[B-Greek] syntax & information structure James 3:2-3(was Syntax of Col 1:22)

Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Tue Aug 18 14:38:42 EDT 2009


 Elizabeth wrote:
[1] Levinsohn's personal framework is the most complex one I have encountered in my linguistic travels.

SER: I share the same sentiments.  Levinsohn's "Discourse Features" and Lambrecht's "Information Structure" are the most difficult books I have ever read, but I like to think that this is due in large part to the nature of information structure. It seems like there are at least 4-5 different facets converging simultaneously, and overlooking one can completely derail things. To paraphrase the noted philologist Mr. T, "I pity the fool what ignores the mind. It's cognitive processing, Fool!" Even Yogi Berra recognized this, claiming "Baseball is ninety percent mental and the other half is physical." I think this captures things rather accurately.

Eight years after first trying to read Levinsohn and Lambrecht, I am feeling a lot more comfortable with it all. Even still, I hit passages where a solid case could be made for several different readings, each having its own merits. At the end of the day, linguistics provides principles not rules, not unlike textual criticism.


-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Kline
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:21 AM
To: B-Greek B-Greek
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] syntax & information structure James 3:2-3(was Syntax of Col 1:22)

On Aug 18, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Steve Runge wrote:
.
> You seem surprised about the agreement you find in their analysis.

.
Steve,

Actually the surprise is more rhetorical than real. I have been reading "Dead Grammarians" (sans Wallace who is a special case) along with linguists for 25 years. Just reminding some of the "young turks"  
that the old NT scholars are not to be despised, the linguistic framework you (not Steve R.) are all excited about now will be dead and gone and people will continue to read the old NT scholars.
.
James 3:2 πολλὰ γὰρ πταίομεν ἅπαντες. εἴ τις ἐν λόγῳ οὐ πταίει, οὗτος τέλειος ἀνὴρ δυνατὸς χαλιναγωγῆσαι καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα.  3 εἰ δὲ τῶν ἵππων τοὺς χαλινοὺς εἰς τὰ στόματα βάλλομεν εἰς τὸ πείθεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἡμῖν, καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα αὐτῶν μετάγομεν. .
JAMES 3:2 POLLA GAR PTAIOMEN hAPANTES. EI TIS EN LOGWi OU PTAIEI, hOUTOS TELEIOS ANHR DUNATOS CALINAGWGHSAI KAI hOLON TO SWMA. 3 EI DE TWN hIPPWN TOUS CALINOUS EIS TA STOMATA BALLOMEN EIS TO PEIQESQAI AUTOUS hHMIN, KAI hOLON TO SWMA AUTWN METAGOMEN.
.
On Aug 17, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Yancy Smith wrote:

> Indeed, it seems like the difference between one and the other is in 
> terms of efficacy of explanation, not so much the content of the 
> explanation. So, language can be understood apart from linguistics?
> That sounds ... premodern. Alford's explanation also accounts well for 
> the article with CALINOUS, "the bits (which are in common use:
> the bits, of which everyone knows)." Spanish uses the article in the 
> same way, and, sometimes, so does the English!
.
Yancy,
.
One significant difference between Alford and Levinsohn, Alford doesn't attempt to draw any broad generalizations about fronted constituents and fit them into some sort of large theoretical framework, Levinsohn does. Alford is commenting on the text and not writing a grammar of discourse. That is one justification for reading linguistics.
.
Levinsohn (DFNTG 2000 p63) marks TWN hIPPWN TOUS CALINOUS as a "point of departure" and states that TWN hIPPWN is fronted with the "point of departure" and marks a "switch of attention" from humans to horses.  
Alford tells us in language almost anyone can understand that TWN hIPPWN is new information whereas we already know about CALINOUS and STOMATA since they are mentioned in the preceding context. Alford claims that the position of TWN hIPPWN is emphatic and is connected with the (head) noun STOMATA not CALINOUS. J.Huther agrees with him on both points. The notion that fronted constituents are emphatic is a commonplace generalization in the older exegetical works. However, this observation isn't set into a large theoretical framework like functional grammar (S.Dik, T.Givon).  Perhaps this is one reason we still read Alford and Meyer, we aren't required to demystify the dynamics of a very complex hybrid (eclectic) theoretical framework[1] to read Alford.
.
The notion of "points of departure" in Levinsohn isn't present in Alford (stating the obvious) but Alford's treatment does have implications for discourse cohesion and thematic development. The difference is that Levinsohn pulls out, highlights and labels aspects of the surface structure that contribute to discourse cohesion, thematic development and so forth. This is a useful project, not to be despised by advocates of the traditional grammar.
.

Elizabeth Kline
.
  [1]Levinsohn's personal framework is the most complex one I have encountered in my linguistic travels.


---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/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