Lappenga and Downs on word meanings
Posted: September 13th, 2020, 11:20 am
I am currently reading “The Faithfulness of the Risen Christ” by Downs and Lappenga and came across a curious quote on page 29 by Downing attributed to an article “Ambiguity, Ancient Semantics and Faith” in NTS 56 139-62.
I don’t have access to this resource but he is quoted as saying on page 160
Lappenga/Downs earlier give a couple more quotes from Downing
I am aware that Lappenga argues for a monosemic bias. I guess what I am wondering is whether Downing’s views are reasonable about the way Ancient writers used words. On this account Lappenga’s monosemic bias sounds more reasonable, if it is accurate
I don’t have access to this resource but he is quoted as saying on page 160
This runs contrary to some of my expectations about word use, where I expect a range of meanings that are interrelated (Carston calls this a polysemy complex), but that have taken on conventional meanings in their own right.Ancient expectations of words have them carry much of their semantic baggage with them, whatever part of their range appears in context to be foregrounded; that is, unless some elements of their range have been specifically discarded
Lappenga/Downs earlier give a couple more quotes from Downing
I absolutely agree that trying to discern precise lexicon-style meanings is misguided. I doubt any of us have in mind a precisely defined meaning of a word when using it, and different elements of any one meaning could be our focus.Downing laments that interpreters “still... discern distinct senses in words,” rightly arguing that efforts to discern precise lexicon-style “meanings” do not cohere with what we know about ancient writers
I am aware that Lappenga argues for a monosemic bias. I guess what I am wondering is whether Downing’s views are reasonable about the way Ancient writers used words. On this account Lappenga’s monosemic bias sounds more reasonable, if it is accurate