Danove - Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon

Post Reply
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 31
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Danove - Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon

Post by Matthew Longhorn » November 29th, 2017, 1:58 pm

Hi all, I am reading Paul Danove's "Linguistics and Exegesis in the Gospel of Mark: A Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon" I was wondering whether anyone could help with the following:
1. Page 60 presents a generalised valence description of the second sense of didwmi that Danove has identified. In this description is a break down of the lexical realisations, displayed in the columns under arguments 2 and 3 (patient and goal). When this second sense is then shown again in page 63 the lexical realisations are shown under arguments 1 and 2 (agent and patient). Am I missing something here that explains the shift? The data under these columns seems to more properly fit under 2 and 3. pages 75-76 show a similar change in the way the data is displayed in the columns, but for two separate terms

2. Has anyone taken this further with a wider lexicon? I have Danove's other two books to read after I finish this one which deal with verbs of communication and verbs of transference but would be nice to see other authors on the same subject.

3. Is Danove's work generally accepted as being solid argumentation a useful way to analyse the Greek?

Not sure if this is the correct place for this post. Apologies if not

MAubrey
Posts: 856
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Danove - Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon

Post by MAubrey » November 29th, 2017, 4:33 pm

Matthew Longhorn wrote:
November 29th, 2017, 1:58 pm
1. Page 60 presents a generalised valence description of the second sense of didwmi that Danove has identified. In this description is a break down of the lexical realisations, displayed in the columns under arguments 2 and 3 (patient and goal). When this second sense is then shown again in page 63 the lexical realisations are shown under arguments 1 and 2 (agent and patient). Am I missing something here that explains the shift? The data under these columns seems to more properly fit under 2 and 3. pages 75-76 show a similar change in the way the data is displayed in the columns, but for two separate terms
Paul's first book is constrained entirely to data presented in Mark, most everything in its preliminary. He's certainly changed his analysis of δίδωμι dramatically since then as he's examined more data.

I only have the digital edition of his first book and not the print, but in the Logos edition his 'sense 2' of δίδωμι on page 60 is identical to his 'sense 2' on page 64. Do you see something different in print?

Image
Matthew Longhorn wrote:
November 29th, 2017, 1:58 pm
2. Has anyone taken this further with a wider lexicon? I have Danove's other two books to read after I finish this one which deal with verbs of communication and verbs of transference but would be nice to see other authors on the same subject.
For Greek? No. No one has done more frame semantics on Greek than Paul has. For other languages? Absolutely. FrameNet is based on the same theoretical framework, but goes well beyond argument structure to much more complex semantic frames. And nearly every linguistic theory in existence today implements some kind of analysis like this, whether they call it argument structure, semantic role analysis, valency structure/analysis, it's all more or less the same principles with difference emphases.
Matthew Longhorn wrote:
November 29th, 2017, 1:58 pm
3. Is Danove's work generally accepted as being solid argumentation a useful way to analyse the Greek?
Sadly, there are too few people actively working in Koine Greek and linguistics to really say "yes" to that...which is unfortunate. But speaking as a linguist (and thus for linguistics more generally than Greek), there's nothing here that is viewed as methodologically controversial or suspicious.
Matthew Longhorn wrote:
November 29th, 2017, 1:58 pm
Not sure if this is the correct place for this post. Apologies if not
Works for me! ;)
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 31
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Danove - Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon

Post by Matthew Longhorn » November 30th, 2017, 6:17 am

Thanks for the great reply Mike. Good to know there is a solid theoretical basis for this work.
Also good to know that he has refined things in subsequent works - I will try to ensure that I cross reference where I can

If you look at your screenshots they show data in different columns - screenshot 1 in columns 2 and 3, screenshot 2 in columns 1 and 2. I checked with a friend at a seminary and he confirmed the print book has the same discrepancy

MAubrey
Posts: 856
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Danove - Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon

Post by MAubrey » November 30th, 2017, 3:57 pm

Matthew Longhorn wrote:
November 30th, 2017, 6:17 am
Thanks for the great reply Mike. Good to know there is a solid theoretical basis for this work.
Also good to know that he has refined things in subsequent works - I will try to ensure that I cross reference where I can

If you look at your screenshots they show data in different columns - screenshot 1 in columns 2 and 3, screenshot 2 in columns 1 and 2. I checked with a friend at a seminary and he confirmed the print book has the same discrepancy
Ah! I see it now. That's gotta be a type setting error. Straight up. I mean, Arg 1 is never going to be an accusative--infinitives notwithstanding, since you'd never have a shift in argument structure for only the infinitive.).
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2587
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Danove - Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon

Post by Stephen Carlson » November 30th, 2017, 4:33 pm

MAubrey wrote:
November 30th, 2017, 3:57 pm
Ah! I see it now. That's gotta be a type setting error.
One test to see if you understand an author is being able to identify and correct typesetting errors.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 31
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Danove - Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon

Post by Matthew Longhorn » November 30th, 2017, 6:02 pm

You have no idea how long I spent re-reading stuff trying to understand this. I thought that they belonged under arguments 2 and 3 but just assumed that I was wrong and just intellectually unable to grasp the reason for it being laid out in that way.
Thanks both for your answers on this post

On the upside, my many re-reads probably has me understanding the material better than if I hadn’t hit this block

MAubrey
Posts: 856
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Danove - Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon

Post by MAubrey » December 1st, 2017, 1:48 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
November 30th, 2017, 4:33 pm
One test to see if you understand an author is being able to identify and correct typesetting errors.
:P That's certainly true!
Matthew Longhorn wrote:
November 30th, 2017, 6:02 pm
You have no idea how long I spent re-reading stuff trying to understand this. I thought that they belonged under arguments 2 and 3 but just assumed that I was wrong and just intellectually unable to grasp the reason for it being laid out in that way.
Thanks both for your answers on this post

On the upside, my many re-reads probably has me understanding the material better than if I hadn’t hit this block
In other good news, Paul correct his analysis of δίδωμι in his book on transference constructions by putting 'give' before 'produce'...which is absolutely the better order.

I have a fairly review of that book over at Koine-Greek.com, which might be useful before diving in. Paul's work doesn't get less technical in his later publications. ;)

https://koine-greek.com/2010/01/21/book ... ve-part-i/
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest