[B-Greek] Pluperfect and Frontground
Con Campbell
concampbell at netspace.net.au
Sat Jan 24 16:51:29 EST 2004
Cindy,
I am enjoying this interaction! I understand markedness theory, and while I
am happy to say that some pluperfects may well be prominent, I think their
function is backgrounding - not in the sense of being opposite to
prominent - but in the sense of providing information that explains,
elucidates etc. I know Porter is also happy to say this, but just because an
element has this 'explanatory' function does not mean that it must be
prominent.
Regarding the 'piggy-back' term, that is mine, but it reflects the way in
which the pluperfect is treated in the literature I think. For example,
Fanning writes 'The sense of the pluperfect is simply that of the perfect
(with three fold meaning as presented earlier) removed one step into past
time...', p. 305-06. However, Fanning does go on to observe the
backgrounding function of the pluperfect. Porter argues similarly but
substitutes remoteness for time.
Regarding the stative aspect of the pluperfect... I'm keen to know how it's
stative aspect is pragmatically determined; what method is used? For me, I
am sceptical of the existence of the stative aspect. I know this sounds
radical, but it is in fact what Fanning implies in his critique of Porter,
that stativity is an Aktionsart rather than an aspect (JSNTS 80, pp.49-50).
A binary aspectual system (perfective/imperfective) is by far the most
dominant in wider linguistic research, and while this does not prove the
case, I think the burden to prove it is on those who argue for it in Greek.
I am not convinced thus far, and do not think that the presence of three
verbal stems is enough to assume it either. I talked personally to Ken McKay
about the stative aspect (who of course was highly influential to Porter),
and am still not convinced. I know there are others out there who agree -
any b-greekers?? - and I am keen to keep talking it through.
Regards,
Con Campbell
Canberra, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of
CWestf5155 at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 7:45 AM
To: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [B-Greek] Pluperfect and Frontground
Con,
I believe that the view of the pluperfect is primarily based on two
criteria:
morphological bulk (maybe in a prototypical way--not every occurance fits,
but it fits generally) and markedness theory. That is, as you say, it is so
rare, that the author's selection the pluperfect instead of the perfect,
etc., is
marked and "marked forms tend to occur in marked places." That is, the
author's choice of the pluperfect tense tends to collocate with prominence
as
opposed to background. I tend to put much more of my money on markedness
theory
than morphological bulk, though there does appear to be some connection.
Were you quoting Porter when you said that pluperfect "piggy-backs" on the
perfect's stative aspect? That throws me. I think its stative aspect is
pragmatically determined and reinforced by more traditional
descriptions--you appear
to disagree. It would be interesting to see what you thought the
pluperfect's
aspect entailed.
The discussion of aspect as it relates to background, foreground and
frontground is getting tweaked and refined. In the general discussion on
prominence,
Porter and others recognize that the verbal aspect of the perfect or
pluperfect is only one of many indicators of relative prominence, and the
"main point,"
"peaks" or "focus" of a story or "paragraph/unit" is indicated by a
confluence of indicators (a zone of turbulence [Longacre]). The use of
these marked
forms is always emphatic (something like underlining or italics), especially
in
contrast with the verbal patterns around it, but these verb forms will
generally occur in conjunction with other marked forms, discourse markers,
deixis,
etc. (the combinations are unnumerable), when they mark the main point.
In other words, I think you are making sound observations. Part of this
whole
problem is that Porter's early vocabulary and metaphors might lend
themselves
to this kind of ambiguity--I think that more technical terminology and
carefully defined terms disambiguate what is being said, but makes the
discussion
more esoteric.
Cindy Westfall
Adjunct Faculty Denver Seminary
In a message dated 1/24/2004 12:54:13 PM Mountain Standard Time,
concampbell at netspace.net.au writes:
I agree with Cindy's assessment of the background function of the imperfect,
but think the pluperfect also has this function; in many cases as
'background to the background'. In this sense it is marked, though I still
take issue with Porter's assessment of it as frontground along with the
perfect, especially as one of the key items for its marking (according to
Porter) is its unwieldy morphological bulk, which simply does not hold when
the actual usage of the pluperfect is taken into account - most morphemes
are not that large (due to being the pluperfect of verbs such as ORAW). And
while I recognise the significance of the pluperfect's infrequency, it seems
to me that a frontground reading of all pluperfects is an imposition on the
text. Again, a frontground reading of the perfect may be legitimate, but to
assume that the pluperfect 'piggy-backs' on the perfect (due to its sharing
of the so-called stative aspect) does not do it justice. I do, however,
value Porter's contribution and take him very seriously.
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list