Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

An International Journal of Nordic Theology

ISSN: 0901-8328 (Print) 1502-7244 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sold20

Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics, and the Tower

of Babel (Genesis 11,1-9)

Andrew W. Dyck

To cite this article: Andrew W. Dyck (2018) Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics, and the Tower
of Babel (Genesis 11,1-9), Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 32:2, 166-188, DOI:
10.1080/09018328.2018.1470844

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2018.1470844

Published online: 01 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sold20
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 2018
Vol. 32, No. 2, 166-188, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2018.1470844

Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics, and

the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11,1-9)

Andrew W. Dyck
McMaster Divinity College
95 Ritchie Ave. Toronto, ON Canada M6R 2K1
dyck.andrew@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Roy L. Heller’s Narrative Structure and Discourse Constella-

tions has proven to be a useful tool in the hands of the discourse linguist. His
work in discourse linguistics has advanced the state of scholarship previously
developed Robert E. Longacre and Alviero Niccacci. With specific interest in
Heller’s work, this paper explores his argument for the form and function of
discourse linguistics and its application to biblical Hebrew (BH). To accom-
plish this task, this paper, first, will provide a summarizing presentation of
Heller’s working model of discourse linguistics as seen in Narrative Structure
and Discourse Constellations. Second, I will take Heller’s working model
and apply it to the tower of Babel narrative (Gen 11,1-9). Third, stemming
from the application of Heller’s model, I will enter into a discussion with his
discourse linguistic theory to critique its value for those interested in dis-
course linguistics.

Key words� discourse linguistics, Genesis 11, tower of Babel, Roy L.

Heller

Introduction
Roy L. Heller’s Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations has proven
to be a useful tool in the hands of the discourse linguist. His work in dis-
course linguistics has advanced the state of scholarship previously developed
Robert E. Longacre and Alviero Niccacci. With specific interest in Heller’s
work, this paper explores his argument for the form and function of discourse
linguistics and its application to biblical Hebrew (BH). To accomplish this
task, this paper, first, will provide a summarizing presentation of Heller’s
working model of discourse linguistics as seen in Narrative Structure and
Discourse Constellations. Second, I will take Heller’s working model and
apply it to the tower of Babel narrative (Gen 11,1-9). Third, stemming from
the application of Heller’s model, I will enter into a discussion with his dis-
course linguistic theory to critique its value for those interested in discourse
linguistics.

© 2018 The Editors of the Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

 Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics 167

A Summary of Roy L. Heller’s Discourse Linguistic Methodology

The first section of this paper presents a summary of Heller’s discourse lin-
guistic methodology as explained in Narrative Structure and Discourse Con-
stellations, his first and most influential monograph. To accomplish this task,
this section, first, delves into a review of the historical development of Hel-
ler’s methodology. Second, I provide a summary of Heller’s working model
of discourse linguistics. This is done for two reasons. First, to apply his mod-
el to the tower of Babel narrative of Gen 11,1-9. Second, to critically engage
with his discourse linguistic model and provide a few suggestions for the
refinement of his methodology.

A Development and Explanation of Heller’s Methodology

Heller is not the first scholar to apply discourse linguistics to BH. His dis-
course analysis of BH prose was primarily built on the research of Thomas O.
Lambdin,1 Robert E. Longacre,2 and Alviero Niccacci. While there are sever-
al notablely unique aspects of his methodology, he was not the first to apply
his working model to his designated corpus—Gen 37; 39-47; 2 Sam 9-20; 1
Kings 1-2. It is curious that Heller would choose to study the same corpus as
Longacre in Joseph. However, resulting from a closer looking into Heller’s
work, it is clear that his research is inspiring and original. The following is an
observation of the development of Heller’s methodology and an explanation
thereof. Furthermore, this section serves to highlight the distinguishing fea-
tures of Heller’s methodology.
To begin this discussion, one must understand the purpose and founding
question behind his methodology. Heller stated, “[discourse linguistics’ takes
a] basic stance toward language by asking ‘What does this verbal form/
word/clause do?’ instead of asking ‘What does this verbal form/word/clause
mean?’”3 This will be discussed further when I review and define his meth-
odology. To clarify what he meant in the above probing question, Heller
argues that his discourse methodology is contextual and does not attempt to

1. Thomas O. Lambdin’s primary and most notable work in this subject is Introduc-
tion to Biblical Hebrew (New York, Scribner, 1971). Heller can be criticized for his
use of an introductory grammar in the construction of his methodology. However, the
citation of Lambdin in Heller’s work should not be considered foundational in the
formulation of his discourse linguistic methodology. Rather, Lambdin is citied in
order to articulate Heller’s history of research. Lambdin made some observations that
Heller found intriguing that led him to invest himself in discourse linguistics. Fur-
thermore, Heller’s citation of this introductory grammar should not be overly criti-
cized considering Lambdin is an authoritative voice in BH scholarship.
2. Robert E. Longacre’s significant work in discourse linguistics referenced by Heller
is Joseph, A Story of Divine Providence, A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analy-
sis of Genesis 37 and 39-48 (Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 1989).
3. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, 2. For further infor-
mation regarding the difference between these two questions refer to the specified
pages.
168 Andrew W. Dyck

work “top-down” by positing a “meaning” to a verbal form and then trying to

make it apply in all cases. Instead, this methodology works “bottom-up.”4

The Preliminary Categories of Discourse Linguistics According to Heller

The division of clause types is central to any linguistic method that works
bottom-up on the level of the verb. This was seen in Longacre’s and
Niccacci’s work. Heller expanded on the clause type classification of his
predecessors. He argues that there are eleven types of verbal forms, includ-
ing the verbless clause, in BH, QATAL, WeQATAL, YIQTOL, WeYIQTOL,
WAYYIQTOL, participle, verbless clause, incomplete clause, imperative,
cohortative, and jussive.5 These eleven verbal forms are placed within several
categories. Before we can understand his categorization of clauses, I must
provide an explanation for the characteristics and structuring function of
clauses in BH. Heller cites Lambdin,
One of the most striking features of Hebrew prose syntax is the relative rarity
of subordinating conjunctions marking adverbial clauses as such. Instead, one
finds almost interminable sequences of clauses connected only by a form of
the conjunction we- (and). A closer inspection of these sequences, however,
has shown us that there is a great deal of differentiation in clause function
signaled, not by variation of conjunction, but by a variation of the word order
within the clause or by a variation of the verbal form used immediately after
the conjunction.6
Thus, Heller’s main clausal categories are (1) conjunctive-sequential clauses,
and (2) disjunctive clauses. He discusses these two clausal groupings as they
are foundational for the development of the rest of his primary categories.
Figure 1 provides a working definition for both clausal groups and their con-
current clausal markers,7

4. This information was gained through conversation with Roy L. Heller when dis-
cussing the function of infinitive verbs in BH.
5. Alviero Niccacci, a predecessor to Heller, explained that there are only five verb
forms outside of verbless clauses, qatal, weqatal, yiqtol, weyiqtol, and wayyiqtol. For
additional reading in this area see Alviero, Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Clas-
sical Hebrew Prose, trans. W. G. E. Watson (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1990);
Robert E. Longacre, Joseph, A Story of Divine Providence, A Text Theoretical and
Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48 (Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 1989);
Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York, Scribner, 1971).
6. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, 1. Citing Lambdin,
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, p. 162.
7. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, 1. For additional read-
ing on the subject see Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, p. 162.
 Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics 169

Figure 1. Conjunctive-Sequential and Disjunctive Clause Types

Clause Type Definition Clause Markers
Conjunctive- Conjunctive-sequential, in we- (or wa-) + verb
sequential which the second clause is
temporally or logically pos-
terior or consequent to the
first.
Disjunctive Disjunctive, in which the we- + non-verb
second clause may be in
various relations, all non-
sequential, with the first.
To further break down and explain conjunctive-sequential and disjunctive
clause types, Heller sub-divides each category. First, conjunctive-sequential
clause types are divided into narrative sequences and imperative sequences.
Figure 2 provides further sub-categories and the concurrent clause markers,8
Figure 2. Narrative Sequences and Imperative Sequences
Primary Category Sub-Category Clause Markers
(1) The narrative se- Punctual past tense Perfect + wa + (short)
quences imperfect
Punctual future or punc- Imperfect +we + perfect
tual habitual
Immediate future Non-verbal clause + we
+ perfect
(2) The imperative se- Explicit consecution Imperative + we +
quences perfect
Purpose or result Imperative + we +
imperfect
Second, disjunctive clauses are divided into four sub-categories per function.
Figure 3 provides a working definition for each of the sub-categories of dis-
junctive clause types,9
Figure 3. Disjunctive Clause Sub-Categories
Sub-Category Definition
Contrastive Contrastive, by which the disjunctive clause is
contrasted to the immediately preceding clause.
Circumstantial Circumstantial, by which the disjunctive clause is
seen as preceding or as synchronous with the pre-
ceding clause.
Explanatory or parenthe- Explanatory or parenthetical, by which the dis-
tical junctive clause provides information not temporal-

8. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, 2. Citing Lambdin,

Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, p. 163.
9. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, 2. Lambdin, Introduc-
tion to Biblical Hebrew, pp. 163-64.
170 Andrew W. Dyck

ly related to the preceding clause.

Terminative or initial Terminative or initial, by which the disjunctive

clause signals the end or beginning of an episode
within a larger storyline.
Heller notes, “Lambdin’s categories are essentially functional or pragmat-
ic; that is, rather than trying to explain the various verbal forms in terms of
inherent meaning, Lambdin instead notes that the various clauses perform
certain tasks in their structuring of BH prose.”10 It is here that Heller asks the
question, “What does this verbal form/word/clause do?”11 His examination of
the biblical Hebrew verbal system (BHVS) then serves the purpose of
“provid[ing] a functional/pragmatic treatment of the various clause types
within [BH] prose.”12 He takes the division of clauses previously presented
and redefines them to better understand the BHVS. This aspect of clause
division will be discussed in turn.

The Three Dimensions of Discourse Linguistics

Discourse linguistics requires further division of clauses to distinguish verbal
form function in BH. To review, the first division was according to verb form
or clause type. This second division is for the purpose of aspectual value and
definition of clause function. It is important to distinguish the aspectual value
of a clause, because Heller’s methodology of discourse linguistics is rooted in
methods of tense- and aspect-based approaches and the historical-
comparative approach, which are considerably different. However, they share
a common presupposition, “the workings of the [BHVS] are understood on
the basis of ‘sentence grammar.’”13 Furthermore, “sentence grammar theoret-
ically restricts the study of language to relationships within the boundaries of
single sentences.”14 Figure 4 presents a list of English verbal forms that are
divided according to an axis of time and is adapted from Niccacci’s work,15
Figure 4. English Verb Types and the Axis of Time
Discourse Narrative
Axis (Group 1) (Group 2)
‘present’ Present Imperfect
‘past’ Present perfect -Simple past
-Past perfect
‘future’ Future Conditional

10. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 2.

11. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 2.
12. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 3.
13. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 17.
14. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 17.
15. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, p. 19.
 Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics 171

Within the definition of the temporal value of a clause, there are three addi-
tional dimensions, (1) a linguistic attitude, (2) foregrounding and back-
grounding, and (3) a linguistic perspective.16 First, the linguistic attitude re-
flects the narrative and commentary features of a clause.17
Figure 5. Narrative and Commentary Features
English Narrative Commentary
Group 2 Group 1
Hebrew -WAYYIQTOL -volitive forms
-WAW-x-QATAL -simple nominal clause
-indicative x-YIQTOL
-weQATAL
-(x-)QATAL
The second dimension is “foregrounding and backgrounding.” While the
basis of this concept of a discourse linguistic perspective originated from
Niccacci, Heller expands on its significance through an observation of P. J.
Hopper. Heller argues, “The use of discourse linguistic or discourse gram-
matical perspective does not necessarily define a particular method.”18 To
correct the shortcoming of discourse linguistics he adopts P. J. Hopper’s hy-
pothesis,
It is evidently a universal of narrative discourse that in any extended text an
overt distinction is made between the language of the actual storyline and the
language of supportive material which does not itself narrate the main events.
I refer to the former—the parts of the narrative which relate events belonging
to the skeletal structure of the discourse—as FOREGROUND and the latter
as BACKGROUND. … One finds … a tendency for punctual verbs to have
perfective aspect (i.e., to occur in foregrounded sentences) and conversely for
verbs of the durative/stative/iterative types to occur in imperfective, i.e.,
backgrounded clauses. … Strictly speaking, only foregrounded clauses are
actually NARRATED. Backgrounded clauses do not themselves narrate, but
instead they support, amplify, or COMMENT on the narration. … Discourse
grammarians are coming to recognize more and more that in the telling of a
story in any language, one particular tense is favored as the carrier of the
backbone or storyline of the story while other tenses serve to present the
background, supportive, and depictive material in the story.19
It was through the work of Niccacci that “foregrounding and backgrounding”
was developed for application to BH.20 Niccacci significantly influenced

16. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, pp. 17-24; Niccacci,
The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, p. 19.
17. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, p. 20.
18. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 21.
19. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, pp. 21-22. Citing
Hopper, “Aspect and Forgrounding in Discourse,” pp. 213-15.
20. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, pp. 17-34. It is
important to note that Niccacci developed “foregrounding and backgrounding” for
172 Andrew W. Dyck

Heller’s methodology through his adoption of this linguistic principle. Figure

6 presents a breakdown of foregrounding and backgrounding in BH discourse
linguistics,21
Figure 6. Foregrounding and Backgrounding in Biblical Hebrew
Foreground Background
Hebrew
-Imperfect
-Past perfect
Narrative WAYYIQTOL -Simple noun clause
-Complex noun clause
-weQATAL
-Present -Circumstantial clauses
-Volitive mood -Gerund, past participle
Discourse -Volitive forms -WAX-simple noun
-(x-)QATAL clause
-x-indicative YIQTOL -WAW-complex noun
simple noun clause clause
Heller notes that Niccacci divided clauses in BH prose into two categories,
narrative and discourse. He explains that the narrative set is “concern[ed
with] persons or events which are not present or current in the relationship
involving [the] writer-reader and so the third person is used.”22 Discourse is
then concerned with clauses that have the speaker addressing the listener
directly (dialogue, sermon, prayer).23 Heller adapts Niccacci’s methodology
to distinguish between narrative discourse and direct discourse. These are the
foundational categories of Heller’s methodology.
A linguistic perspective is the third dimension for the categorization of
verbal function. Figure 7 serves to discover the “retrieved information of a
verb (flashback, ‘antecedent’ to the ensuing account), the degree zero (the
level of the story itself), [and] the anticipated information (‘disclosure’, re-
veals the end of the story)”,24

application to BH from the work of H. Weinrich’s Besprochene und erzahlte Welt,

3rd ed (Stuttgart, 1984) with specific reference to pages 5 and 171-72.
21. The following chart is taken from Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical
Hebrew Prose, p. 20.
22 Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 22. Citing Niccacci,
The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, pp. 33-34.
23. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 22. Citing Niccacci,
The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, pp. 33-34.
24. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, pp. 20-21; Heller,
Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, pp. 17-24.
 Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics 173

Figure 7. Recovered Information, Degree Zero, and Anticipated Information

Recovered Degree Zero (0) Anticipated
Heb Information (↑) Information (↓)
Past perfect Simple past Conditional
Narrative Imperfect
WAW-x-QATAL WAYYIQTOL YIQTOL
Present perfect Present Future
Discourse Volitive moods
x-QATAL Volitive forms YIQTOL
(x-)QATAL Final clauses etc.
x-indicative
YIQTOL
Simple noun
clause
These three dimensions are important to remember when attempting to un-
derstand the development of Heller’s methodology. He took these seemingly
limited charts and separated, expanded, and clarified each of its meanings by
using new terminology that better describes the elements of a clause.

Narrative Discourse in Discourse Linguistics

Heller’s breakdown of discourse in BH prose falls into two categories as
previously stated, (1) narrative discourse and (2) direct discourse. First, narra-
tive discourse should be considered the primary category of discourse lin-
guistics in BH prose. It is the largest and most prevalent categorization of BH
clauses in BH prose. This section serves the purpose of explaining the four
categories of narrative discourse according to Heller, (1) narrative backbone,
(2) paragraph boundary, (3) inner-paragraph comment, and (4) extra-
paragraph comment.
The first category of narrative discourse is narrative backbone. This cate-
gory is key to Heller’s approach. It is a simpler category to understand. A
chain of at least three WAYYIQTOL verbal forms classifies this text-type.
Furthermore, Heller argues that the sequence of WAYYIQTOL verbs is equat-
ed with temporal sequence.
Paragraph boundary, the second category of narrative discourse, functions
to define the parameters of a section. A majority of clauses in BH prose only
have one marker, found in the chart below, either an initial or terminal. The
paragraph boundary sub-section serves to further breakdown a text into
smaller sections for analysis.25

25. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, pp. 432-40.

174 Andrew W. Dyck

Figure 8. Paragraph Boundaries

Paragraph initial
(1) ‫ והיה‬temporal clause Usually marks the initial
(2) Independent QATAL clause Typically marks the end, but
may mark the initial
Paragraph terminal
(1) Independent QATAL clause A) Typically marks the end, but
may mark the initial
B) Depends on context, whether
the focus of the QATAL clauses
is the same as the WAYYIQTOL
clauses immediately before, then
it ends the preceding paragraph;
Or the WAYYIQTOL clause
immediately after it, then it
begins the next paragraph.

(2) WeQATAL clause A) Identical to QATAL clauses

in function
B) Used instead of QATAL for
their semantic or aspectual
meanings
(3) We + infinitive absolute Rare
(4) Incomplete clause Rare
In BH prose, there is a consistent trend where the author leaves the main
progression of the narrative to make an additional comment. This trend leads
Heller to formulate the following two final categories of narrative discourse.
For inner-paragraph comment, these off-line statements made by the author
happen within a paragraph. There are ten sub-categories for inner-paragraph
comment that explain the type of off-line comment made by the author.
Figure 9. Inner-Paragraph Comment Sub-Categories
Inner-Paragraph Comment Sub- Definition
Category
(1) Background (BK IPC) Gives background information for the nar-
rative
(2) Prospective (PR IPC) Gives information that will be needed in the
upcoming narrative
(3) Retrospective (RT IPC) Refers back to information in the preceding
narrative
(4) Simultaneous (SM IPC) An event or situation occurring at the same
time as the narrative
(5) Resumptive (RE IPC) Picks up where an earlier narrative left off
and continues it
(6) Contrastive (CN IPC) Contrasts two people, situations, or events
(7) Parallel (PL IPC) Semantic or syntactic parallelism
 Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics 175

(8) Conclusive (CC IPC) Draws a conclusion from the preceding

narrative
(9) Summative (SU IPC) Summarizes the preceding narrative
(10) Focus (FO IPC) Points the character’s/reader’s attention to a
scene
The verb or clause form categorization for inner-paragraph comment is as
follows,
Figure 10. Inner-Paragraph Comment
Type A, Independent or multiple, singly or in combination with each other,
(1) Verbless clauses
(2) Participial clauses
(3) ‫ היה‬verbal clauses
Only in combination with Type A clauses above,
(4) Incomplete clauses
Independent or in combination with Type A clauses above,
(5) QATAL clauses in parallel
Only Independent,
(6) QATAL clauses after temporal clauses
The fourth category of narrative discourse is extra-paragraph comment.
Like inner-paragraph comment, these statements are made outside of the
progression of the narrative. Unlike inner-paragraph comment, extra-
paragraph comment takes place between paragraphs or sections in BH prose.
The clause or verb categorization is as follows,
Figure 11. Extra-Paragraph Comment
Type B, Only multiple,
(1) QATAL clauses
(2) WeQATAL clauses
(3) YIQTOL clauses
Only singly and in combination with multiple Type B clauses above,
(4) Non-chained WAYYQITOL clauses
Independent or multiple, in combination with multiple Type B clauses above,
(5) Participial clauses
(6) Verbless clauses

Direct Discourse in Discourse Linguistics

The second discourse type in discourse linguistics per Heller is direct dis-
course. Following the initial presentation of this methodology, Longacre took
the methodology further and defined four basic functions of speech for the
purpose of accounting “for the highly nuanced texture of biblical story tell-
ing.”26 These categories are Narrative Discourse (ND), Predictive Discourse

26. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 22.

176 Andrew W. Dyck

(PD), Expository Discourse (ED), and Hortatory Discourse (HD).27 Heller

takes Longacre’s four basic functions and adds a fifth, Interrogative Dis-
course (ID).28 The following is a breakdown, categorization, and definition of
the five basic functions according to Heller.29 Specifically, these are the text-
types that appear within the second category of discourse, direct discourse,
and are illustrated in Figure 12,
Figure 12. A Breakdown of Heller’s Categories of Direct Discourse
(1) Discourse based upon the relaying of information,
Narrative Discourse In which a character relates events that happened
(ND) in the past (from the perspective of the speech
act)
Predictive Discourse In which a character proposes or plans for events
(PD) that will occur or may occur in the future
Expository Discourse In which a character explains or describes gen-
(ED) eral or present facts or actions
(2) Discourse based upon the expressing of the speaker’s volition,
Interrogative Dis- In which a character attempts to elicit a verbal
course response from the hearer(s)30
(ID)
Hortatory Discourse In which a character attempts to elicit an active
(HD) or attitudinal response from the hearer(s)
The purpose of these text-types is to distinguish between the various verbal
constellations that appear in any particular speech sample within BH prose.31

27. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 22. Citing Longacre,
Joseph, pp. 80-136.
28. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 22 ft. 78 noted
works of Longacre that were influential on the development of Heller’s methodolo-
gy. See Robert Longacre, “The Discourse Structure of the Floor Narrative,” JAAR
47, (Suppl. B, 1979), pp. 89-133; The Grammar of Discourse (New York, Plenum,
1983); “Who Sold Joseph into Egypt?” in R. L. Harris, S-H. Quek and J. R. Vannoy
(eds.), Interpretation and History, Essays in Honour of Allan A. MacRae (Singapore,
Christian Life, 1986), pp. 75-92; and Jospeh, A Story of Divine Providence, A Text
Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48 (Winona Lake,
Eisenbrauns, 1989).
29. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 26.
30. Heller makes an additional note that is important to recognize when attempting to
define Interrogative Discourse. He states,
Interrogative Discourse occasionally questions the hearer for a non-verbal re-
sponse. Such is the case with “rhetorical questions” or “leading questions,” which
functionally are much closer to Hortatory Discourse than straightforward Inter-
rogative Discourse. The syntactical form of rhetorical or leading questions are, of
course, patterned after Interrogative Discourse. It is, therefore, into this category
that such questions are classified. See Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse
Constellations, p. 26 ft. 86.
31. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, p. 26.
 Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics 177

The following is an explanation of each text-type, Narrative Discourse, Pre-

dictive Discourse, Expository Discourse, Interrogative Discourse, and Horta-
tory Discourse.
There are three primary characteristics of Narrative Discourse. First, it is
used when a character relates to a real or imagined sequence of events that
occurred prior to the report. Second, Narrative Discourse is designated as a
text-type when a verbless or ‫ היה‬clause performs a role similar to off-line or
inner-paragraph commentary. Third, this is the text-type when a YIQTOL
form also acts as an inner-paragraph comment and indicates an ongoing ac-
tion or a habitual action (i.e. “used to”). However, this is not the case if the
YIQTOL form is found between paragraph blocks or extra-paragraph com-
ments as it does in narrative backbone text types.32 The following figure pre-
sents a list of terminal markers for Narrative Discourse and a clause’s tem-
poral value,
Figure 13. Narrative Discourse Terminal Markers
Primary Verbal/Clausal QATAL Basic past
Forms WAYYIQTOL Continuative past
Secondary Ver- Verbless Off-line status
bal/Clausal Forms ‫ היה‬Verbal Off-line status
Participial Off-line action
YIQTOL Off-line ongoing action
There are three characteristics of Predictive Discourse in BH. First, it is
used when a character of the narrative proposes, plans, or predicts a sequence
of events that will occur after the speech. Second, Predictive Discourse is
used to propose, predict, and prophesy future actions. Third, Predictive Dis-
course often happens immediately after some other type of discourse. For
example, WeQATAL does not appear in Narrative Discourse but if it is used
at the end of a Narrative Discourse text-type it then functions to mark a shift
in text-type to Predictive Discourse. Figure 14 presents a list of terminal
markers for Predictive Discourse.
Figure 14. Predictive Discourse Terminal Markers
Primary Verbal/Clausal YIQTOL Basic future
Forms WeQATAL Continuative future
Secondary Ver- Verbless Off-line status
bal/Clausal Forms ‫ היה‬Verbal Off-line status
Incomplete Off-line status
Participial Off-line status

There are four characteristics of Expository Discourse. First, this text-type

takes place when a character explains a state of activity that is occurring at

32. Heller notes some additional special features of Narrative Discourse. For further
reading on the subject see Heller, Narrative Structures and Discourse Constellations,
2004, pages 64 and 461.
178 Andrew W. Dyck

the time of speech that is perpetually true. Second, Expository Discourse

takes place when speeches contain only a participial or verbless clause; the
tense of the speech is then always set in the present tense. This is also true of
clauses that contain ‫ היה‬as a full verb. Third, Expository Discourse is in use
when a speech is composed of only incomplete clauses, is an interjection,
oath, vocative call, or an answer to a question and relates to the immediate
context. Fourth, this is the text-type when a QATAL or YIQTOL form is used
as a secondary form, has a consistently fronted object, or emphasizes the
present character of the clause rather than its past occurrence.
Figure 15. Expository Discourse Terminal Markers
Primary Ver- Verbless Primary present status
bal/Clausal Forms ‫ היה‬Verbal Primary present status
Incomplete Interj./oath/voc./answer
Participle Primary present action
Secondary Ver- Obj. + QATAL/YIQTOL Secondary present action
bal/Clausal Forms

There are eight characteristics of Interrogative Discourse. First, Inter-

rogative Discourse occurs when a character attempts to elicit a verbal re-
sponse from a hearer of a particular speech. Second, when a clause is marked
by an interrogative particle or adverb then it is to be classified as Interroga-
tive Discourse. Third, this text-type occurs when the particle ‫ה‬, in general,
marks alternative or polar questions in which the entire proposition is ques-
tioned instead of just a single feature of the clause. Fourth, interrogative ad-
verbs mark circumstantial questions in which some single element is ques-
tioned, a person (who?), a thing (what?), a place (where?), a time (when?), a
manner (how?), or a motive (why?). Fifth, because Interrogative Discourse is
marked externally by these adverbs or particles, verbal constellations are not
the defining factor in determining the boundaries of this discourse. Sixth, the
basic tense of each verbal form or clause type in Interrogative Discourse is
determined by those discourses that employ the verbal form or clausal type as
a foundational base. Seventh, ambiguous Interrogative Discourse without a
participle or adverb is always juxtaposed to an unambiguously marked
clause. Eighth, there are no consistent morphological markers to distinguish
true questions and rhetorical questions although ‫ הלא‬is often used for rhetori-
cal questions; context must decide the issue.
Figure 16. Interrogative Discourse Terminal Markers
Verbal Form/Clause Foundational Discourse Primary Tense
Type
QATAL Narrative Discourse Past
WeQATAL Predictive Discourse Future
YIQTOL Predictive Discourse Future
WAYYIQTOL Narrative Discourse Past
Participle Expository Discourse Present
Verbless Expository Discourse Present
 Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics 179

Incomplete Expository Discourse Present

Hortatory Discourse has seven characteristics. First, Hortatory Discourse
is prevalent when a character attempts to elicit an active response from a
hearer of the speech. Second, in Hortatory Discourse the imperative,
cohortative, and jussive are functionally equal and their use depends only on
the number of the subject. Third, if any of the forms, imperative, cohortative,
or jussive, appear in a speech, it is by default hortatory though other verbal
forms may be present. Fourth, in Hortatory Discourse, the foundational forms
lend their volitional force to their accompanying (We)YIQTOL and
WeQATAL clauses. Fifth, the presence of QATAL in Hortatory Discourse
most often signals the usage of a performative utterance in which the action
described by the QATAL is actually performed by the speech itself. Sixth, the
QATAL with YIQTOL or WeQATAL verbal constellation occurs only within
Hortatory Discourse and the volitional force of QATAL is therefore unambig-
uous from a wider syntactical perspective. Seventh, the hortatory nature of a
discourse is sometimes solely defined by the precative participle ‫ נא‬suffixed
to a YIQTOL verbal form within the discourse.
Figure 17. Hortatory Discourse Terminal Markers
Primary Verbal/Clausal Imperative Second person volitional
Forms Cohortative First person volitional
Jussive Third person volitional
’al-YIQTOL Negative volitional
(We)YIQTOL-na’ Precatory volitional
Secondary Ver- QATAL Performative utterance
bal/Clausal Forms WeQATAL Continuative volitional
YIQTOL Continuative volitional
WeYIQTOL Consequential/purpose

Application of Heller’s Methodology to Genesis 11,1-9, The Narrative of the

Tower of Babel
Following a brief discussion of the historical development of Heller’s dis-
course model and an explanation thereof, the present section serves to apply
his discourse linguistic model to the tower of Babel narrative (Gen 11,1-9). It
is important to note that discourse linguistics does require a larger text in
order to present an argument for the function of a specific text-type or verbal
form. The purpose of this section is not to present an argument for the form
and function of any text-type in BH prose, but rather to simply illustrate how
Heller’s discourse linguistics model works.
An application of this methodology to any text requires the presentation of
three charts. In what follows, the first table shows the clause breakdown of
Gen 11,1-9. The second table separates the individual clause into clause
types. The third chart presents the discourse constellations that are found in
the text. Each chart will be explained in detail when its turn arises.
180 Andrew W. Dyck

This first table (Figure 18) has four columns. The first presents the clause
in the Hebrew according to the Masoretic Tradition (MT). Main clauses are
kept parallel to the column edge. Subordinate clauses are tabulated. The se-
cond column designates a number to the individual clause. There are three
numbers that are used. The “X” in X.C.CCC indicates the chapter number of
the clause according to the MT. Next, the “X” in C.X.CCC indicates the cor-
responding verse number the clause with where the verse is found. Finally,
the three “Xs” in C.C.XXX indicates the clause number that is progressive
with the narrative and can extend across several chapters. The third column is
a parsing of the clause. The final column presents the designated text-type of
the clause. It is important to note that subordinate clauses do not impact the
text-type classification and are, therefore, also tabulated.
Figure 18. Table Showing the Clause Breakdown of Genesis 11,1-933
Hebrew (MT) Clause Verb Class.
Num.
‫ וַיְהִ י כָל־הָ אָ ֶרץ שָ פָה אֶ חָ ת ְּודבָ ִרים‬11.1.001 WAYYIQTOL NB
‫אֲ חָ ִדים׃‬
‫ וַיְהִ י בְ נ ְָסעָם ִמקֶ דֶ ם‬11.2.002 WAYYIQTOL NB
‫ וַיִ ְמצְ אּו בִ קְ עָה בְ אֶ ֶרץ ִשנְ עָר‬11.2.003 WAYYIQTOL NB
‫ ַוי ְֵּׁשבּו שָׁ ם׃‬11.2.004 WAYYIQTOL NB
‫ל־רעֵהּו‬ֵ ֶ‫ֹּאמרּו ִאיש א‬ ְ ‫ וַי‬11.3.005 WAYYIQTOL ND(/NB)
‫ הָׁ בָׁ ה‬11.3.006 Imperative HD
‫ נִ לְׁ בְׁ נָׁה לְׁ בֵּ נִים‬11.3.007 YIQTOL HD
‫ וְׁ נ ְִׁש ְׁרפָׁה לִ ְׁש ֵּרפָׁה‬11.3.008 WeYIQTOL HD
‫ ו ְַתהִ י לָהֶ ם הַ לְ בֵ נָה לְ אָ בֶ ן‬11.3.009 Participle ED
‫ וְ הַ חֵ מָ ר הָ יָה לָהֶ ם לַחֹּ מֶ ר׃‬11.3.010 QATAL ED
‫ֹּאמרּו‬
ְׁ ‫ וַי‬11.4.011 WAYYIQTOL ND
‫ הָׁ בָׁ ה‬11.4.012 Imperative HD
‫ּומגְ דָ ל‬ִ ‫ נִ בְ נֶה־לָנּו עִ יר‬11.4.013 YIQTOL HD
‫וְׁ ר ֹּאשֹּ ו בַ שָׁ מַ יִם‬ 11.4.014 Verbless HD
‫ וְׁ ַנעֲשֶׂ ה־לָׁנּו שֵּ ם‬11.4.015 WeQATAL HD
‫ פֶן־נָפּוץ עַ ל־פְ נֵי כָל־הָ אָ ֶרץ׃‬11.4.016 YIQTOL HD
‫ ַוי ֵֶּׂרד יְׁהוָׁה‬11.5.017 WAYYIQTOL ND
‫ לִ ְראֹּ ת אֶ ת־הָ עִ יר וְ אֶ ת־הַ ִמגְ דָ ל‬11.5.018 Participle ND
‫אֲ שֶ ר בָ נּו בְ נֵי הָ אָ דָ ם׃‬ 11.5.019 QATAL ND
‫ וַי ֹּאמֶׂ ר יְׁהוָׁה‬11.6.020 WAYYIQTOL ND
‫ הֵ ן עַ ם אֶ חָ ד וְ שָ פָה אַ חַ ת לְ ֻכלָם וְ זֶה‬11.6.021 Infinitive ND
‫הַ חִ לָם ַלעֲשֹות‬
‫ וְ עַ תָ ה ל ֹּא־יִ בָ צֵ ר מֵ הֶ ם כֹּ ל‬11.6.022 LoYIQTOL PD
‫אֲ שֶׂ ר ָׁיזְׁמּו‬ 11.6.023 YIQTOL PD
‫ַלעֲשֹות׃‬ 11.6.024 Infinitive PD
‫ הָׁ בָׁ ה‬11.7.025 Imperative HD

33. The following chart has been modified from its original presented by Heller due
to space limitations and for the purpose of increasing its user-friendly nature.
 Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics 181

‫נ ְֵּׁרדָׁ ה‬ 11.7.026 YIQTOL HD

‫וְ נָבְ לָה שָ ם ְשפָ תָ ם‬ 11.7.027 WeYIQTOL HD
‫יִש ְמעּו ִאיש ְשפַ ת‬ ְ ‫אֲ שֶ ר ל ֹּא‬ 11.7.028 LoYIQTOL HD
‫ֵרעֵהּו׃‬
‫ַויָפֶץ יְהוָה אֹּ תָ ם ִמשָ ם‬ 11.8.029 WAYYIQTOL ND
‫עַ ל־פְ נֵי כָל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬
‫ַויַחְ ְדלּו לִ בְ נֹּ ת הָ עִ יר׃‬ 11.8.030 WAYYIQTOL ND
‫עַ ל־כֵן קָ ָרא ְשמָ ּה בָ בֶ ל‬ 11.9.031 QATAL ND
‫כִ י־שָ ם בָ לַל יְהוָה ְשפַ ת‬ 11.9.032 QATAL ND
‫כָל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬
‫ּומשָ ם הֱפִ יצָ ם יְהוָה עַ ל־פְ נֵי‬ ִ 11.9.033 QATAL ND
‫כָל־הָ אָ ֶרץ׃‬
Following the presentation of the first table (Figure 18), the second table
(Figure 19) offers an analysis of the data. There are four columns in this ta-
ble. The first column has the eleven verb forms. The second column presents
the clause distribution found in the text. This is done in accordance with the
two types of discourse, narrative discourse and direct discourse. It is collated
with the designated clause number only (C.C.XXX). The narrative discourse
does not break down into its four sub-categories. The sub-categories of narra-
tive discourse are discussed in the analysis that follows the second table.
However, because there is no inner-paragraph comment or extra-paragraph
comment there will be no discussion. In this table only direct discourse is
broken down. The next two columns count the number of occurrences and
then provides the percentage for the number of occurrences.
Figure 19. Table of Independent Clause Types in Genesis 11,1-9
Clause Type Clause Distribution Total Perc.
Narrative, 0 0
QATAL ND, 019, 031 2 66%
PD,
Total Clauses, ED, 010 1 33%
3 ID,
HD,
Narrative, 0 0
WeQATAL ND,
PD,
Total Clauses, ED,
1 ID,
HD, 015 1 100%
Narrative, 0 0
YIQTOL ND,
PD, 021 1 20%
Total Clauses, ED,
5 ID,
HD, 007, 013, 016, 026 4 80%
Narrative 0 0
182 Andrew W. Dyck

WeYIQTOL ND,
PD,
Total Clauses, ED,
2 ID,
HD, 008, 027 2 100%
Narrative, 001, 002, 003, 004 4 40%
WAYYIQTOL ND, 005, 011, 017, 020, 029, 030 6 60%
PD
Total Clauses, ED,
10 ID,
HD,
Narrative, 0 0
Participle (Ptc) ND, 018 1 50%
PD,
Total Clauses, ED, 009 1 50%
2 ID,
HD,
Narrative, 0 0
Verbless (Vbl) ND, 0 0
PD,
Total Clauses, ED,
0 ID,
HD,
Narrative, 0 0
Incomplete (Inc) ND, 0 0
PD,
Total Clauses, ED,
0 ID,
HD,
Imperative (Impv) Narrative, 0 0
Total Clauses, HD, 006, 012, 025 3 100%
3
Cohortative (Coh) Narrative, 0 0
Total Clauses, HD, 0 0
0
Jussive (Juss) Narrative, 0 0
Total Clauses, HD, 0 0
0
With the second table’s (Figure 19) collation of the data, a written analy-
sis must now take place. This analysis is broken down into two sections and
discusses the data according to the two main categories of discourse, Narra-
tive Discourse and Direct Discourse.
 Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics 183

Narrative Discourse Structure Analysis

Narrative Backbone
Ten of the thirty-two clauses in Gen 11,1-9 are parsed as WAYYIQTOL’s.
However, only four are classified under Narrative Discourse as Narrative
Backbone. These four WAYYIQTOL clauses exist as a single discourse con-
stellation.
001-004, The settlement of the people
Clearly, the governing verb in these clauses is WAYYIQTOL. It can be argued
that clause 005, the final announcement of construction, can function as a
part of the narrative backbone discourse constellation. However, the way in
which the clause interacts with the following Hortatory Discourse constella-
tion, it can better be understood as an individual WAYYIQTOL Direct Dis-
course clause functioning as Narrative Discourse.
There are no other occurrences of Narrative Discourse in Gen 11,1-9.
There will be no discussion of non-WAYYIQTOL conjunctive clauses, inner-
paragraph comment, extra-paragraph comment, or any other sub-category of
Narrative Discourse. Attention will then turn toward an analysis of the Direct
Discourse structure.

Direct Discourse Structure Analysis

Narrative Discourse
There are nine primary and three subordinate clauses that make up four Nar-
rative Discourse constellations. Three constellations introduce instances in
the narrative when a character speaks, either Yahweh or the people of Babel.
The final constellation describes the consequence of the Lord’s response to
the people’s rebellious action. These constellations are foundational to the
development of the narrative.
005, The first announcement of construction
011, The second announcement of construction
017-020, The Lord’s response
029-031, The consequence of the Lord’s response
The governing verb in each of these constellations is WAYYIQTOL.
Considering Narrative Discourse is foundational to the development of
this narrative, it is not surprising that a clear progression and even pattern
appears in the transition between discourses. Clauses 005 and 011 introduce
following imperative statements, classified as Hortatory discourse, made by
the people of Babel. The third Narrative Discourse constellation in 017-020
introduces Yahweh to the story and makes it clear that he is not pleased with
the people. The Lord’s introduction is followed by a Predictive Discourse
constellation that foreshadows what will happen. Hortatory Discourse and a
pronouncement of what is happening follow the Predictive Discourse. Final-
ly, the narrative returns to Narrative Discourse and shows the consequence of
the Lord’s response to the people. A WAYYIQTOL form that functions as
184 Andrew W. Dyck

Narrative Discourse is then shown to perform the function of introducing a

new discourse type.

Predictive Discourse
There is one instance of Predictive Discourse in Gen 11,1-9.
022, The proclamation of the Lord to confuse the languages
This instance is governed by a LoYIQTOL, which is not a traditional govern-
ing verb in Predictive Discourse according to Heller’s classification. Howev-
er, the formation and textual elements aid in the indication that clause 022 is
functioning as this text-type.

Expository Discourse
There is one instance of Expository Discourse in this narrative. It describes
the building material used by the people of Babel for the construction of their
tower.
009-010, A list of the building material
The Participle is the governing verb of this constellation while the QATAL in
clause 010 is classified as a secondary form. It is interesting that the author
would use a participle as the governing verb in this discourse as a more
common function of a participle is adverbial or adjectival in BH, not verbal.
If this participle were to be classified as adverbial or adjectival then it would
be joined with the previous clause.

Interrogative Discourse
There are no instances of Interrogative Discourse in this narrative. For this
reason there will be no analysis of this discourse type.
Hortatory Discourse
Gen 11,1-9 has three Hortatory Discourse constellations.
006-008, (Imperative) The first announcement of construction
012-016, (Imperative) The second announcement of construction
025-028, (Imperative) The announcement of Yahweh’s reaction
The governing verb in each of these discourse constellations is the initial
imperative. The pattern that appears in each of these discourse constellations
is an imperative verb given by a character and is then followed by a YIQTOL
verb that directs the events of the story forward. These Hortatory Discourse
constellations each serve as announcements made by the two primary charac-
ters, the people of Babel and Yahweh.
The final table (Figure 20) collates all of the discourse constellations from
the text. This table only presents four of the five text-types employed by Hel-
ler leaving Interrogative Discourse excluded considering it was not used.
There are four columns to this table. The first distinguishes the four discourse
types. The second column categorizes the different kinds of discourse con-
stellations. The third column counts the number of times the specific constel-
 Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics 185

lation appears in the chapter. The fourth column is the most significant to the
argument of this methodology. This column counts the total number of times
a constellation appears in the narrative. It is here that an argument can be
made for a specific function of a verbal form as it objectively counts the
number of times it is used by the author. According to Heller’s approach, this
discourse linguistic methodology builds a case for verbal function through an
observation of function throughout the entirety of a narrative and pays atten-
tion to sentence grammar rather than isolated instances.
Figure 20. Table of Discourse Constellations for Genesis 11,1-9
Discourse Verb Types Pres. Total in
Type Ch. Narrative
ND QATAL
QATAL, WAYYIQTOL 1 1
QATAL, (Ptc/Vbl)
QATAL, WAYYIQTOL, (Ptc/Vbl) 1 1
QATAL, WAYYIQTOL, (Ptc/Vbl), YIQTOL
QATAL, YIQTOL (w/ past adverb)
WAYYIQTOL (Ptc./Vbl.)
WAYYIQTOL 2 2
Vbl./Ptc./Inc. (Dream Report)
PD YIQTOL 1 1
YIQTOL, WeQATAL
YIQTOL, WeQATAL, (Ptc/Vbl/Inc)
YIQTOL, (Ptc/Vbl/Inc)
WeQATAL
WeYIQTOL
ED Ptc/Vbl
Ptc/Vbl, Inc
Inc
Ptc/Vbl, QATAL/YIQTOL of ‫היה‬ 1 1
Ptc/Vbl, QATAL/YIQTOL of ‫היה‬
Front. Obj. + QATAL/YIQTOL
QATAL/YIQTOL of ‫היה‬
HD Impv/Coh/Juss
Impv/Coh/Juss, WeYIQTOL/YIQTOL 2 2
Impv/Coh/Juss, WeQATAL
Impv/Coh/Juss, WeYIQTOL/YIQTOL,
WeQATAL
Impv/Coh/Juss, QATAL
Impv/Coh/Juss, WeYIQTOL/YIQTOL, 1 1
(We)QATAL
Impv/Coh/Juss, ’al-YIQTOL
Impv/Coh/Juss, WeQATAL, ’al-YIQTOL
’al-YIQTOL
’al-YIQTOL, WeQATAL/YIQTOL
186 Andrew W. Dyck

(WE)YIQTOL-na’,
(WeQATAL/[We]YIQTOL)
QATAL, YIQTOL/WeQATAL

A Critique of Heller’s Discourse Linguistic Methodology

As the previous section introduced the reader to a working example of Hel-
ler’s methodology, I now present a brief critique. This critique includes two
comments, (1) present weaknesses and (2) areas for expansion.
The first weakness of Heller’s methodology has to do with the selection of
a corpus. Heller’s work in Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations
does not account for textual variances. It is understandable why he chooses to
remain loyal to a single textual witness. By expanding the studied corpus to
include textual variances quickly makes the work overwhelming. Also, the
purpose of discourse linguistics is not necessarily to reconstruct and analyze
the truest form of a text, but rather to study BH sentence grammar. Although,
if this methodology is to be used by an individual in biblical translation then
there must be an adaptation of the methodology to include other textual wit-
nesses. By the inclusion of other textual witness I imply that Heller’s meth-
odology or application of his methodology in Narrative Construction and
Discourse Constellations only studies the Masoretic Text and does not pay
attention to any textual variances in the selected text.
A second weakness of Heller’s methodology is found in his treatment of
infinitives and verbal participles. It is not entirely clear how he would classify
such verbs. Several of his discourse text-types and discourse constellations
do argue for the form and function of the participle in certain instances. But,
not all possible instances of the participle were considered, and none for in-
finitives.
The third area of weakness found in Heller’s discourse linguistic method-
ology has to do with his treatment of subordinate clauses. According to his
methodology, a subordinate clause is simply tabulated accordingly to its pri-
mary clause and left unexamined. This is understandable, as a subordinate
clause usually does not influence the overall progression of discourse constel-
lations in a text. However, in my opinion and the result of personal research,
especially in BH psalmic poetry, subordinate clauses can and do influence the
overall flow of the narrative similarly to off-line or inner-paragraph com-
ments.
The area for expansion then must do with the classification and examina-
tion of the subordinate clause and its influence upon the primary clause. It
would not appear that a subordinate clause influences discourse constella-
tions, but what if its shape influences the construction of the primary clause?
Or, similar to inner-paragraph comment and extra-paragraph comment, how
does a subordinate clause influence the narrative progression of simply the
 Roy L. Heller, Discourse Linguistics 187

text? For this expansion in question, I offer five sub-categories for the classi-
fication of subordinate clauses to understand its function.34
Figure 21. Sub-Categories of Subordinate Clauses
Sub-Category Definition
(1) Completion The subordinate clause completes the statement of
primary clause
(2) Modifier The subordinate clause modifies or changes the
statement of the primary clause
(3) Reason The subordinate clause provides a motivational idea,
concept or statement to the primary clauses
(4) Purpose The subordinate clause provides the purpose behind
the primary clause.
(5) Adverbial The subordinate clause functions similarly to inter-
rogative discourse and responds to questions of who?
Where? Etc.
This suggestion is limited to an observation of discourse type or function in
subordinate clauses. It does not pay attention to specific verb formation for
function. Such a suggestion would require a great deal of research not made
available in this paper. However, it is clear that subordinate clauses do devi-
ate from standard or expected verb forms within a classified discourse con-
stellation.

Conclusion
This paper set out to explore, explain, expand, and apply to real instances
Roy L. Heller’s discourse linguistic methodology. This was done, first,
through a brief discussion of the historical development of BH discourse
linguistics starting from the work of Thomas O. Lambdin. Second, I present-
ed an argument for the distinguishing features and unique aspects of Heller’s
model. Third, I applied Heller’s discourse linguistic methodology to real
instances. Here, I presented a brief analysis of the tower of Babel narrative
(Gen 11,1-9). Because of this brief example of Heller’s methodology, there
were several discovered weaknesses. In the fourth section, I reflected on the
application of his methodology and presented several areas for improvement.

Bibliography
Cook, John A. “Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, An Analysis of
Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly
68.1 (2006) 116-17.
Heller, Roy L. Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, An Analysis of
Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose. Harvard Semitic Studies.
Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 2004.

34 My addition of these sub-categories of subordinate clauses stem from conversa-

tions with Roy L. Heller and Mary Conway.
188 Andrew W. Dyck

Hopper, Paul J. “Aspect and Forgrounding in Discourse.” In Discourse and

Syntax, edited by T. Givon, 213-41. New York, Academic, 1979.
Lambdin, Thomas Oden. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York, Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1971.
Longacre, Robert E. Joseph, A Story of Divine Providence, a Text Theoretical
and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48. Winona Lake,
Eisenbrauns, 1989.
Niccacci, Alviero. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. Translated
by W. G. E. Watson. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1990.