[B-Greek] Wallace or Porter?
Elizabeth Kline
kline-dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Aug 28 12:10:06 EDT 2005
On Aug 27, 2005, at 10:53 AM, CWestf5155 at aol.com wrote:
> But much of what Ben observes below is a difference in theory.
I just read the first few pages on Participles from Porter (181ff)
and Wallace (613ff). Porter uses the slot and filler metaphor which
was used 40 years ago by E.V.N. Goetchius (Language of the NT,
Scribners 1965). Porter blends slot and filler with functionalism
(Halliday's brand of it, not Givon or Dik) to present participles in
a manner which is intelligible with the field of contemporary
linguistics.
Wallace on the other hand uses the language of presence. He keeps
talking about the "nature" of the participle. The language of
presence is conspicuously absent from the mainstream of contemporary
linguistics. Wallace's book is saturated with modernist and pre-
modern concepts which makes it difficult to take seriously unless the
reader is committed to the same framework.
It would be an amusing exercise to read A.K.M. Adam's NT Greek Intro
in light of this issue.
Switching gears: Dr. Buth made the astute observation that learning a
metalanguage isn't the same as learning a language. While it doesn't
seem possible to entirely eliminate metalanguage from the NT Greek
classroom it does seem desirable to minimize it. Porter's
functionalism imposes much less metalanguage on the student than
Wallace's approach. Porter employes categories that cover much more
territory and his categories are extensions of his general framework.
Porter's treatment is more unified, shorter, more economic and more
elegant.
There is no comparison. Two books from two different worlds. Those
who share Wallace's weltanschauung will find my criticisms
unintelligible.
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list