Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics, Volume 7
242 Pages
English

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics, Volume 7

Description

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics (BAGL) is an international journal that exists to further the application of modern linguistics to the study of Ancient and Biblical Greek, with a particular focus on the analysis of texts, including but not restricted to the Greek New Testament. The journal is hosted by McMaster Divinity College and works in conjunction with its Centre for Biblical Linguistics, Translation and Exegesis, and the OpenText.org organization (www.opentext.org) in the sponsoring of conferences and symposia open to scholars and students working in Greek linguistics who are interested in contributing to advancing the discussion and methods of the field of research. BAGL is a refereed on-line and print journal dedicated to distributing the results of significant research in the area of linguistic theory and application to biblical and ancient Greek, and is open to all scholars, not just those connected to the Centre and the OpenText.org project.

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Published 24 October 2018
Reads 0
EAN13 9781532673481
Language English
Document size 3 MB

Legal information: rental price per page €. This information is given for information only in accordance with current legislation.

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics Volume 7 — 2018
Contents
STANLEYE. PORTER Editor’s Foreword: More Important Words on Words and More
PAULL. DANOVE The Conceptualization of Communication in the New Testament: A Feature Description
NICHOLASP. LUNN Categories of Contrast in New Testament Greek
JOHNJ.H. LEE Cohesive Harmony Analysis for Ancient Greek: SelPap I:112 and PMich VIII:491 as a Test Case
RYDERA. WISHART Monosemy: A Theoretical Sketch for Biblical Studies
STANLEYE. PORTER Aspect and Imperatives Once More
JOSEPHD. FANTIN May theForceBe with You: Volition, Direction, and Force: A Communicative Approach to the Imperative Mood
3
8
5
7
1
1
107
141
173
2
Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics7
JAMESD. DVORAK “Evidence that Commands a Verdict”: Determining the Semantics of Imperatives in the New Testament
Ancient Modern
Sources Index Authors Index
201
225 238
Senior Editors Professor Dr. Stanley E. Porter Dr. Matthew Brook O’Donnell
Assistant Editors Dr. Christopher D. Land Dr. Francis G.H. Pang
Editorial Board Dr. Martin Culy (Briercrest College and Seminary, Canada) Dr. Paul Danove (Villanova University, USA) Dr. Christopher D. Land (McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Dr. Matthew Brook O’Donnell (University of Pennsylvania, USA | McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Professor Dr. Stanley E. Porter (McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Dr. Catherine Smith (University of Birmingham, UK) Dr. Jonathan Watt (Geneva College, USA) Dr. Cynthia Long Westfall (McMaster Divinity College, Canada)
Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics(BAGL) is an international journal furthering the application of modern linguistics to the study of Ancient and Biblical Greek, with a particular focus on the analysis of texts, including but not restricted to the Greek New Testament. The journal is hosted by McMaster Divinity College (mcmasterdivinity.ca) and works in conjunction with its Centre for Biblical Linguistics, Translation and Exegesis (cblte.org) and the OpenText.org organization (www.opentext.org) in the sponsoring of conferences and symposia open to scholars and students researching in Greek linguistics who are interested in contributing to advancing the discussion and methods of the field of research.BAGLis a refereed online and print journal dedicated to distributing the
4
Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics7
results of significant research in the area of linguistic theory and application to biblical and ancient Greek, and is open to all scholars. Accepted pieces are in the first instance posted online in page-consistent pdf format, and then (except for reviews) are published in print form each volume year.
Submissions toBAGL BAGLaccepts submissions in five categories, and manuscripts are to be labeled as such at the time of submission:
Article Exploration Note Response Review/Review article Submissions should follow theBAGLstyle-guide found at http://bagl.org, and should include an abstract, not longer than 100 words, two to six keywords, and identification of the type of article (which will be noted at the time of posting and publication). Submissions not following the style-guide will be returned for revision before being considered. Submissions should be sent in electronic form (Word or RTF) to Stanley E. Porter at princpl@mcmaster.ca. Assessment and response will be made within approximately two months of submission. Accepted submissions should be posted online within two months of acceptance.
The online form ofBAGLis found at http://bagl.org.
Copyright © 2018and Stock Publishers. All rights reserved. Wipf Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf th and Stock, 199 W. 8 Ave., Eugene, OR 97401. ISBN 13:978-1-5326-7346-7 www.wipfandstock.com Manufactured in the U.S.A.
[BAGL7 (2018) 5–6]
EDITORSFOREWORD: MOREIMPORTANTWORDS ONWORDSANDMORE
Stanley E. Porter McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, Canada
The papers in this volume are organized into two broad categories. The first grouping is a set of four papers reflecting widely differing approaches to Greek description. The first is an article by Paul Danove using Construction Grammar to identify five features of how communicative events are grammaticalized in New Testament Greek verbs. The results provide identifica-tion, description, classification, interpretation, and translation of these verbs. Readers familiar with Greek linguistics will be well aware of Danove’s continuing work in the area of Construction Grammar, pioneered by such linguists as Charles Fillmore and Paul Kay. The second article in this group is by Nicholas Lunn on contrast within New Testament Greek. Lunn identifies and describes seven different contrastive formulations, and then exemplifies them within the Greek New Testament. He also offers concluding comments that provide insights into how his previous descriptions can aid translation and exegesis. The third paper, by John Lee, draws upon Ruqaiya Hasan’s Cohesive Harmony Analysis (CHA), developed within a Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) framework, to provide a reading of two ancient Greek papyri. In this article, Lee first defines CHA within an ancient Greek framework and then shows how, with suitable modifications to account for the fact that Greek is a fusional language, CHA helps use to describe ancient texts. Lee’s method is rigorous and detailed, but it takes the notion of cohesion to new levels suitable for the study of ancient Greek. The final paper in this first group, by Ryder Wishart, deals with the broad topic of monosemy. Wishart weighs in on
6
Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics7
the side of monosemy with an examination of the major issues involved and then application to three examples within the field of biblical studies. To define monosemy, Wishart utilizes a number of different approaches, including lexical semantics, corpus study, and a sign-based approach, drawing upon the work of Charles Ruhl and the Columbia School of Linguistics. He develops what he calls a lowest common denominator approach. Once he has defined his terms and concepts, Wishart applies the notion of linguistic monosemy—not just lexical monosemy—to the debate, discussion of the Greek article, and πίστις Χριστοῦ treatments of verbal aspect, all topics of continuing and recent debate. The second group of papers is focused upon the Greek imperative and command/prohibition. These three papers were first presented at the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics Section of the Society of Biblical Literature 2016 annual meeting in San Antonio, TX. The first paper, by Stanley Porter, focuses upon verbal aspect and imperatives and their related commands and prohibitions. Utilizing SFL, he discusses imperatives in relation to the Greek mood system, verbal aspect, and three abiding issues regarding frequency, speech functions, and use in indirect speech acts. By contrast, Joseph Fantin approaches imperatives from what he calls a communicative approach. He outlines his approach by focusing upon a number of environments in which the imperative is used in ways that require more explanation than traditional studies can provide. In the third paper of this group, James Dvorak outlines two basic expositional frameworks for imperatives. Along the way, Dvorak offers a short course in SFL and its context-dependent descrip-tions and then a critique of the notion of contextless meanings. We recognize that this volume is longer than most previous volumes of the journal, but we believe that the papers merit timely publication, as there are a number of significant ways that current discussions might benefit from the ideas proposed in them.
[BAGL7 (2018) 7–29]
THECONCEPTUALIZATIONOFCOMMUNICATIONINTHENEW TESTAMENT: A FEATUREDESCRIPTION
Paul L. Danove Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA
Abstract: This article develops five features that describe the conceptualizations of the event of communication grammaticalized by New Testament verbs and uses these features to formulate a model of the observed New Testament usages of communication. The discussion resolves all NT occurrences of verbs that designate communication into one of twenty-one usages with distinct feature descriptions, offers guidelines for interpreting and translating verbs with each usage, and clarifies elements of the conceptualization of communication in relation to specific examples. (Article)
Keywords: Feature, communication, semantic, syntactic, verbal usage.
1.The Event of Communication An event is a cognitive schema of an action in which two, three, 1 or four entities are set in a particular relation to each other. The event of communication logically includes three entities: one who communicates, what is communicated, and the interpreter of the communication. These descriptions correspond to the thematic roles, Agent (the entity that actively instigates an action and/or is the ultimate cause of a change in another entity), Content (the content of a sensory, cognitive, or emotional event or activity), and Experiencer (the animate entity that undergoes a 2 sensory, cognitive, or emotional event or activity). In this event,
1. 2.
See Goddard,Semantic Analysis, 197–98. These and subsequent semantic functions
receive
description
8
Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics7
the Agent produces the Content of communication, and the Experiencer interprets that Content.
2.Features of the Conceptualization of the Event of Communication The bare concept of communication is qualified in general and specific ways. General qualifications are described by features that specify the conceptualization of communication associated with a number of verbs. Specific qualifications are associated with the unique denotation of each verb. Verbs that grammaticalize a conceptualization of communication with the same features constitute a verbal usage. The following discussion develops five usage features that specify various constraints on the conceptualization of communication: secondary emphasis, 3 orality, subject affectedness, functionality, and suppression.
2.1Feature #1: Secondary Emphasis In the conceptualization of communication, the Agent communicates Content to an Experiencer. Non-passivized verbs of communication grammaticalize this event by placing primary emphasis on the Agent and raising it as the first (subject) complement. The selection of the second complement, however, depends on the relative emphasis that each verb places on the Content and Experiencer. Among the 121 NT verbs of communication, 101 place secondary emphasis only on the Content; fifteen place secondary emphasis only on the Experiencer; and five present distinct usages with secondary emphasis on the Content and on the Experiencer. At least among the last five verbs, usages with secondary emphasis on the Experiencer have the implication that the Content is interpreted 4 successfully. Secondary emphasis on the Content highlights the
according to the thematic roles developed in Saeed,Semantics, 139–71, and Danove,Linguistics and Exegesis, 31–45. 3. These usage features constitute a development of those introduced in Danove, “αἰτέω/αἰτέοµαι,” 101–18. 4. Lehrer, “Verbs of Speaking,” 155.
DANOVEConceptualization of Communication
9
production and transmission of the Content (the Agent causes the message to go to the Experiencer), whereas secondary emphasis on the Experiencer highlights the reception and interpretation of the Content (the Agent causes the Experiencer to receive the 5 message). When the verbs are passivized, they consistently raise the entity with secondary emphasis as the verbal subject. The descriptions of features note secondary emphasis by arranging the three entities of communication in the order of decreasing emphasis. In the following examples, ‘speak’ λαλέω places secondary emphasis on the Content (ACE) and διδάσκω ‘teach’ places secondary emphasis on the Experiencer (AEC):
ACE
ἄλληνπαραβολὴνἐλάλησεναὐτοῖς(Matt 13:33) He spoke another parable to them.
AECκύριε,δίδαξονµᾶςπροσεύχεσθαι,καθὼςκαὶἸωάννηςἐδίδαξεντοὺςµαθητὰςαὐτοῦ(Luke 11:1) Lord, teach us to pray just as John taught his disciples. In the former example, the secondary emphasis on the Content indicates that the parable (Content) was successfully produced and moved to “them.” In the latter example, the secondary emphasis on Jesus’s disciples (Experiencer) indicates that they will receive Jesus’s teaching on praying. The Feature Model notes secondary emphasis at the beginning of the usage description so that the usages of λαλέω and in the noted occurrences have the following format: διδάσκω λαλέω: ACE διδάσκω: AEC
5. Most frequently, discussions of the Content/Experiencer emphasis employ a movement (cause to go)/possession (cause to have) distinction: cf. Pinker,Learnability, 48, 63; Speas,Phrase Structure, 87–89; Pesetsky,Zero Syntax, 135–38; and Hovav and Levin, “Dative Alternation,” 134. However, the movement (cause to go)/reception (cause to receive) distinction better explains the implication that the emphasized Experiencer successfully interprets the Content/message: cf. Goldberg, “Argument Structure,” 46, 49–52. Although these authors are concerned with “dative alternation” among various classes of English verbs (X tells Y Z or X tells Z to Y), the movement/reception constraints on the English verbs appear to parallel exactly those of Greek verbs of communication.
1
0
Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics7
2.2Feature #2: Orality Some verbs are restricted to conceptualizations of oral communication in which the Agent produces speech or sound, and the remaining verbs either are restricted to or tolerate the conceptualization of other modes of communication. For example, the conceptualization of ‘say’ is restricted to oral λέγω communication; that of ‘show’ is restricted to non-oral δείκνυµι (i.e., visual) communication; and that of ‘remind’ µιµνῄσκω accommodates both oral and non-oral modes of communication (reminding by speaking or writing or showing). This discussion distinguishes between verbs that are restricted to oral commu-nication (+or) and all other verbs of communication (–or):
+orλέγειαὐτοῖςἸησοῦς,Πόσουςἄρτουςἔχετε; (Matt 15:34) Jesus says to them, “How many loaves do you have?”
–orδείκνυσιναὐτῷπάσαςτὰςβασιλείαςτοῦκόσµουκαὶτὴνδόξαναὐτῶν(Matt 4:8) He shows to him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
The Feature Model introduces the ±or distinction after the notation on secondary emphasis.
λέγω: ACE +or δείκνυµι: ACE –or
2.3Feature #3: Subject Affectedness Greek verbs designate communication with usages that employ active, middle, and passive base forms, and a majority of verbs with active and middle base forms admit to passivization. Greek active, middle, and passive base forms signal differing conceptualizations of the affectedness of the first complement 6 (subject/Agent). Active base forms of Greek (and English) verbs typically provide no guidance in determining whether the first complement is affected. Thus, both ‘see’ and ‘suffer’ ὁράω πάσχω use active base forms in Greek (and English), even though the one who sees need not be affected, while the one who suffers
6. Lyons,Linguistics, 373, discusses the nature of this affectedness; cf. Allan,Middle Voice, 19–20. Saeed,Semantics, 162–65, considers various categories of affectedness.