Mark 6:1-2 Continuity/Discontinuity
clayton stirling bartholomew
c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Tue Apr 18 17:16:43 EDT 2000
In Mark 6:1 we see a transition between scenes reported:
KAI EXHLQEN EKEIQEN KAI ERCETAI EIS . . .
There is no fronted constituent in Mark 6:1. I would assume that the lack
of a fronted constituent means that Mark didn't intend to highlight any
continuity/discontinuity between scene ending in Mk 5:43 and the scene
beginning in Mk 6:1. However the rather full encoding of the location change
does grab ones attention.
When we see a new scene introduced with KAI + finite verb can we judged from
that evidence alone that the two scenes before and after have no connection
with one another? I don't think this follows. The reason it does not follow
has to do with the notion of "marking." When we say that a fronted
constituent can be used to "mark" discourse continuity/discontinuity we are
not saying that the lack of this fronted constituent "marks" a complete
discontinuity. What we are saying is that a clause that begins with KAI +
finite verb is "unmarked" with relation to continuity/discontinuity. Being
unmarked means that the author didn't indicate anything one way or the other
about continuity/discontinuity by using KAI + finite verb.
In Mark 6:2 we seen a fronted constituent POLLOI which marks the
introduction of new participants into the scene. There is both continuity of
action here marked by AKOUONTES and a change of participant marked by
POLLOI.
These ramblings are just attempts to grapple with the notion of fronted
constituents within the larger topic of narrative discourse boundaries. I am
just tossing them out to see if anyone wants to talk about them.
Clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list