[B-Greek] The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data: An Argument for a Large Corpus Size (i.e., Reading WIdely)

Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Fri Mar 26 10:43:38 EDT 2010


Don,

In my view, the primary benefits potentially provided by linguistics are (hopefully) a sound theoretical framework for thinking about language, and some expectation of how this type of language tends to operate. I have found Levinsohn's cross-linguistic model helpful in both regards. Linguistics will not solve world hunger or the current budget crisis, but it should steer me clear of making  wild assertions.

In contrast, I would say that the traditional method places the burden on the teacher or reader to develop the framework, and on the reader to note the patterns in order to understand how the language operates. If you read too small a corpus, your understanding of patterns will likely be skewed. Those who have read for years probably have made corrections and updates along the way, sharpening their understanding. 

Regarding linguists, there are some pretty kooky ideas that have been pitched under the banner of linguistics. Not everything linguistic is right. I am blogging through some of these issues at the moment. 

At then end of the day, all of us are studying the same language. I have a benchmark for the linguistic description I do. The description I provide should resonate with the person like Carl who has internalized the language. I freely admit that I am still in process in this regard, lots more reading (WIDE reading) to do. It may take one or the other of us tweaking something, but if we are describing the same thing we should arrive at similar results. This also entails bridging the terminology gap, ensuring we are not talking past one another with goobledy gook. Some of Carl's terms are just as incomprehensible to me as mine are to him, it is a two way street demanding mutual respect.

Let's go back to my opening contrast between linguists and traditional grammar. My rally cry is not "Every one a linguist!" Having said that, I think providing a more simple, cross-linguistically informed framework to Greek students when they are still wet behind the ears would go a long way toward setting them up for success in their (hopefully lifelong pursuit of) reading Greek. If it is done right, it should even improve their reading and writing of English!

There is currently a pretty big divide between the two at the moment, one that will not quickly abate. We really are after the same thing: a better understanding of what the writers intended to communicate. My research goal is to see the two brought more closely together, which will be an advantage for both. A good cross-linguistic understanding of language should not only add insight to one's native language, but also to the acquiring and integration of a second or third. On the other hand, the linguists would benefit from the widely-read "old schoolers" when they tell them a theory is half baked. If we really are looking at the same thing, such a reaction should be taken as an indication that more work and thought is needed. Those who are widely read have internalized all that data, and can recognize a bad description when they see one EVEN IF they cannot articulate what the better alternative should be. Thus each has an important role in advancing our understanding of Greek, IMO.

I realize this is pretty idealistic, but it is my vision and goal nonetheless. 

Steven E. Runge
Scholar-in-Residence
Logos Bible Software 
srunge at logos.com 
www.logos.com
www.ntdiscourse.org

-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Don Wilkins
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 5:02 PM
To: yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Cc: bGreek Greek
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data: An Argument for a Large Corpus Size (i.e., Reading WIdely)

Yancy, I'm sure you understand this "opposition" better than you indicate. Calling a wide personal familiarity with ancient Greek "some (non-linguistic?) approach"?? How about linguistics (since in this context it is used as a specialized term) vs. traditional grammar or syntax? I don't want to offend you, but I think Elizabeth Kline's comments have been much more relevant. I do like your comment about cultural knowledge etc., but the impressions you speak of necessarily include a deeper understanding of the language itself, that being the path to the culture and so forth.

I'm not arguing that linguistics has no value for ancient Greek, so I'm not surprised at the benefit you received from Prof. Schmidt's use of Chomsky. My original suggestion was just that the article originally cited could be viewed as an affirmation of the proposition that expertise gained by personally reading the larger corpus of Greek cannot be duplicated by other means, including linguistics as a specialty or profession (without reading the corpus). But there should be mutual respect for the expertise on both sides. It seems to me that scholars widely-read in ancient Greek are much more ready to accommodate the linguists than the reverse, but that may be just my own bias speaking. In any case I've said enough; time to go back to lurking.

Don Wilkins

On Mar 25, 2010, at 3:47 PM, yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net wrote:

> I don't think the opposition of "the linguistics approach" to some
> (non-linguistic?) approach is particularly helpful. Really, many of us 
> develop a rough and ready linguistic theory as we learn another 
> language and try to interpret texts, if it has any. I was greatly 
> helped by the late professor Daryl Schmidt at TCU by his use of 
> Chomsky's linguistics in his beginning courses. Schmidt was well read 
> in ancient Greek, particularly philosophical texts and Hellenistic 
> texts. Newer theoretical approaches can help us see new aspects of old 
> problems that our older linguistic theories hid from view. Some of 
> these insights are very important for reading, comprehension and 
> exegesis, develop new knowledge. Steve Runge's Discourse Grammar 
> contrasts with and supplements the "old School"
> approach exemplified by Wallace, who sidesteps discourse beyond the 
> sentence and information structure. The functional approach of 
> Levinson and Runge represents some of the best fruit coming out of 
> theolog  ically more conservative circles, based on the insights of 
> Bible translators like Levinsohn's, (see Discourse Features of New 
> Testament Greek). Sure there are some fruitless debates that have 
> occurred around these issues.
>
> But nothing, not even linguistic theory can substitute for the 
> cultural knowledge and the impressions that begin to settle in after 
> long hours with Homer, Herodotus, Xenophon, Plato, non- literary 
> papyri, inscriptions, Hellenistic authors like Josephus, Philo, Theon, 
> Epictetus, Lucian, Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, and 
> Athanaeus. Even working through 20 or so pages of each of these would 
> open one's eyes to so much more than can be contained in theory and 
> reading the NT or the LXX one more time.
>
>
> Yancy Smith, PhD
> yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
> Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
> yancy at wbtc.com
> 5636 Wedgworth Road
> Fort Worth, TX 76133
> 817-361-7565
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Dr. Don Wilkins wrote:
>
>> Well said, Elizabeth; that's exactly why I suggested that some would 
>> think the article supports the linguistics approach. But I'm sure 
>> you'll agree that advocating and doing the actual reading are two 
>> different things. My experience with NT linguists is that they are 
>> not personally well-read in Greek at the level were talking about 
>> (sometimes not even at the NT level). I don't blame them, because the 
>> issue is mainly a matter of time, and their obligation to cover many 
>> languages seems to eliminate the opportunity to read a large corpus 
>> of any one language. But I'll offer you a similar challenge: show me 
>> one contemporary NT linguist who has read at a comparable level to a 
>> Carl Conrad or some of the other Classics/Greek Ph.D.'s on the list.
>> Better yet, show me a few of them. My hat is off to anyone who has a 
>> 2-year competency or better in a couple of dozen languages, plus the 
>> completion of a Ph.D.-level reading list in ancient Greek. And if you 
>> are one of them, you have my utmost admiration.
>>
>> While I'm thinking of Carl, my apologies to him if I am steering this 
>> thread off-topic. In that case, I immediately repent.
>>
>> Don Wilkins
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 25, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Dr. Don Wilkins wrote:
>>>
>>>> Very interesting. I wonder what (if anything) this says for the 
>>>> conflicts between the linguistics approach to Greek and the old 
>>>> school. Some might say that this supports the former, but it could 
>>>> be argued that it actually supports the latter, i.e. those students 
>>>> of Greek who base their conclusions on a wider personal familiarity 
>>>> with the extant literature.
>>>
>>> Show me one contemporary NT linguists who does not advocate using a 
>>> Corpus beyond NT and LXX.
>>>
>>> Elizabeth Kline
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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
>>
>> ---
>> 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
>
> ---
> 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

---
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