Participial Salience - Longacre

clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Tue Feb 29 01:23:40 EST 2000


Perhaps I should clarify this question a bit. Look at Col. 1:3-4ff.  In
verse 4 AKOUSANTES . . . could be understood as stating a prior
circumstance or condition limiting the finite verb  EUXARISTOUMEN in
verse 3.

It seems to me that the salience of AKOUSANTES is lower than
EUXARISTOUMEN. It also seems that AKOUSANTES . . . could have been
placed before EUXARISTOUMEN without having any appreciable effect on its
salience or semantic function. The change of order would have rhetorical
side effects but AKOUSANTES . . . would still have the same semantic
function and I will also risk saying it would have the same salience.

This is not a great counter example since it isn't part of a Gospel
narrative which is the subject of Longacre's article. Can someone come
up with an example like this from the Gospels or Acts?


--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062


----------
>From: "clayton stirling bartholomew" <c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net>
>To: Biblical Greek <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
>Subject: Participial Salience - Longacre
>Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2000, 1:47 PM
>

> R. E. Longacre* states that the salience of a preposed participle
> (before the finite verb) is relative to the finite verb it is associated
> with and less than that verb (see his chart on page 179). This means
> that a preposed participle dependent on a finite verb in the imperfect
> will have less salience than preposed participles dependent on finite
> verbs in the aorist or historical present.
>
> Longacre also states (p, 177) that a postposed participle (after the
> finite verb) "is of the same semantic rank as the verb it follows; that
> is, it is consecutive on the preceding main verb and continues its
> function."
>
> My question is about postposed participles. It seems that Longacre's
> scheme makes the postposed participle a completely different animal from
> the preposed participle. In other words, he seems to be saying that the
> semantic and syntactic function of the participle is dependent on word
> order.  Does this wash? Can we say without qualification that the
> position of the participle relative to its finite verb determines its
> semantic and syntactic function in the discourse?
>
> I am particularly interested in seeing examples where the postposed
> participle seems to function like a preposed participle. In other words
> I am looking for counter examples to help clarify Longacre's  salience
> scheme.
>
>
> * Page 177ff, Porter, Stanley E. & Jeffrey T. Reed ³Discourse Analysis
> and the New Testament, Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
>



More information about the B-Greek mailing list