two models?

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Oct 24 13:49:48 EDT 2002


on 10/24/02 3:19 AM, Michael Burer wrote:

> From what you have written, I understand you to think that since there
> is no broad conceptual framework for traditional morpho-syntactical
> analysis that it is not valid and that it is essentially a museum relic,
> implying that it has no present value for understanding the text. Why
> does the lack of a supra-structure on the discourse level invalidate the
> traditional understanding of the relationships between words, phrases,
> and clauses? That impresses me as a non sequitur. For the
> supra-structure to be valid, it has to be built on the right pieces
> (hence the reason I favor a pyramid model for understanding the
> relationships here). I would argue that there is much to be understood
> from traditional morpho-syntactical analysis, and that can form a very
> stable base on which to build discourse analysis. So the inverted charge
> could be made towards what you have said: your unifying conceptual
> framework is not valid if it is not built on a solid understanding of
> morphology, grammar, syntax, etc. on the word and phrase level.
> 
> Michael Burer

Michael,

Several misunderstandings here.

First of all forget Discourse Analysis, that isn't the issue. DA is not a
unifying conceptual framework, it is just a tool for analyzing discourse
structure. It doesn't replace or supersede anything. Systemic Functionalism
is an example of a unifying conceptual framework.

Second,  morpho-syntactical analysis isn't the problem with the traditional
approach. We all do morpho-syntactical analysis.

Third, I have not broken with the past and do not considered it worthless.
Look at my posts. I quote H.Alford, A. Plummer, H.A.W. Meyer, all old stuff.
I consider H. Smyth an indispensable grammar.

So what is the problem with GGBB?

First and foremost, 1,000s of hybrid categories which link together form and
meaning, e.g., "constative (complexive, puntiliar, comprehensive, global)
aorist."  After using this textbook, a student will come away thinking these
categories actually represent something real in the language itself.  This
misunderstanding is likely to haunt them for the duration of their studies
in NT Greek.  

It is my contention that use of GGBB as a text book leads to a fundamental
misunderstanding of the connection between form and meaning. The proof of
this is the students who have studied the book. The students who come out of
the Mounce/Wallace school will always ask the same kind of questions. Their
questions reveal an assumption that meaning can be derived from form in some
sort of predictable manner working from the bottom up. This is not possible.

Meaning is only found at the higher constituent levels (discourse,
paragraph, clause). Any attempt to write a finite set of formal rules to
determine meaning starting from the bottom will fail.

For this reason I consider the myriad of hybrid categories found in GGBB a
good reason to avoid using it as a textbook. I suspect Wallace has a correct
understanding of these issues, but the impact of this book is the issue. Not
what he understands.

The solution to this problem is NOT to use less categories. A hybrid
category which links morph-syntax with semantics is a bad idea. It leads to
a misunderstanding of a very difficult and interesting problem: The
relationship between form and meaning.

Enough for now, these endless clarifications are time consuming.

greetings, clay

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





More information about the B-Greek mailing list