JOURNAL OF

NORTHWEST SEMITIC
LANGUAGES
VOLUME 43/1
2017

EDITORS:

J COOK I CORNELIUS G R KOTZÉ

C H J VAN DER MERWE

VOLUME EDITOR:

I CORNELIUS

at Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Editorial Board:
Jan Joosten (Oxford), Meir Malul (Haifa), Cynthia Miller-Naudé
(Bloemfontein), Jacobus Naudé (Bloemfontein), Herbert Niehr
(Tübingen), Hermann-Josef Stipp (München), Ernst Wendland
(Lusaka), Arie van der Kooij (Leiden)

Department of Ancient Studies

Stellenbosch University
 The Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
(ISSN 0259-0131) is published half-yearly

JNSL is an accredited South African journal. It publishes peer reviewed

research articles on the Ancient Near East. As part of the peer review
policy all contributions are refereed before publication by scholars who
are recognised as experts in the particular field of study.

Contributions and books for review should be sent to

The Editor: JNSL
Department of Ancient Studies
Stellenbosch University
Private Bag X1, Matieland, ZA-7602
SOUTH AFRICA
e-mail: ancient7@sun.ac.za

Subscriptions should be sent to the same address but marked as

Subscription: JNSL

Copyright
Department of Ancient Studies, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch,
SOUTH AFRICA

House rules
Articles submitted for publication must be according to the house rules
on the homepage

JNSL homepage (house rules, contents, subscription)

http://academic.sun.ac.za/jnsl/

TO ORDER: Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Per Invoice $ 70.00

Send an e-mail to Ms L C Swanepoel (ancient7@sun.ac.za) € 55.00
Booksellers - 30%

For further subscription information: e-mail Ms L C Swanepoel (ancient7@sun.ac.za)

 Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 43/1 (2017), pp. 1-18

David M. Dalwood (Ambrose University)

A TEXT OF SONGS? SOME OBSERVATIONS
REGARDING COHESION AND TEXTURE IN THE
SONG OF SONGS

ABSTRACT
Using Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) to analyze the unity of the Song of Songs,
this article argues that a firmer distinction must be drawn between considerations of
structure and cohesion. To that end, I suggest that “structure” should be restricted to
the various syntagmatic relations of a language as oriented across linguistic domains,
while “cohesion”, which may obtain across clause boundaries, refers specifically to
those semantic relations that together define a discourse as text and infuse it with
meaning. This article proceeds to identify and describe the cohesive effects exerted upon
the Song of Songs by its Solomonic superscription (‫ ) ִל ְשֹׁלמֹה‬and a selection of the terms
employed therein in reference to the male and female lovers (‫דּוֹד‬, ‫יָ ֶפה‬, ‫)ר ְעיָ ה‬.
ַ

1. INTRODUCTION
It is a matter of considerable scholarly dispute whether the Song of Songs
constitutes one poem or several. Dependent on the interpretive perspective
one adopts in response to this issue, there is then further disagreement on
how the essential unity or disunity of the final form of this work governs
the relationships between its constituent parts. While an enormous quantity
of secondary literature has been produced in support of both positions in
this debate, such research has often focused on the Song’s structural and
poetic features at the expense of first ascertaining whether this book
constitutes semantic text. This article offers a first and, by necessity,
preliminary step towards addressing this analytical deficit, applying the
theoretical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), which
locates the formation of text in an author’s use of semantically meaningful
cohesive elements, to assess the texture of the Song. Tracking a selection
of the lexical expressions used therein to describe each of the lovers, which
in their interrelated occurrences give cohesion to the book by emphasizing
the intimacy and passion shared between these two figures, I contend that
in its final form the Song presents itself to be interpreted as an instance of
unified text.1

1 At various points in this essay I will speak of the Song’s (implied) “author” or
“poet”. As my argument is not dependent on any one view of the compositional
2 DAVID M. DALWOOD

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Though not always given a firm theoretical grounding in the pertinent
linguistics literature, attempts to determine the degree of structural unity in
the Song of Songs have typically hinged on one’s initial assessment of the
book’s overarching literary features as well as, to a lesser extent, the manner
in which one delineates its compositional history.2 Postulating a high
degree of organization to this work, several scholars have sought to
demarcate a dramatic plot underlying the language of the Song. While
varying slightly among exegetes, in a typical permutation the Song’s
purported narrative recounts a romance between a Solomonic king and his
shepherdess lover.3 Although at present only accepted by a limited number
of interpreters (e.g., Dillow 1977:7-8; Provan 2001:245-246), to the extent
that such a plot structure could be substantiated in the poetry of the book
itself this dramatic reading lends obvious support to a treatment of Canticles
as a unified whole.4 Illustrating several of the problems attached to this
interpretation of the Song, however, is the work of Goulder (1986:2-4) who,
though appealing to internal markers such as the presence of the daughters
of Jerusalem in order to demarcate the book’s constituent scenes, is
ultimately forced to insert otherwise absent stage directions at key moments
of the work in order to give plausibility to his thesis.5 Given the ease with
which its proponents can slip into eisegetical readings of the Song in order
to confirm their hermeneutic,6 therefore, recent treatments of the book’s

history of Canticles, note that my use of such terms is merely a shorthand way
of referring to the anonymous individual(s) responsible for the particular passage
under analysis.
2 In anticipation of the more formal definition of “structure” that will be provided
later in this essay, for the present purposes I follow Halliday & Matthiessen
(2014:21-22) in taking this term to refer to the ordering of the various constituent
syntagmatic relations of a language within particular linguistic domains. With
this preliminary definition in mind, compare my opening comments in this
section with those of Roberts (2007:13), who similarly sees scholarly attempts
to identify Canticles as a structural unity as frequently following a “top down”
approach that, presupposing the presence of a macro-structure, moves from the
organization of units of higher to those of lower rank.
3 See, for instance, Delitzsch (1973:8-11).
4 See the summary of this approach in Pope (1977:40-41).
5 E.g. the insertion of “[dance]” between 7:1 and 2 (Goulder 1986:54).
6 Cf. the critiques in Exum (1973:78-79); Longman (2001:42-43).
A TEXT OF SONGS? 3

unity have largely rejected such dramatic interpretations in favour of

evidence for unity drawn from the literary qualities attested in the language
of the work itself. To this end, more persuasive arguments for the structural
unity of the Song have been mustered on the basis of the book’s perceived
continuity of voice, characterization, and springtime setting (Bloch &
Bloch 1995:19; Exum 2005:34), as well as the recurrence of discernable
repetends (e.g. 2:7; 3:5; 8:4) (Murphy 1979:436-443; Fox 1985:209-222;
Fredericks & Estes 2010:290; Wendland 2013:161-217).
Unconvinced by unified readings of the Song, however, several
commentators have instead argued that the work is comprised of a plurality
of discrete poems featuring disconnected speakers who act in several
contrasting geographic settings (e.g. Falk 1990:107-109).7 As one
proponent of this view, Falk (1982), whose work is based on the earlier
research of Landsberger (1954), has attempted to tie the organizing features
of Canticles to the book’s historical origins. Rather than marking the
homogeneity of the original work, Falk (1982:66-67; against Fox
1985:219-220) contends that the inclusion of cohesive elements such as
repeated keywords merely serves to highlight the attempts of a later
redactor to contrive an organization for otherwise disparate compositions.
Of further note, and with some correspondence to the line of argumentation
advanced by Falk, other commentators have observed the connotations of
plurality conveyed by the superscribed expression ‫“( ִשׁיר ַה ִשּׁ ִירים‬The Song
of Songs”) at the outset of the Song (1:1). Besides being simply a
superlative to mark the superiority of Canticles relative to other poems,8 for
these exegetes this opening phrase carries the further function of hinting at
the presence of a multiplicity of constituent works within the final form of
the Song (Falk 1982:107-108; Longman 2001:88; Garrett 2004:26).
As will become apparent in later sections of this essay, the linguistic
approach adopted in the present study shares certain points of
methodological correspondence with the work of several of those scholars
highlighted thus far, albeit with important theoretical differences. However,
the intention of my analysis finds its closest analogue in Clines’ (1995)
treatment of the social and political dynamics that influenced the
                                                       
7 Of those scholars reading the Song as consisting of multiple poems, not all accept
that the characters therein are discontinuous; e.g. Longman (2001:14-15).
8 That the juxtaposition of two identical nouns within a construct chain indicates
a superlative is commonly recognized by Biblical Hebrew grammarians; cf.
GKC §133(i); Waltke & O’Connor (1990:154); Van der Merwe, Naudé &
Kroeze (1999:237).
4 DAVID M. DALWOOD

composition of the Song. Of particular note in this respect is Clines’ attempt

to draw readers’ attention to the manner in which Canticles functions as
text, by which he explicitly means its historical realization as a work
authored by an Israelite man to be read and appropriated by a “single, lone
reader” (1995:96-99).9 With this definition of text informing his approach,
Clines treats the recognition of the textuality of the Song as a prerequisite
for an effective interpretation of its contents, suggesting that an explicit
rather than tacit acknowledgement of this quality of the book supports the
further analysis of its effects on ancient and modern readers.10 While Clines
is undoubtedly correct that the Song, as preserved in the Masoretic Text
(MT), is attested in a graphic medium, the development of his thesis is
hampered by the terminological imprecision underlying his understanding
of “text,” which, though not acknowledged in Clines’ essay, maintains in
its linguistic usage the more general function of denoting manifestations of
written or oral language that, though potentially interpreted by
readers/hearers, need not have an audience present for their realization (cf.
Lyons 1977:30; Halliday & Matthiessen 2014:3). Consequently, although
Clines’ call for the treatment of Canticles as text provides a valuable point
of departure for my own attempts to focus attention on the textual cohesion
of the work, it must be noted at the outset that this is not necessarily to
accept the interpretation of the Song that Clines provides.

3. COHESION IN SFL PERSPECTIVE

In contrast to most of the approaches highlighted, albeit only briefly, in the
preceding literature review, the analysis attempted in this paper draws
primarily from the theoretical insights available in Systemic Functional
Linguistics (SFL), which situates text within natural occurrences of
language and argues for its emergence as the product of an author’s
selection of cohesive ties to unify otherwise disjointed clauses (Halliday &
Hasan 1976:1-5; cf. Westfall 2005:30-31). To that end, and in
contradistinction to the emphasis on the structural and poetic features of the

                                                       
9 In addition to my later critiques, it should be noted at this juncture that such a
characterization of the ancient transmission and social setting of the Song,
including especially its failure to account for the likelihood that the Song would
have been presented orally (cf. Bekkenkamp 2000:64 n. 19), is a noticeable flaw
in Clines’ account.
10 This latter subject is taken up in the remainder of his essay (Clines 1995:107-
121).
A TEXT OF SONGS? 5

Song identified in the arguments surveyed earlier,11 the framework adopted

here differentiates itself on account of its intent to analyze semantically the
manner in which linguistic elements in separate sections of Canticles enter
into relationships of meaning with each other such that a reader’s
interpretation of one expression is constrained by her understanding of
another. Being treated under the general heading of “cohesion” and
examined in terms of their ability to give “texture” to a discourse, these
relations (formally termed “ties” in their individual manifestations) obtain
across clause boundaries and, consequently, are not governed by
considerations of structure, which is understood to refer specifically to the
ordering of the various constituent syntagmatic relations of a language
within particular linguistic domains (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014:21-22).
Rather, within SFL emphasis is placed on assessing an author’s ability to
manipulate cohesive ties in order to unify her language as a single semantic
unit distinguishable from its co-text (Halliday & Hasan 1976:1-3).
Closely associated in their ability to give texture to a discourse are
elements of referential and lexical cohesion. Within a text, the former
manifests itself according to the constraints of information structure; thus,
when an author determines that a particular entity is identifiable in the
discourse model of the reader, s/he will choose a construction that must be
interpreted in relation to another entity within the text (Halliday &
Matthiessen 2014:623-624). Pronouns provide obvious instances within the
Song in which this relationship of reference creates cohesion between
different clauses, as the following example from Song 8:8, 9 illustrates:12
MT: Song 8:8 (γ) English Translation: Song 8:8 (γ)
‫ַמה־נַּ ֲע ֶשׂה ַל ֲאח ֵֹתנוּ‬ What shall we do for our sister,
MT: Song 8:9 (α) English Translation: Song 8:9 (α)
‫ם־חוֹמה ִהיא‬ָ ‫ִא‬ If she is a wall,
Linking these two lines is the anaphoric relationship between the pronoun
‫ ִהיא‬in 8:9α and its antecedent noun ‫ אָחוֹת‬in the preceding strophe, with the
presence of the former establishing a cohesive tie with the latter by forcing
                                                       
11 Although the terminology is somewhat foreign to biblical studies, and
particularly to the study of the Hebrew Bible, the distinction between linguistic
cohesion and structure noted above, which will be given further elaboration in
this section, is a particularly applicable insight into the study of ancient literature
available in SFL. For the importance of this dichotomy to the theoretical model
adopted here, see Halliday & Hasan (1976:6-13).
12 In this example I have followed the line breaks suggested in BHS.
6 DAVID M. DALWOOD

readers to look back within the text to 8:8γ in order to be able to correctly
interpret 8:9α (Halliday & Hasan 1976:14).13 Moreover, insofar as each of
these expressions points to the same discourse entity, referential cohesion
between the two is reinforced by a further relationship of co-reference
(Halliday & Matthiessen 2014:625-626).
Finally, although in this example the antecedent of the pronoun is located
in a closely proximate clause, it is important to note that both referential
and lexical cohesive ties may serve to connect distal sections of a discourse.
This may be accomplished, for example, through the use of cohesive chains,
in which a series of referring elements, such as pronouns, separate an
expression from its interpretive constraint (Halliday & Hasan 1976:15, 330-
331). Within Canticles, it is possible to identify such a chain in the repeated
mention of the “daughters of Jerusalem” (ִ‫רוּשׁ ַלם‬ ְ who are first
ָ ְ‫)בּנוֹת י‬,
introduced by their full title (1:5) and then subsequently referred to with an
imperative verb phrase (‫ל־תּ ְראוּנִ י‬ ַ 1:6). The presence of the latter requires
ִ ‫;א‬
that readers, in order to interpret the later mention of the daughters in the
woman’s adjurations that these figures not “rouse or awaken lovemaking
until it desires” (2:7; 3:5; 8:4), read backwards across multiple clauses in
order to reach the initial direct mention of this group in 1:5. The potential
applications of this feature of cohesion will have further bearing below in
my discussion of the poem’s superscription and the poet’s use of lexical
collocation.
Discerning the import of lexical cohesion for the creation of texture in a
discourse is significantly more challenging than determining the effects of
referentially cohesive ties, which results from the general tendency for
well-formed utterances to maintain an emphasis on particular subjects and,
consequently, to employ only a limited selection of lexemes (Halliday &
Hasan 1976:288-289). Nevertheless, it is possible for instances of
repetition, in which an author reuses a particular lexeme across a series of
constructions, and collocations, in which several lexemes recur in similar
linguistic settings but do not necessarily share a pre-existing semantic
connection, to promote the texture of a discourse by progressively infusing
certain terms with a meaning that informs the larger development of the
work (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014:644-645, 648-650). In the case of the
Song, I argue below that one manifestation of this kind of cohesion is found
in the author’s interrelated use of expressions to refer to each of the lovers,
                                                       
13 Since the pronoun in 8:9α is separated from its antecedent by a further use of a
pronoun in 8:8δ, this is also an instance of a “mediated tie” (Halliday & Hasan
1976:330-331).
A TEXT OF SONGS? 7

which, by virtue of their repeated occurrence in particular environments

within the text, emphasize for readers the feelings of intimacy and passion
shared between each of these figures.
By focusing on an examination of lexical cohesion within Canticles,
which will necessarily relate to the discussion of referential cohesion
presented earlier, I have chosen to limit myself to an assessment of how the
expressions ‫“( דּוֹד‬beloved” or “lovemaking”), ‫“( יָ ֶפה‬beautiful [one]”), and
‫“( ַר ְעיָ ה‬beloved companion”) contribute to the development of texture in
this book. Supporting the definition of this book as text, I contend, is the
interaction between these different terms over the course of the discourse,
which as descriptors for each of the lovers attune readers to the relational
intimacy between these two characters.

4. TRACKING COHESION
Although not included within the set of expressions that constitutes the
focus of the present study, it is nevertheless necessary in order to ensure the
clarity of my later analysis of the terms for the two lovers to treat at the
outset the potentially cohesive effects exerted on the development of
Canticles by the opening superscription ‫“( ִשׁיר ַה ִשּׁ ִירים ֲא ֶשׁר ִל ְשֹׁלמֹה‬The Song
of Songs, which is Solomon’s”; 1:1), and in particular the extent to which
this verse relates to discussions regarding the identity of the male figure
within the subsequent discourse. In this respect, aside from the superlative
connotations conveyed by this expression noted earlier, there is general
agreement amongst commentators that, in a manner analogous to the
function of the superscriptions in the Psalter, the mention of Solomon at the
beginning of Canticles does not indicate Solomonic authorship of the work
(e.g. Provan 2001:235; Schwab 2008:739).14 Less clear, however, is
whether the masculine singular noun ‫“( ְשֹׁלמֹה‬Solomon”) functions as the
antecedent for the grammatically concordant pronominal expressions used
throughout the remainder of the Song to refer to the male lover.15
Evidencing the nature of this problem is the opening strophe of the poem
(1:2), which begins with a use of the jussive verb ‫“( ִי ָשּׁ ֵקנִ י‬Let him kiss me”)
that, by virtue of having only an implied subject, refers readers elsewhere
in the text in order to find a lexicalized mention of its referent. However,
                                                       
14 It should be pointed out that, in addition to marking authorship, the preposition
‫ ְל‬may also indicate the topic of an utterance or the tradition in relation to which
an utterance is framed (cf. Van der Merwe, Naudé & Kroeze 1999:284-287).
15 The use of the superscription in this manner is accepted implicitly by Delitzsch
(1973:17-19); and Goulder (1986:11).
8 DAVID M. DALWOOD

whereas in the previously discussed example from Song 8:8, 9 the pronoun
entered into an anaphoric relationship with a constituent in the preceding
verse, as the first strophe of the discourse it is unclear if any other element
effects a similar interpretive constraint on 1:2.16 As a closely proximate
construction, therefore, it might be conjectured that the mention of Solomon
in 1:1 serves ultimately to introduce a cohesive chain into Canticles
according to which the interpretation of both the pronominalized references
to the man and the later mention of the kingly figure (Song 1:5; 3:7, 9, 11;
8:11-12) relate anaphorically to the Solomonic superscription.
Setting aside the interpretive difficulties of this proposal, which
necessarily limits the potential appropriation of the Song by readers in
different historical contexts by assigning a specific identity to the poem’s
male figure (Longman 2001:91; Exum 2005:8-9), it is not necessitated ipso
facto by my attempts to delineate instances of cohesion within Canticles
that I treat the implied subject of ‫ ִי ָשּׁ ֵקנִ י‬in 1:2 as presupposing an explicitly
mentioned entity elsewhere in the text. Rather, on account of its role in
introducing the themes of the book, it is preferable to read ‫ ִי ָשּׁ ֵקנִ י‬as
contributing “imaginary texture” to this verse, with readers being forced to
create texture for themselves by supplying a referent for the implied subject
of the verb (Halliday & Hasan 1976:297). In addition to facilitating a
greater hermeneutical breadth of interpretations for the Song, the cohesive
ambiguity maintained by this reading of 1:2 situates the action it introduces
in medias res, suggesting that the author has manipulated her cohesive
resources in order to create the illusion of a preceding text that would
inform a reading of this verse. Commending such an understanding of 1:2
is the intensity of the female’s speech therein, which alternates between the
second and third person in order to emphasize the woman’s passion for her
beloved (Murphy 1990:127; Hess 2005:47-48). Therefore, for the purposes
of this article I will address a selection of the expressions used to refer to
each of these lovers without identifying terms for the man as referentially
cohesive with the mention of Solomon in the book’s superscription and,

16 Bear in mind as well that endophoric cohesion may be cataphoric instead of

anaphoric, with an element looking forward in a discourse for its interpretation
(Halliday & Hasan 1976:17; Brown & Yule 1983:192-193). Thus, though for the
present purposes I will only be treating the cohesive significance of the
Solomonic superscription itself, it should be noted that in interpreting Song 1:2
one could advance the corollary argument that the introduction of the unnamed
masculine entity in this verse serves linguistically to subtly coax readers into
anticipating the poet’s later references to the kingly figure.
A TEXT OF SONGS? 9

consequently, will refrain from denoting the male lover by means of the
proper noun “Solomon”.
As an instance of heavily marked cohesion, the speech begun in 1:2
introduces the feeling of intimacy between the male and female lovers that
is progressively embellished throughout the Song (Murphy 1990:102;
Longman 2001:91). In the course of the poem’s development, this
overarching sense of mutual passion is further supported by the cohesive
effects of the various terms used to describe each of these figures. Thus, the
author of the Song uses the noun ‫ דּוֹד‬in reference both to the man (presented
as a singular entity) and to the act of lovemaking, with the result that readers
are encouraged to associate each meaning and thereby interpret the man as
the ultimate object of the woman’s affection. Conversely, the choice of the
terms ‫ יָ ֶפה‬and ‫ ַר ְעיָ ה‬to refer to the (likewise singular) woman establishes
cohesion by means of lexical collocation, with the overlapping occurrences
of each expression creating an interpretative link between the man’s erotic
appreciation of his lover’s physical beauty and the woman’s role as his
intimate companion.
4.1 Repetition: ‫דּוֹד‬
Although there is frequent overlap between the two categories, instances of
lexical cohesion need not also be instances of referential cohesion (Halliday
& Matthiessen 2014:644). Rather, and following from the natural tendency
for text to be both created and interpreted in a linear fashion (e.g. Levelt
1981), the former may instantiate itself within a discourse through the
repeated occurrence of a single lexeme with multiple referents, such that a
reader interprets the term’s sense in one setting based on a meaning it has
acquired elsewhere in the text (Halliday & Hasan 1976:289). This
observation has particular bearing for an analysis of the significance of ‫דּוֹד‬
within the Song, which, while frequently and recurrently employed by the
woman in reference to the man,17 is on one occasion applied to the woman
(7:14),18 and, in a more general usage, elsewhere describes the act of
lovemaking.19 With these observations in mind, I argue in this first section
that besides influencing the cohesion of Canticles through its repetition
                                                       
17 Song 1:13, 14, 16; 2:3, 8-10, 16-17; 4:16; 5:2, 4-6, 8-10, 16; 6:1-3; 7:10-11 (9-
10); 8:5, 14.
18 Although this verse is typically assumed to be an utterance of the woman
describing the man (e.g. Garrett 2004:247), the use of a feminine suffix in the
expression ‫דּוֹדי ָצ ַפנְ ִתּי ָלְך‬ ִ suggests that it is the man speaking to the woman.
19 Song 1:2, 4; 4:10; 5:1; 7:10 (9), 13 (12).
10 DAVID M. DALWOOD

therein, ‫ דּוֹד‬has a unifying effect on the development of this discourse that

stems from the progressive interpenetration of its various meanings, which
collectively serve to highlight the multifaceted nature of the woman’s
affections for her beloved.
Contributing to the lexical setting that underlies the connotations carried
by ‫ דּוֹד‬in the Song is the co-textual frame provided by the term’s usage in
the larger corpus of the Hebrew Bible. To this end, despite only being
attested in a limited number of cases outside Canticles, an intertextual
connection may be drawn between its occurrence in this book and its
reference to sexual intercourse in both Prov 7:18 and Ezek 23:17 (Harris
1980:184; DCH II:423). Signalling the value of these verses for an
interpretation of the poet’s inclusion of ‫ דּוֹד‬within the Song, note that when
first introduced to this discourse in 1:2 the term functions within the
woman’s subtly sensual opening request to be kissed by her beloved (Fox
1985:97). Here, governed by a causal ‫ ִכּי‬particle, the woman justifies her
petition with the statement that the man’s “lovemaking is better than wine”
(‫י־טוֹבים דּ ֶֹדיָך ִמיָּ יִ ן‬
ִ ִ (Garrett 2004:128). Not confined in its distribution to
‫)כּ‬
statements pertaining to the lovemaking capabilities of the man, however,
‫ דּוֹד‬further refers to the woman’s caresses (4:10; 7:10 [9]) as well as to the
sexual acts the couple engage in together (5:1).
Love and the enjoyment of sexuality are central images throughout the
Song (e.g. Murphy 1979:442), with Exum (2005:9-11) noting the inherent
interpretive difficulties in consistently distinguishing between the lovers’
passionate longing for each other and the realization of their desire.
Therefore, with its apparently erotic connotations established by the
aforementioned uses of the word, the woman’s choice of the lexeme ‫ דּוֹד‬as
a term of endearment for her beloved creates a semantic link between the
woman’s perception of this individual as an object of her desire and his
sexual prowess.20 Conversely, the textual history acquired by this word as
the discourse unfolds ensures that even when used in reference to
lovemaking, readers are already attuned to the man’s role as the ultimate
focus of the woman’s sensual passion. On the basis of these observations,
it is therefore possible to treat the presence of ‫ דּוֹד‬within the Song as a

                                                       
20 It is, furthermore, a principle in modern linguistics that meaning is directly
related to choice. Thus, in selecting this particular noun to refer to both the man
and to lovemaking (and not some other term for either), the effect may be
understood as linguistically meaningful in the development of the discourse (cf.
Lyons 1968:413-414).
A TEXT OF SONGS? 11

cohesive element,21 since, on account of its variegated application, readers

are coaxed into interpreting the term’s occurrence in one lexical
environment in light of how ‫ דּוֹד‬is used elsewhere.
Drawing particular attention to the author’s use of ‫ דּוֹד‬as a means of
providing such unity to Canticles are those instances where both of the
term’s meanings find expression in close proximity to each other. Such is
the case in 7:12-13 [11-12], wherein the woman urges her beloved (‫)דוֹדי‬ִ to
come to her vineyard, with the man then appropriating the erotic aspects of
ִ 22
this reference in his subsequent pledge to give the female his love (‫)דוֹדי‬.
Similarly, as a bridge between what are often taken as different poetic units
(Exum 1973; Fox 1985:141-142; Murphy 1990:168; Bergant 2001:59-60),
the woman’s use of ‫ דּוֹד‬in 5:2 to refer to her beloved coheres as a result of
                                                       
21 It may be noted, moreover, that the preceding argument lends itself further to
literary readings of the Song insofar as it enables commentators to identify the
frequent inclusion of ‫ דּוֹד‬within the poem as a “macro-cohesive” motif informing
the rhetoric of the work as a whole.
22 Longman (2001:201 n. 52), as but one example in this respect, has observed the
translational difficulties that arise from the apparent tension between the use of
what is seemingly a feminine suffix in the concluding prepositional phrase of v.
13 (‫)לְך‬, ָ which would indicate that it is the man speaking to the woman, and the
presence of the woman’s speech in the immediately preceding co-text. Owing to
the position of this expression at the end of the verse, it might be suggested in
response to this issue that the suffix itself should be read as a second person
masculine pausal form (see Van der Merwe, Naudé & Kroeze 1999:46-47), a
reading supported by the LXX, which attests “my breasts” instead of “my love”
in this passage (cf. Pope 1977:647). Though for the present purposes I have
interpreted the concluding remarks of v. 13 as the man’s interjectory address to
his lover, observe that in either case the cohesive effects of the poet’s use of ‫דּוֹד‬
are maintained. Thus, if understood as an instance of the woman’s speech, note
the frequently exegeted literary connections that may then be posited between
the comments here and the man’s earlier, and profoundly erotic, statements in
2:11-14 inviting his lover to a romantic tryst (Assis 2009:223-224). Of
significance for my argument in this section is the formal relationship of lexical
cohesion that obtains between these two passages, with the woman’s prefatory
remarks in 2:10 introducing the man as the speaker of vv. 11-14 by means of the
expression ‫דוֹדי‬ ִ and thus attuning readers to the sensuous qualities of the
subsequent rhetoric, a suggestion that is then given particularly strong
confirmation if one identifies 7:13 as the woman’s response (as is done, e.g., by
Exum 2005:241).
12 DAVID M. DALWOOD

lexical repetition to the previous use of the lexeme in 5:1, despite the latter
being an utterance of the daughters of Jerusalem intended to encourage the
couple to engage in lovemaking. Consequently, although an explicitly
marked structural link such as a coordinate conjunction is lacking to
connect vv. 4:8-5:1 and 5:2-6:3,23 in a linear reading of the book there is a
semantic continuation between the former and the latter verses insofar as
the connotations of ‫ דּוֹד‬are implicitly carried forward into, and joined with,
the woman’s stated perceptions of the man.
Since both of these meanings are maintained and interwoven throughout
the Song, the author’s use of ‫ דּוֹד‬encourages readers to treat each occurrence
of this term in light of its preceding linguistic environment. With ‫דּוֹד‬
referring both to the man and to sexual acts, this results in readers becoming
progressively attuned to the woman’s feelings of both intimacy and passion
for her beloved, who is thereby presented as the ultimate object of her
sexual desire.
4.2 Collocational Cohesion: ‫ יָ ֶפה‬and ‫ַר ְעיָ ה‬
With the connection between sexual desire and affection emphasized by the
woman’s use of ‫דּוֹד‬, a parallel effect is achieved within the poem through
the man’s choice of the terms ‫ יָ ֶפה‬and ‫ ַר ְעיָ ה‬to describe the woman, which
comports with the general recognition amongst commentators that
Canticles portrays both the male and the female lovers as sharing a sense of
mutual desire (cf. Longman 2001:15-16; Exum 2005:25). By placing these
two terms within a recurrent lexical collocation, the poet subtly connects
the female’s physical beauty with her role as the man’s companion, thereby
enabling her to draw out the composite nature of the man’s adoration for
his love. However, rather than effecting unity on the basis of any particular
pre-existing semantic overlap, as was the case for the significance of ‫דּוֹד‬
discussed earlier, this collocation contributes to cohesion through the
regular and expected co-occurrence of its constituent terms at similar points
                                                       
23 In offering this admittedly cursory allusion to such structural relations I follow
the approach outlined by Halliday & Hasan (1976:Ch. 5), who distinguish
between the above named logical relations (which obtain, for instance, between
nouns joined together in a noun complex) and conjunctives, the latter suggest
cohesion insofar as they are “a specification of the way in which what is to follow
is systematically connected to what has gone before” (Halliday & Hasan
1976:227). It should be apparent that this discussion, if pursued in greater detail
than is possible here, pertains most directly to the various available functions of
ְ‫ו‬.
A TEXT OF SONGS? 13

within the Song (Halliday & Hasan 1976:286; Halliday & Matthiessen
2014:684-685). Thus, on account of the predictable recurrence of both ‫יָ ֶפה‬
and ‫ ַר ְעיָ ה‬as the text unfolds, readers progressively come to blend the
connotations associated with each term.
While it should be noted that in its use within single strophes this
collocation is unique to Canticles, it is nevertheless the case that, as I
pointed out with regard to ‫דּוֹד‬, the textual histories of both ‫ יָ ֶפה‬and ‫ ַר ְעיָ ה‬are
shaped by the prior use of each term elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Well
attested outside of the Song, the interpretation of the adjective ‫ יָ ֶפה‬is most
directly informed by this co-textual frame, with the term’s typical
denotation of the physical beauty of either literal (Gen 39:6; 2 Sam 14:25)
or metaphorical persons (e.g. Prov 6:25) being of especial importance in
this regard, readings that are reinforced by its further occurrence in
collocations with ‫“( ַמ ְר ֶאה‬appearance”; e.g. Gen 12:11).24 This meaning is
maintained in the Song, where ‫ יָ ֶפה‬similarly finds expression in
constructions where the man offers general praises of the woman. Thus,
note the inclusion of the term in 4:1, 7 as a lexical frame for the waṣf in the
intervening verses (Garrett 2004:192),25 functioning in these passages to
support two encompassing statements affirming the female’s physical
charms (cf. Fox 1985:272). By way of contrast, the noun ‫ ַר ְעיָ ה‬is only
encountered on one occasion outside of the Song, referring in Judg 11:37
to a group of close companions (DCH VII:526). Despite its minimal
distribution in other texts, however, ‫ ַר ְעיָ ה‬bears a similar sense within
Canticles, manifesting as a term of endearment applied by the man to the
woman and translatable as “beloved companion”.26
While their cohesive effect is not dependent on any prior semantic
connection, by virtue of the habitual juxtaposition of ‫ יָ ֶפה‬and ‫ ַר ְעיָ ה‬in closely
proximate constructions an implicit overlap of meaning is created between
statements concerning the woman’s physical beauty and mentions of her
role as the man’s companion. Although this is most evident in the six
strophes wherein both words are attested,27 on account of the general
recurrence of this collocation it is also possible to identify a cohesive chain
running throughout the Song whereby the shared textual history of these
two terms builds over the course of the text. With a consequence similar to
                                                       
24 Cf. Ringgren 2006:218-220
25 The use of the term in 4:1 is, moreover, a repetition of an earlier utterance in
1:15 (Bergant 2001:42).
26 Song 1:9, 15; 2:2, 10, 13; 4:1, 7; 5:2; 6:4.
27 Song 1:15; 2:10, 13; 4:1, 7; 6:4.
14 DAVID M. DALWOOD

that which resulted from the variegated uses of ‫דּוֹד‬, the inclusion of this
chain has the effect of encouraging readers to interpret the intimacy
suggested by ‫ ַר ְעיָ ה‬in light of the erotic connotations contained in the man’s
admiration of the female’s physical qualities. As one example in which this
connection is supported by formal features of the poem, in Song 6:4 the
man encloses the expression ‫ ַר ְעיָ ִתי‬within a similitude that likens the beauty
of the woman to that of Tirzah (i.e. ‫אַתּ ַר ְעיָ ִתי ְכּ ִת ְר ָצה‬ְ ‫)יָ ָפה‬, thereby
underscoring for readers, who may have been aware of the latter’s
association with the root ‫“( רצה‬be pleased with”; Long 1996:704-705;
Exum 2005:217), the relationship of meaning that obtains within the text
between the man’s special affection for the woman and his feelings of awe
and admiration when encountering her comeliness. Cohesion results,
furthermore, in those instances such as Song 6:1 where the adjective ‫ יָ ֶפה‬is
applied to the woman without its expected collocational pair, with readers
supposed to supplement their interpretation of this term with an
understanding of the woman’s intimate relationship with the man gleaned
from the remainder of the poem.28 In each example, a unifying effect is
achieved as the shared textual history of both terms in this collocation exerts
a constraint on the interpretation of instantiations of either word on its own.
Moreover, since this collocation occurs across distinct subunits of the
poem, it is possible to treat said constraint as contributing texture to the
book as a whole.

5. CONCLUSION
While the discrete analysis of a selection of the terms used to refer to each
of the lovers highlights a few of the factors influencing the texture of the
Song, the essential unity of this book is most evident when these
discussions are taken together. To that end, although the cohesive elements
studied in this paper are but a small subset of the possible objects of analysis
available within Canticles, it is of particular note that in each discussion a
connection was evident between physical desire and relational intimacy.
Thus, in her use of ‫ דּוֹד‬the poet connects the term’s function as a title for
the male lover with the sensual connotations it communicates elsewhere in
the book. Likewise, the lexical collocation resulting from the use of ‫ יָ ֶפה‬and
‫ ַר ְעיָ ה‬in the man’s statements about the woman joins this character’s
appreciation of the female’s physical beauty with her role as the companion
                                                       
28 In this verse, wherein the daughters of Jerusalem ask the woman where her
beloved has gone, the co-text, including especially the use of the cohesively
significant element ‫דּוֹד‬, further enables this connection.
A TEXT OF SONGS? 15

of the male. In light of these associations, it is therefore possible to identify

a cohesive effect as these terms collectively serve to reinforce the
discourse’s larger emphasis on mutual love and affection.
Although other studies have tracked the recurrence of keywords and
motifs throughout the Song in order to argue for the unity of the work, this
paper has attempted to demonstrate the texture of Canticles as a semantic
rather than a structural unit. Furthermore, though it is certainly the case that
other scholars have implicitly dealt with phenomena similar to those
identified here, by drawing explicitly from the relevant theoretical literature
this essay has had the additional purpose of attempting to inject greater
terminological and methodological rigor into analyses of Biblical Hebrew
texts. In each respect, the insights available in Systemic Functional
Linguistics provided the basis for my discussion, with this essay’s
methodology and conclusions contributing a first step towards the more
linguistically oriented examination of the Song. As a preliminary effort,
therefore, my work would naturally benefit by being extended to include
the treatment of a larger set of cohesive elements. Since I could only sample
a few of the terms used within Canticles to refer to each of the lovers, I
would suggest that a larger corpus that included other such expressions
would be a fruitful angle of approach.29

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Assis, E 2009. Flashes of Fire: A Literary Analysis of the Song of Songs (LHB/OTS).
New York: T & T Clark.
Bekkenkamp, J 2000. Into Another Scene of Choices: The Theological Value of the
Song of Songs, in: Brenner, A & Fontaine, C R (eds). The Song of Songs: Second
Series (FCB). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 55-89.
Bergant, D 2001. The Song of Songs (Berit Olam). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

                                                       
29 In regards to this final point, Wendland’s (2013:179-180) chiastic organization
of the Song according to the repetition of certain of its key terms might serve as
a valuable point of departure for future scholarship, particularly if supplemented
by the theoretical paradigm described in this article. Additionally, I would draw
readers’ attention to the variegated adoption of militaristic imagery throughout
the poem (e.g. Song 2:4; 3:7-8; 4:4; 6:4, 10; 7:1 [6:13], 5 [4]) as well as the
recurrent and ubiquitous use of garden imagery when speaking of the lover’s
sexuality as additional sets of potentially cohesive elements that would benefit
from a more sustained analysis than could be provided here.
16 DAVID M. DALWOOD

BHS = Elliger, K & Rudolph, W (eds) 1983. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Bloch, A & Bloch C 1995. The Song of Songs: A New Translation with an Introduction
and Commentary. New York: Random House.
Brown, G & Yule, G 1983. Discourse Analysis (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clines, D J A 1995. Why Is There a Song of Songs and What Does It Do to You If You
Read It?, in: Exum, J C (ed.). Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and
Readers of the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 205). Sheffield: JSOT Press, 94-121.
DCH = Clines, D J A (ed.) 1993-2016. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
Delitzsch, F 1973. Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Trans. M G
Easton. Vol. 6. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Dillow, J C 1977. Solomon on Sex. New York: Thomas Nelson.
Exum, J C 1973. A Literary and Structural Analysis of the Song of Songs. ZAW 85, 47-
79.
Exum, J C 2005. Song of Songs (OTL). Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Falk, M 1982. Love Lyrics from the Bible: A Translation and Literary Study of the Song
of Songs. Sheffield: Almond.
Falk M 1990. The Song of Songs: A New Translation and Interpretation. San Francisco:
Harper San Francisco.
Fox, M V 1985. The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Fredericks, D C & Estes, D J 2010. Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (ApOTC 16).
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Garrett, D 2004. Song of Songs (WBC 23B). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
GKC = Gesenius W 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the
Late E. Kautzsch. Second English Edition Revised in Accordance with the Twenty-
eighth German Edition by A E Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon.
Goulder, M D 1986. The Song of Fourteen Songs (JSOTSup 36). Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Halliday, M A K & Hasan, R 1976. Cohesion in English (English Language Series).
London: Longman.
A TEXT OF SONGS? 17

Halliday, M A K & Matthiessen, C M I M 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional

Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.
Harris, R L (ed.) 1980. Dôd, in: Harris, R L, Waltke, B K & Archer, G L. Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament. Vol. 1. Chicago: Moody Press, 184.
Hess, R S 2005. Song of Songs (BCOTWP 1). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Landsberger, F 1954. Poetic Units within the Song of Songs. JBL 73/4, 203-216.
Levelt, W J M 1981. The Speaker’s Linearization Problem, in: Longuet-Higgins, H C
et al. (eds). The Psychological Mechanisms of Language. London: Royal Society /
British Academy, 91-101.
Long, G A 1996. A Lover, Cities, and Heavenly Bodies: Co-Text and the Translation of
Two Similes in Canticles (6:4c; 6:10d). JBL 115/4, 703-709.
Longman III, T 2001. Song of Songs (NICOT 14). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Lyons, J 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lyons, J 1977. Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, R E 1979. The Unity of the Song of Songs. VT 29/4, 436-443.
Murphy, R E 1990. The Song of Songs (Hermeneia). Minneapolis: Fortress.
Pope, M H 1977. Song of Songs (AB 7). Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Provan, I 2001. Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NIVAC). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Ringgren, H 2006. *‫ *יָ ָפה‬Yāpâ, in: Botterweck, G J, Ringgren, H & Fabry, H-J (eds).
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. 6. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
218-220.
Roberts, D P 2007. Let Me See Your Form: Seeking Poetic Structure in the Song of
Songs (Studies in Judaism 173). Lanham: University Press of America.
Schwab, G M 2008. Song of Songs I: Book Of, in: Longman III, T & Enns, P (eds).
Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 737-750.
Van der Merwe, C H J, Naudé, J & Kroeze, J H 1999. A Biblical Hebrew Reference
Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Waltke, B K & O'Connor, M 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
18 DAVID M. DALWOOD

Wendland, E R 2013. Lovely, Lively Lyrics: Selected Studies in Biblical Hebrew Verse
(Publications in Translation and Textlinguistics). Dallas: SIL International, Global
Publishing.
Westfall, C L 2005. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship
between Form and Meaning (LNTS). London: T & T Clark.