[B-Greek] The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data: An Argument for a Large Corpus Size (i.e., Reading WIdely)
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Mar 26 23:28:14 EDT 2010
I agree that Wallace doesn't need to be fixed. Wallace is beyond fixing. He totally misconstrues the function of grammar by stating in most cases that their identification depends on whether "Instead of the word of replace it with ..." This means that one must translate it before he decides how the genitive functions. To him if you want to translate it in some fashion then it fits whatever paradigm you wish.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
To: Steve Runge <srunge at logos.com>; Dr. Don Wilkins <drdwilkins at verizon.net>
Cc: bGreek Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Fri, March 26, 2010 12:51:14 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data: An Argument for a Large Corpus Size (i.e., Reading WIdely)
Don wrote
<But as far as I have seen, linguists have not contributed
much to improving the understanding of these issues....
But just
restructuring the existing categories to identify universal patterns
would be an attempt to fix what isn't broken in my curriculum...>
I say AMEN to THAT. It's even a little worse than that.
Traditional Greek Grammar is only needed to get you to the
point where you can read and understand Greek. We need LESS of
it, not more. Wallace does not have to be "fixed." He needs to be
used for a while and then set aside. I bet even he would say that.
NT Linguistics, from what I have seen, attempts to go into the garage
and find those training wheels that I no longer need and worked just fine
when I DID need them and tries to fix them and just winds up making them
not work as well. On this or any other bike.
This sounds harsh. I am open to having my mind changed, I really
am. But I'm with Don on this one. I am to the RIGHT of him on this one.
But I want to hear what Steve and Elizabeth and Yancy and others say,
I really do.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
--- On Fri, 3/26/10, Dr. Don Wilkins <drdwilkins at verizon.net> wrote:
From: Dr. Don Wilkins <drdwilkins at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data: An Argument for a Large Corpus Size (i.e., Reading WIdely)
To: "Steve Runge" <srunge at logos.com>
Cc: "bGreek Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Friday, March 26, 2010, 1:22 PM
I think yours is a worthy effort, Steve. The question in my mind
would be whether the theory behind the linguistic framework is valid
or even sufficient to serve the goal (regardless of its validity).
Carl raised a very important concern, i.e. that a synchronistic
approach is inadequate for ancient Greek. A. T. Robertson went too
far IMO in trying to apply the opposite approach, but still the
historical development has to be factored in. Some of the other
issues you have to take into account are the differences between NT
literary and non-literary Greek and particularly the extent to which
NT Greek maintains fidelity to Attic Greek, which is an issue that
continues to be debated even among Greek scholars. Personally I think
the former is very faithful to the latter, which is why Smyth's
Grammar is so useful. You also have to deal with more esoteric
issues, e.g. the influences of LXX Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic. In that
area synchronic development and cross-influences should be right in
your wheelhouse. I appreciate and applaud your understanding that if
a theory seems half-baked (or not baked at all) to the widely-read,
there's more work to be done, as opposed to simply assigning the
widely-read to the great unwashed.
One point I take some issue with is your appraisal of the traditional
method. In twenty years of teaching grads and undergrads, I never had
framework problems, and I doubt that others in my position did. True,
there are problems of classification with certain concepts or
constructions, e.g. the middle voice (as Carl has eloquently
explained), the "little" words that English grammar simplistically
called "adverbs" but now tend to fall into the drip-pan category of
"markers," and the so-called gnomic aorist. But as far as I have
seen, linguists have not contributed much to improving the
understanding of these issues. For one thing, most of these matters
cannot be resolved simply by casting them into a new framework. One
has to put on a Greek thinking cap and work through these issues with
great concentration nurtured by many years of reading Greek. It also
helps to have spent significant time having composed ancient Greek in
various styles (as learned in the traditional Greek curriculum),
because it helps one to think of alternatives that evidently were
ruled out by the ancient writer. And most Greek scholars have already
explored relevant comparative languages for help in solving these
problems, so that alone is not the answer. As for the students I
taught, the framework of traditional grammar was no more a problem
for them than for me. I'll give you a specific example: past-time
indirect discourse (including non-oral statements). I use to
emphasize to my students that English keeps the mood and changes the
tense, while Greek does the opposite. That might be a tad simplistic,
but it was a practical use of comparative languages. The teaching
challenge was not the framework or the system, but the most practical
way to explain the grammatical methodology. I'm not patting myself on
the back, but I wonder how an NT linguist would have significantly
improved on this approach. Moreover, for what it's worth, I just
recently finished teaching the concepts of Greek to a good number of
folks at my church from all walks of life, and again, using the
framework of traditional grammar was no problem. I plan to do more
classes at the church as time goes on, and if linguistics can provide
a significant better framework, I'm interested. But just
restructuring the existing categories to identify universal patterns
would be an attempt to fix what isn't broken in my curriculum. (If
I'm making a straw man of the linguistic framework, feel free to
correct me.) Here's a suggestion: show me how an NT linguist explains
and teaches the middle voice. Or if you or anyone else on the list
has already done that in a previous post, please resubmit it or give
me a link. I'm sure there are others like me on the list who haven't
seen this done and would also be interested.
Don Wilkins
On Mar 26, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Steve Runge wrote:
> 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
---
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