000			03883nam a22001817a 4500
005			20240430161401.0
007			ta
008			180806s2024 sa ||||fom|d| 001 e eng |
040			_aZA-BrSAT _cZA-BrSAT
100			_aChiwoko, Maxwell Banda _d1992 _9964
245			_aPrototype and Semantic Field Analysis of the Lexical Item ויםִנָעֲ in the Hebrew Bible: Some Implications for the Fields of Biblical Hebrew Lexicology, Exegesis, and Translation
260			_aJohannesburg _bSouth African Theological Seminary _c2024
300			_a233 _bPDF _cA4 _eAbstract, TOC, Works Cited List
502			_bDoctor of Philosophy in Theology _cSouth African Theological Seminary _d2024 _gDr Bill Domeris
520			_aHebrew Bible translators, exegetes, and lexicologists have differed significantly in their rendering and interpretation of the lexical item ויםִנָעֲ in the Hebrew Bible. For instance, Bible translators have rendered this term using nine glosses while showing variations in the rendering of the term in similar verses, but without offering any linguistic justification. This research was aimed at conducting a lexical analysis of the term to find out whether the term has multiple senses or not – and to establish a linguistic explanation for the multiplicity of senses if that is found to be the case. After reviewing different relevant scholarly literature on the term, this research observed several problems. Singling out two, the first problem that was observed is that there is a lack of proper linguistic theory in analysing the term ויםִנָעֲ. Secondly, no scholar has conducted a comprehensive analysis of all the cases of ויםִנָעֲ in the Hebrew Bible despite the fact that this term poses special problems. To deal with the first problem, the research scrutinized different modern linguistic semantic theories for dealing with the problem. The lexical field and prototype theories were adopted to form the basis of the linguistic study of the term. As a solution to the second problem, the study used modern linguistic semantic theories of lexical field and prototype to analyse all the cases of the term ויםִנָעֲ in the Hebrew Bible. The lexical field theory has helped to analyse the term in its contextual domain and relationship with other lexical items that co-occur with it. On the other hand, the prototype theory has helped to explain the linguistic motivation behind sense extension of the term. After analysing all the occurrences of the term, the study found that this term has two senses: afflicted and humble. For the sense “afflicted,” the study discovered that this sense is used to describe those who are in a relationship with God but face various forms of physical afflictions caused by others who are, in some contexts, identified as “wicked.” On the other hand, the sense “humble” is preferred in contexts where the term is used to refer to those who willingly submit to God. Thus, the key difference between the two senses is that the first is used where those designated by the term are victimised by other people while the latter is used for those who aren’t victimized by others but express their submission to God in different circumstances. Using the frequency model of Geeraerts (2006) and Vyvyan (2005), the sense “afflicted” was identified as the prototype sense as it registers more occurrences than the sense “humble.” On the other hand, the “part-for-the-whole” metononmy proposed by Lakoff (2003) was identified as the cognitive mechanism behind the extension of the sense from “afflicted” to humble. From the discussion of the findings of this research, several practical implications have been drawn for the fields of Biblical Hebrew lexicology, Hebrew Bible translation, exegesis, and Christian Theology.
650		0	_aHebrew language _9940
942			_2ddc _cTHE
999			_c16960 _d16960