This is David E. S. Stein's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following David E. S. Stein's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
David E. S. Stein
Recent Activity
John, it seems that we're using some words differently, so let my try to clarify what I mean. • Some identifying references with איש (pointing to a particular individual): ‏וַיִּגְּשׁוּ אֶל־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר עַל־בֵּית יוֹסֵף (Gen. 43:19) ‏זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם (Exod. 32:1) ‏לֵךְ וְאַרְאֶךָּ אֶת־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּה מְבַקֵּשׁ (Jud. 4:22) ‏אָרוּר הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בִּשַּׂר אֶת־אָבִי (Jer. 20:5) • Some categorizing references with איש (applying to whoever fits the description): הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִשְׁמַע אֶל־דְּבָרַי (Deut. 18:19) הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה נֹשֶׁה בוֹ (Deut. 24:11) ‏מִי־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּנָה בַיִת־חָדָשׁ וְלֹא חֲנָכוֹ (Deut. 20:5) ‏הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלַךְ בַּעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים (Ps. 1:1) • I did not claim that איש itself categorizes, rather that in the Bible it is employed mostly in order to categorize. Referential specificity is not a property possessed by words or expressions. Rather, it depends upon how those expressions are used, which the audience then interprets based upon the discourse topic, the situational context, and social convention. • A speaker could potentially refer to the same referent by any of several designations. The speaker chooses one such designation in order to highlight some particular aspect of the referent. Regardless of the type of reference, איש designates its referent in terms of a relationship. So do the nouns בן and עבד. In some settings, all 3 nouns can more specifically indicate subordination. Those are their semantic components, which is distinct from the nature of the reference in which they are employed. • All references in law codes are categorizing, by definition. The apodictic laws refer to "you, if you are in this situation." The casuistic laws refer to "anyone who is in this situation." The designations used may be in terms of a particular social status, such as עבד or גר. But those designations don't point to a particular individual, which is how I'm using the term "identify."
1 reply
John, can you come up with a sentence in Italian that employs i and ragazzi in a categorizing reference? Back to Hebrew Bible: In Alison Grant's 1977 analysis of how the words אדם and איש are used to make reference, she pointed out something remarkable: The word אדם is almost always used in categorizing references (more than 70% of the time). The only exceptions are the references to the same special individual: the mythical progenitor of the human species. And those come pretty close to being categorizing references, given that they're used to identify the prototype human being, who represents us all (from a social perspective, not a biological one). Arguably it's the non-specific way that it's most often used to make reference that gives the word אדם its generic feel. Much the same can be said of איש. Grant found that in only 20% of its instances is it employed to make an identifying reference. (My terminology, not hers.) Unfortunately she didn't publish her data set, but the results seem pretty robust in their lopsidedness. My point is that the Bible makes categorizing references much more often than most of us realize.
1 reply
Abram, I think you've raised a fine question. My answer is: Let's understand the term "masculine" as referring merely to the prototype of the various ways that we use the zero-marked form in Hebrew. It's only typical — not comprehensive! For we use that same form also to refer to someone whose social gender is unknown, or whose sex is ambiguous (hermaphrodite) or indeterminate, or when the collective is of mixed gender, or when gender is irrelevant. So it's more an all-purpose or generic way of speaking/writing about persons than it is a "male" way. In short, to call it "masculine" is a bit misleading because that obscures the asymmetry of how gender references work in Hebrew. By the way, of the many languages that have two grammatical genders, there are a few that reserve the "masculine" gender solely for references to manly persons. Any of the other referents that I mention above are expressed via the "feminine" gender. But if you think about it, I bet you'll see that this arrangement is not per se any more or less sexist than the arrangement in Hebrew or Spanish. (For those languages, one could say: "Men are so special that they get their own gender form all to themselves!") Finally, it's worth noting that the concern for "masculine" hegemony in the Hebrew language has been asserted (and decried) with extreme seriousness by a few feminist scholars, such as Athalya Brenner. Their critique is independent of whether the form is called "zero-marked" or not. Personally, I find their claim to be based on midrashic reasoning, for the reasons stated above.
1 reply
John, you wrote: "I imagine that speakers and listeners think more or less exclusively in terms of identifying references." Rather, I submit that listeners constantly evaluate the specificity of the speaker's references, but usually we do so quite automatically, without reflecting on the possibilities. Consider this scenario: I'm in an outdoor supply store with a puzzled look on my face. A salesperson comes up and says, "May I help you?" I reply, "I'm looking for a tent...." "Sure, what kind of tent? Three-season or all-season? To sleep how many persons?" "No, I'm looking for the Marmot Sanctum. It was right here last week but now I don't see it. Are you out of stock?" "Actually, that model has been discontinued. But I can show you another one like it." She quite reasonably assumed that my statement "I'm looking for a tent" was a categorizing statement, because people say such things all the time. As soon as I clarified that I had a particular model in mind, she shifted her thinking and responded accordingly.
1 reply
Hi, John! The present post makes a few statements about the "agenda" of the Pew study. I'm concerned that in so doing, this post was not treating the study's designers or analysts fairly. Was it really necessary to publically impugn their motives, rather than take at face value their stated motivations? Procedurally, it might been more fair if you had discussed, or at least mentioned, the study's posted FAQs: http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-FAQs-About-Measuring-Religious-Knowledge.aspx And now you can also cite and consider Alan Cooperman's response to Berlinerblau: http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/10/pews_religion_survey_an_attempt_to_understand_faith.html It seems to me that Cooperman has considerably blunted Berlinerblau's critique.
1 reply
David E. S. Stein is now following The Typepad Team
Oct 30, 2010