[B-Greek] Re: Predicate as topic, word order in Aesop
Chet Creider
creider at uwo.ca
Sun Jun 26 20:15:30 EDT 2005
Please excuse my use of paraphrase below -- I want to make several
comments and multiple cutting and pasting are beyond
the resources of my simple home system.
First a general comment: Aesop and Herodotus were Ionian Greeks who
lived in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. The Greek
they wrote or which is attributed to them is both similar to and
different from NT Greek. In terms of its use of word order, it
feels different enough to me that I think that any points made with the
help of it need to be repeated with NT examples
before they are accepted.
Elizabeth Kline gave a nice example of a verb functioning as a linking
topic in Herodotus (from Helma Dik's book). This
should not, however, blind us to the fact that the human brain seems to
prefer places, times and persona over actions as
typical entrees to statements. In one Western Nilotic language I once
looked at this in, Dholuo (spoken in Kenya, Uganda
and Tanzania), a verb must be nominalized in order to function as a
topic. (Probably the handiest reference is: Creider, Chet. 1981.
Thematisation in Luo. P. Werth, ed., Conversation and Discourse. London:
Croom Helm, 117-128.)
Randall Buth has written of the importance of distinguishing topic and
focus and of what he has called marked contextualization. Since I have
published articles dealing with both of these notions, I agree
entirely. However, I would like to emphasize the
extent to which languages differ in the devices they utilize to signal
pragmatic notions. In some languages the core grammatical
system is involved without there being any direct grammaticalization of
pragmatic notions. English is an example: the very high
degree of association of (unmarked) topic with subject (and hence
initial position for the most part) is made possible by the
high frequency of passivization, etc., not by any direct marking of
topic. In other languages, such as Japanese and Quechua,
there are topic markers which are independent of core grammatical
relations. In the case of Quechua, evidentials function
to a certain extent as focus markers. Finally, basic word order (where
such exists) can be very important: the preverbal
focus location found for Herodotus by Dik is characteristic of languages
with basic order Subject-Object-Verb (e.g. Hungarian), but not AFAIK in
any other kind of language. Some of this material is available in
another article by me:
1979. The explanation of transformations. T. Givon, ed., Discourse and
Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 3-21.
Finally, although it is almost certainly a case of independent invention
(Iver can confirm this), Iver Larsen's idea of a
gradation of material in NT Greek with the most prominent at the left
edge and the least prominent at the right edge was
developed quite fully for Czech (the order, however, is reversed) by the
late Jan Firbas, who used the term Communicative
Dynamism (CD). He developed his notion as a response to what he felt
was the inadequacy of theme/rheme (topic/comment)
dichotomies of previous theories. (So you have some distinguished
company, Iver!) I've been very impressed over the
years with the utility if Iver's notion in the context of concrete
examples, but it should be noted that there are some
potential counterexamples (e.g. focus-final clauses) given for NT Greek
in Steven Levinsohn's _Discourse Features
of New Testament Greek_ (2nd ed. 2000, Dallas,.Tx: SIL International).
Please excuse the length of this post. Since word order is so very free
in NT Greek and since this freedom is not
random (as it may be in some languages -- after quite a bit of work with
Canadian Inuktitut (Eskimo) I was unable
to discover any way in the language used word order), it is very
important to understand just how it is being used.
Chet Creider
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list