[B-Greek] Mark 3:13, 14 - present and aorist
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Jan 25 07:33:28 EST 2004
>
[Cindy:]> Actually, Con is in full agreement with Porter's view of the
> pluperfect--the perfect and the pluperfect are described as frontground,
> and the present and imperfect are described as foreground. The aorist
> is described as background, but at the same time as carrying the backbone
> of the narrative. I would prefer to say it is default, unmarked and most
> expected, carrying the story line forward. Porter agrees with this.
Since I am more familiar with the discourse terminology of other linguists
than that of Porter, just a brief comment on terminology. I think there is
agreement on the "backbone" as that which is essential to the narrative and
carries the story forward. The rest is collateral material (meat on the
bones), most of which is often called background material. So, backbone and
background are pretty much opposites in my understanding of discourse. I
agree that the aorist is the default narrative tense, so it will usually be
found in the backbone.
I do not think it is helpful to describe present and imperfect as always
denoting foreground, since especially the imperfect is often used in
collateral background material. Discourse linguistics is complex, and one
cannot say that the imperfective aspect is always either foreground or
background. It can be used for both in different settings. It is common in
many languages that imperfective aspect can be used both in giving
background information and in highlighting pivotal information. Which is
which depends on other factors.
<snip>
> [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Jody Barnard
> According to Porter's planes of discourse hypothesis
> the aorist is the background tense which forms the
> basis for the discourse, the present is the foreground
> tense which introduces significant characters / events
> or makes appropriate climactic references to concrete
> situations. I got this from Porter's Idioms of the
> Greek NT, but it's probably best to proceed with
> caution since Porter is quite controversial at the
> moment!
>
> Jody Barnard
Mark's gospel is especially famous for its use of the historical present.
(Luke rarely uses it.) But the term "historical" only tells us that we would
have expected a past tense form, and this is not particularly illuminating.
I would agree with part of the quote from Porter above that the historical
present in Mark "introduces significant characters or events". It is marked,
and it exploits the imperfective aspect. I believe the idea is "sit up and
listen, because what is coming up is important and unfinished. You will hear
much more about this theme as it develops."
In the case of Mark 3:13 the fact that Jesus went up on a mountain (to seek
God's will) and chose 12 disciples and later sent them out to preach is of
paramount importance for the whole Gospel narrative. Often LEGW occurs in
the "historical" present in Mark, and when it does, it apparently indicates
the crucial nature of the content of the speech.
So, one can say that in this text the present tense signifies foregrounded
(crucial) material and the aorists backgrounded (less crucial, more
predictable) material. This is a different and independent parameter from
backbone-collateral.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list