally absent for some  languages  (cf. the  Japanese constructions  discussed  by  Gundel,  et  al.  1993:  298).  For  this  reason,  the  more  'syntactically'oriented language of 'free third-person marker', 'clitic', and 'agreement marker' is subsumed and replaced by the more broad 'semantically'-oriented term 'topic anaphora.'

Like topic anaphora, contrastive topic anaphora is anaphoric referral to a current topic, but which in the proposition is pragmatically contrasted with another topic:

- (18) Lambrecht 1994: 291

I saw Mary and John yesterday. She says hello, but he 's still angry with you.

Non-topic anaphora is anaphoric referral to a non-topical discourse referent. Stress and anaphoric demonstratives often play a crucial role here. German anaphoric demonstratives are used, as in (19) below,  for  non-topical  anaphora,  whereas  the  corresponding  English  translation  is  ambiguous without representing a stressed pronoun, which would indicate anaphora to a non-topic in the given context.

- (19) Diessel 1999: 96

Der Anwalti sprach mit einem Klienten j . Da er i / der j nicht viel  Zeit hatte, vereinbarten sie ein weiteres Gespräch nächste Woche.

'The lawyer talked to a client. Since he didn't have much time, they agreed to have another meeting next week.'

Focus  anaphora  is  anaphora  to  a  topical  discourse  referent  which  must  in  the  proposition  be construed  as  an  assertion.  In  other  words,  the  anaphoric  expression  bears  an  argument  focus relation, as in the example below:

- (20) Lambrecht 1994: 115
- a. Who did they call?
- b. Pat said SHE was called.

Second,  recognitional  demonstratives  are  demonstratives  which  are  used  to  activate  shared information (cf. Chen 1990; Diessel 1999: 105-108; Gundel, et al. 1993; Himmelmann 1996, 1997). Such usage sets itself apart from anaphoric referral (although recognitional demonstratives thus bear some similarity to non-topical anaphora used to reactivate an old discourse referent; cf. Lichtenberk 1988  on  To'aba'ita)  in  that  referents  of  recognitional  demonstratives  are  unactivated  in  the discourse although pragmatically presupposed.

- (21) Gundel, et al. 1993: 278

I couldn't sleep last night. That dog (next door) kept me awake.

Third,  discourse  deictic  demonstratives  are  demonstratives  which  refer  to  discourse  elements. Whereas  anaphoric  demonstratives  refer  to  a  noun  phrase,  discourse  deictic  demonstratives commonly refer to propositions or meaning conveyed by a discourse element, be it clause, sentence, paragraph, or story (Diessel 1999: 100-105; cf. Himmelmann 1996: 224-226). 16

- (22) Webber 1988: 116
- a. Hey, they've promoted Fred to second vice president.
- b. i. That 's a lie.
- ii. That 's a funny way to describe the situation.
- iii. W hen did that happen?
- iv. That 's a weird thing for them to do.

(22bi)  refers  to  the  illocutionary  force  of  the  previous  statement;  (22bii)  refers  to  the  choice  of linguistic expression; (22biii) refers to the event; and (22biv) refers to the action of the statement. While all the discourse deictic expressions in (22) are anaphoric, discourse deictic demonstratives can also have cataphoric referral as in English Listen to this : … (cf. Cornish 1999: 21). Discourse deixis  additionally  covers  the  range  of  usage  where  referral  is  to  a  narrative  point  in  time,  as  in Himmelmann's example from the Pear  Stories  in  (23),  or  arguments  and  acts  in  expository  and procedural texts.

- (23) Himmelmann 1996: 225
2. … right at that moment the three boys came walking by, munching on the pears …

16 Note:  Stirling  and  Huddleston  (2002)  define  discourse  deixis  somewhat  differently  and  so  make  different categorisations than is typically done by other linguists.

## 3.4. Demonstratives and deixis

Thus  far  we  have  briefly  considered  the  diachronic  change  demonstratives  commonly  undergo arising from their basic deictic function. We now consider deixis in relation to demonstratives in more detail before presenting a semantic map of demonstrative and anaphoric functions onto which the TH expressions will be mapped.

As has been stated above, since demonstratives are deictic expressions, they can only be understood in  reference  to  the  original  speech-act.  What  this  means  is  that  their  interpretation/resolution essentially  involves  a  particular  point  of  reference-commonly  called  the  deictic  centre  or origo (see, e.g., Fricke 2003 for extended discussion). More specifically, deictic expressions encode the relation  between  the  deictic  centre  and  the  intended  referent  (Helmbrecht  2004:  94-99).  In  this sense, then, they are 'pointing' expressions as they make reference to a shared point of departure from which the referent of the expression is 'pointed out' by way of the relation holding between the point of departure and the intended referent. In the case of demonstratives, the relation holding between the deictic centre and the referent is of the kind 'proximal' versus 'distal' semantics, and so forth. Further semantic characterisation is common by way of, for example, gender or animacy marking,  which  helps  aid  disambiguation  between  potentially  competing  intended  referents  (cf. Heath 1975).

Nevertheless, it is the deictic centre which is essential for the successful retrieval of the intended referent of a deictic expression because it is from this point of departure that the 'search' for the intended referent is conducted (see again Helmbrecht 2004: 94-99). The prototypical deictic centre is the speaker of the speech-act. Demonstratives encoding the relations 'proximal' or 'distal,' for example,  are  understood  referentially  in  relation  to  this  reference  point.  An  extension  of  this prototypical  cooccuring  of  deictic  centre  with  the  speaker  is  one  where  the  deictic  centre  as  the point  of  departure  for  the  successful  resolution  of  deictic  expressions  is  shifted  to  the  situation evoked in narratives and descriptions-Bühler's much-discussed 'Deixis am Phantasma' (Bühler 1934:  121-140).  Such  deictic  shifts  or  projection  involve  the  transposition  of  the  speaker  as  the deictic  centre  to  a  person  or  imaginary  observer  in  the  discourse  as  the  deictic  centre,  and  is commonly accompanied by specific linguistic marking indicating such (Bühler 1934: 102-120).

The  deictic  relations  of  demonstrative  pronouns  are  often  relative  terms  (cf.  Enfield  2003). 'Proximal'  and  'distal,'  for  example,  are  commonly  relative  in  that  their  successful  resolution involves  a  conceptualisation/construal  of  the  speech  act  and  situation.  That  is,  'proximal'  and 'distal'  are  often  not  absolute,  but  instead  involve  a  certain  conceptualisation  of  the  speech situation  relative  to  the  current  deictic  centre.  However,  some  demonstrative  systems  are  more specific  than  others  due  to  the  grammaticalisation  of  more  deictic  contrasts.  Such  multi-termed systems fall either into distance- or person-oriented demonstrative systems, the latter a diachronic development  from  the  former  (cf.  Fillmore  1982).  Nevertheless,  person-oriented  demonstrative systems still involve a conceptualisation of the speech-act in that the deictic centre is shifted to the 'hearer' and the 'speaker and the hearer' for some terms (cf. Diessel 1999: 41, 2005a: 171b).

Distance-oriented demonstrative systems generally grammaticalise two or three distance contrasts: either 'proximal' and 'distal'; or 'proximal,' 'medial,' and 'distal.' Person-oriented demonstrative  systems  generally  grammaticalise  three  or  four  distance  contrasts:  either  'near speaker,'  'near  hearer,'  and  'away  from  speaker  and  hearer';  or  'near  speaker,'  'near  hearer,' 'near speaker and hearer,' and 'away from speaker and hearer.'

While distanceor person-orientation are common  deictic demonstrative contrasts crosslinguistically, languages may also grammaticalise additional deictic distinctions once a distance- or vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          19

person-oriented system is in place. For example, West Greenlandic (Eskimo-Aleut), in addition to making three distance distinctions, also deictically distinguishes degrees of elevation, in/exterior, coastline,  and  visibility  (cf.  Diessel  1999:  46).  Further  non-deictic  contrasts  may  also  be  made, namely  ontology,  animacy,  humanness,  sex,  number,  and  boundedness.  However,  given  that distanceand  person-orientation deixis is foundational to demonstratives, additional deictic distinctions will not be represented in the semantic mapping since they are not relevant to the issue of  TH  object  deixis  investigated  here,  although  a  full  cross-linguistic  account  of  demonstrative functions would have to do so. Similarly, non-deictic qualitative features will not be represented in the semantic mapping of this work as these features are not relevant to the issue of deixis discussed here.

## 3.5. A proposed demonstrative-anaphoric semantic map

In  light  of  the  above  discussion,  the  following  grammaticalisation  channels  emerging  from demonstratives are proposed. They are a refined subset from Figure 7:

Figure 7.  Grammaticalisation channel from distance-oriented demonstrative system (prox = proximal; med = medial; dist = distal)

<!-- image -->

Figure 8.  Grammaticalisation channel from person-oriented demonstrative system (S = speaker; H = hearer)

<!-- image -->

Figure 7 represents the grammaticalisation channel applicable to a distance-oriented demonstrative system  (e.g.,  like  TH),  while  Figure  8  represents  the  grammaticalisation  channel  applicable  to  a person-oriented  demonstrative  system  (e.g.,  like  Hittite).  Obviously,  both  channels  could  be combined since person-oriented demonstrative systems represent a stage of development beyond a distance-oriented  system.  However,  when  using  the  grammaticalisation  channel  as  the  basis  of  a semantic  map,  it  becomes  quite  unwieldy  to  have  both  distance-  and  person-oriented  systems simultaneously represented. Furthermore, language descriptions divide evenly between the two such that synchronic mapping utilising both distanceand person-oriented categories beyond vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          20

'proximal/near speaker' would not really eventuate. It thus seems reasonable in practice to use two maps.

The channels in Figures 7 and 8 flow both left and right so as to be able to represent geometrically the entire range of functions initially emerging from demonstratives. To the left are the definiteness, recognitional, and discourse deictic functions. Discourse deixis is here subcategorised from Figure 6 into anaphoric and cataphoric functions as languages commonly do not use the same demonstrative for  the  two  functions.  To  the  right,  demonstratives  give  rise  to  various  anaphoric  functions discussed  above:  contrastive  topic  anaphora,  focus  anaphora,  and  non-topic  anaphora.  It  remains unclear whether any one of these separate functions may give rise to a pure topic anaphora function, or if  the  rise  to  topic  anaphora  is  constrained.  Languages in the sample of languages with which comparison will be made to TH below display a tendency towards the topic anaphora function only when the demonstrative is also used for contrastive topic anaphora. For example, in Nunggubuyu (Gunwinyguan,  Australian;  Australia),  the  person  marker ni-ga is  used  for  contrastive  topic anaphora as well as topic anaphora in non-verbal clauses. Focus anaphora and non-topic anaphora are expressed separately by the pronouns ni-ga-waj and ni-ga:-'bilhan g u respectively (Heath 1980, 1983, 1984). Similarly, in German the person markers er , sie , and es and in To'aba'ita (Lichtenberk 1988,  1996;  Eastern  Malayo-Polynesian,  Oceanic)  the  proximal  demonstrative 'eri have  the anaphoric functions of focus anaphora, contrastive topic anaphora, and topic anaphora. Latin hic , haec , hoc seems to be an exception in that it is used for non-topic anaphora as well as perhaps topic anaphora  in  referring  to  a  topic  just  previously  introduced  (Bolkestein  and  van  de  Grift  1994), known  in  the  literature  as  'immediate  anaphora  after  first  mention'  (cf.  Lichtenberk  1996). However, it is perhaps an open question whether immediate anaphora after first mention is to be taken as non-topic anaphora or instead topic anaphora. Bolkestein and van de Grift (1994: 287), for example, take such examples of Latin hic , haec , hoc as referral to a referent which is a future topic and thus in the terms used here non-topic anaphora. As such, the present research has chosen not to be  too  specific  and  allow  for  the  topic  anaphora  function  to  arise  broadly  from  the  more 'pragmatic' anaphoric functions. Mutatis mutandis , much the same issue applies in considering the rise of a definite article and relative marking from the anaphoric functions of demonstratives.

The grammaticalisation channels of Figures 7 and 8, it is proposed, are the functions appropriate for a semantic map covering demonstrative and anaphoric functions applicable to the issue of a deictic distance contrast in TH object demonstrative pronouns. They may be taken and used directly to map demonstrative and anaphoric functions of constructions covering this region of semantic space. A few examples will help to illustrate this:

<!-- image -->

-be vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          21

Figure 9.  Functions of productive set of adnominal demonstratives in Sumerian (Woods 2001a, 2001b)

Figure 9 represents the functions of the productive set of adnominal demonstratives in Sumerian based on the best work to date on demonstratives in that language. 17 As depicted, Sumerian (isolate) made  three  distance  distinctions  with  its  demonstratives: -e 'proximal'; -ne 'medial';  and -be 'neutral'  with  respect  to  distance  and  also  the  only  demonstrative  used  for  referral  to  distal referents.

Figure 10 represents the demonstratives in Wari' (Chapacura-Wanhan) as per the analysis of Everett and Kern (1997):

Figure 10.  Functions of pronominal demonstratives and verbal inflection clitics in Wari' (Chapacura-Wanhan; Everett and Kern 1997)

<!-- image -->

Wari' illustrates the mapping of a person-oriented language since Wari' object demonstratives make three distinctions: ' i ca '  'near speaker'; co ma '  'near hearer'; and ' i cain 'away from speaker and hearer.' However, from Everett and Kern's grammar what is used for the function contrastive topic anaphora cannot be located so it has been unspecified on the map. Further, Figure 10 also illustrates the mapping of three distance terms onto an area of four functions. Since Wari' does not have a term reserved  for  'near  speaker  and  hearer,'  the  assumption  is  made  that  referral  to  such  an  object involves a certain conceptualisation of the speech situation such that either ' i ca ' and co ma ' may be used.  The  same  applies  to  a  distance-oriented  demonstrative  system  making  a  'proximal'  and 'distal' distinction: referral to 'medial' referents involves a construal of the speech situation such that either the proximal or distal term may be used depending on the conceptualisation of the speech situation.

## 4. The functions of TH ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms

The following sections outline the range of functions expressed by the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms. §4.1 begins by outlining the majority function as already found in the grammars. The section then moves to a discussion of the evidence supporting the ז ֶה paradigm being used of distal referents.

The proceeding sections then outline the additional functions of the two forms. Illustrative examples from the Hebrew Bible are provided, with the percentage of occurrences in the Pentateuch noted to provide  an  idea  of  the  frequency  of  use  (the  data  used  for  the  percentages  is  supplied  as  an appendix). Finally, §4.6 maps the identified functions onto the semantic map.

17 Note that the work of Woods seems to be unknown in the analysis of Rubio 2007.

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          22

## 4.1. Deictic function: ז ֶה as a distance-neutral demonstrative

The basic paradigmatic distinction between the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms is illustrated by the examples (24) and (25) below, in which ז ֶה functions deictically in (24) and הוּא functions anaphorically in (25). These two examples represent also the most common function for these two expressions: the deictic function of the paradigm of ז ֶה represents 35 percent of occurrences in the Pentateuch, while the anaphoric function of the הוּא paradigm represents 82 percent of occurrences in the Pentateuch.

- (24) a. Gen 37:32

## ָ ֑אנוּ מ ָ צ ז ֹ ֣את וּ ְ ר ו ַ יּ ֹ אמ ֶ֔ ם ב ִ יה א ֶ ל־א י ֙ אוּ ו ַ יּ ָב ִ֗ ים פּ ַ סּ ה ַ נ ֶת ת־כּ ְ תֹ א ֶ וּ לּ ְ ח ו ַ ֽ  יְשׁ

֖

ֲ

֙

ִ

֣

֞

ַ

'And they sent the ornamented tunic and they brought [it] to their father and said, 'We found this.''

ָ

ֶ

֙

## וּשׁ׃ כּ ֽ ֶ ץ ֶ ֥ ר כּ ָ ל־א א ֵ ֖ת ה ַ סּוֹב ֵ֔ ב ה ֣ וּא וֹן גּ ִ יח ֖ י ֵ נ ה ַ שּׁ ָ ֥ ר נּ ָה ֵ ֽ ם־ה ו ְשׁ

֑

ִ

ַ

'And the name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that winds through all the land of Cush.'

- b. Gen 4:21
- b. Gen 32:3 ׃ ֽ  י ִם ֲ נ מ ַ ֽ ח ֖ וּא ה ַ ה ֥ וֹם ָ ק שׁ ֵ ֽ ם־ה ַ מּ ָ ֛א ְ ר ו ַ יּ ִק ז ֶ ֑ה ִ ֖ ים א ֱ לֹה ֵ ֥ה ֲ נ מ ַ ח ָ֔ ם ר ָ א ֣ ר כּ ַ א ֲ שׁ י ַ ע ֲ קֹב ֶ ר ֹ ֤אמ ו ַ יּ 'And Jacob said as he saw them, 'This is the camp of God.' And he called the name of that place Mahanaim.'
- (25) a. Gen 2:13

## ָ ֽב׃ ו ְ עוּג נּ ֖ וֹר כּ ִ ֵ ֥שׂ כּ ָ ל־תֹּפ ִ֕ י א ֲ ב י ָ֔ה ה ָ ה ֣ וּא ָ ֑ל יוּב ִ ֖ יו א ָ ח ֵ ֥ ם ו ְשׁ

'And the name of his brother was Jubal. He was the father of all who play the lyre and flute.'

Despite  the  fact  that  the הוּא paradigm  is  understood  by  most  Hebraists  as  having  a  distal demonstrative  function,  the  evidence  points  against  such  an  analysis.  Instead,  the ז ֶה paradigm covers, in addition to its proximal function, the distal demonstrative function that the הוּא paradigm is  purported  to  have.  As  such,  it  should  be  considered  a  distance-neutral  demonstrative.  Every occurrence of members of the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms in the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible have been analysed for deictic function and the following observations which support the conclusion that the ז ֶה paradigm is a distance-neutral demonstrative are made.

First, there are in fact no examples-none even which might be considered possible examples-in the entire corpus where members of the הוּא paradigm function deictically as a distal demonstrative.

However, second, in contrast  there  are  actually  a  number  of  instances  where  members  of  the ז ֶה paradigm  may  be  understood  as  possibly  functioning  as  a  distal  demonstrative.  That  is,  in  each particular case-by-case context, it is ambiguous whether the correct construal is proximal or distal, or in some cases whether some other construal is intended.

Third, standing in stark contrast to the first point that there are no examples in the Hebrew Bible of members of the הוּא paradigm  functioning  as  a  distal  demonstrative,  and  in  line  with  the  second observation  that  there  are  instances  where  it  is  possible  that  the ז ֶה paradigm  is  used  to  refer deictically to a distal referent, there are a number of examples where members of the ז ֶה paradigm are quite certain to have a distal referent.

Each of the  certain  distal  examples  of  the ז ֶה paradigm  will  now  be  discussed  and  then  possible examples will follow.

- (26) Exod 4:2

ָ ֖ה י ְהו ֛ יו א ֵ ל ֶ ר ֹ ֧אמ ו ַ יּ מ ַ ה־זּ ֶ ֣ה ֶ ר ֹ ֖אמ ו ַ יּ ֑ ךָ י ָד ב ְ ֶ ֽ ה׃ מ ַ טּ 'And Yahweh said to him, 'What is that in your hand.' And he said, 'A staff.''

- (27) Exod 4:17

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          23

ֶ

ָ

אֹתֹ ֽ ת׃ א ֶ ת־ה ֖ וֹ ע ֲ שׂ ֶ ה־בּ תּ ַ ֶ ֥ ר א ֲ שׁ ֑ ךָ י ָד בּ ְ ַ ֣ ח תּ ִ קּ ֶ ֖ה ה ַ זּ ֶ ֥ ה ַ טּ ת־ה ַ מּ ו ְא

ָ

''And that staff you will take in your hand by which you will do the signs.''

In examples (26) and (27), ז ֶה functions deictically as a non-proximal demonstrative since what is referred to is in the realm and control of the addressee rather than the speaker, who is located away from the addressee speaking from a burning bush.

(28) Exod 10:7

ֵ֔ שׁ ל ְ מוֹק ל ָ ֙ נוּ ז ֶ ֥ה י ֶ ֙ ה י ִה י ע ַ ד־מ ָ ת יו א ֵ ל ֜ ה ְ עֹ פ ַ ר י ְ ד ע ַ ב ְ רוּ ֩ ו ַ יּ ֹ אמ 'And the servants of Pharaoh said to him, 'How long will that one be a snare to us?''

֙

ְ

֙

ַ

֗

ָ

֙

ֵ

In example (28), the referent of ז ֶה is Moses, who has just spoken to Pharaoh and then left. As such, the referent is both deictically and cognitively prominent, and since Moses is located away from both speaker and addressee ז ֶה is functioning here deictically as a distal demonstrative.

(29) Exod 32:9

זּ ֶ֔ ה ה ַ ָ ֣ם ָ ע א ֶ ת־ה י י ֙ ת ר ָ א ֶ ֑ ה ל־מֹשׁ א ֶ ָ ֖ה י ְהו ֶ ר ֹ ֥אמ ו ַ יּ 'And Yahweh said to Moses, 'I have seen those people.''

֙

ִ

ִ

In Exodus 32:9 above, Yahweh the speaker and Moses the addressee are up on Mount Sinai. The referent of ז ֶה is the people located at the foot of the mountain and thus at some distance from both speaker and addressee. As such, ז ֶה functions here as a distal demonstrative.

(30) Num 21:2

׃ ם ֵ יה ת־ע ָ ר א ֶ י מ ְ תּ ֲ ר ַ ֽ ח ו ְה ִ ֔ י י ָד בּ ְ זּ ֶה ה ַ ָ ֤ם ָ ע א ֶ ת־ה ן תּ ִ תּ ן א ִ ם־נ ָתֹ ַ ֑ר ו ַ יּ ֹ אמ ָ ֖ה ל ַ ֽ יהו ֶ ר ֛ ד נ ֶ ֵ ֥ ל ָ א ְ ר יִשׂ ַ ֙ ר ו ַ יּ ִדּ 'And Israel made a vow to Yahweh and said, 'If you will indeed give those people into my hand, then I will destroy their cities.''

ֽ

ֶ

֖

ִ

ַ

֙

֜

ֵ

֙

In  Numbers  21:2,  the  speaker  is  the  people  of  Israel  and  Yahweh  is  the  addressee.  Israel  has suffered defeat by the king of Arad and his people, and also has had some of their people captured. The vow likely comes as a response rather than during the battle and the capturing of the people. Therefore,  the  people  of  Arad,  who  are  the  referent  of ז ֶה ,  are  more  likely  distal  rather  than proximal.

(31) Num 27:12

׃ ֵ ֽ ל ָ א ְ ר יִשׂ ֥י ְ נ ל ִ ב י ַ ֖ תּ נ ָת ֶ ֥ ר א ֲ שׁ ֶ ץ ָ֔ ר ת־ה ָ א א ֶ ְ א ֵ ה וּר ֶ ֑ה ה ַ זּ ִ ֖ ים ָ ר ע ֲ ב ה ָ ַ ֥ ר א ֶ ל־ה ֵ ֛ה ע ֲ ל ֶ֔ ה א ֶ ל־מֹשׁ י ְ הו ָה ֶ ר ֹ ֤אמ ו ַ יּ 'And Yahweh said to Moses, 'Go up the that mountain of the Abarim and see the land which I have

ֵ

given to the sons of Israel.''

In example (31) Yahweh is the speaker and Moses is the addressee. Their location is the plains of Moab by the Jordan river across from Jericho (cf. Num 26:3). In Numbers 27:12, ז ֶה is an adnominal demonstrative modifying ה ַ ִ ים ָ ר ע ֲ ב ה ָ ר 'the  mountain of the Abarim'. ִ ים ָ ר ע ֲ ב ה ָ ה ַ ר is  a  locality  in  the vicinity of Mount Nebo (Num 33:47), about 20 kilometres away (cf. Rainey and Notley 2006: 123). The referent is thus distal.

ִ

֙

ֶ

֙

ֶ

(32) Deut 3:18

ֵ

ֶ ֥ם ֵ יכ א ֲ ח ֛י ְ נ ל ִ פ ֗ וּ ב ְ ר תּ ַ ֽ ע ִ ֣ ים ח ֲ לוּצ ָ֔ הּ ִ שׁ ְ תּ ל ְ ר זּ ֹ את ה ַ ֶ ץ ָ ֤ ר ת־ה ָ א א ֶ ֶ֜ ם ל ָ כ ן נ ָת ֵ יכ ֶ֗ ם א ֱ לֹה ָ ֣ה י ְהו ֑ ר ל ֵ אמֹ ִ ֖ וא ה ַ ה ֵ ֥ת בּ ָ ע ְ כ ֶ֔ ם א ֶ ת ֣ו א ֲ צ ו ָ י ִל׃ נ ֵ י־ח כּ ָ ל־בּ ְ ֖ ל ָ א ְ ר ֵ ֽי־יִשׂ בּ ְ נ

ֽ

ָ

ֵ

''… And I commanded you at that time: 'Yahweh your God has given you that land for your possession. The fighting men will cross over before your brothers, the sons of Israel, all the sons of power.'''

In Deuteronomy 3:18, Moses reminds the people of Israel of what he had said to them when they had camped at Beth-peor (Deut 3:29) on their way to the land of Canaan. From their vantage point in the mountains, they could likely see the distant land he referred to using ז ֹ את adnominally as a distal demonstrative (cf. Rainey and Notley 2006: 124).

(33) Deut 4:22

ֽ את׃ ה ַ זּ ָ ֖ה ה ַ טּוֹב ֶ ץ ָ ֥ ר ת־ה ָ א א ֶ ֶ֕ ם ִ שׁ ְ תּ ו ִ ֽ יר ִ ֔ ים ב ְ ר עֹ ֽ ֶ ם ו ְ א ַ תּ ֑ ן ְ דּ יּ ַר א ֶ ת־ה עֹב ֵ ֖ר ִ י ינ ֶ ֥נּ א ֵ ֹ ֔את ה ַ זּ ֶ ץ ָ ֣ר בּ ָ א מ ֵ ת ִ ֥ י נֹכ א ָ ֣ י כּ ִ

ֹ

֙

ֵ

ַ

֙

''… For I am about to die in this land. I am not going to cross the Jordan. But you are about to cross

and possess that good land.''

As in the previous example, Moses is here addressing the people of Israel. They are camped on the plains of Moab and have not yet crossed the Jordan river into the land of Canaan. In this example, Moses  again  refers  to  the  land  of  Canaan  with  the  demonstrative ז ֹ את ,  which  is  functioning deictically to refer to the land on the other side of the Jordan river and thus the demonstrative here is being used to refer to a distal rather than a proximal referent.

(34) 1 Sam 4:6

ִ ֑ ים ְ ר ע ִ ב ה ָ ֵ ֣ה ֲ נ מ ַ ח בּ ְ ֹ ֖את ה ַ זּ ָ ֛ה גּ ְ דוֹל ה ַ ָ ֧ה ְ רוּע ה ַ תּ ק ֣ וֹל מ ֶ֠ ה ְ ר ֔ וּ ֹ ֣אמ ו ַ יּ תּ ְ רוּע ָ֔ ה ה ַ ֣ וֹל א ֶ ת־ק ִ ים ְ תּ פ ְ ל ִשׁ ֤ וּ ְ מ ְ ע ו ַ יִּשׁ 'And the Philistines heard the sound of the shout and they said, 'What is the sound of that great shout in the Hebrew camp?''

֙

In example (34), the Israelites and the Philistines are at war, with their camps set up at Ebenezer and Aphek  respectively.  The  Ark  of  the  Covenant  arrives  in  the  Israelite  camp,  they  cheer,  and  the Philistines  wonder  what  is  happening.  They  refer  to  the  distant  cheering  a  couple  of  kilometres away  with  the  demonstrative ז ֹ את ,  which  functions  deictically  to  refer  to  a  distal  referent.  The demonstrative  here  is  more  likely  distal  than  proximal  given  that  the  source  of  the  shout  is mentioned ('that great shout in the Hebrew camp') rather than simply the sound of the shout itself ('this great shout around us').

(35) 1 Sam 9:6

שּׁ ָ֔ ם ֣ל ֲ כ ָ ה נ ֵ ָ ה ע ַ תּ י ָ ב ֑ וֹא בּ ֣ וֹא ֵ ֖ר ַ בּ ר־י ְד א ֲ שׁ כֹּ ֥ ל ָ֔ ד נ ִ כ ְ בּ ִ ֣ ישׁ ו ְ ה ָ א ֹ ֔את ה ַ זּ ִ ֣ יר בּ ָ ע ִ ים א ִ ישׁ־א ֱ לֹה ָ ֤א נּ ֵ ה־נ ה ִ וֹ ל ֗ ֶ ר ֹ ֣אמ ו ַ יּ 'And he said to him, 'Please, there is a man of God in that city, and the man is respected. All that he says certainly comes about. Now, let us go there.''

֙

ֶ

֙

In 1 Samuel 9:6, Saul and his servant are out searching for donkeys that have wandered off. Saul has had enough looking and wants to return home. His servant thought that they should visit a man of God in the city up ahead. The servant refers to the city with the demonstrative ז ֹ את , which is best taken to be deictic since the city has not been referred to before (hence it cannot be anaphoric) and there is not enough inferencing for it to be a recognitional use. As such, the demonstrative is deictic, referring to a city which is situationally prominent. Further, the demonstrative is best taken to be referring to a distal rather than proximal referent for the following reasons: (a) Saul and his servant are not located in the city at the time of the discourse but rather they have to walk some distance to the city and climb the hill to it (1 Sam 9:10-11); and (b) the city is referred to with the distal שׁ ָ ם 'there' rather than the proximal פֹּה 'here'.

ַ

֙

ַ

֙

ַ

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          25

ִ

֙

ֶ

ֲ

(36) 1 Sam 17:26 ַ ֣ל מ ֵ ע ָ ֖ה ְ פּ ח ֶ ר ִ ֥ יר ֵ ס ו ְה ָ֔ ז ה ַ לּ ֣ י ְ תּ ַ פּ ְ ל ִשׁ א ֶ ת־ה י ַ כּ ֶ ה ֤ ר א ֲ שׁ ִ ישׁ ֙ ל ָ א ֶ֗ ה ה־יּ ֵ ע ָ שׂ מ ַ ל ֵ אמֹר֒ ע ִ מּוֹ ֘ ִ ֣ ים ְ ד ה ָ עֹמ ִ֞ ים נ ָשׁ א ֶ ֽ ל־ה ָ א ו ִ֗ד דּ ָ ֶ ר ֹ ֣אמ ו ַ יּ ה ַ פּ י מ ִ֗ ֣ י כּ ִ ֑ ל ָ א ְ ר יִשׂ ֵ ל ֙ ֽ ע ָ ר ה ֶ ֤ י ְ תּ ל ִשׁ זּ ֶ֔ה ה ַ יּ ִ ֽים׃ ח ַ ִ ֥ ים א ֱ לֹה כ ֖ וֹת ע ַ ר מ ַ ֵ ֔ ף ח ֵ ר ֣ י כּ ִ 'And David said to the men standing with him, 'What will be done for the man that strikes down that

ְ

ֵ

ִ

ְ

Philistine and removes the disgrace from Israel? Who is that uncircumcised Philistine, that he has defies the armies of the living God?''

֥

ִ

ֵ

֔

ְ

ָ

֙

- (37) 1 Sam 17:32 י ְ תּ ַ פּ ְ ל ִשׁ ע ִ ם־ה ַ ֖ ם ִ ל ְ ח ו ְ נ ךְ י ֵל ךָ ֣ ְ דּ ע ַ ב ֑יו ע ָ ל ָ ֖ם ָ ד ל ֵ ב־א א ַ ל־י ִ פּ ֹ ֥ ל ָ א ֔ וּל א ֶ ל־שׁ ו ִ ד דּ ָ ֶ ר ֹ ֤אמ ו ַ יּ ֶ ֽה ה ַ זּ ׃ 'And David said to Saul, 'Do not let anyone lose heart. Your servant will walk and go to battle with

that Philistine.''

- (38) 1 Sam 17:33

֣ י ְ תּ ַ פּ ְ ל ִשׁ א ֶ ל־ה ֶ ֙ כ ֶ ת ל ָ ל תוּכ ַ ל ֙ ֤ א ל ֹ ו ִ֗ד א ֶ ל־דּ ֜ וּל שׁ ָ א ֙ אמ ֶ ר ו ַ יּ זּ ֶ֔ה ה ַ ָ ֽ יו׃ ְ ע ֻ ר מ ִ נּ ָ ֖ה ָ מ ל ְ ח מ ִ א ִ ֥ ישׁ ֛ וּא ו ְה ָ ה א ַ֔ תּ ֣ע ַ ר כּ ִ ֽ י־נ וֹ ע ִ מּ ֵ ֖ ם לּ ָ ח ל ְ ה 'And Saul said to David, 'You are not able to walk to that Philistine to go into battle with him because you are a youth and he is a man of battle from his youth.''

- (39) 1 Sam 17:36-37(x2)

ה ֶ ע י ְ תּ ְ ל ִשׁ ה ַ פּ י ָה ו ְ ֽ֠ה ֑ ךָ ְ דּ ע ַ ב ָ ֣ה ה ִ כּ ֖ וֹב ַ דּ גּ ַ ם־ה ֛ י ֲ ר א ֶ ֽ ת־ה ָ א גּ ַ ֧ם ֤ ל ר ֵ זּ ֶה ה ַ יּ ִ ֽים׃ ח ַ ִ ֥ ים א ֱ לֹה כֹ ֖ ת ע ַ ר מ ַ ֵ ֔ ף ח ֵ ר ֣ י כּ ִ ֶ֔ ם מ ֵ ה ֣ ד ַ ח כּ ְ א י ְ תּ ְ ל ִשׁ ה ַ פּ יּ ַ ֥ד מ ִ ִ י ֵ֔ נ י ַ צּ ִ יל ה ֣ וּא ֔ ב ה ַ דֹּ יּ ַ ֣ד וּמ ִ י ֲ ר ה ָ ֽ א יּ ַ ֤ד מ ִ ִ י ַ֜ נ צּ ִ ל ה ִ ֶ֙ ר א ֲ שׁ י ְ הו ָ֗ה ו ִ ד֒ דּ ָ ֶ ר ֘ ו ַ יּ ֹ אמ ֶ ֑ה ה ַ זּ

֖

ִ

֙

ִ

''Also the lion and the bear your servant has struck down, so that uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them because he defies the armies of the living God.' And David said, 'Yahweh, who has delivered me from the hand of the lion and the bear, he will deliver me from the hand of that Philistine.''

Examples (36) to (39) all relate to the same situation where the giant Goliath was challenging the Israelite  army  to  send  someone  out  to  fight  him.  In  these  verses,  either  David  or  Saul  refers  to Goliath using ז ֶה adnominally. Since Goliath is a prominent figure at the time of the discourse, it is difficult to take the demonstrative here as functioning recognitionally. Rather, it is easier to take the demonstrative as functioning deictically to refer to the distal referent Goliath.

- (40) 1 Sam 30:8

ְ

ַ

֑

ַ

֙

ִ

֩

ָ

ִ

ִ

֙

ָ

֙

ֵ

ֶ

ַ

ֵ

ָ

֙

ַ

ֶ ֖ה ַ זּ גּ ְ דוּד־ה ה ַ ֥ י ֲ ר א ַ ח ֛ ף ְ דֹּ א ֶ ר ֔ ר ל ֵ אמֹ בּ ַ ֽ יהו ָה ו ִ ֤ד דּ ָ ַ֙ ל ְ א ו ַ יִּשׁ

'And David asked Yahweh, 'Should I pursue after that troop?'

- (41) 1 Sam 30:15(x2)

ֲ

֙

֙

ֵ

֣ וּד גּ ְ ד א ֶ ל־ה ִ י ֖ נ ִ ד ה ֲ תוֹר ו ִ֔ד דּ ָ ָ יו א ֵ ל ֶ ר ֹ ֤אמ ו ַ יּ ה ַ זּ ֶ ֑ה ד ֹנ ִ֔ י בּ ְ יַד־א י נ ִ גּ ִ ר ַ ס ְ ו ְ א ִ ם־תּ ִ י ֵ֗ נ ִ ית ְ מ א ִ ם־תּ ִ֜ ים ב ֵ ֽ אלֹה לּ ִ ֙ י ע ָ ה ָ ב ְ ה ִ שּׁ ֶ ר ֹ ֡אמ ו ַ יּ ֥ וּד גּ ְ ד א ֶ ל־ה ךָ ֖ ִ ֽ ד ו ְ אוֹר ֶ ֽה ה ַ זּ ׃

ְ

'And David said to him, 'Will you take me down to that troop?' And he said, 'Please swear to me by God that you will not kill me and that you will not hand me over into the hand of my master, and I will bring you to that troop.'' 18

In the two examples above, (40) and (41), both David and a captured Amalekite slave refer to the raiding Amalekite troop using ז ֶה adnominally. The addressee in each instance can be presumed to know of the Amalekite troop,  so  it  is  unlikely  that ז ֶה is  being  used  recognitionally  to  bring  the referent to mind. Further, the Amalekite troop cannot be considered to be one which habitually raids the area such that a recognitional demonstrative could be used to bring this group to mind. More likely,  then, ז ֶה is  used  here  to  refer  deictically  to  a  distal  referent,  the  exact  location  of  which  is

18 On the oath here in this verse see Conklin 2005: 95-96.

ִ

֙

ֹ

unknown by David ('that troop [out there somewhere]') but known by the slave ('that troop [out there of which I know the location]').

(42) 1 Kgs 20:7

ָ ֖ה ר ָ ע כּ ִ ֥ י וּ ְ א ֔ וּר ָ ֣א ֽ וּ־נ דּ ְ ע ֙ אמ ֶ ר ֙ ו ַ יּ ֶ ץ ָ֔ ר ה ָ א ֣י ְ נ ָ ל־ז ִק ל ְ כ ָ א ֵ ל ֙ ְ ר מ ֶ ֽ ל ֶ ךְ־יִשׂ ָ ֤א ְ ר ו ַ יּ ִק ז ֶ ֣ה ֵ ֑ שׁ ב ַ קּ מ ְ 'And the king of Israel summoned all the elders of the land and said, 'Know, please, and see that one is seeking evil.''

(43)   1 Kgs 20:13

֖ וֹל גּ ָ ד ה ַ וֹן ה ָ מ כּ ָ ל־ה א ֵ ֛ת ָ א ִ֔ ית ה ְ ֽ ר י ְ הו ָ֔ה ַ ֣ר א ָ מ כֹּ ֚ה ֶ ר ֹ ֗אמ ו ַ יּ ָ א ֵ ל ֒ ְ ר מ ֶ ֽ ל ֶ ךְ־יִשׂ ָ ֣ב ְ א ַ ח א ֶ ל־א נ ִ גּ ַשׁ ָ֗ ד א ֶ ח ִ ֣ יא נ ָב ֵ ֣ה׀ ִ נּ ו ְה ֶ ֑ה ה ַ זּ 'See, a prophet approached Ahab, king of Israel, and he said, 'This is what Yahweh says, 'Do you see all that great crowd?'''

֥

ֶ

ָ

֘

In example (42), Ben-Hadad the king of Aram is laying siege to Samaria. King Ahab is in the city and speaks about Ben-Hadad to his servants. He refers to Ben-Hadad with the demonstrative ז ֶה , which is best taken to be deictic since Ben-Hadad is situationally prominent. Additionally, it is most likely to be distal rather than proximal since Ben-Hadad is neither in the city nor the presence of Ahab.

In example (43), Ben-Hadad decides to attack the city of Samaria again and so musters his army. A prophet  speaks  to  Ahab  about  the  army  that  is  preparing  to  attack,  using  the  demonstrative ז ֶה adnominally.  The  demonstrative  is  deictic  since  the  prophet  refers  to  the  visibly  gathering  army ('Do you see?' he says to Ahab). Further, it is likely distal since Ben-Hadad's camp would not have been located right at the city itself (cf. 1 Kgs 20:16-20).

(44) 1 Kgs 20:28

''… I will give all that great crowd into your hand….''

In example (44), Israel is still at war with Ben-Hadad, this time at Aphek, where the two armies have mustered opposite each other. A man of God speaks to King Ahab, delivering him the message that Ben-Hadad's army will be handed over to him by God. To refer to the army, the man of God uses  the  demonstrative ז ֶה adnominally,  which  is  best  taken  to  be  deictic  given  the  situational prominence of the referent and also distal since Ben-Hadad's army would not have been located right next to that of Ahab's.

(45) 2 Kgs 5:20

י א ִ ָ ֣ ע ל ִ ישׁ א ֱ נ ַ ע ַ ר ז ִ֗ י גּ ֵ יח ֶ ר ֹ ֣אמ ו ַ יּ י ַ מּ ִ ֲ ר ה ָ ֽ א ֤ ן א ֶ ֽ ת־נ ַ ע ֲ מ ד ֹנ ִ֗ י א ֲ ֣ ךְ ח ָ שׂ ֵ ֣ה׀ ה ִ נּ ִ ים֒ שׁ־ה ָ א ֱ לֹה זּ ֶ֔ה ה ַ ִ ֑ יא שׁ ֶ ר־ה ֵ ב א ֲ א ֵ ֣ת וֹ יּ ָד מ ִ ַ ת ַ ֥ ח מ ִ קּ ֽ וּמ ָ ה׃ מ ְ א וֹ א ִ תּ מ ֵ י ְ תּ ַ ח ו ְ ל ָ ק ָ ֔ יו ֲ ר א ַ ח י ֣ צ ְ תּ כּ ִ ֽ י־א ִ ם־ר י־י ְ הו ָה ח ַ

֖

֥

ִ

ִ

ַ

֙

'And Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, the man of God, said, 'Look, my master spared that Syrian Naaman from taking from his hand what he had brought. By the life of Yahweh, when I run after him, then I will take something from him.'' 19

In 2 Kings 5:20, Gehazi says to the prophet Elisha that he should chase after Naaman. He refers to Naaman  using ז ֶה adnominally.  The  demonstrative  cannot  be  considered  recognitional,  since Naaman has recently been with them and thus does not need to be called to mind recognitionally. Further, the demonstrative is less likely to be proximal than distal given that Naaman has departed in  his  chariot  and  already  travelled  some  distance  (cf.  2 Kgs  5:19).  Therefore, ז ֶה here  functions deictically as a distal demonstrative.

19 On the oath here in this verse see Conklin 2005: 157.

֖

֙

ָ

ַ

ֹ

֙

ֵ

ָ ֤דוֹל ה ַ גּ וֹן ה ָ מ א ֶ ת־כּ ָ ל־ה י ַ תּ ו ְ ֠ נ ָת זּ ֶה ה ַ ֶ ֔ ךָ י ָד בּ ְ

֙

֘

ֶ

ֲ

ִ

(46) Isa 40:26

''Lift your eyes upward and see. Who created those?''

In example (46), the prophet Isaiah directs the addressees to look up into the night sky and to look at the stars, which he refers to with the plural demonstrative לּ ֶ ה א ֵ . It is difficult to imagine here that the  prophet  is  conceptualising  the  stars  as  something  rather  close  and  tangible,  but  rather  their vastness  beyond  human  reach  and  control.  As  such,  the  demonstrative  is  best  taken  again  as deictically referring to a distal referent.

(47) Ruth 2:5

ָ ֣א י־ב ָ ר מ ִ ְ אוּ ֙ וּר ֶ ֤ם ינ ֵ יכ ע ֵ ר ֙ וֹם שׂ ְ אוּ־מ ָ לּ ֶ ה א ֵ֔

ֽ את׃ ה ַ זּ ָ ֥ ה ַ ע ֲ ר ה ַ נּ ִ ֖ י ל ְ מ ִ ֑ ים וֹצ ְ ר ַ קּ ֽ ע ַ ל־ה ָ ֖ב נּ ִצּ ה ַ ֔ וֹ ַ ע ֲ ר ל ְ נ ֙ ע ַ ז בֹּ ֶ ר ֹ ֤אמ ו ַ יּ

ֹ

֙

'And Boaz said to his servant in charge over the harvesters, 'To whom does that young woman

belong?''

In Ruth 2:5, Boaz the owner of the field speaks to his harvesters about Ruth, who is following them along  picking  up  the  leftovers.  He  refers  to  her  using ז ֹ את adnominally.  Here  the  demonstrative again  refers  to  a  referent  which  is  deictically  present.  Further,  since  Boaz  most  likely  asks  his question out of earshot of Ruth, it is most likely that the demonstrative refers to a referent which is to be construed as distal.

Examples (26) to (47) are all the examples in the corpus which are considered as having referents which are to be taken as distal. That is, the other options that the demonstrative in each of these cases could be-proximal, anaphoric, recognitional, discourse deictic-are far less likely than that in each context the demonstrative is more naturally taken as deictically referring to a distal referent.

There  are,  however,  additional  cases  where  the  demonstrative  can  possibly  be  considered  as functioning as a distal demonstrative. That is, in each particular context, it is ambiguous whether the demonstrative is deictic,  or  if  it  has  another  function.  The  examples  in  the  corpus  are  listed  and discussed below.

(48) Gen 19:20

ָ ה שׁ ָ֗ מּ נּ ָ֜א ָ֙ ה ל ְ ט א ִ מּ ָ ֑ר צ ְ ע מ ִ ִ ֣ יא ו ְה ָ ה שׁ ָ ֖ מּ נ ֥ וּס ל ָ ָ ֛ה ק ְ רֹב ֹ ֧את ה ַ זּ ִ֙ יר ה ָ ע נּ ֵ ה־נ ָ֠א ה ִ ''… See, please, that city is near enough to flee there, and it is small. Please let me escape there.''

ָ

In Genesis 19:20, Lot speaks to the angels who had been sent to warn him that God was going to destroy the city of Sodom. Having been urged by the angels that he and his family should run to the mountains,  Lot  replies  that  the  mountains  are  too  far  away,  and  asks  that  he  might  instead  be allowed to escape to a nearby city. Lot refers to this city using ז ֹ את adnominally. Given the speech context here, ז ֹ את is unambiguously deictic. Less certain is whether the city is being conceptualised as very close or somewhat distal. It is possible that it is distal given that they are not yet inside the city and they still need to travel to it.

(49) Exod 3:21

''… and I will give that people favour in the eyes of the Egyptians …''

֑ י ִם

ָ

צ ְ ר

מ ִ

֣י

ֵ

ֵ ינ

בּ ְ ע

ֶ ֖ה

ַ זּ

ה ָ ֽ ע ָ ם־ה

֥ ן

ֵ

א ֶ ת־ח

֛ י

ִ

ַ תּ

ו ְ נ ָת

In example (49), Yahweh speaks to Moses about delivering his people from Egypt, referring to the people using ז ֶה adnominally. The demonstrative here is ambiguous as it could be anaphoric ('that people [I have been talking about]') or deictic ('that people [back there in Egypt]').

- (50) Num 14:3

זּ ֹ את ה ַ ר ֶ ץ ל־ה ָ א א ֶ נוּ אֹת ָ֜ ִ֙ יא מ ֵ ב י ְ֠ הו ָה ָ ֣ה ו ְ ל ָ מ ''… and why is Yahweh bringing us to that land…?''

- (51) Num 14:8

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          28

֙

֤

ָ

ל ָ ֑נוּ ָ ֖הּ ָ נ וּנ ְת ֹ ֔את ה ַ זּ ֶ ץ ָ ֣ר ל־ה ָ א א ֶ וּ ֙ אֹת ָ נ ִ ֤ יא ֵ ב ו ְה י ְ הו ָ֔ה וּ ֙ בּ ָ נ ֵ ֥ץ ָ פ א ִ ם־ח

֙

֙

''If Yahweh is pleased with us, then he will bring us to that land and give it to us.''

- (52) Num 14:14

''… and they will talk to the inhabitants of that land [about it]…''

זּ ֹ את֒ ה ַ ֶ ץ ָ ֣ר ה ָ א ֵ ב ֘ א ֶ ל־יוֹשׁ ֗ וּ ָ מ ְ ר ו ְא

Examples  (50)  to  (52)  all  relate  to  the  same  situation  when  the  Israelites  start  to  resent  the  trip through  the  wilderness  to  the  land  of  Canaan.  In  example  (50),  the  people  grumble  amongst themselves and refer to the land of Canaan using ז ֹ את adnominally; in example (51), Joshua and Caleb speak to the people and refer to the land using ז ֹ את adnominally; and in example (52), Moses speaks to God and also refers to the land using ז ֹ את adnominally. In each case the demonstrative is ambiguous as it could either be recognitional ('that land [which we all know about]') or deictic ('that land [beyond us which we are travelling towards]').

(53) Deut 3:25

֔

֛ וֹב ה ַ טּ ָ ֥ ר ה ָ ה ֑ ן ְ דּ יּ ַר ה ַ ֶ ר ֵ ֣ב בּ ְ ע ֶ ֖ ר א ֲ שׁ ה ַ טּוֹב ָ֔ ה ֶ ץ ָ ֣ר ת־ה ָ א א ֶ ְ א ֶ ה ֶ ר ו ְא ה־נּ ָ֗א ְ ר ע ְ בּ א ֶ ֶ ֖ה ה ַ זּ נ ֽ וֹן׃ ְ ב ַ לּ ו ְה

ֵ

֙

ָ

ָ

''Please let me cross and see the good land which is on the other side of the Jordan, that good hill

country and the Lebanon.''

ֵ

In Deuteronomy 3:25, Moses is on the verge of the promised land and asks God that he might be permitted to enter it. He refers to the hill country in the land using ז ֶה adnominally. It is ambiguous whether ז ֶה here  is  recognitional,  given  that  the  clause  in  which  it  occurs  provides  additional modification  to ן ְ דּ יּ ַר ה ַ 'the  Jordan',  or  whether  it  is  to  be  construed  deictically  ('that  good  hill country [out there]').

(54) Deut 4:6

ְ כ ֶ֔ וּב ִ ֣ ינ ַת כ ֶ ם ְ מ ַ ת ח ָ כ ה ִ ֤ וא ֣ י כּ ִ ֶ ם֒ ִ ית ו ַ ע ֲ שׂ ְ תּ ֶ ם֘ ַ ר וּשׁ ְ מ ר ַ֚ ק ֗ וּ ָ מ ְ ר ו ְא לּ ֶ ה ה ָ א ִ ֣ ים ֻ קּ כּ ָ ל־ה ַ ח א ֵ֚ ת וּן ְ מ ְ ע יִשׁ ֣ ר א ֲ שׁ ִ ֑ ים ע ַ מּ ה ָ ֖י ֵ ינ ל ְ ע ם ֖ וֹל גּ ָ ד ה ַ ה ַ גּ ֥ וֹי ֔ וֹן ו ְ נ ָב ָ ֣ם ָ כ ע ַ ם־ח ֶ ֽה ה ַ זּ ׃

֙

ְ

ֵ

֗

ֶ

ֵ

''… so obey and do because it is your wisdom and your understanding for the eyes of the peoples, who will hear all these statutes and say, 'Surely a wise and discerning people is that great nation!'''

In Deuteronomy 4:6, Moses instructs the Israelites that by following God at his word this will have a  profound  effect  on  the  wider  surrounding  peoples  because  they  will  be  seen  to  be  wise  and discerning.  The  words  Moses  puts  in  these  peoples'  mouths  use ז ֶה adnominally  to  refer  to  the Israelite  nation.  The  demonstrative  is  ambiguous  as  it  could  either  be  recognitional  ('that  great nation  [which  we  all  know  about]'),  deictically  proximal  ('this  great  nation  [close  by]'),  or deictically distal ('that great nation [over there in the land of Canaan]').

(55) Judg 19:11

י י ְבוּס ִֽ יר־ה א ֶ ל־ע ָ ה ֛ וּר ו ְ נ ָס ָ ֛א ל ְ כ ָ ה־נּ ד ֹנ ָ֗ יו א ֶ ל־א ַ֜ ע ַ ר ה ַ נּ ֙ אמ ֶ ר ו ַ יּ ֑ ד מ ְ אֹ ר ַ ֣ד יּ ֖וֹם ו ְה ם־י ְ ב ֔ וּס ע ִ ה ֵ ֣ם ֹ ֖את ה ַ זּ בּ ָ ֽ הּ׃ ִ ֥ ין נ ָ ל ו ְ 'They were near Jebus and it was getting very late. The servant said to his master, 'Come, please let

֥

ִ

ַ

ֲ

us turn aside to that Jebusite city and let us stay overnight in it.''

In  example  (55),  two  weary  travellers  discuss  where  they  should  spend  the  night.  The  servant suggests  a  Jebusite  city  they  were  passing  by,  referring  to  it  using ז ֹ את adnominally.  The demonstrative could possibly be taken as proximal ('this Jebusite city [here near us]'), but also, and more likely, distally ('that Jebusite city [over there to which we need to travel]').

ֹ

ַ

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          29

- (56) 1 Sam 14:6

א ֶ ל־ה ן י ְ הוֹנ ָת ֙ אמ ֶ ר ו ַ יּ ִ ֣ים ֵ ל ע ֲ ר ה ָ צּ ַ ב א ֶ ל־מ ָ ֗ ה ְ ר ַ ע ְ בּ ו ְ נ כ ָ ה ל ְ יו כ ֵ ל ֵ ֣א נֹשׂ ֣ע ַ ר׀ נּ ַ לּ ֶ ה ה ָ א 'And Jonathan said to his armour-bearer, 'Come, let us go over to the garrison of those uncircumcised ones.''

ַ

֜

ָ

ֹ

֙

ַ

֙

֗

ָ

֔

ֵ

In  1 Samuel  14:6,  Joshua  raises  the  idea  with  his  armour-bearer  of  going  over  to  a  Philistine garrison  and  making  war  against  it.  He  refers  to  the  Philistines  using לּ ֶ ה א ֵ adnominally.  The demonstrative  here  could  either  be  recognitional  ('those  uncircumcised  ones  [we  both  know about]') or deictically distal ('those uncircumcised ones [over there]').

- (57) 1 Sam 23:2

֑ לּ ֶ ה ה ָ א ִ ֖ ים ְ תּ ְ ל ִשׁ בּ ַ פּ י ִ כּ ֵ֔ ית ו ְה ֣ךְ ֵ ל ה ַ א ֔ ר ל ֵ אמֹ בּ ַ ֽ יהו ָה ו ִ ֤ד דּ ָ ַ֙ ל ְ א ו ַ יִּשׁ 'And David asked Yahweh, 'Should I go and strike those Philistines?''

ֵ

ִ

ֵ

֙

Similarly,  in  1 Samuel  23:2,  David  refers  to  the  Philistines  using לּ ֶ ה א ֵ adnominally.  Again  the demonstrative  could  either  be  recognitional  ('those  Philistines  [we  both  know  about]')  or deictically distal ('those Philistines [at the city of Keilah]').

- (58) 1 Kgs 13:8

ַ

ַ

א ֶ ל־ה ִ ים ֱ לֹה ָ ֽ א א ִ ישׁ־ה ֶ ר ֹ ֤אמ ו ַ יּ י ִם תּ ֶ ה־מּ א ֶ שׁ ֣ א ו ְ ל ֶ ם ל ֶ֙ח ֤ כ ַ ל ֽ א־אֹ ו ְ ל ֑ ךְ ע ִ מּ ֖ א א ָ ב ֹ ֥ א ל ֹ ךָ ב ֵ ית ֣ י ֲ צ א ֶ ת־ח ֶ ן־ל ִ י ִ תּ א ִ ם־תּ ֶ ךְ מּ ֶ֔ ל ֖ וֹם ָ ק בּ ַ מּ ֶ ֽה ה ַ זּ ׃

֙

֔

ְ

ֹ

֙

ֹ

ָ

֔

ֶ

ִ

֙

'And the man of God said to the king, 'Even if you gave me half of your house, I would not go with you and I would not eat bread and I would not drink water in that place.''

- (59) 1 Kgs 13:16

֖ וֹם ָ ק בּ ַ מּ י ִם מ ַ֔ ךָ א ִ תּ ֶ ֤ה ְ תּ ֽ א־א ֶ שׁ ו ְ ל ֶ ם ל ֶ֗ ח ֣ כ ַ ל ֽ א־אֹ ו ְ ל ֑ ךְ א ִ תּ ָ ב ֣ וֹא ו ְ ל ֖ ךְ א ִ תּ ֥ וּב ל ָשׁ אוּכ ַ ֛ל ֥ א ל ֹ ֶ ר ֹ ֗אמ ו ַ יּ ֶ ֽה ה ַ זּ ׃ 'And he said, 'I am not able to return with you and to go with you, and I am not able to eat bread and I will not drink water with you in that place.''

֙

ְ

ֹ

ֹ

ָ

ָ

In examples (58) and (59), a man of God tells both the king and another prophet that he cannot go to their places to eat and drink, using ז ֶה adnominally. The demonstrative in both instances could either be discourse deictic ('that place [about which you refer]') or deictically distal ('that place [that you want me to travel with you]').

- (60) 2 Kgs 4:12

ֹ ֑את ה ַ זּ ית ל ַ שּׁוּנ ַמּ ָ ֖א ק ְ ר ֔ וֹ נ ַ ע ֲ ר ֣י ז ִ ל־גּ ֵח א ֶ ֙ אמ ֶ ר ֙ ו ַ יּ 'And said to his servant Gehazi, 'Call for that Shunammite woman.''

- (61) 2 Kgs 4:36

ֹ ֔את ה ַ זּ ִ ֣ ית נ ַמּ ל־ה ַ שּׁ א ֶ ָ א ֙ ק ְ ר ֙ אמ ֶ ר ֙ ו ַ יּ ז ִ֗ י ל־גּ ֵ יח א ֶ ָ ֣א ְ ר ו ַ יּ ִק 'And he called to Gehazi, and he said, 'Call to that Shunammite woman.''

ֻ

ֹ

ֲ

In examples (60) and (61), two times the prophet Elisha says to his servant Gehazi to call for the Shunammite woman, both times referring to her using ז ֹ את adnominally. The demonstrative in both cases  could  either  be  recognitional,  calling  the  woman  to  mind  since  she  was  not  the  topic  of conversation each time, but known to both Elisha and Gehazi ('that Shunammite woman [we both know]') or more likely it is deictically distal ('that Shunammite woman [there downstairs]').

- (62) 2 Chron 14:10

֖

ֶ ֑ה ה ַ זּ וֹן ה ָ מ ע ַ ל־ה ב ָ֔ אנוּ ךָ ֣ ִ מ וּב ְ שׁ ְ ע ַ֔ נּוּ נ ִשׁ ֣יךָ ָ ל כּ ִ ֽ י־ע נוּ ֙ י א ֱ לֹה ָ ֤ה י ְהו ֵ ֜ נוּ ז ְר ע ָ

ֶ

ְ

ֶ

֙

ֵ

- ''… Help us, Yahweh our God, because on you we rely and in your name we have come against that multitude.''

֣

ִ

ֲ

ֹ

In 2 Chronicles 14:10, king Asa prays to God for help against the army of Zerah the Cushite. They have taken up battle lines and so it is possible that when Asa uses ז ֶה adnominally to refer to the army  of  Zerah  that  he  intends  the  construal  to  be  proximal.  Alternatively,  he  may  have conceptualised the army as somewhat distal.

(63) 2 Chron 20:12

ֵ ֑ינוּ ע ָ ל ָ ֣א ה ַ בּ ֶ ֖ה ה ַ זּ ָ ֛ ב ה ָ ר וֹן ה ָ מ ה ֶ ֵ י ְ נ ל ִ֠ פ ֔ ח כֹּ וּ ֙ בּ ָ נ ֥ ין א ֵ ֣ י כּ ִ פּ ָ ט־בּ ָ֔ ם ת ִ שׁ ֣ א ה ֲ ל ֙ נוּ י אלֹה ֵ

֥

ַ

֙

ְ

ֹ

֙

''Our God, will you not judge them, for there is no strength in us before that great multitude that comes against us?''

(64) 2 Chron 20:15

֙

וּ ֙ ַ תּ ֵ ח ו ְ א ַ ל־תּ וּ ְ א ֤ ִ ֽ יר א ַ ל־תּ ֶ ם א ַ֠ תּ ֶ֗ ם ל ָ כ י ְ הו ָ֜ה ָ מ ַ֙ ר כֹּ ֽ ה־א ָ ֑ט יְהוֹשׁ ָ פ ֶ ךְ ֖ ל ו ְ ה ַ מּ ֔ ם יְרוּשׁ ָ ל ַ ֣ י ְ ב ו ְ יֹשׁ ָ ה כ ָ ל־יְהוּד ִ ֤ יבוּ ק ְ שׁ ה ַ ֶ ר ֹ ֗אמ ו ַ יּ זּ ֶ֔ה ה ַ ָ ב ֙ ה ָ ר וֹן ה ָ מ ה ֶ י ְ נ מ ִ פּ

֤

֙

ֵ

'And he said, 'Listen, all of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem and king Jehoshaphat. Thus says Yahweh to you: 'As for you, do not fear and do not be discouraged from the face of that great multitude.'''

In  examples  (63)  and  (64)  the  armies  that  are  marching  up  against  the  kingdom  of  Judah  are referred to using ז ֶה adnominally, first by Jehoshaphat and then by Jachaziel. Since the army is not visible to either of these speakers, ז ֶה could be recognitional here ('that great multitude [which we know about]').  However,  there  is  still  a  possibility  that  it  is  deictically  distal  in  these  examples ('that great multitude [out there]').

This concludes the examples in the corpus where members of the ז ֶה paradigm are used in contexts where it is quite possible they are used deictically to refer to distal referents.

To sum up: the above discussion has presented the evidence that the members of the ז ֶה paradigm are used not just of proximal referents but also of distal referents and consequently must be taken as a  distance-neutral  demonstrative.  The  evidence  for  this  was  as  follows:  (a)  no  certain  or  even possible  cases  of  members  of  the הוּא paradigm  in  the  corpus  could  be  found  used  in  deictic reference to distal referents (or proximal); (b) in contrast to this point, there are 17 occurrences of members  of  the ז ֶה paradigm  used  in  contexts  where  it  is  possible  that  they  are  used  in  deictic reference  to  distal  referents,  but  not  entirely  certain  as  in  context  there  are  alternative  possible construals  of  the  demonstrative;  and  (c)  in  further  contrast  to  the  first  point,  there  are  24 occurrences of members of the ז ֶה paradigm used in contexts where it is quite certain that they are used in deictic reference to distal referents. This points to the conclusion that Ehlich, Brockelman, and Seow are correct: there is no deictic distance contrast between members of the paradigms of ז ֶה and הוּא , but rather members of the ז ֶה paradigm are used as a distance-neutral demonstrative for object deixis.

Additional corroborative support may be seen in the 'this and that' comparative construction. In this construction, members of the ז ֶה paradigm are not contrasted with members of the הוּא paradigm but rather members of the ז ֶה paradigm are used for both constituents of the comparison. In other words, such examples display semantic neutralisation in a contrastive environment. An example is provided in (65):

(65) Dan 12:2

ָ

עוֹל ָ ֽ ם׃ וֹן ְ א ֥ ִ ר ל ְ ד פ ֖ וֹת ֲ ר ל ַ ח ֥ לּ ֶ ה א ֵ ו ְ עוֹל ָ֔ ם ֣י יּ ֵ ל ְ ח לּ ֶ ה א ֵ ֚ ִ ֑ יצוּ י ָ  ק ָ ֖ר ת־ע ָ פ ְ מ ַ א ַ ד ֥י ֵ נ מ ִ יְּשׁ ַ בּ ִ֕ ים ו ְ ר

ַ

ֵ

'And many from those who sleep in the ground will wake up-these to eternal life, and those to shame

and eternal contempt.'

ֶ

ִ

ֵ

֙

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          31

In Daniel 12:2, an angel explains to Daniel what will happen at the time of the end. Part of what will happen, the angel explains, is that some of those who have died will wake up from death to experience eternal life, while others who have died will wake up to experience shame and eternal contempt. To express this contrast, the demonstrative לּ ֶ ה א ֵ is used pronominally for both 'these' and 'those'  rather  than ָ ה ה ֵ מּ .  Now,  it  is  true  that  some  languages  with  deictically  contrastive demonstratives  still  use  only  one  of  the  demonstratives  in  such  a  function,  however  it  is  more regular  to  find  contrastive  deictic  demonstratives  if  there  are  such  in  a  language.  In  fact,  no occurrences can be found in the corpus where members of the הוּא paradigm are used in the 'this and that' comparative construction to contrast with members of the ז ֶה paradigm. 20 The examples in the corpus of the 'this and that' comparative construction with members of the ז ֶה paradigm are as follows:  Gen  29:27;  Exod  14:20;  17:12;  25:19;  26:13(x2);  32:15;  37:8;  38:15;  Num  22:24;  Josh 7:20; 8:22; 8:33; Judg 7:4; 18:4; 1 Sam 14:4 17:3; 23:26; 2 Sam 2:13(x2); 11:25; 17:15(x2); 1 Kgs 3:23; 10:19; 10:20; 14:5; 22:20; 2 Kgs 5:4; 9:12; Isa 6:3; 44:5; Ezek 45:7; 47:7; 47:12; 48:21; Zech 5:3; Pss 20:8; 75:8; Job 1:16; 1:17; 1:18; 21:23-25; Eccl 3:19; 7:14; 7:18; 11:6; Dan 12:2; 1 Chron 24:5;  2 Chron  9:18;  9:19;  18:19.  Thus  while  such  evidence  is  not  conclusive  it  does  add  to  the growing picture that the הוּא paradigm does not deictically contrast with the ז ֶה paradigm.

Consequently, all the main and collaborative evidence points to the ז ֶה paradigm having a distanceneutral deictic function, while the הוּא paradigm no longer has a deictic function. The הוּא paradigm itself has grammaticalised from a demonstrative used for remote object deixis given the evidence for such in Proto-Semitic (cf. Huehnergard 2004) and other Semitic languages (e.g. Akkadian; cf. Diakonoff  and  Kogan  2007;  Huehnergard  2000).  However,  from  the  evidence  presented  the language  of  TH  has  lost  such  a  function,  being  used  primarily  for  anaphoric  reference.  This prototypical difference between the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms may be observed in comparing (66a) with (66b). As Joüon and Muraoka have already pointed out (2006: §143k), the difference between these examples  is  that  in  (66a) ֶ ץ ָ ר ה ָ א ֹ א ה ַ זּ ת 'this  land'  refers  deictically  to  the  present  location  of  the speaker,  while  in  (66b) ֶ ץ ָ ר ה ָ א ִ יא ה ַ ה 'that  land'  does  not  refer  deictically  to  a  distal  location  but anaphorically to the location about which the speaker has been talking, that is, 'the aforementioned land'. Joüon and Muraoka have therefore understood the essential contrast between the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms,  but  unlike  Ehlich,  Brockelmann,  and  Seow,  their  position  does  not  fully  match  their account of the examples in (66) given that the הוּא paradigm used in adnominal function like (66b) is called 'a quasi-demonstrative or weak demonstrative' (2006: §143j).

(66) a. Jer 25:9

''… and I will bring them against this land …''

b. Jer 25:13

ֶ ֑יה ע ָ ל י ְ תּ ַ ֣ר ִ בּ שׁ ֶ ר־דּ א ֲ ֖ י ְ ב ָ ר ת־כּ ָ ל־דּ א ֶ ִ֔ יא ה ַ ה ֶ ץ ָ ֣ר ע ַ ל־ה ָ א י ֵ ֽ ב ֵ את ו ְה ''… and I will bring against that land all my words of which I have spoken …''

ָ

ִ

ַ

זּ ֹ את ה ַ ֶ ץ ָ ֤ ר ע ַ ל־ה ָ א ים ֲ ב ִ֙ אֹת ו ַה

֙

ִ

Nevertheless, one example of an unambiguous deictic reference can still be found which is given in (67a) below.

(67) a. Exod 16:15

ִ

ה ֔ וּא ֣ ן מ ָ יו ֙ ָ ח א ֶ ל־א א ִ ֤ ישׁ ֙ אמ ְ ר ֜ וּ ו ַ יּ ָ א ֵ֗ ל ְ ר ֵ ֽי־יִשׂ ב ְ נ וּ ְ א ֣ ו ַ יּ ִר

ֹ

'And the Israelites saw [the thin flaky substance on the ground around them] and they said to one another, 'What is it?'

20 In 1 Kings 20:40 נּ ָה ה ֵ נּ ָה ו ָה is used adverbially for 'here and there.'

ֵ

֙

ִ

֜

## b. Cornish 1999: 112

[A and B turn a corner on the pavement, and suddenly find themselves face to face with a rather large dog]

A to B: Do you think it's friendly?

However, the interesting thing to note here is that the referral is made to a PROXIMAL referent and the function of הוּא in this verse is primarily actually that of anaphora to a referent which is highly salient  in  the  speech  context-an  'antecedentless  anaphor,'  to  use  Cornish's  term,  to  which compare his example given in (67b). As Cornish says, the referent of such examples like those of (67) 'is assumed to enjoy 'focus' status in the addressee's consciousness' (Cornish 1999: 112) and consequently constitutes a type of anaphora rather than deixis.

All-in-all, then, it may be sufficiently concluded that the הוּא paradigm no longer serves a deictic function; rather, the ז ֶה paradigm has a distance-neutral deictic function. In this sense, then, TH is like Modern German where the adnominal deisand  (stressed) der, die, and das are  all  distanceneutral (Diessel 2005a; Himmelmann 1997). It remains to be elaborated what additional functions these two paradigms have in TH. It is to this question we now turn to complete the picture.

## 4.2. Anaphoric function

As already detailed above, the primary function of the הוּא paradigm is that of anaphora. However, as presented in §3.3 the notion of anaphora can be seen to consist of four different subsets: topic anaphora, contrastive topic anaphora, focus anaphora, and non-topic anaphora. Some rare languages use different forms for these functions, while more commonly person-marking forms range over the entirety of anaphoric functions.

## 4.2.1. Topic anaphora

Topic anaphora is the anaphoric referral to the current topic. In TH, the most common forms used for topic anaphora are the person-marking verbal inflections. However, the הוּא paradigm is used for topic  anaphora  in  verbless  clauses  (predicate  nominal,  predicate  adjective,  etc.)  and  participial clauses,  as  in  example  (68).  This  is  comparable  to  topic  anaphora  made  by  verbal  inflections  in verbal clauses, as in example (69). The הוּא paradigm has a topic anaphoric function 53 percent of the time of its occurrences in the Pentateuch.

- (68)   Gen 2:13

## כּ ֽ וּשׁ׃ ֶ ץ ֶ ֥ ר כּ ָ ל־א א ֵ ֖ת ה ַ סּוֹב ֵ֔ ב ה ֣ וּא וֹן גּ ִ יח ֖ י ֵ נ ה ַ שּׁ ָ ֥ ר נּ ָה ֵ ֽ ם־ה ו ְשׁ

֑

ִ

ַ

'And the name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that winds through all the land of Cush.'

- (69)   Gen 4:16

## ן׃ ֵ ֽד מ ַ ת־ע ק ִ ד ץ־נ ֖ וֹד ֶ ֽ ר בּ ְ א ֶ ב יּ ֵ ֥שׁ ו ַ ָ ֑ה י ְהו ֣י ְ נ לּ ִ פ מ ִ י ִ ן ק ַ ֥צ ֵ א ו ַ יּ

ֶ

ְ

ֶ

ֵ

֖

ֵ

'And Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh and he lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.'

Regarding the ז ֶה paradigm,  it  is  not  used  for  strict  topic  anaphora  function.  It  does  appear  once adnominally in the Pentateuch referring to a topical referent in Deuteronomy 5:3 as seen in example (70). However, this may be taken as immediate anaphora after first mention, which is used to situate a referent more firmly in the discourse and so may be considered more closely aligned with nontopic anaphora.

## (70) Deut 5:2-3

נוּ א ִ תּ ֣ י כּ ִ ֹ ֑את ה ַ זּ ִ ֣ ית ְ ר א ֶ ת־ה ַ בּ ָ ֖ה י ְהו ַ ֥ ת כּ ָ ר ינוּ ֲ בֹת א ֶ ת־א א ל ֹ ֵ ֽ ב׃ בּ ְ חֹר ִ ֖ ית בּ ְ ר ֛ נוּ ע ִ מּ ַ ֥ ת כּ ָ ר ינוּ א ֱ לֹה ָ ֣ה י ְהו ''Yahweh our God made a covenant with as at Horeb. He did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us …''

֗

ָ

## 4.2.2. Contrastive topic anaphora

Contrastive topic anaphora is anaphoric referral to a current topic, but which in the proposition is pragmatically  contrasted  with  another  topic.  The הוּא paradigm  has  a  contrastive  topic  anaphora function  in  5  percent  of  its  occurrences  in  the  Pentateuch.  In  the  example  of  Genesis  42:8,  the referent  of  the  independent  third-person  marker ה ֵ ם 'they'  is  topical  and  contrasted  with  another discourse referent which is also topical. On the other hand, the ז ֶה paradigm is not used for such contrastive topic anaphora.

(71)   Gen 42:8

'And Joseph recognised his brothers, but they did not recognise him.'

## 4.2.3. Focus anaphora

ָ

Focus anaphora is anaphora to a topical discourse referent which in the proposition is construed as an  assertion.  In  other  words,  the  anaphoric  expression  bears  an  argument  focus  relation.  The ז ֶה paradigm  is  found  with  a  focus  anaphoric  function  in  about  1  percent  of  its  occurrences  in  the Pentateuch,  while  the הוּא paradigm  has  this  function  in  2  percent  of  its  occurrences  in  the Pentateuch.  Examples  are  provided  in  (72)  and  (73)  below.  Floor  (2004:  169-170,  178-179) analyses  Adam's  reply  in  Genesis  3:12  as  having  an  argument  focus  information  structure  with contrastive overlay. The initial dislocated phrase ָ ה א ִ שּׁ ה ָ א ֲ שׁר ָ ה ַ תּ נ ָת י ָ ד ע ִ מּ 'the  woman that you put with me' reactivates the referent 'Eve' and sets up the frame in which the clause is to be interpreted. The predicate supplies the information structure '(x) gave me fruit from the tree and I ate,' with the subject ה ִ וא 'she'  bearing  an  argument  focus  relationship.  However,  the  anaphoric  third-person marker  here  is  already  presupposed  and  active,  thus  leading  to  the  contrastive  construal  of  the argument in focus, '[a]s if Adam was saying that 'the one you gave me, she and only she did it! I am not responsible!'' (Floor 2004: 179). The second example, Leviticus 21:13-14, is similar. The context here is God informing Moses about the instruction he is to pass on to the priests concerning holy living. From verse 10 the instruction turns particularly to the High Priest, and it is this referent which הוּא 'he'  in  verse  13  reactivates  after  a  brief  delay.  Since  verse  13  has  already  stated ָ ה א ִ שּׁ ְ תוּל ֶ יה ב ִ ב ָ ח י ִקּ 'he must marry a woman with her virginity', the initial dislocated phrase of verse 14 activates an inferentially accessible referent. The predicate supplies the information structure 'he must  not  marry  (x),'  with  the  fronted  object  bearing  a  focus  relationship.  Like  the  independent third-person marker in (72), the demonstrative here presents a contrastive overlay: 'these and these ones in particular he must not marry.'

- (72) Gen 3:12 (cf. Floor 2004: 169-170, 178-179 for discussion)

ֵ ֽ ל׃ ו ָ אֹכ ֵ ֖ץ ָ ע מ ִ ן־ה ִ ֥ י נ ָ ה־לּ נ ָ ֽת ה ִ ֛ וא ִ ֔ י ָ ד ע ִ מּ ָ ה ַ ֣תּ נ ָת ֣ ר א ֲ שׁ ָ ה ה ָ ֽ א ִ שּׁ ָ ֑ם ָ ד ה ָ ֽ א ֶ ר ֹ ֖אמ ו ַ יּ

ְ

ֶ

֙

'And the man said, 'The woman that you put with me, she gave me [some fruit] from the tree, and I ate [it].''

׃ ֻ ֽ הוּ כּ ִ ר ה ִ ֥ א ל ֹ ה ֵ ֖ם ו ְ ֑ יו ֶ ח א ֶ ת־א ֖ ף יוֹס ֵ ֥ר ו ַ יּ ַכּ

ִ

ֵ

֔

ֶ

֣

ָ

ָ

ֵ

֗

ֵ

## (73)   Lev 21:13-14

## ָ ֑ ח י ִקּ ֣ א ל ֹ ֖ לּ ֶ ה א ֶ ת־א זֹנ ָ֔ ה ָ ֣ה ל ָ ל ו ַח ָ ה וּג ְ רוּשׁ ָ ֤ה ָ נ ל ְ מ א ַ ָ ֽ ח׃ י ִקּ ֶ ֖יה ב ִ ב ְ תוּל ָ ֥ ה א ִ שּׁ ֕ וּא ו ְה

ֵ

ֲ

֙

ָ

''As for him, he must marry a woman with her virginity. A widow or a divorced woman or a woman profaned by prostitution-these he must not marry…''

## 4.2.4. Non-topic anaphora

Non-topic anaphora is anaphoric referral to a non-topical discourse referent. The הוּא paradigm is used with a non-topic anaphoric function in 23 percent of its occurrences in the Pentateuch, while the ז ֶה paradigm bears this function in 5 percent of its occurrences in the Pentateuch.

(74)   Gen 2:12

'Now the gold of that land is good.'

In the example of Genesis 2:12, the referent of the phrase ֶ ץ ָ ר ה ָ א ה ַ הו א 'that land' is active but not topical since the primary topic of the previous clause has been the Pishon river. We see here that non-topic  anaphora  is  used  for  topic-shift,  where  the  topic  of  the  previous  clause  is  shifted  to  a secondary topic.  English  utilises  the  distal  demonstrative that in  anaphoric  function  to  refer  to  a non-topical referent previously mentioned in the discourse, as in the translation of Genesis 2:12. It is  here  where  the  translational  equivalent  can  trick  the  grammarian  into  thinking  that  the independent third-person markers have a deictic function since that in English does indeed have this function.

ִ

An example of the ז ֶה paradigm used for non-topic anaphora is given in (75). Here לּ ֶ ה א ֵ 'these' refers to the non-topical referent of the initial dislocated phrase heading the verse. The primary topic of the clause is referred to by the person-marking inflections of the main verb. A secondary topic is introduced by the detached phrase which is anaphorically referred to internally in the clause by לּ ֶ ה א ֵ 'these'.

## (75)   Lev 22:22

ַ

ֵ ֖ח ז ְבּ ע ַ ל־ה ַ מּ ֶ ֛ם מ ֵ ה ְ נ ֥ וּ ִ תּ ל ֹ א־ת ֶ֗ ה ו ְ א ִ שּׁ ָ ֑ה ל ַ יהו ֖ לּ ֶ ה א ֵ ִ ֥ יבוּ ַ ק ְ ר ל ֹ א־ת פ ֶ ת י ַלּ וֹ א ֣ ָ ב ֙ ג ָ ר וֹ א ֤ ל ֶ ת וֹ־י ַבּ א ֽ ֣ וּץ אוֹ־ח ָ ר ב ֜ וּר שׁ ָ וֹ א ֙ ֶ ת ֩ וּ ֶ ר ע ַ ָ ֽה׃ ל ַ יהו

ִ

֔

ֶ

֗

ֶ

''As for blind, or fractured, or cut, or ulcerated, or festering, or scabbed, you must not give these to Yahweh. You must not give a gift from them on the alter to Yahweh.''

## 4.3. Discourse deixis

Turning now to discourse deixis, this classifies referral to discourse elements. Whereas anaphora refers to a noun phrase, discourse deictic constituents commonly refer to propositions or meaning conveyed by a discourse element, be it clause, sentence, paragraph, or story. Discourse deixis may be  made  to  elements  following  the  discourse  deictic  constituent,  as  well  as  preceding  elements. Each of these shall be discussed in turn.

## 4.3.1. Cataphoric discourse deixis

Cataphoric discourse deixis is discourse deixis made to an element following the constituent. Given the prototypical anaphoric function of the הוּא paradigm, it is not surprising that it is not typically found used for cataphoric discourse deixis. The only examples that can be found in the entire TH corpus are: Gen 41:28; 42:14; Exod 16:23; Lev 10:3; Ps 77:11.

ט ֑ וֹב ִ ֖ וא ה ַ ה ֶ ץ ָ ֥ ר ה ָ א ַ ֛ב וּ ֽ ז ֲה

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          35

- (76) Gen 41:28
2. עֹ ֽ ה׃ ת־פּ ַ ר א ֶ ָ ֥ ה ְ א ה ֶ ר ֶ ֖ ה עֹשׂ ִ ֛ ים ֱ לֹה ה ָ א ֶ ֧ ר א ֲ שׁ עֹ ֑ ה א ֶ ל־פּ ַ ר י ְ תּ ַ ֖ר דּ ִ בּ ֶ ֥ ר א ֲ שׁ ָ ב ָ֔ ר ה ַ דּ ה ֣ וּא

ְ

ְ

ִ

''This is the word I spoke to Pharaoh: what God is about to do he has shown Pharaoh.''

- (77) Gen 42:14

ֲ

## ֶ ֽ ם׃ א ַ תּ ִ ֥ ים גּ ְ ל מ ְ ר ֖ ר ל ֵ אמֹ ֶ ֛ם ֵ כ א ֲ ל י ְ תּ ַ ֧ר דּ ִ בּ ֶ֙ ר א ֲ שׁ ה ֗ וּא ֵ ֑ף יוֹס ֶ ֖ם ל ֵ ה א ֲ ֶ ר ֹ ֥אמ ו ַ יּ

ַ

'And Joseph said to them, 'This is what said to you: you are spies.''

- (78) Exod 16:23

ִ

## ָ ֑ ר מ ָ ח ָ ֖ה ל ַ ֽ יהו ד ֶ שׁ בּ ַ ת־קֹ שׁ ַ וֹן בּ ָ ת שׁ ַ י ְ הו ָ֔ה ֶ ֣ר דּ ִ בּ ֣ ר א ֲ שׁ ה ֚ וּא ֶ֗ ם ל ֵ ה א ֲ ֶ ר ֹ ֣אמ ו ַ יּ

֛

֧

ֶ

'And he said to them, 'This is what Yahweh said: tomorrow is a day of rest, a holy sabbath to Yahweh.''

ַ

֗

י ֽ וֹן׃ ע ֶ ל ֣ ין י ְמ נ ֗ וֹת שׁ ְ֜ ה ִ ֑ יא י לּ ֣ וֹת ח ַ ַ ר ו ָ֭ אֹמ

ְ

'And I said, 'This is my wounding: the changing of the right-hand of Elyon.''

However, it might be possible that these examples are non-referential, that is, the independent thirdperson marker is expletive. Given this possibility, which is a possibility since it is highly unusual for  a  third-person  marker  which  has  grammaticalised  from  a  distal  demonstrative  to  be  used  for cataphoric discourse deixis, it is better to refrain from specifying that this is a function of the הוּא paradigm and leave the question open. Alternatively, another possibility is that such examples are on par with anticipatory anaphora with a following main clause antecedent identified in English by Stirling and Huddleston (2002: 1480-1481).

As for members of the ז ֶה paradigm, they have a cataphoric discourse deictic function 22 percent of the time of their occurrences in the Pentateuch. An example is provided in (81) below, where לּ ֶ ה א ֵ 'these' refers textually to the elements of the following clause.

- (81)   Num 3:2

## ׃ ָ ֽ ר ָ מ ִ ית ו ְא ָ ֖ר ָ ז ל ְ ע א ֶ ֕ וּא ב ִ יה ו ַא ָ ֑ב נ ָד כ ֣ וֹר׀ ה ַ בּ ן ֲ רֹ ַ ה נ ֵ י־א בּ ְ מ ֥ וֹת שׁ ְ ֛ לּ ֶ ה א ֵ ו ְ 'And these are the names of the sons of Aaron: the firstborn Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.'

## 4.3.2. Anaphoric discourse deixis

Anaphoric  discourse  deixis  is  referral  made  to  an  element  preceding  the  constituent.  The ז ֶה paradigm has an anaphoric discourse deictic function 35 percent of the time of its occurrences in the Pentateuch,  an  example  of  which  is  Genesis  22:1  below.  Here  the  demonstrative  does  not anaphorically refer to some prior NP, but to a narrative point in time understood in relation to the preceding context in general, thus serving to link discourse units, a common feature of anaphoric discourse deixis (Diessel 1999: 100-105).

- (82)   Gen 22:1

'And after these things, God tested Abraham.'

ָ ֑ם ָ ה ַ ב ְ ר א ֶ ת־א ָ ֖ה נ ִסּ ִ֔ ים ֱ לֹה ָ ֣א ו ְה לּ ֶ ה ה ָ א ִ ֣ ים ְ ב ָ ר ה ַ דּ ַ ר ֙ א ַ ח י ו ַ י ְה

֔

ֵ

֗

ִ

Similarly, the הוּא paradigm is also used for anaphoric discourse deixis 16 percent of the time of its occurrences in the Pentateuch. An example is given in (83) where again the anaphoric discourse deixis serves to link one discourse unit with the next.

## (79) Lev 10:3 ֵ֔ שׁ ָ ד א ֶ קּ ֣ י ְ רֹב בּ ִ ק ל ֵ אמֹר ֙ ָ ֤ה׀ י ְהו ִ בּ ֶ֙ ר שׁ ֶ ר־דּ א ֲ הוּא ֩ ן ֲ רֹ ַ ה א ֶ ֽ ל־א מֹשׁ ֶ֜ ה ֙ אמ ֶ ר יּ ֹ ו ַ 'And Moses said to Aaron, 'This is what Yahweh said: among those near me I will be holy …''

- (80) Ps 77:11

ְ

ִ

֖

ֽ

ִ

(83)   Deut 1:9

## ''And I said at that time …''

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          36

ִ ֖ וא ה ַ ה ֵ ֥ת בּ ָ ע ֶ֔ ם ֵ כ א ֲ ל ַ ֣ר ו ָ אֹמ

Because of this function of discourse deixis where it helps to link discourse units, and because such linkage is often made to the time of events, it is often the case that anaphoric discourse deixis  is  regularly  found  in  TH  with  clauses  to  do  with  time: ַ יּוֹם מ ֵ ה \ ה ַ הוּא בּ ָ יּוֹם , 21 ה ִ יא ה ַ ע ֵ ת בּ ָ , 22 ֹ א ה ַ זּ ע ֵ ת בּ ָ ת , 23 ע ֵ ת ה ָ ה ִ יא ה ַ , 24 ה ִ יא ה ַ נ ָה בּ ַ שׁ , 25 ה ִ וא ה ַ נ ָה ה ַ שּׁ , 26 ה ַ הוּא י ְ ל ָ ה בּ ַ ל , 27 ה ֵ ם ה ָ ִ ים בּ ַ יָּמ , 28 ה ַ הוּא ה ַ יּוֹם , 29 ה ַ הוּא י ְ ל ָ ה ה ַ לּ ַ , 30 ִ ים יָּמ ה ַ ה ֵ ם ה ָ , 31 and ה ֵ ם ה ָ ִ ים ע ִ ת בּ ָ . 32 Brin (2001) provides a helpful overview of all such time clauses in the Hebrew Bible and Childs (1963) looks at the deictic construction ַ יּוֹם ע ַ ד־ה זּ ֶה ה ַ 'until this day'.

ָ

ָ

ַ

Importantly, given this discourse deictic function of the independent third-person marker in TH, it seems unlikely that the phrase ה ַ הוּא בּ ָ יּוֹם 'on that day' has become a technical term (so Munch  1936)  but  rather  consistently functions either discourse deictically (as in the references already provided) or more rarely anaphorically in reference to an already activated referent. Thus these 'time phrases' are also found, though less commonly, in anaphoric use: כּ ַ יּוֹם \ ה ַ הוּא בּ ַ יּוֹם , 33 יּ ָ מ ִ ים בּ ַ ה ֵ ם ה ָ , 34 ה ַ הוּא ה ַ יּוֹם , 35 and ה ַ הוּא י ְ ל ָ ה ה ַ לּ ַ . 36

21 Gen 15:18; 26:32; 30:35; 33:16; 48:20; Exod 5:6; 8:18; 13:8; 14:30; 32:28; Lev 22:30; 27:23; Num 6:11; 9:6(x2); 32:10; Deut 21:23; 31:17(x2), 18, 22; Josh 4:14; 8:25; 9:27; 10:28, 35(x2); 11:21; 14:9, 12(x2); 24:25; Judg 3:30; 4:23; 5:1; 6:32; 20:35; 20:46; 1 Sam 3:2, 12; 4:12; 6:15, 16; 7:6, 10; 8:18; 9:24; 10:9; 12:18; 14:8, 23, 31, 37; 16:13; 18:2, 9; 19:24; 20:26; 21:8, 11; 22:18; 27:6; 31:6; 2 Sam 19:3; 23:10; 24:18; 1 Kgs 8:64; 16:16; 22:25, 35; 2 Kgs 3:6; Isa 2:11, 17, 20; 3:7, 18; 4:1, 2; 5:30; 7:18, 20, 21, 23; 10:20, 27; 11:10, 11; 12:1, 4; 17:4, 7, 9; 19:16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24; 20:6; 22:8, 12, 20, 25; 23:15; 24:21; 25:9; 26:1; 27:1, 2, 12, 13; 28:5; 29:18; 30:23; 31:7; 52:6; Jer 4:9; 25:33; 30:8; 39:10; 39:16, 17; 49:22, 26; 50:30; Ezek 23:38, 39; 29:21; 30:9; 38:10, 14, 18; 39:11; Hos 1:5; 2:18, 20, 23; Amos 2:16; 8:3, 9, 13; 9:11; Oba 1:8; Mic 2:4; 4:6; 5:9; 7:11 ( ה ַ הוּא יוֹם ); Hag 2:23; Zech 2:15; 6:10; 9:16; 11:11; 12:3, 4, 6, 8, 11; 13:1, 4; 14:6, 9, 13; 14:20, 21; Ps 146:4; Est 5:9; 8:1; 9:11; Neh 12:43; 13:1; 1 Chron 13:12; 16:7; 2 Chron 15:11; 18:24, 34; 35:16.

ִ

22 Gen 21:22 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ); 38:1( ה ִ וא ה ַ ); Num 22:4 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ); Deut 1:9 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ), 16 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ), 18 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ); 2:34 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ); 3:4 ( ה ַ ה וא ), 8 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ), 12 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ), 18 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ), 21 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ), 23 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ); 4:14 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ); 5:5 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ); 9:20 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ); 10:1 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ), 8 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ); Josh 5:2;  6:26;  11:10;  Judg  3:29;  4:4;  11:26;  12:6;  14:4;  21:14,  24;  1 Kgs  8:65;  11:29;  14:1;  2 Kgs  8:22;  16:6;  18:16; 20:12; 24:10; Isa 18:7; 20:2; 39:1 ( ה ִ וא ה ַ ע ֵ ת בּ ָ ); Jer 3:17; 4:11; 8:1; 31:1; 33:15; 50:4; 50:20; Dan 12:1(x2); Joel 4:1; Amos 5:13; Mic 3:4; Zeph 1:12; 3:19, 20; Est 8:9; Ezra 8:34; Neh 4:16; 6:1; 13:21; 1 Chron 21:28, 29; 2 Chron 7:8; 13:18; 16:7; 28:16; 30:3; 35:17.

23 Est 4:14.

24 Dan 12:1.

25 Gen 47:17 ( ִ וא ה ַ ה ); Deut 14:28 ( ִ וא ה ַ ה ); Josh 5:12; Judg 10:8; 2 Chron 27:5; Jer 28:1; Jer 28:17.

26 Gen 47:18.

27 Gen 19:33 ( הוּא י ְ ל ָ ה בּ ַ ל ); 19:35; 26:24; 30:16 ( הוּא י ְ ל ָ ה בּ ַ ל ); 32:14, 22, 23 ( הוּא י ְ ל ָ ה בּ ַ ל ); Num 14:1; Josh 8:9; 8:13; Judg 6:25; 6:40; 7:9; 1 Sam 19:10 (lacking ה ַ ); 28:25; 2 Sam 7:4; 19:3; 2 Kgs 19:35; Est 6:1; 1 Chron 17:3; 2 Chron 1:7.

ֵ

ֵ

ַ

ַ

ַ

28 Gen 6:4; Exod 2:11; Deut 17:9; 19:17; 26:3; Josh 20:6; Judg 17:6; 18:1(x2); 19:1; 20:15, 21, 26, 27, 28; 21:25; 1 Sam 3:1; 28:1; 2 Sam 16:23; 2 Kgs 10:32; 15:37; 20:1; Isa 39:1; Jer 3:16 ( מּ ָ ה ה ָ ה ), 18 ( מּ ָ ה ה ָ ה ); 5:18 ( ָ ה ה ֵ מּ ה ָ ); 50:4 ( ָ ה ה ֵ מּ ה ָ ), 20; Ezek 38:17; Dan 10:2; Joel 3:2 ( מּ ָ ה ה ָ ה ); Joel 4:1 ( מּ ָ ה ה ָ ה ); Zech 8:6, 23 ( מּ ָ ה ה ָ ה ); Est 1:2; 2:21; Neh 6:17; 13:15 ( מּ ָ ה ה ָ ה ), 23; 2 Chron 32:24.

ֵ

ֵ

ֵ

ֵ

29 Exod 10:13; Num 11:32; Judg 9:45; 18:1; 1 Sam 30:25; Jer 30:7; 46:10; 48:41; Ezek 39:22; Neh 4:10; 8:17; 1 Chron 29:21.

30 2 Sam 2:29.

31 1 Kgs 3:2.

32 Dan 11:14; 2 Chron 15:5.

33 Deut 27:11; Josh 6:15; 10:14; 1 Sam 14:24; 22:22; 2 Sam 18:8; Ezek 20:6; 24:26; 24:27; 38:19; 45:22; Joel 4:18; Zeph 1:9; 1:10; 3:11; 3:16; Zech 3:10; 12:9; 13:2; 14:4; 14:8; Neh 12:44; 1 Chron 29:22.

In this regard, we also see that it is sometimes difficult to decide whether an example is discourse deictic or anaphoric. This is particularly the case with lists, an example of which is given in (84) below.

(84)   Gen 10:20

ֶ

## ֶ ֽ ם׃ גוֹי ֵה בּ ְ ָ ֖ ם צֹת ַ ר בּ ְ א ָ ֑ ם נֹת ל ִ ל ְשֹׁ ָ ֖ ם פּ ְ חֹת ל ְ מ ִ שׁ ָ֔ ם נ ֵ י־ח ב ְ ֣ לּ ֶ ה א ֵ

ְ

ֽ

ְ

'These are the sons of Ham by their families, by their languages, in their lands, in their nations.'

In  this  example,  the  referent  of לּ ֶ ה א ֵ 'these'  is  discourse  active  since  the  referent  is  the  names specified in the preceding context. But the question here is whether this is anaphora per se , or rather discourse deixis. Given that the antecedent is not a NP in the immediately preceding context but rather  the  entire  preceding  discourse  concerning  the  family  line  of  Ham  begun  in  Genesis  10:6, which  the  demonstrative  effectively  concludes,  it  seems  better  to  take  this  as  discourse  deixis. Ehlich for his part has an extended analysis of such lists in TH and argues for a discourse deictic function  of  the ז ֶה paradigm  (1979:  1.447-478).  This  function  of  the ז ֶה paradigm  is  particularly common at the conclusion of lists or sub-lists in TH, and the high percentage of this function for the ז ֶה paradigm is attributable to the fact that lists are very common throughout the Pentateuch.

## 4.4. Recognitional function

The recognitional function of demonstratives activates shared information which exists between the speaker  and  addressee.  They  are  only  ever  used  adnominally,  and  what  sets  them  apart  from anaphoric demonstratives is that their referent is not located in the preceding discourse but rather in the shared knowledge of the interlocutors.

ִ

ֶ

## ַ ֣ע ו ַ נּ ִסּ ֵ ֗ ב מ ֵ חֹר ֶ ךְ ֵ֡ ל ו ַ נּ א ֵ ֣ת ָ ֣ר ְ בּ ִ ד כּ ָ ל־ה ַ מּ גּ ָ דוֹל ֩ ה ַ ָ ֙ א ַ נּוֹר ו ְה ֜ וּא ה ַ ה ֣ ר א ֲ שׁ ֶ֗ ם ִ ית ר ְ א ךְ דּ ֶ֚ ר ה ַ ֣ר ֱ מֹ ה ָ ֽ א ֔ י ר ִ

ֶ

''And we set out from Horeb and walked all that great and dreadful wilderness that you saw on the way to the hill country of the Amorites …''

Crucial to note here is that the referent of ְ בּ ָ ר ִ ד כּ ָ ל־ה ַ מּ גּ ָ דוֹל ה ַ ָ א ַ נּוֹר ו ְה ה ַ הוּא 'all that great and dreadful wilderness'  is  discourse-new  and  thus ה ַ הוּא 'that'  functions  recognitionally  to  help  retrieve  the referent from shared knowledge.

While it might seem strange that an anaphoric marker may have what is termed a 'recognitional demonstrative' function, what this suggests is that this recognitional function of the independent third-person  marker  is  a  function  left  over  from  when  it  was  originally  used  for  remote  object deixis.  Given  the  evidence  for  a  remote  deictic  function  of  morphemes  in  Proto-Semitic  (cf. Huehnergard  2004)  and  other  Semitic  languages  in  general  (e.g.  Akkadian;  cf.  Diakonoff  and Kogan 2007; Huehnergard 2000) cognate with the TH independent third-person markers, it seems reasonable to conclude that this set of morphemes in TH represents a grammaticalisation from an originally deictic function, as predicted by the typology outlined in §2. Further, since

34 Jer 31:29; 31:33; 33:15; 33:16.

35 Job 3:4; Mic 7:12 ( הוּא יוֹם ); Zeph 1:15.

36 Job 3:5; 3:7.

In  TH  the  recognitional  function  is  not  found  all  that  often.  In  the  Pentateuch ה ַ הוּא has  a recognitional  function  0.6  percent  of  the  time.  An  example  is  given  in  (85)  below,  where  the circumlocution ְ בּ ָ ר ִ ד כּ ָ ל־ה ַ מּ גּ ָ דוֹל ה ַ ָ א ַ נּוֹר ו ְה ה ַ הוּא ֶ ר א ֲ שׁ ֶ ם ִ ית ר ְ א ךְ דּ ֶ ר ה ַ ר י ֱ מֹר ה ָ א 'all  that  great  and dreadful wilderness that you saw on the way to the hill country of the Amorites' is typical of phrases which embed recognitional demonstratives.

(85) Deut 1:19

demonstratives  used  for  remote  object  deixis  generally  grammaticalise  to  be  also  used  as recognitional demonstratives, it seems clear that this is what we find in TH, even though the remote object deictic function has been lost. Thus TH in this regard represents a case where the functions are not contiguous due to the diachronic change where the original deictic function has been eroded (see the semantic map in §4.6).

We also find זּ ֶה ה ַ 'this' used recognitionally. In the Pentateuch the ז ֶה paradigm has this function 4 percent of the time. Consider the example in (86) below. Here it is likely that זּ ֶה ה ַ 'this'  is  used recognitionally  rather  than  deictically  or  anaphorically.  Anaphora  can  immediately  be  ruled  out because the referent has not been used in the previous discourse. If it were deictic, the additional circumlocution ְ בּ ָ ר ִ ד בּ ַ מּ ֶ ר א ֲ שׁ 'which  is  in  the  wilderness'  is  unexplainable  since  it  would  not  be needed if the referent were deictically accessible. On the other hand, however, if the referent is only accessible from shared knowledge, then the relative clause is needed to aid the successful retrieval of the intended referent.

(86) Gen 37:22

ְ בּ ָ֔ ר ִ ד בּ ַ מּ ֣ ר א ֲ שׁ זּ ֶה ה ַ בּ ֤ וֹר א ֶ ל־ה וֹ אֹת ֗ ִ ֣יכוּ ְ ל ה ַ שׁ ָ ם֒ פּ ְ כוּ־ד ִ שׁ ְ א ַ ל־תּ ן ֘ ר ְ אוּב ֵ ֶ ֣ם׀ ל ֵ ה א ֲ ֙ אמ ֶ ר ו ַ יּ 'And Reuben said, 'Do not spill blood. Throw him into that cistern which is in the wilderness …''

ֶ

֙

ַ

ֹ

An interesting use of the demonstrative ז ֶ ה is  its  use  as  a  determinative adnominal. That is, rather than appearing in its typical way either pronominally or as an attributive adnominal, ז ֶה occasionally is used determinatively. An example is given in (87) below where we find ז ֶה מֹשׁ ֶ ה ִ ישׁ ה ָ א rather than מֹשׁ ֶ ה ִ ישׁ ה ָ א זּ ֶה ה ַ .

(87) Exod 32:1

֙

ֶ

י ֵ ֽל ְ כוּ ֤ ר א ֲ שׁ ִ֗ ים א ֱ לֹה ָ ֣נוּ ע ֲ שׂ ֵ ה־ל ק ֣ וּם׀ ָ יו א ֵ ל וּ ְ ר ו ַ יּ ֹ אמ ן ֲ רֹ ַ ה ע ַ ֽ ל־א ָ֜ ם ה ָ ע ָ ה ֵ֙ ל ו ַ יּ ִקּ ָ ֑ ר ָ ה מ ִ ן־ה ֶ ת ֶ ֣ד ל ָ ר מֹשׁ ֶ ֖ ה ֵ ֥ שׁ כּ ִ ֽ י־בֹשׁ ָ֔ ם ה ָ ע ְ א ֣ ר ו ַ יּ א ֲ שׁ ִ֗ ישׁ ה ָ א מֹשׁ ֶ ֣ה ֶ ֣ה׀ כּ ִ י־ז ֵ֔ ינוּ ָ נ ל ְ פ ל ֽ וֹ׃ י ָה מ ֶ ה־ה ְ נוּ ַ ֖ע י ָד ֥ א ל ֹ י ִם צ ְ ר מ ִ ֶ ץ ֶ ֣ר מ ֵ א ֱ ל ָ ֙ נוּ ה ֶ ֽ ע ר

֤

ֶ

֥

ָ

֔

ַ

֙

'And the people saw that Moses was delayed in coming down from the mountain, and they gathered around Aaron and said to him, 'Stand up, make gods for us that will walk before us, because as for that man Moses who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.''

ַ

The  latest  suggestion  is  that  this  function  is  a  remnant  of  an  earlier  adverbial  prepositional possessive construction (Pat-El 2004-2007). However, not all examples involve an adverbial phrase, as is exactly the case with Exodus 32:1. It is intriguing to notice that most of the examples of ז ֶה as a determinative could be taken as recognitional demonstratives. In the current example, the referent 'Moses' is not deictically accessible and given that this is the beginning of a new discourse it seems unlikely  that  it  could  be  functioning  anaphorically.  The  more  likely  option,  then,  is  that  it  is recognitional, which is why the extra circumlocution ֶ ר א ֲ שׁ ֱ ל ָ נוּ ה ֶ ע ֶ ץ ֶ ר מ ֵ א י ִם צ ְ ר מ ִ 'who brought us up from the land of Egypt' occurs. In this way it could be understood derogatively implying distance between interlocutors and referent: 'that Moses we all know about who brought us up from Egypt but  of  whom  we  know  little  else'  (so  Joosten  1991).  It  seems  possible  that  the  recognitional function of the demonstrative has developed something of an alternative syntax. Further research will need to investigate this possibility in TH and Semitic in general.

## 4.5 Expletive use of the הוּא paradigm

As previously mentioned at §4.3.1, cataphoric discourse deictic examples of members of the הוּא paradigm  could  possibly  be  considered  as  expletive,  that  is,  as  semantically  empty.  However, further research will need to decide whether this is the case or are instead instances of anticipatory anaphora with a following main clause antecedent on par with that identified in English by Stirling and Huddleston (2002: 1480-1481).

֙

֤

֗

ַ

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          39

There  are  a  couple  of  examples  in  the  corpus  where  the  independent  third-person  marker  is expletive. In example (88) הוּא is not referential but instead is expletive (see also Exod 6:26, 27).

(88) Num 26:9

ר ֹן ַ ה ַ ֽ ל־א ו ְ ע ֶ ֤ ה ע ַ ל־מֹשׁ ֜ וּ ה ִ צּ ֶ֙ ר א ֲ שׁ ָ ֗ ה ֵ ד ה ָ ע ֣ י ִ יא ק ְ ר ָ ֜ ם ֲ ב ִ יר ו ַא ן ־ד ָ ת ה ֽ וּא ָ ֑ם ֲ ב ִ יר ו ַא ֣ ן ָ ת ו ְ ד ֖ ל נ ְמוּא ָ֔ ב ל ִ יא א ֱ ֣י וּב ְ נ 'And the sons of Eliab were Nemuel, Dathan and Abiram. It was Dathan and Abiram who were summoned by the community that struggled against Moses and against Aaron …'

֙

ֲ

## 4.6. Semantic map of TH ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms

Having outlined the range of functions of the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms, these may now be mapped onto the  semantic  map  developed  earlier.  In  Figure  11  the  range  of  functions  of  the  two  paradigms described in §§4.1-4.4 is geometrically represented.

Figure 11.  Functions of TH ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms

<!-- image -->

הוּא

The  map  thus  visually  represents  the  range  of  functions  of  the  two  paradigms.  As  for  the ז ֶה paradigm, it covers quite a wide range of functions: deictic, discourse deictic, recognitional, and the two anaphoric functions of non-topic anaphora and focus anaphora. The paradigm of הוּא ,  on  the other  hand,  also  has  a  range  of  functions:  anaphoric  discourse  deixis,  recognitional,  and  the anaphoric functions. Immediately apparent is that the functions of the הוּא paradigm  do  not  map contiguously. As mentioned earlier, the original remote object deictic function has been lost, even though the anaphoric discourse deictic and recognitional functions to which it gave rise are still in use.

Figure 12.  Semantic map of Nunggubuyu ya:-, da-, yu-wa:-, ba-, ni-ga , ni-ga:-'yun g , ni-ga-waj , and ni-ga:-bilhan g u (Heath 1980, 1983, 1984)

<!-- image -->

ֵ

ָ

֙

ָ

ֵ

ֵ

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          40

We  may  now  reflect  how  a  few  other  languages  compare  to  TH.  The  first  is  Nunggubuyu (Gunwinyguan, Australian) in Figure 12. Like TH, this language is a distance-oriented system, but makes a three-way deictic contrast. Also unlike TH many of the functions are expressed by a single form, unlike the multi-functionality evident in the two TH paradigms.

A second language we may compare TH to is Sumerian (isolate). In Figure 13, the productive set of adnominal demonstratives is given. Unlike TH ז ֶה ,  the  Sumerian proximal demonstrative -e is  not used  with  anaphoric  function  and  indeed  has  only  a  limited  range  of  functions,  being  used  for cataphoric discourse deixis in addition to the proximal deictic function. The other two demonstratives,  on  the  other  hand,  are  used  with  a  wide  range  of  functions.  The  medial demonstrative -ne is  used  for  anaphoric  discourse  deixis as  well  as  the  entire  range  of  anaphoric functions  with  human  referents.  The  basically  distance-neutral  demonstrative -be is  used  with deictic  reference  to  proximal  and  medial  referents,  but  is  the  only  demonstrative  used  for  distal referents. It is also used as a recognitional demonstrative as well as anaphoric discourse deixis, the entire range of anaphoric functions for non-human referents, and as a relative pronoun.

<!-- image -->

-be

Figure 13.  Functions of productive set of adnominal demonstratives in Sumerian (Woods 2001a, 2001b)

As a third example we may map the system of Modern German (cf. Kummerow 2012: 278-279). As is readily apparent, der , die , and das as extremely multifunctional, but overlapping partly with the TH ז ֶה paradigm.  However,  unlike  the  TH ז ֶה paradigm  it  is  impolite  to  refer  to  a  person  in  the speech situation with a demonstrative, and thus the independent third-person markers can be used deictically.

<!-- image -->

dies- vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          41

Figure 14.  Semantic map of German der , die , das ; er , sie , es ; and dies-

As a final example, we may compare English as represented in Figure 15. Like Nunggubuyu and Sumerian,  English  also  makes  different  functional  cuts  to  that  made  by  TH.  English this is reasonably  similar  to  TH ז ֶה ,  but  does  lack  recognitional  and  focus  anaphora  functions  with  this demonstrative. English that is used with recognitional and anaphoric discourse deictic functions as well  as  for  non-topic  anaphora  and  as  a  relative  marker.  Whilst  Stirling  and  Huddleston  (2002: 1470) suggest that he and she are not used in deictic function, Figure 4 has taken that they are based upon an example like (89). It seems that in (89b) she is deictic, pointing out the referent rather than anaphorically referring due to contextual salience. That is, in this example this could not be used as it is not appropriate for human referents, unlike TH ז ֹ את which would be entirely appropriate given the gender marking on demonstrative forms in the singular (cf. Gen 2:23). This is in large part one of the major differences the TH demonstrative and anaphoric system has with that of English.

- (89)    Mum comes home to a family of three kids, two boys and a girl, and asks the youngest son:
- a. Who made all this mess?
- b. [Son pointing to the daughter] She did .

<!-- image -->

that

Figure 15.  Functions of English this , that , he , she , and it

From Figures 11 to 15 it should thus be apparent that TH has both similarity to and differences from the  other  languages  mapped,  which  the  semantic  maps  visually  depict.  That  is,  the  different functional cuts that the TH demonstrative and anaphoric system makes as presented above are no less 'strange' than that made in, say, Nunggubuyu, Sumerian, German, and English. Each language represents  a  different  grammaticalisation  of  functions,  with  TH  displaying  its  own  unique distribution.

## 5. Conclusion

The  foregoing  research  has  sought  to  revisit  TH  object  deixis  in  light  of  advances  made  in typological  research  on  demonstratives.  To  this  end,  in  particular  the  works  of  Diessel  and Himmelmann  were  used  to  ascertain  the  range  of  grammaticalisation  which  demonstratives  can undergo. The outcome of this was that a semantic map suitable for the cross-linguistic comparison of demonstrative and anaphoric functions was constructed. After a survey of the range of functions which the TH ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms make, the functions of these two paradigms were mapped onto the semantic map and compared with the different functional cuts other languages make. Thus the vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          42

findings of the present research are presented in a visually helpful way that is concrete and thus open to testing, improvement, and falsification.

The main finding of the present research is that the position of Ehlich, Brockelmann, and Seow that the ז ֶה paradigm  is  a  distance-neutral  demonstrative  and  the הוּא paradigm  is  prototypically anaphoric was found to be supported by the evidence of the corpus from a number of fronts. First, it was found that there are a number of clear and unambiguous examples where members of the ז ֶה paradigm  function  deictically  to  refer  to  distal  referents.  Second,  it  was  found  that  there  are  in addition  a  number  of  examples  where  members  of  the ז ֶה paradigm  may  possibly  be  functioning deictically  to  refer  to  distal  referents.  That  is,  in  the  context  of  each  example,  there  are  other possible functions that the demonstrative could have, though in each case it is quite possible that the deictically  distal  function  is  the  most  likely  intended  construal.  Third,  in  contrast  there  are  no examples  where  members  of  the הוּא paradigm  are  either  unambiguously  or  even  possibly functioning  deictically  to  refer  to  distal  referents.  Rather,  members  of  the הוּא paradigm  are prototypically anaphoric, with some other additional functions due to diachronic heritage.

The other functions of the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms are as follows. Members of the ז ֶה paradigm are used  as  a  recognitional  demonstrative  and  for  cataphoric  and  anaphoric  discourse  deixis.  In addition, they are used for two anaphoric functions: anaphora to non-topics and for focus anaphora. On the other hand, members of the הוּא paradigm are also used in recognitional function and for anaphoric discourse deixis, both of which are due to their originally remote object deixis function, which has been lost by the stage of the language represented in the corpus. In addition, members of the הוּא paradigm are used for the entire range of anaphoric functions: non-topic anaphora, focus anaphora, contrastive topic anaphora, and for topic anaphora in verbless and participial clauses.

It is thus hoped that the present research has demonstrated the usefulness of semantic mapping as a way  to  aid  description  by  visually  representing  similarity  and  difference  between  constructions. Further, it is hoped by presenting the evidence of the corpus in this manner it is readily apparent that  the ז ֶה paradigm  functions  as  a  distance-neutral  demonstrative  and  that  the הוּא paradigm  no longer has a deictic function in the TH language corpus.

## Appendix

Following are the functions assigned to the various members of the ז ֶה and הוּא paradigms as used for  the  illustrative  statistics  in  §4.  Of  course,  the  categorisation  of  some  of  the  examples  is debateable given that different conceptualisations are possible.

## ז ֶה paradigm

Deictic: Gen 2:23(x3); 5:29; 7:1; 11:6; 12:7, 12; 15:17, 18; 19:13, 14, 20; 20:11; 21:10(x2), 29, 30, 24:5, 7, 58; 25:22, 30; 26:3, 11, 33; 27:46; 28:15, 16, 17(x3), 20, 22; 29:27(x2), 33; 31:1, 13, 53, 48, 51, 52(x4); 32:3, 11, 18, 33; 33:5, 8; 34:21; 35:17; 37:32; 38:23, 25(x2), 28, 39:9; 40:14; 42:15, 21, 28, 33; 43:10, 29; 44:5, 7, 29; 45:6; 47:26; 48:4, 8, 9, 15, 18; 50:11, 20, 24; Exod 2:6, 9; 3:3, 12, 21; 4:2, 17; 5:22, 23; 6:14; 10:6, 7, 17; 11:8; 12:2, 3, 6, 26; 13:3(x2), 5, 14; 16:3(x2); 17:4; 18:14, 18, 23; 22:8; 32:4, 8, 9, 21, 24; 33:1, 12, 13, 15; Lev 8:34; Num 5:19, 22; 9:3; 11:11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 27; 14:2, 3, 8, 11, 13, 14(x2), 15, 16, 19(x2), 27, 29, 32, 35(x2); 16:21, 26; 16:29, 30, 31; 17:10; 20:4, 5, 10, 12; 21:2; 22:6, 9, 17, 19, 30; 23:1(x2), 29(x2); 24:14; 26:53; 27:12; 32:5, 15, 22; Deut 1:6, 31, 35(x2); 2:3, 7(x2), 22, 25, 30; 3:14, 18, 25, 27, 28; 4:6, 20, 22(x2), 38; 5:24, 25, 28; 6:24; 7:17; 8:17, 18; 9:4, 6, 7, 13, 27; 10:8, 15; 11:4, 5; 12:30; 17:16; 18:16; 20:15, 16; 21:7, 20; 22:14, vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          43

16, 17; 26:9(x2), 16; 27:4, 9; 28:58, 61; 29:3, 6, 8, 13(x2), 18, 19, 20, 23(x2), 26, 27, 28; 30:10; 31:2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 26; 32:27, 46, 47, 49; 34:4, 6.

Anaphoric  discourse  deixis: Gen  3:14;  7:11,  13;  9:17,  19(x2);  10:20,  29,  31,  32(x2);  15:1,  4; 17:21, 23, 26; 18:25; 19:21; 20:5, 6, 8, 10; 21:26; 22:1, 16, 20; 22:23; 24:8, 9, 28; 25:4, 16(x2); 29:13; 32:20; 34:14; 35:26; 36:5, 12, 13, 16(x2), 17(x2), 18, 19(x2), 21, 30, 43; 37:10; 39:7, 9, 11; 40:1;  41:39;  43:7;  44:6;  44:7,  17;  45:6;  46:15,  18(x2),  22,  25(x2);  48:1;  49:28(x2);  Exod  2:15; 3:15(x2); 6:14, 15, 19, 24, 25; 7:23; 8:19, 28; 9:5, 6, 14; 11:10; 12:8, 12, 14, 17, 24, 25; 12:41, 42, 51; 13:10; 15:2; 17:14; 18:23; 19:1, 6, 7; 21:11, 31; 24:8; 25:39; 33:4, 17; 34:27(x2); 38:21; Lev 5:4, 5; 7:35, 37; 10:19; 11:13, 24, 31, 46; 12:7; 13:59; 14:32, 54, 57; 17:7; 18:24(x2), 26, 29; 20:23; 22:25; 23:14, 21, 37; 25:54; 26:14, 18, 23, 27, 44, 46; 27:34; Num 1:16, 44; 2:42; 3:3, 20, 21, 27, 33; 4:15, 28, 33, 37, 41, 45; 5:23, 29, 30; 6:21; 7:17, 23, 29, 35, 41, 47, 53, 59, 65, 71, 77, 83, 84, 88; 10:28; 13:16; 14:35, 39; 16:31; 21:25; 26:7, 14, 18, 22, 25, 27, 34, 37(x2), 41, 42, 47, 50, 51, 63, 64; 28:14, 23; 29:39; 30:17; 34:6, 9, 12, 13, 29; 35:5, 15, 24, 29; 36:13; Deut 1:32; 3:5, 26; 4:30,  32;  6:6;  7:12;  11:18,  22;  12:28;  13:12,  15;  15:5,  10,  15;  16:12;  17:4,  5,  18,  19(x2);  18:3, 12(x2); 19:9, 20; 22:5, 20, 26; 24:18, 22; 25:16; 26:16; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58, 69; 30:1, 11; 31:24, 28; 32:6, 29, 44, 45, 48.

Cataphoric discourse deixis: Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9, 15; 9:12; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 17:10; 20:13; 25:7, 12, 13, 17, 19; 30:31; 31:41; 34:15, 22; 36:1, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 40; 37:2, 6; 39:17, 19; 40:12, 18; 42:15, 18; 43:11; 45:17, 19, 23; 46:8; Exod 1:1; 3:12; 6:14, 16; 7:17; 9:16; 12:43; 13:5; 14:12; 15:1; 16:16, 32; 20:1; 21:1; 25:3; 28:4; 29:1, 38; 30:13, 31; 35:1, 4; Lev 6:2, 7, 13, 18; 7:1, 11; 8:5; 9:6; 11:2, 4, 9, 21, 22, 29; 14:2; 15:3, 32; 16:34; 17:2; 23:2, 4; 26:16; Num 1:5; 3:1, 2, 17, 18; 4:4, 19, 24, 31; 6:13; 8:4, 24; 13:4; 15:13; 16:6; 18:9; 18:11; 19:2, 14; 21:17; 26:30, 35, 36, 42, 57, 58; 27:1; 28:3; 30:2; 31:21; 32:20; 33:1, 2; 34:2, 7, 17, 19; 36:6; Deut 1:1, 5; 3:12; 4:8, 44, 45; 5:29; 6:1, 24, 25; 12:1; 14:4, 7, 9, 12; 15:2; 19:4; 27:12, 13; 28:2, 15, 45; 28:58; 31:1, 9, 19(x2), 21, 22, 30; 33:1, 7.

Non-topic anaphora: Gen 10:5; 14:3; 15:10; 29:28; 41:35; 43:15; Exod 4:9; 12:17; 14:20(x2); Lev 2:8; 5:13; 16:30; 23:6, 27, 28, 29, 34; 25:13; Num 22:15, 28, 32, 33; 24:10; 28:17; 29:7; 4:6; Deut 9:4, 5; 18:14; 19:5, 9; 25:3; 30:7.

Focus anaphora: Lev 21:14; 22:22; 23:30; Num 1:17.

Recognitional: Gen 27:21, 24, 36; 31:38; 37:22; 44:15; Exod 1:18; Num 14:22; 15:22; 16:28; 17:3; Deut 3:21; Deut 5:3; 8:2, 4; 10:21; 11:23.

## הוּא paradigm

Topic anaphora: Gen  2:11,  13,  14;  3:6,  7;  3:20;  6:2,  3,  4;  7:14;  9:3;  10:9;  12:14,  18,  19;  13:1; 14:18; 16:12; 18:8; 19:20(x2), 30; 20:3, 7, 12; 24:7, 15; 24:54, 62, 65; 25:21, 29; 26:7(x2), 9(x2); 27:31; 29:2, 9, 12(x2); 31:20, 21; 32:3; 32:19, 22, 32; 33:6; 34:19, 21, 22; 35:6; 37:2, 3, 16, 27, 32; 38:12, 16, 21, 25(x2); 39:3, 6, 22, 23; 40:10; 41:11, 19, 26, 31(x2); 42:6, 23, 35(x2), 38; 44:3, 4, 10; 45:26; 47:14; 48:9, 19(x2); 49:20, 20; 50:14, 22; 1:10; Exod 1:19; 2:2; 4:14, 16(x2); 5:8(x3); 6:27; 7:11; 8:15, 17; 9:32, 34; 12:2, 4, 11, 27, 30, 42; 13:2; 14:3; 16:15(x3), 29, 31; 18:5, 14; 19:13; 21:3, 21, 29, 36; 22:26(x2); 28:5; 29:14, 18(x2), 21, 22, 25, 28, 33, 34; 30:10, 32; 31:14, 17; 32:9, 15, 16, 22, 25; 34:3, 14; 35:34; 36:3, 4; Lev 1:13, 17; 2:6, 15; 3:1, 7; 4:2, 21, 24; 5:1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 18, 19, 24; 6:2, 10, 18, 22; 7:1, 5, 6; 8:21(x2), 28(x2); 10:12, 13, 17; 11:4(x2), 5(x2), 6(x2), 7(x3), 8, 13, 28, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42; 13:3, 6, 8, 10, 11(x2), 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25(x2), 26, 27, 28(x3), 30(x2),  36,  37,  39(x2),  40(x2),  41(x2),  44(x2),  46,  51,  52,  55(x2),  57;  14:13(x2),  44(x2);  15:3, 23(x2), 25; 17:5, 7, 9, 14; 18:18; 19:7; 20:18; 21:6, 7, 8, 9, 13; 23:3, 27, 28; 23:36; 24:9, 10; 25:12, vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          44

16, 34, 41, 42, 54; 26:43; 27:8, 10, 26, 28, 33; Num 1:16, 50(x2); 3:9; 5:13(x2), 14(x2), 15, 28; 6:8; 7:2(x2); 8:4, 16; 9:7; 11:16, 26, 30; 12:7; 13:3, 18(x3), 19(x4), 20, 27, 31; 14:8, 27(x2); 15:25(x2); 16:16, 33; 18:3, 21, 23, 31; 19:12, 20; 21:33; 22:5, 6, 12, 22(x2); 23:6, 19; 25:15, 18; 27:21; 31:16; 33:40; 35:16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 31; Deut 1:30, 38, 39; 2:11, 20, 32; 3:1, 11, 20, 28; 4:10, 24, 42; 7:26; 9:3(x2), 13; 11:10; 14:7, 8, 10; 17:20; 18:5, 6, 22; 19:5, 6; 20:20(x2); 21:3, 4, 17; 22:17, 24; 24:12, 15(x2);  29:12;  30:11(x2),  12,  13,  20;  31:3,  8,  21;  32:4,  6(x2),  20,  21,  28,  34,  44,  47(x2);  33:3, 17(x2).

Contrastive  topic  anaphora: Gen  3:15,  16;  4:4;  33:3;  38:14;  41:26(x2),  27;  42:8;  49:19;  Exod 1:16(x2);  4:14;  18:22,  26;  21:4;  24:2;  Num  5:31;  27:3;  Deut  1:36,  38,  39;  9:28;  10:21(x2); 28:44(x2); 31:3(x2).

Focus anaphora: Gen 2:19; 3:12; 15:4; 20:5; 24:44; 44:17, 20; Exod 12:16; Lev 17:11; Num 16:7; 35:19(x2), 33; Deut 3:22; 8:18; 32:39.

Non-topic anaphora: Gen 2:12, 14; 4:20, 21, 22, 26; 7:2; 9:18; 10:8; 11, 12, 21; 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13(x2), 17, 24; 15:2; 17:12, 14; 18:1, 10; 19:37; 19:38(x2); 20:2, 5(x4), 13, 16; 21:13, 17; 22:20, 24; 23:2, 19; 28:11; 29:25; 30:33, 35; 31:16, 43; 32:19; 34:23; 35:6, 19, 20, 27; 36:1, 19, 24, 43; 38:11; 40:12, 18; 41:25; 42:27; 44:5, 14; 45:20; 47:6; 48:5, 7, 14; Exod 3:5, 8; 5:7; 12:42; 13:17; 15:23; 16:36; 22:8, 14; 31:13; 32:16; 34:9, 10; 36:1; 38:17; 39:5, 14; Lev 5:22; 11:10, 12, 20, 23, 26(x2), 27, 39; 13:4, 15, 42, 49; 14:21; 15:2; 16:4, 31; 17:11, 14; 18:7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; 19:20; 20:17; 22:2, 4, 7, 11(x2), 12; 25:10, 55; 27:4, 30; Num 1:4; 4:22; 5:18; 6:20; 9:13; 11:7; 13:24, 32; 14:9; 14:45; 15:30; 16:11; 17:5, 20; 18:9, 16, 17, 19, 23; 19:15; 20:13; 21:16, 26(x2); 22:3; 24:24; 25:6; 27:14; 32:4; 33:36; Deut 1:17, 44; 3:28; 4:48; 11:30; 13:6(x2); 14:7, 8, 19; 17:10, 15; 19:4; 21:6; 22:18; 23:8; 27:11; 28:65; 29:17; 31:16

Anaphoric discourse deixis: Gen 6:4; 14:15; 15:18; 19:33, 35; 21:22, 31; 22:14; 23:15; 26:12(x2), 24, 32; 27:38; 28:19; 30:16; 32:14, 22, 23; 33:16; 34:14; 35:22; 38:1; 43:12, 32; 47:17, 18; 48:20; Exod  1:6;  2:11,  23;  5:6;  8:18;  10:13;  12:15,  19;  13:8;  14:30;  31:14;  32:28;  Lev  7:20,  21,  27; 17:4(x2); 18:17, 22, 23; 19:8; 20:3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 17, 21; 22:3; 22:30; 23:30; 27:23; Num 5:6; 6:11; 9:6(x2); 9:13(x2); 11:3, 32, 34; 14:1, 41; 15:30, 31; 16:14; 19:9, 13, 20; 22:4; 32:10; Deut 1:9, 16, 18; 2:34; 3:4, 8, 12, 18, 21, 23; 4:6, 14; 5:5; 7:16, 25; 9:19, 20; 10:1, 8, 10; 12:3; 13:4(x2), 16; 14:28; 17:1, 5(x2), 9, 12; 18:9, 20; 19:17; 21:23; 24:4, 6, 7; 26:3; 29:19, 21, 26; 31:17(x2), 18, 22.

Cataphoric discourse deixis: Gen 41:28; 42:14; Exod 16:23; Lev 10:3.

Recognitional: Num 10:32; 14:38; Deut 1:19; 3:13; 29:2.

Expletive: Exod 6:26, 27; Num 26:9.

## Cited references

- Allegro, J. M. 1955. 'Uses of the Semitic Demonstrative Z in Hebrew.' Vetus Testamentum 5: 309312.
- Anstey,  Matthew  P.  2005.  'Towards  a  Typological  Presentation  of  Tiberian  Hebrew.' Hebrew Studies 46: 71-128.
- Anstey,  Matthew  P.  2006.  'Towards  a  Functional  Discourse  Grammar  Analysis  of  Tiberian Hebrew.' Published PhD diss., Vrije Universiteit.

Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents . London: Routledge.

Barth, Jacob. 1913. Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen . Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          45

- Becher,  Victor.  2010.  'Differences  in  the  Use  of  Deictic  Expressions  in  English  and  German Texts.' Linguistics 48: 1309-1342.
- Blake,  Frank  R.  1912.  'Comparative  Syntax  of  the  Combinations  Formed  by  the  Noun  and  Its Modifiers in Semitic.' Journal of the American Oriental Society 32: 135-267.
- Blau, Joshua. 2010. Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew . Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
- Bolkestein, A. Machtelt and Michel van de Grift. 1994. 'Participant Tracking in Latin Discourse.' Pages 283-302 in Linguistic  Studies  on  Latin:  Selected  Papers  from  the  6th  International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Budapest, 23-27 March 1991) . Edited by József Herman. Studies in Language Companion Series 28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Bosch,  Peter  and  Carla  Umbach.  2007.  'Reference  Determination  for  Demonstrative  Pronouns.' Pages  39-51  in Intersentential  Pronominal  Reference  in  Child  and  Adult  Language: Proceedings of the Conference on Intersentential Pronominal Reference in Child and Adult Language .  Edited by Dagmar Bittner and Natalia Gagarina. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 48. Berlin: ZAS.
- Brin, Gershon. 2001. The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls .  Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 39. Leiden: Brill.
- Brockelmann, Carl. 1956. Hebräische Syntax . Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag.
- Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprachen . Jena: Fischer.
- Chen, Rong. 1990. 'English Demonstratives: A Case of Semantic Expansion.' Language Sciences 12: 139-153.
- Childs, Brevard S. 1963. 'A Study of the Formula, 'Until This Day'.' Journal of Biblical Literature 82: 279-292.
- Comrie,  Bernard.  1997.  'Pragmatic  Binding:  Demonstratives  as  Anaphors  in  Dutch.' Berkeley Linguistics Society 23: 51-61.
- Comrie, Bernard. 1998a. 'Reference-Tracking: Description and Explanation.' Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51: 335-346.
- Comrie, Bernard. 1998b. 'Rethinking the Typology of Relative Clauses.' Language Design 1: 5985.
- Comrie,  Bernard,  Matthew  S.  Dryer,  David  Gil,  and  Martin  Haspelmath.  2005.  'Introduction.' Pages  1-8  in The  World  Atlas  of  Language  Structures .  Edited  by  Martin  Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Comrie, Bernard and Tania Kuteva. 2005. 'Relativization Strategies.' Pages 494-501 in The World Atlas of Language Structures . Edited by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Conklin, Blane W. 2005. 'Oath Formulae in Classical Hebrew and Other Semitic Languages.' PhD diss., University of Chicago.
- Cornish,  Francis.  1999. Anaphora,  Discourse,  and  Understanding:  Evidence  from  English  and French . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Cristofaro,  Sonia.  2009.  'Grammatical  Categories  and  Relations:  Universality  vs.  LanguageSpecificity and Construction-Specificity.' Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 441-479.
- Croft,  William.  2000.  'Parts  of  Speech  as  Language  Universals  and  as  Language-Particular Categories.' Pages 65-102 in Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes . Edited by Petra M.  Vogel and Bernard Comrie. Empirical Approaches to Language  Typology  23. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Croft, William. 2002. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          46

- Croft,  William.  2003. Typology  and  Universals .  2nd  ed.  Cambridge  Textbooks  in  Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Croft, William. 2004. 'Syntactic Theories and Syntactic Methodology: A Reply to Seuren.' Journal of Linguistics 40: 637-654.
- Croft, William. 2005a. 'Logical and Typological Arguments for Radical Construction Grammar.' Pages 273-314 in Construction Grammar: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions .  Edited  by  Jan-Ola  Östman  and  Mirjam  Fried.  Constructional  Approaches  to Language 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Croft, William. 2005b. 'Word Classes, Parts of Speech, and Syntactic Argumentation.' Linguistic Typology 9: 431-441.
- Croft, William. 2007a. 'Beyond Aristotle and Gradience: A Reply to Aarts.' Studies in Language 31: 409-430.
- Croft,  William.  2007b. 'The Origins of Grammar in the Verbalization of Experience.' Cognitive Linguistics 18: 339-383.
- Croft,  William.  2007c.  'Typology and Linguistic Theory in the Past Decade: A Personal View.' Linguistic Typology 11: 79-91.
- Croft,  William.  2010a.  'The  Origins  of  Grammaticalization  in  the  Verbalization  of  Experience.' Linguistics 48: 1-48.
- Croft, William. 2010b. 'Pragmatic Functions, Semantic Classes, and Lexical Categories.' Linguistics 48: 787-796.
- Croft, William. 2010c. 'Relativity, Linguistic Variation and Language Universals.' CogniTextes 4: 2-19.
- Croft,  William  and  Keith  T.  Poole.  2008a.  'Inferring  Universals  from  Grammatical  Variation: Multidimensional Scaling for Typological Analysis.' Theoretical Linguistics 34: 1-37.
- Croft,  William  and  Keith  T.  Poole.  2008b.  'Multidimensional  Scaling  and  Other  Techniques  for Uncovering Universals.' Theoretical Linguistics 34: 75-84.
- Croft,  William,  Hava  Bat-Zeev  Shyldkrot,  and  Suzanne  Kemmer.  1987.  'Diachronic  Semantic Processes  in  the  Middle  Voice.'  Pages  179-192  in Papers  from  the  7th  International Conference on Historical Linguistics .  Edited by Anna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba, and Giuliano Bernini. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Cysouw,  Michael and Diana Forker. 2009. 'Reconstruction of Morphosyntactic Function: Nonspatial Usage of Spatial Case Marking in Tsezic.' Language 85: 588-617.
- Diakonoff, I. M. and L. E. Kogan. 2007. 'Akkadian Morphology.' Pages 3-48 in Morphologies of Asia and Africa , vol 1. Edited by Alan S. Kaye. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
- Diehl,  Johannes  F.  2004. Die  Fortführung  des  Imperativs  im  Biblischen  Hebräisch .  Alter  Orient und Altes Testament 286. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
- Diesel, Anja A. 2006. »Ich bin Jahwe«: Der Aufstieg der Ich-bin-Jahwe-Aussage zum Schlüsselwort  des  alttestmentlichen  Monotheismus .  Wissenschaftliche  Monographien  zum Alten und Neuen Testament 110. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
- Diessel, Holger. 1997. 'The Diachronic Reanalysis of Demonstratives in Cross-Linguistic Perspective.' Chicago Linguistic Society 33: 83-97.
- Diessel,  Holger.  1999. Demonstratives:  Form,  Function,  and  Grammaticalization .  Typological Studies in Language 42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Diessel, Holger. 2003. 'The Relationship between Demonstratives and Interrogatives.' Studies in Language 27: 635-655.

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          47

- Diessel, Holger. 2005a. 'Distance Contrasts in Demonstratives.' Pages 170-173 in The World Atlas of Language Structures .  Edited by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Diessel,  Holger.  2005b.  'Pronominal  and  Adnominal  Demonstratives.'  Pages  174-177  in The World  Atlas  of  Language  Structures .  Edited  by  Martin  Haspelmath,  Matthew  S.  Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Diewald,  Gabriele  Maria.  1991. Deixis  und  Textsorten  im  Deutschen .  Reihe  Germanistische Linguistik 118. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
- Disse,  Andreas.  1998. Informationsstruktur  im  Biblischen  Hebräisch:  Sprachwissenschaftliche Grundlagen  und  exegetische  Konsequenzen  einer  Korpusuntersuchung  zu  den  Büchern Deuteronomium, Richter und 2 Könige . Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 56/1. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag.
- Dresher, Bezalel Elan. 2008. 'The Word in Tiberian Hebrew.' Pages 95-111 in The Nature of the Word: Essays in Honor of Paul Kiparsky .  Edited  by  Kristin  Hanson  and  Sharob  Inkelas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Dryer,  Matthew  S.  1997.  'Are  Grammatical  Relations  Universal?'  Pages  115-143  in Essays  on Language  Function  and  Language  Type:  Dedicated  to  T.  Givón .  Edited  by  Joan  Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Ehlich,  Konrad.  1979. Verwendungen  der  Deixis  beim  sprachlichen  Handeln:  Linguistischphilologische Untersuchungen zum hebräischen deiktischen System . 2 vols. Forum Linguisticum 24. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
- Ehlich,  Konrad.  1982.  'Anaphora  and  Deixis:  Same,  Similar,  or  Different?'  Pages  315-338  in Speech,  Place,  and  Action:  Studies  in  Deixis  and  Related  Topics .  Edited  by  Robert  J. Jarvella and Wolfgang Klein. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
- Ehlich,  Konrad.  1983.  'Deixis  und  Anapher.'  Pages  79-97  in Essays  on  Deixis .  Edited  by  Gisa Rauh. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 188. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
- Ehlich,  Konrad.  2007a.  'Deixis  und  Anapher.'  Pages  5-24  in Prozeduren  des  sprachlichen Handelns .  Vol.  2  of Sprache  und  sprachliches  Handeln .  Berlin/New  York:  Mouton  de Gruyter.
- Ehlich, Konrad. 2007b. Prozeduren des sprachlichen Handelns . Vol 2 of Sprache und sprachliches Handeln . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Enfield,  N.  J.  2003.  'Demonstratives  in  Space  and  Interaction:  Data  from  Lao  Speakers  and Implications for Semantic Analysis.' Language 79: 82-117.
- Everett,  Daniel  and  Barbara  Kern.  1997. Wari ' :  The  Pacaas  Novos  Language  of  Western  Brazil . London: Routledge.
- Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. 'Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis.' Pages 31-59 in Speech,  Place,  and  Action:  Studies  in  Deixis  and  Related  Topics .  Edited  by  Robert  J. Jarvella and Wolfgang Klein. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
- Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Lectures on Deixis . Center for the Study of Language and Information Lecture Notes. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Floor,  Sebastiaan  J.  2004.  'From  Information  Structure,  Topic  and  Focus,  to  Theme  in  Biblical Hebrew Narrative.' DLitt diss., University of Stellenbosch.
- Foley, William A. and Robert D. van Valin, Jr. 1977. 'On the Viability of the Notion of 'Subject' in Universal Grammar.' Berkeley Linguistics Society 3: 293-320.
- Frajzyngier,  Zygmunt.  1997.  'Grammaticalization  of  Number:  From  Demonstratives  to  Nominal and Verbal Plural.' Linguistic Typology 1: 193-242.

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          48

- Fricke,  Ellen.  2003.  ' Origo ,  Pointing,  and  Conceptualization-What  Gestures  Reveal  about  the Nature of the origo in Face-to-Face Interaction.' Pages 69-93 in Deictic Conceptualisation of  Space,  Time  and  Person .  Edited  by  Friedrich  Lenz.  Pragmatics  and  Beyond  112. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Fricke, Ellen. 2007. Origo, Geste und Raum: Lokaldeixis im Deutschen .  Linguistik - Impulse und Tendenzen 24. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
- Futato, Mark D. 2003. Beginning Biblical Hebrew . Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
- Gagarina,  Natalia.  2007.  ' The  hare  hugs  the  rabbit.  He  is  white  ...  Who  is  white? Pronominal Anaphora in Russian.' Pages 139-170 in Intersentential Pronominal Reference in Child and Adult Language: Proceedings of the Conference on Intersentential Pronominal Reference in Child and Adult Language . Edited by Dagmar Bittner and Natalia Gagarina. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 48. Berlin: ZAS.
- Garr, W. Randall. 2008. 'The Medial Demonstratives הלזל , הלזו , and הלז .' Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32: 383-389.
- Gevirtz, Stanley. 1957. 'On the Etymology of the Phoenician Particle אש .' Journal of Near Eastern Studies 16: 124-127.
- Givón, Talmy.  1983. 'Topic Continuity in Discourse: The  Functional  Domain  of  Switch Reference.'  Pages  51-82  in Switch-Reference  and  Universal  Grammar:  Proceedings  of  a Symposium on Switch Reference and Universal Grammar, Winnipeg, May 1981 . Edited by John Haiman and Pamela Munro. Typological Studies in Language 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Goedegebuure, Petra  M.  2003.  'Reference,  Deixis  and  Focus  in  Hittite:  The  Demonstratives ka'This', apa - 'That' and asi 'Yon'.' PhD diss., Universiteit van Amsterdam.
- Gross, Walter. 1996. Die Satzteilfolge im Verbalsatz alttestamentlicher Prosa: Untersucht an den Büchern Dtn, Ri und 2Kön . Forschungen zum Alten Testament 17. Tübingen: Mohr.
- Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski. 1993. 'Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse.' Language 69: 274-307.
- Hardmeier, Christof. 1991. 'Hermeneutik und Grammatik: Zum Zusammenhang von Sprachbeschreibung und Textwahrnehmung.'  Pages  119-140  in Text, Methode, und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag . Edited by Walter Gross, Hubert Irsigler, and Helmut Satzinger. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag.
- Haspelmath, Martin. 1997a. From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbial's in the World's Languages . Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 3. München: Lincom Europa.
- Haspelmath,  Martin.  1997b. Indefinite  Pronouns .  Oxford  Studies  in  Typology  and  Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. 'Does Grammaticalization Need Reanalysis?' Studies in Language 22: 315-351.
- Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. 'Why is Grammaticalization Irreversible?' Linguistics 37: 1043-1068.
- Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. 'The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and CrossLinguistic  Comparison.'  Pages  211-242  in The  New  Psychology  of  Language:  Cognitive and  Functional  Approaches  to  Language  Structure ,  vol  2.  Edited  by  Michael  Tomasello. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Haspelmath,  Martin.  2004.  'On  Directionality  in  Language  Change  with  Particular  Reference  to Grammaticalization.' Pages 17-44 in Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization . Edited by Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde, and Harry Perridon. Typological Studies in Language 59. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          49

- Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. 'Pre-Established Categories Don't Exist: Consequences for Language Description and Typology.' Linguistic Typology 11: 119-132.
- Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. 'Parametric Versus Functional Explanations of Syntactic Universals.' Pages 75-107 in The Limits of Syntactic Variation . Edited by Theresa Biberauer. Linguistics Today 132. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Haspelmath, Martin. 2010a. 'Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Crosslinguistic Studies.' Language 86: 663-687.
- Haspelmath, Martin. 2010b. 'Framework-Free Grammatical Theory.' Pages 341-365 in The Oxford Handbook  of  Grammatical  Analysis .  Edited  by  Bernd  Heine  and  Heiko  Narrog.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Haspelmath,  Martin.  2010c.  'The  Interplay  between  Comparative  Concepts  and  Descriptive Categories.' Language 86: 696-699.
- Haspelmath,  Martin,  Matthew  S.  Dryer,  David  Gil,  and  Bernard  Comrie,  eds.  2005. The  World Atlas of Language Structures . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2007. 'Demonstratives in Semitic.' Journal of the American Oriental Society 127: 1-27.
- Heath, Jeffrey. 1975. 'Some Functional Relationships in Grammar.' Language 51: 89-104.
- Heath,  Jeffrey.  1980.  'Nunggubuyu  Deixis,  Anaphora,  and  Culture.' Chicago  Linguistic  Society 16/2: 151-165.
- Heath, Jeffrey. 1983. 'Referential Tracking in Nunggubuyu (Australia).' Pages 129-149 in SwitchReference and Universal Grammar: Proceedings of a Symposium on Switch Reference and Universal  Grammar,  Winnipeg,  May  1981 .  Edited  by  John  Haiman  and  Pamela  Munro. Typological Studies in Language 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Heath,  Jeffrey.  1984. Functional  Grammar  of  Nunggubuyu .  Australian  Institute  of  Aboriginal Studies 53. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
- Helmbrecht,  Johannes.  2004.  'Personal  Pronouns:  Form,  Function,  and  Grammaticalization.' Habilitationsschrift, University of Erfurt.
- Helmbrecht,  Johannes.  2005.  'Das  Problem  der  Universalität  der  Nomen/Verb-Distinktion.' Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 16: 1-34.
- Himmelmann,  Nikolaus  P.  1996.  'Demonstratives  in  Narrative  Discourse:  A  Taxonomy  of Universal Uses.' Pages 205-254 in Studies  in  Anaphora . Edited by Barbara Fox. Typological Studies in Language 33. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel,  Nominalphrase: Zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur . Linguistische Arbeiten 362. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
- Holmstedt, Robert D. 2007. 'The Etymologies of Hebrew ʾă šer and šeC -.' Journal of Near Eastern Studies 66: 177-191.
- Holmstedt,  Robert  D.  2013.  'The  Nexus  between  Text  Criticism  and  Linguistics:  A  Case  Study from Leviticus.' Journal of Biblical Literature 132: 473-494.
- Holmstedt, Robert D. and Andrew R. Jones. 2014. 'The Pronoun in Tripartite Verbless Clauses in Biblical  Hebrew:  Resumption  for  Left-Dislocation  or  Pronominal  Copula?' Journal  of Semitic Studies 59: 53-89.
- Huehnergard, John. 2000. A Grammar of Akkadian . Harvard Semitic Museum Studies 45. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
- Huehnergard, John. 2004. 'Afro-Asiatic.' Pages 138-159 in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's  Ancient  Languages .  Edited  by  Roger  D.  Woodard.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          50

- Huehnergard, John. 2005. 'Features of Central Semitic.' Pages 155-203 in Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran .  Edited by Agustinus Gianto. Biblica et Orientalia 48. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
- Huehnergard,  John.  2006.  'On  the  Etymology  of  the  Hebrew  Relative š ε -.'  Pages  103-125  in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives . Edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz. Jerusalem: Magnes.
- Huehnergard, John and Na'ama Pat-El. 2007. 'Some Aspects of the Cleft in Semitic Languages.' Pages  325-342  in Studies  in  Semitic  and  General  Linguistics  in  Honor  of  Gideon Goldenberg .  Edited  by  Tali  Bar  and  Eran  Cohen.  Alter  Orient  und  Altes  Testament  334. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
- Jarvalla, Robert and Wolfgang Klein, eds. 1982. Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics . Chichester: Wiley.
- Joosten, Jan. 1991. 'The Syntax of zeh Mošeh (Ex 32,1.23).' Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103: 412-415.
- Joüon, Paul. 1923. Grammaire de l'Hébreu biblique . Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
- Joüon, Paul and T. Muraoka. 1993. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew .  2  vols.  Subsidia Biblica 14. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
- Joüon, Paul and T. Muraoka. 2006. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew .  Subsidia  Biblica  27.  Roma: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
- Kaiser,  Elsi  and  John  Trueswell.  2004.  'The  Referential  Properties  of  Dutch  Pronouns  and Demonstratives:  Is  Salience  Enough?'  Pages  137-149  in Proceedings  of  the  Conference 'sub8  -  Sinn  und  Bedeutung' . Edited by Cécile Meier and Matthias Weisgerber. Arbeitspapiere/Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft 117. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.
- Kalisch, M. M. 1884. A Hebrew Grammar, with Exercises . 2 vols. London: Green and Co.
- Keller,  Rudi.  1998. A  Theory  of  Linguistic  Signs .  Translated  by  Kimberley  Duenwald.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Khan, Geoffrey A. 1997. 'Tiberian Hebrew Phonology.' Pages 85-102 in Phonologies of Asia and Africa  (Including  the  Caucasus) ,  vol  1.  Edited  by  Peter  T.  Daniels.  Winona  Lake: Eisenbrauns.
- Kummerow,  David.  2011.  'Functional-Typological  and  Constructional  Linguistic  Studies  on Tiberian Hebrew: Anaphora, Deixis, and the Verbal System.' ThD diss., Australian College of Theology.
- Kummerow, David. 2012. 'The Person That Isn't: On Defining the Third-Person, Negatively and Positively So.' Australian Journal of Linguistics 32: 259-290.
- Kummerow, David. 2013. Object Predication in Tiberian Hebrew: A Typological Approach to the Nonverbal Copula . KUSATU 16. Kamen: Hartmut Spenner.
- Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents .  Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Lazard,  Gilbert.  2002.  'Transitivity  Revisited  as  an  Example  of  a  More  Strict  Approach  in Typological Research.' Folia Linguistica 36: 141-190.
- Lazard,  Gilbert.  2004.  'On  the  Status  of  Linguistics  with  Particular  Regard  to  Typology.' The Linguistic Review 21: 389-411.
- Lazard, Gilbert. 2006a. La quête des invariants interlangues: La linguistique est-elle une science? Bibliothèque de Grammaire et de Linguistique 23. Paris: Champion.
- Lazard,  Gilbert.  2006b.  'More  on  Counterfactuality,  and  on  Categories  in  General.' Linguistic Typology 10: 61-66.

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          51

- Lehmann, Christian. 1983. 'Rektion und syntaktische Relationen.' Folia Linguistica 17: 339-378.
- Lehmann,  Christian.  1995. Thoughts  on  Grammaticalization .  Lincom  Studies  in  Theoretical Linguistics 1. München: Lincom.
- Lehmann, Christian. 2002. 'Thoughts on Grammaticalization: Second, Revised Edition.' Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 9: i-171.
- Lenz, Friedrich. 2003. Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person . Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 112. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Levinson, Stephen  C. 1983. Pragmatics .  Cambridge  Textbooks  in  Linguistics.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity . Language, Culture and Cognition 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Levinson,  Stephen,  Sérgio  Meira,  and  The  Language  and  Cognition  Group.  2003.  ''Natural Concepts'  in  the  Spatial  Topological  Domain-Adpositional  Meanings  in  Crosslinguistic Perspective: An Exercise in Semantic Typology.' Language 79: 485-516.
- Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1988. 'The Pragmatic Nature of Nominal Anaphora in To'aba'ita.' Studies in Language 12: 299-344.
- Lichtenberk,  Frantisek.  1996.  'Patterns  of  Anaphora  in  To'aba'ita  Discourse.'  Pages  379-411  in Studies  in  Anaphora .  Edited  by  Barbara  Fox.  Typological  Studies  in  Language  33. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Lyons,  John.  1968. Introduction  to  Theoretical  Linguistics .  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University Press.
- Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics . 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- McCarter,  P.  Kyle,  Jr.  2004.  'Hebrew.'  Pages  319-364  in The  Cambridge  Encyclopedia  of  the World's  Ancient  Languages .  Edited  by  Roger  D.  Woodard.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.
- Michel,  Diethelm.  2004. Der  hebräische  Nominalsatz .  Vol  2  of Grundlegung  einer  hebräischen Syntax .  Edited  by  Achim  Behrens,  Johannes  F.  Diehl,  Anja  A.  Diesel,  Reinhard  G. Lehmann, Achim Müller, and Andreas Wagner. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
- Miller, Cynthia L. 2003. The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis . Harvard Semitic Monographs 55. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
- Moravcsik, Edith A. 2007. 'What is Universal about Typology?' Linguistic Typology 11: 27-41.
- Morel,  Mary-Annick  and  Laurent  Danon-Boileau,  eds.  1992. Deixis:  Colloque  en  Sorbonne  8-9 Juin 1990 . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
- Müller,  Achim.  1997.  'Formgeschichte  und  Textgrammatik  am  Beispiel  der  alttestamentlichen 'Lehrrede'  in  Prov  1-9.'  Pages  83-100  in Studien  zur  hebräischen  Grammatik .  Edited  by Andreas Wagner. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 156. Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
- Munch,  Peter  Andreas.  1936. The  Expression  bajjôm  h ā h ū ':  Is  It  an  Eschatological  Terminus Technicus? Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. Oslo: I Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad.
- Muraoka,  Takamitsu.  1985. Emphatic  Words  and  Structures  in  Biblical  Hebrew .  Jerusalem: Magnes.
- Narrog, Heiko and Shinya Ito. 2007. 'Re-Constructing Semantic Maps:  The  ComitativeInstrumental Area.' Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60: 273-292.
- Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2007. 'Linguistic Typology Requires Crosslinguistic Formal Categories.' Linguistic Typology 11: 133-157.

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          52

- Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2010. 'On Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories: A Reply to Haspelmath.' Language 86: 688-695.
- Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1993. 'Indexicality and Deixis.' Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 1-43.
- Pardee, Dennis. 2007. 'Ugaritic Morphology.' Pages 49-74 in Morphologies of Asia and Africa , vol 1. Edited by Alan S. Kaye. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
- Pat-El,  Na'ama. 2004-2007. 'Some Notes on the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew zeh .' Zeitschrift  für Althebraistik 17-20: 150-158.
- Pat-El, Na'ama and Alexander Treiger. 2008. 'On Adnominalization of Prepositional Phrases and Adverbs in Semitic.' Zeitschrift  der  Deutschen  Morgenländischen  Gesellschaft 158:  265283.
- Pennacchietti,  Fabrizio  A.  1968. Studi  sui  pronomi  determinativi  semitici .  Pubblicazioni  del Seminario di semitistica 4. Napoli: Istituto orientale di Napoli.
- Pennacchietti, Fabrizio A. 1980. ''Sono già due anni che nel paese c'è la carestia' (Gen. XLV, 6): I sintagmi temporali ebraici introdotti dal pronome ze e la loro traduzione in Siriaco, Arabo ed Etiopico.' Vicino Oriente 3: 225-242.
- Perkins,  Revere  D.  1992. Deixis,  Grammar,  and  Culture .  Typological  Studies  in  Language  24. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Rainey, Anson F. and R. Steven Notley. 2006. The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World . Jerusalem: Carta.
- Rauh, Gisa, ed. 1983. Essays on Deixis .  Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 188. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
- Rendsburg, Gary A. 1990. Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms . Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 43. Atlanta: Scholars.
- Rendsburg, Gary A. 2007. 'Ancient Hebrew Morphology.' Pages 85-105 in Morphologies of Asia and Africa , vol 1. Edited by Alan S. Kaye. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
- Rubin, Aaron D. 2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization . Harvard Semitic Studies 57. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
- Rubio,  Gonzalo.  2007.  'Sumerian  Morphology.'  Pages  1327-1379  in Morphologies  of  Asia  and Africa , vol 2. Edited by Alan S. Kaye. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
- Seow, Choon-Leong. 1995. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: Revised Edition . Nashville: Abingdon.
- Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive Predication . Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.
- Stirling,  Lesley  and  Rodney Huddleston. 2002. 'Deixis and Anaphora.' Pages 1449-1564 in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language . Edited by Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- van der Auwera, Johan and Andrej Malchukov. 2005. 'A Semantic Map for Depictive Adjectivals.' Pages  393-421  in Secondary  Predication  and  Adverbial  Modification:  The  Typology  of Depictives .  Edited by Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and Eva Schultze-Berndt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- van  der  Merwe,  Christo  H.  J.,  Jackie  A.  Naudé,  and  Jan  H.  Kroeze.  1999. A  Biblical  Hebrew Reference Grammar . Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
- van Hoek, Karen. 1997. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure .  Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Vanoni,  Gottfried.  1984. Literarkritik  und  Grammatik:  Untersuchung  der  Wiederholungen  und Spannungen  in  1  Kön  11-12 .  Arbeiten  zu  Text  und  Sprache  im  Alten  Testament  21.  St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag.

vol 1 (2014), issue 2                 http://hiphil.org                                                                          53

- Wagner, Andreas. 1997. Sprechakte und Sprechaktanalyse im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen im biblischen Hebräisch an der Nahtstelle zwischen Handlungsebene und Grammatik . Beihefte zur  Zeitschrift  für  die  alttestamentliche  Wissenschaft  253.  Berlin/New  York:  Mouton  de Gruyter.
- Walker-Jones, Arthur. 2003. Hebrew for Biblical Interpretation .  Resources for Biblical Study 48. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
- Waltke,  Bruce  K.  and  M.  O'Connor.  1990. An  Introduction  to  Biblical  Hebrew  Syntax .  Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
- Webber, Bonnie L. 1988. 'Discourse Deixis: Reference to Discourse Segments.' Pages 113-122 in Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics . New York: Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Weissenborn, Jürgen and Wolfgang Klein, eds. 1982. Here and There: Cross-Linguistic Studies on Deixis  and  Demonstration .  Pragmatics  &  Beyond  III:2/3.  Amsterdam/Philadelphia:  John Benjamins.
- Woods, Christopher E. 2001a. 'The Deictic Foundations of the Sumerian Language.' PhD diss., Harvard University.
- Woods, Christopher E. 2001b. 'Deixis, Person, and Case in Sumerian.' Acta Sumerologica 22: 303334.
- Young,  Ian.  2003.  'Concluding  Reflections.'  Pages  312-317  in Biblical  Hebrew:  Studies  in Chronology and Typology . Edited by Ian Young. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 369. London: T & T Clark.
- Young,  Ian.  2005.  'The  Biblical  Scrolls  from  Qumran  and  the  Masoretic  Text:  A  Statistical Approach.'  Pages  81-139  in Feasts  and  Fasts:  A  Festschrift  in  Honour  of  Alan  David Crown .  Edited  by  Marianne  Dacy,  Jennifer  Dowling,  and  Suzanne  Faigan.  Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica 11. Sydney: Mandelbaum.
- Young, Ian, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd. 2008. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts .  2 vols. London: Equinox.