Review: General Ling; Historical Ling; Language Documentation: Goldenberg (2013)

AUTHOR: Gideon  Goldenberg
TITLE: Semitic Languages
SUBTITLE: Features, Structures, Relations, Processes
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2013

REVIEWER: Adam C McCollum, Saint John’s University

INTRODUCTION

I remember first studying Gideon Goldenberg’s long treatment of the
“tautological infinitive” (1971) and then some of his articles on Syriac
syntax (1983, 1990, 1991, 1995) when I was making my way into advanced Syriac
grammar. Those papers called for close concentration but they repaid the
needed effort. The book under review was published just before the author’s
death, and it makes a fitting capstone for his many years of comparative
elucidation of (to paraphrase the title of one of those aforementioned
studies) the niceties of Semitic, especially Aramaic and Ethiopian, linguistic
features. (See an announcement of his death at http://tinyurl.com/p9tpzfv, and
a list of publications at
http://ling.huji.ac.il/Staff/Gideon_Goldenberg/index.html.)

SUMMARY

The book consists of sixteen chapters, including the introduction. The
introduction presents material that will be well known to students and
scholars of the Semitic languages. Here as elsewhere in the book Goldenberg
does well in briefly summarizing previous work on the topics under discussion.
This chapter covers the attention that general linguists have paid to Semitic
languages, an overview of the individual chapters that follow, a statement of
the way the book does linguistics, and then takes care of some practical
matters, such as remarks on transcriptions and glossing. Here, too, the author
affirms reliance only on a close analysis of “data taken from connected
discourse in actual use,” such close analysis requiring — and, we might add,
developing — a thorough familiarity “like that of the old masters of
linguistics” (5).

After the introductory chapter itself, three more preliminary chapters follow.
These are a survey of the languages (Ch. 2), where they have been or are
spoken (Ch. 3), and writing systems for Semitic languages, especially as the
vehicles for the linguistic record (Ch. 4). While Goldenberg rightly
characterizes his book as of a different kind than the more comprehensive
surveys of the past few decades, these three chapters are akin to such
handbooks.

The theme of Ch. 5 is the classification of the languages, a subject with
dense scholarly activity (Kienast 2001: 11-20; Huehnergard and Rubin 2011;
Gragg and Hoberman 2012: §4.2-3). With some caveats about genetic
classification generally (§5.1), Goldenberg turns the focus on features he
considers especially relevant for the question of classification: internal
plural formation (or broken plurals; known in Arabic, South-Arabian, and some
Ethio-Semitic languages), derived stems with internal vowel lengthening
(Arabic and Ethio-Semitic), the vowel (a or e) before the third radical of
active perfects, the number of circumfix conjugations (one or two), the
leveling of afformatives in the perfect (-k-, -t-) in comparison with the
Akkadian stative, the adoption of -na to mark the feminine plural of the
circumfix conjugation, and finally, the isogloss /p/ and /f/. There is also
discussion of what is known as Central Semitic. Alternative explanations and
discussion of certain problems in some of the subgroups (Canaanite, Aramaic,
Arabic, and South Semitic) round out the investigation. In the end, he opts
for an arrangement as follows: a main division into East and West Semitic, the
latter divided into Northwest and South, South divided into Modern South
Arabian and Ethiopian, which is itself further broken into four groups: 1.
Gǝʿǝz, Tigre, Tigrinya; 2. Amharic-Argobba; 3. Gafat-Kǝstane; 4. Harari.
Arabic is “left non-committal as to specific affiliation” but in the diagram
is placed without any connecting lines between Northwest and South Semitic.
The division of Ethio-Semitic into North and South, sometimes (especially
formerly) found in the literature, has been abandoned, and he does not
consider Eblaite, Ugaritic, and Epigraphic (as opposed to Modern) South
Arabian in his final classification.

Ch. 6 is titled “Special Achievement of Semitic Linguistic Traditions,” and
here Goldenberg highlights the theoretical contributions of the Arabic
linguistic tradition, beginning in the eighth century. This tradition
Goldenberg calls “one of the thoroughest, profoundest, most elaborated and
sophisticated of its type” (58). The chapter does not, however, focus only on
Arabic, but rather shows how the contributions of participants within this
tradition have illuminated Arabic as well as other Semitic languages. The
topics are substantive form and clause, adjective form and clause, adjective
form as a transposed relative in Ethio-Semitic, verb form as a dimorphemic
complex, segmental vowel length, the “weak quiescent” and Hebrew grammar, and
finally, Comparative Semitics, thanks to medieval Hebrew grammarians having at
their ready disposal Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, and having been schooled in
the praised Arabic linguistic tradition.

The material of Ch. 8, called “Closed-class Morphemes,” is function words
broadly considered. Here Goldenberg surveys personal pronouns, reflexive and
reciprocal expressions, interrogative pro-words, demonstratives, pronominal
heads in adjectival constructions and “complementizers” (e.g. Arabic ḏu, Gǝʿǝz
zä), basic adpositions, and numerals. An excursus on dual marking and another
on indefinites augment the chapter. The discussion here of personal pronouns
is full and far-reaching, including, for example, pronominal suffixes,
independent oblique pronouns in Akkadian (yâti, yâšim, etc.), and object
markers in various languages. The discussion of demonstratives naturally
includes the pronouns (this, that, etc.), but also adverbs (here!, here,
hither, there, now, then, yesterday, etc.)

Ch. 11 mostly focuses on the Semitic case system, but it begins with a look at
three kinds of “syntactical bonds” (140-142). These are predicative,
attributive, and completive, and after a brief mention here, they become the
topics, respectively, of chapters 12, 14, and 15, the series being interrupted
by a chapter (13) on the verbal system. His look at the case system includes a
warning to “the enthusiastic comparativist” against “excessive indulgence in
detecting apparent inconsistencies, looking for traces of former systems, or
trying to reconstruct prehistoric ‘ergative’ constructions nowhere attested in
any Semitic language” (142-143, with n. 2). The ternary case-marking system
(nominative in -u, genitive in -i, and accusative in -a) is well-represented
in Akkadian and Classical Arabic, and Goldenberg’s discussion starts there.
His presentation in this chapter also includes adverbial endings not belonging
to the aforementioned ternary system, such as Akkadian -iš
(terminative-adverbial) and -um/ūm (locative-adverbial), with the latter of
which he compares Arabic words like qablu, baʕdu, taḥtu (with the same forms
even following the preposition min) having “a non-nominative ending -u” (147).
Consideration of -u leads to a critique of assertions of ergativity in
Semitic, and the chapter concludes with a paragraph on the replacement in many
Semitic languages of morphological case-marking by prepositions.

Chapters 12 and 14-15 cover certain kinds of syntactic relationships in
detail. These are advanced topics on which Goldenberg had written before, but
even where the views are the same, here the scope is generally broader, with a
view to the Semitic languages as a whole.

The author’s tone is one of reasoned certainty in most places, and he speaks
definitively. This includes the clear rejection of approaches deemed unfit,
both in the text and notes, sometimes in strong language; for example on 268,
n. 59, one scholar who “mainly makes a declaration of his theoretical credo,
promulgating authoritatively a prolix new set of latinized technical terms” is
called “[u]nconversant with the specialist scholarly literature.” In the same
note, he critiques general linguistic studies on the naʕt sababī (indirect
epithet) as remaining “on the level of elementary school grammar.” On another
point he says, “Attempts of scholars to explain why one form or the other
should be regarded as more authentic or original are really pointless” (309).

Goldenberg distinguishes his book from the various “historical-comparative
outlines,” such as the recent book edited by Weninger (2011). Goldenberg’s
work “aims to expose the reader to a well reasoned and fully documented
discussion of central issues of linguistic interest in Semitic” (xv). On the
issue of using Semitic languages in general linguistic research, Goldenberg
had written in some detail before (1987-1988, 1993, 2002). He continues, “The
book thus offers a critical study, rather than a comprehensive overview of the
current state of the art…,” and “…in general, the geographical,
historical, political, or social circumstances of the use of the languages are
not the subject of this book” (xv-xvi). Goldenberg eschews a comprehensive
survey executed on comparative or historical grounds. Building upon centuries
of scholarship that in many cases touches at least two Semitic languages, the
book is informed by the “genetic-genealogical comparative method,” but, he
says, “it is not my main intention to indulge in historical
reconstructions…” (98). Indeed, Goldenberg claims as his tendency the
avoidance of this or that particular theoretical framework and opts merely to
follow in this regard the great Antoine Meillet: “ordonner les faits
linguistiques au point de vue de la langue même” (4, quoted from Meillet 1921:
viii). He further describes his approach as “ideally … prejudice-free,
non-aprioristic, and empirically-based, intended to describe each language in
its own terms, but with close attention to analogous features and intrinsic
typological affinities; synchronic, but never dissociated from the areal and
historical contexts” (4). As espousers of this kind of approach he points
first back to H.J. Polotsky, and more recently to Dixon (2009-2012),
Haspelmath (2010), and Frajzyngier (2010). Here and there throughout the book,
Goldenberg offers some typological consideration of languages beyond Semitic,
both Indo-European and otherwise (e.g. Turkish, Egyptian).

EVALUATION

The foregoing paragraph shows how Goldenberg saw his book and a reader having
finished the book will not disagree much. His approach, not to mention even
the subtitle, are accurately borne out in the book. Strict historical
linguists and comparativists will not find a steady diet here, although they
will naturally find bits and pieces of cumulative interest to them. The book’s
intended audience is apparently general linguists. A fair amount of linguistic
know-how and terminology is assumed and it is certain that a reader without
some experience in linguistic literature, no matter their knowledge of Semitic
languages, would find parts of the book slow-going. That said, for general
linguists, there are occasional places where experience in the literature of
Semitic linguistic research, as well as the broader field of Ancient Near
Eastern studies, is necessary: for example, an explanation of the term
“Sumerogram” (31) would smooth over what might be an unfamiliar concept for
some readers. A glossary would be a boon, and given the book’s relatively
small size, it would hardly make it unwieldy.

Goldenberg was very widely read. I suspect that at least some of the names and
works he mentions will be unknown even to experienced linguists, both general
and Semitic. Especially noteworthy is his demonstrated familiarity with the
Arabic grammatical tradition and with sources in Russian linguistics that
continental and American scholars may be less familiar with. Indeed, given
Goldenberg’s penchant for the old masters (not taken uncritically) along with
his being well-studied in recent linguistic publications, the bibliography
amounts to a recital of linguistic history, not only for the Semitic
languages, but for others as well, and for general linguistics. And so, while
Goldenberg’s aim is not for historical reconstruction or a diachronic
presentation of the Semitic languages, his look at the topics covered offers
much to those interested in the history of linguistic thought. His
argumentation is clear, and he is quick to point out the work of other
scholars that he has followed in his judgments, as well those with whose
explanations or methods he disagrees.

The “features, structures, relations, and processes,” to use the language of
the subtitle, then, are presented and explained with confidence and evidence.
As with any proffered explanation of a package of linguistic ideas, there is
bound to be disagreement over individual points, but what of the whole? That’s
a difficult question to answer because of the type of book Goldenberg has
given us. One notes immediately that there is no concluding chapter to wrap up
the volume. While this is not usual, in this case the lack is not felt. The
issues he discusses do not make up a comprehensive picture of the Semitic
language family across its continuing history, and these topics are handled
individually here briefly enough and are easy enough to find that a summary of
them all would have been superfluous. (Whether credit is due the author or the
publisher, the commendable practice was followed of giving two tables of
contents, one concise, one full.) In other words, a required conclusion would
have been a forced and detracting effort.

The many examples he offers, each in the proper place to illustrate this or
that phenomenon in a particular language, go a long way toward making the book
as strong as it is. Even careful explanations can benefit from a couple of
examples, and Goldenberg’s habit is to give them, often more than a couple,
and I, at least, did not find their number to be too great. There is a catch,
though. These examples — all, it seems, from genuine texts, including a
memorable one from the Hebrew translation of Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men” —
are for the most part given without specific references. (Some references are
given, e.g. on pp. 216-217, but it is not clear why those are indicated to the
exclusion of the others.) Goldenberg passes over this lack with the bland
suggestion, “Many of [the quotations] are retrievable by the interested reader
in various ways” (6).

Given the author’s goals for the book and its character as a collection of
admittedly somewhat scattered observations (and not a comprehensive
presentation) accompanied by discussion in response to the literature, the
work does not have many shortcomings. Each reader will naturally find some of
their own, but the following interrupted my study of the book. While most of
the book is closely knit within its section and perhaps chapter, and while
there is usually clear evidence of the author’s having carefully thought
through the relevant literature, there are parts of the book that are almost
note-like, without having been properly incorporated into (or consequently
omitted from) the rest of the discussion. To cite one example, the reference
to Akkadian in the last paragraph of §13.3 (204), which deals exclusively with
Hebrew, seems out of place, appearing from nowhere. If a connection was
intended, it might have been elaborated. Elsewhere, structures under
discussion would have benefited from a fuller explanation, as in his mention
of phrases in Syriac like kāpray b-ṭaybūṯā (238), where it would have been
well to stress that, somewhat against expectation, the first word is a bound
(construct) form (cf. Nöldeke 2001: §206). The linguistic terminology
pervasive throughout the book was mentioned above, and there are times that
such language will cause or at least contribute to a lack of clarity for some
readers, e.g. “Genitive construction, in the notional sense of genitive, is
the real exponent of attributive relation, and it neutralizes, in fact, all
possible semantic roles” (226). On the other end of the spectrum, some
statements are rather obvious and unnecessary, such as “Tense forms and
constructions have different meanings in different syntactic environments, in
different text types and genres and in different varieties of speech forms
within languages, and, as already mentioned, in various historical phases of
development” (202). To the discussion in §15.1 the article Butts 2010 should
be added. I noted a small number of errors: e.g. p. 8, the a at the bottom
left of the first table should not be in italics; p. 243, line 2 of text, “šä”
should be ša.

The book may not be a sufficient standalone reference for the student or
scholar interested in the Semitic languages, although the preliminary chapters
(1-5) help make it such. More ideal still would be this book in conjunction
with at least one of the fuller survey books for the language family, books
that offer what Goldenberg did not intend to offer here. The work will
certainly give general linguists and typologists a critical and informed
perspective on a number of phenomena in the Semitic languages, and those
interested more strictly in the Semitic languages have here careful studies of
some of the niceties in those languages that Goldenberg came to be known for.
This book, while not imposing in size, will nonetheless stand tall among the
great works on the Semitic languages for its close attention to these
manifestations of the languages in that family.

REFERENCES

Butts, Aaron Michael. 2010. The Etymology and Derivation of the Syriac
Adverbial Ending -ɔʾiθ*. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 69: 79-86.

Dixon, Robert Malcolm Ward. 2009-2012. Basic Linguistic Theory. 3 vols.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 2010. Towards a Non-aprioristic Syntactic Theory. Faites
de Langues. Les Cahiers: Revue de linguistique 2: 9-40.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 2012. Typological Outline of the Afroasiatic Phylum. In
Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Erin Shay, eds., The Afroasiatic Languages. Cambridge
Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 505-624.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1971. Tautological Infinitive. Israel Oriental Studies 1:
36–85.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1983. On Syriac Sentence Structure. In Michael Sokoloff,
ed., Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic Literary Tradition. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan
University Press. 97–140.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1987-1988. The Contribution of Semitic Languages to
Linguistic Thinking. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap
Ex Oriente Lux 30: 107–115.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1990. On Some Niceties of Syriac Syntax. In V Symposium
Syriacum 1988 = Orientalia Christiana Analecta 236: 335–344.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1991. On Predicative Adjectives and Syriac Syntax.
Bibliotheca Orientalis 48: 716–726.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1993. The Semitic Languages and the Science of Language
[in Hebrew]. In Joseph Geiger, ed., Moises Starosta Memorial Lectures (First
Series). Jerusalem: The School for Graduate Studies, Faculty of Humanities,
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 99-126.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1995. Bible Translations and Syriac Idiom. In P.B. Dirksen
and A. van der Kooij, eds., The Peshitta as a Translation. Monographs of the
Peshitta Institute 8. Leiden: Brill. 25–39.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1997. Conservative and Innovative Features in Semitic
Languages. In Alessandro Bausi and Mauro Tosco, eds., Afroasiatica
Neapolitana: Papers from the 8th Italian Meeting of  Afroasiatic
(Hamito-Semitic) Linguistics, Naples, January 25-26, 1996. Studi
Africanistici, Serie Etiopica 6. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.
3–21.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 2002. Semitic Linguistics and the General Study of
Language. Israel Oriental Studies 20: 21-41.

Gragg, Gene and Robert Hoberman. 2012. Semitic. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier and
Erin Shay, eds., The Afroasiatic Languages. Cambridge Language Surveys.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 145-235.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Framework-free Grammatical Theory. In Bernd Heine
and Heiko Narrog, eds., Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 341-365.

Huehnergard, John and Aaron D. Rubin. 2011. Phyla and Waves: Models and
Classification of the Semitic Languages. In Weninger 2011. 259-278.

Kienast, Burkhart. 2001. Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. With
contributions by E. Graefe (Altaegyptisch) and G.B. Gragg (Kuschitisch).
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Meillet, Antoine. 1921. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, I.
Collection linguistique publiée par la Société de linguistique de Paris 8.
Paris: Champion.

Nöldeke, Theodor. 2001. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Trans. James A. Crichton.
With an Appendix ed. Anton Schall, trans. Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Ind:
Eisenbrauns.

Weninger, Stefan. 2011. The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. In
collaboration with Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck, and Janet C.E. Watson.
Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 36 [Handbücher zur Sprach-
und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Adam Carter McCollum is Lead Cataloger of Eastern Christian Manuscripts at the
Hill Museum & Manuscript Library. He has published, among other things, on
Greek-Syriac translation technique and translations of Syriac and Arabic
texts, and is currently working on further Syriac text editions and
translations, a skeleton grammar of Gǝʿǝz with annotated reading selections,
and a handbook to studying the languages of Eastern Christianity. He has
interests in the languages of the eastern Mediterranean, the Caucasus, and
beyond, especially in language contact and literary translation.

———————————————————-
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-676
———————————————————-

News