Andrew Chin Hei Leong. A Cognitive Semantic Study of Biblical Hebrew

Leong’s A Cognitive Semantic Study of Biblical Hebrew is a worthy addition to Brill’s “Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics” series. In this published version of his dissertation, Leong demonstrates the benefits of cognitive semantic analysis while analyzing the semantic structure of the verbal root šlm. The Introduction and Methodology chapters are helpful for understanding the field of semantic analysis, while the following chapters show the practical applications of the linguistic theory.His introduction lays the foundation for the semantic question by asking whether the root šlm is polysemous or several homonyms. He begins by identifying the confusion created in the standard lexical works and noting the flaws in prior semantic studies that conflate the meaning of the verb with the related noun (pp. 2–11). Further, Leong acknowledges the problem of cognate studies within the field of Hebrew lexical analysis (p. 12). Those who work in this field are aware of the draw of the cognate languages, which are often thought to provide the answers missing from our Hebrew data. Leong approaches the cognate semantic discussion aware of the problems inherent with such analyses but, relating cognate studies to etymological studies, he states that “even Barr would not deny that etymology can help to understand a given word” (p. 12). Given the concerns with cognate studies mentioned, the following discussion of the cognate terms could be aided by a brief discussion on how cognate studies can be beneficial and carried out cautiously.Chapter 1 addresses the methodological approach of the study. It was refreshing to read Leong’s evaluation of how dictionaries fail to discuss how they distinguish between homonyms and polysemous terms (p. 25). This is a problem with traditional semantic analysis that often goes unnoticed. As he notes, lexical works tend to make such decisions behind the scenes, without informing their users of their criteria or decision process. Leong then evaluates three approaches to distinguishing between homonymous and polysemous meanings—dismissing the etymology (pp. 26–27) and synchronic relatedness (pp. 27–28) methods in favor of the cognitive semantic approach (pp. 28–32). It is upon this cognitive semantics foundation that Leong builds his methodology. His methodology incorporates distributional corpus analysis (pp. 34–37), frame semantics (pp. 37–40), and valence (pp. 40–41). Throughout this chapter, Leong provides examples of each feature in English along with helpful tables and diagrams that aid those with little to no familiarity of cognitive semantics to grasp the concepts. He concludes his methodology chapter with the needed acknowledgment that linguistic research into BH is inherently limited due to the problems of studying a dead language with no native speakers (p. 44).In chapters 2, 3, and 4, the term šlm is evaluated based on its meaning within the D, G, and H stems, respectively. The chapter on the D-Stem is the longest at 158 pages, which fits its frequent use. In these chapters, Leong explores each occurrence of šlm based on the cognitive semantic methodology laid out in chapter 1. The thorough analysis of each verse includes variations in translations, textual critical challenges, and other difficulties in determining meaning. Such a thoroughly documented analysis of each use allows the reader to evaluate the application of the methodology and identify all factors that led to the research conclusions. Leong’s analysis concludes that šlm is polysemous and each stem conveys two semantic frames: the D Stem creates “to give back” and “to retribute” (p. 45), the G stem creates “to be complete/remain intact” and “to be finished” (p. 203), and the H-stem creates “to be complete” and “to form an alliance” (p. 218). He then provides two chapters (5 and 6) synthesizing the data and discussing wider implications.Leong briefly discusses the implications of his conclusions in relation to theories on stem formation (pp. 252–53). This discussion notably relies on “traditional” theories of stem formation without interaction with current linguistic theories. It also does not acknowledge that šlm is stative, which affects how stem formations shape its meaning. In many current theories, the D stem of the stative šlm would be labeled as a type of causative, which (when understood with the specific linguistic definition used of causative) appears to correspond to this monograph’s conclusions. Thus, focusing on the stative nature of the G stem and interacting with more recent theories on stem formations would lend further support to Leong’s conclusion strengthening his argument.The conclusion rightly notes that “there is not sufficient theoretical discussion on the question of homonymy and polysemy in Biblical Hebrew lexicography in general and in the study of lexemes in particular.” (p. 293). Too often this level of discussion is ignored, and conclusions are based on either tradition or assumptions that have not been explored. By exploring the term šlm with cognitive semantics, Leong provides a framework and an example on how such discussions are both lexically and practically important. His conclusion also notes that his frame analysis revealed the flexibility of Hebrew prepositions that calls into question the rigid lists of English glosses that are often taught (p. 294). This is an area of research that Leong rightly notes needs more study.Perhaps the most disrupting conclusion from Leong’s work is his conclusion that the association of the root šlm with “peace” is incorrect; stating specifically “that contemporary theological discourses, have overestimated the positivity of šlm (and שָׁלוֹם) when promoting the notion of peace, especially in contexts of interpersonal and international relations” (p. 296). Too often, the biblical concept of “peace” is simplified to a pleasing idea instead of the complicated theological issue that is layered with many other complicated theological issues. Leong’s lexical work leads us to a place where we should reconsider our wider theology and ask whether we have accepted a simple answer where there is no simple answer

Biblical Hebrew · Biblical studies · Chin · Cognition · Hebrew · Hebrew Bible · Linguistics · Mathematical analysis · Psychiatry · Theology · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Historical and Linguistic Studies · Mathematics · Natural Language Processing Techniques · Neuroscience · Philosophy · Psychology · Geology · Paleontology