Here's one way you could do that: use a text editor to make lists of verses like this:
Now use a site like Biblegateway that allows you to specify more than one verse at the same time. Here is the format for the
if you prefer. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss the results of that, or put it into your moieties thread.
Statistics: Posted by
Here is another nice one to substitute for your lack of happiness.
Thanks! Here's a list of about 640 instances of split focus in Levinsohn's analysis:
Picking a few of them here and there (random sampling) has them all belonging to the older (consecutive) type of dual speech style sequence.
'd like to confirm that is or isn't the case to my own satisfaction by looking at all of them.
In some cases where words belong to both vocabulary moieties (the general / abstract
the specific / concrete), the split focus seems to indicate which of the meanings should be read, by clarifying in which speech style unit they belong.
Statistics: Posted by
Can you say more about linguistic choice vs. authorial choice, and how you interpret Levinsohn's principle in that light?
There's a section from a book that
could pdf and share that lays out linguistic choice very nicely.
What's the cite for that?
Intriguing. Taking pause before listing it under sophistry. Thinking along the lines that language is a rigged system.
Here it is. This is a chunk of pages from chapter 5 of Carl Bache's (1997)
.
hope some of you find it useful.
- Bache (1997) On the Nature of Choice in Language.pdf
Statistics: Posted by
MAubrey — April 13th, 2017, 11:03 am
Robert Crowe wrote: ↑
April 13th, 2017, 4:40 am
ι know accomplished writers and editors who admit to having a poor grasp of grammar.
ι don't arrogantly pretend to have a better understanding than they do.
ι know accomplished writers and editors who admit to having a poor grasp of Grammar.
ι don't arrogantly pretend to have a better understanding of grammar than they do.
Robert's Editor
Statistics: Posted by
Robert Crowe — April 13th, 2017, 10:44 am
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 12th, 2017, 3:36 pm
Could you take a text or two and show us how these tools enhance our understanding of the text?
These tools don't enhance our understanding of a text. They simply make explicit things that are otherwise understood implicitly.
ι know accomplished writers and editors who admit to having a poor grasp of grammar.
ι don't arrogantly pretend to have a better understanding than they do. Anyone who thinks that Discourse Analysis inculcates a superior understanding of the
ντ is in a sad delusion.
Statistics: Posted by
Robert Crowe — April 13th, 2017, 4:40 am
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: ↑
April 12th, 2017, 3:21 pm
My current reading:
The Colon Hypothesis, has helped solidify my understanding of the fundamental issues in text linguistics: cohesion, texture/textuality, scenarios, scripts.
ι think some people consider word order and foreground/background the main issues and they are not. Anyway, we don’t need to answer the skeptics. Let them continue doing 19th century philology for the duration. Who cares?
ι've read
The Colon Hypothesis. It is an idiosyncratic, exasperating yet fascinating book. There's a lot right and a lot weird in it. As far as
ι can recall, he's mostly interested in the order of colons, and he uses word order (among several other criteria) to diagnose his colons.
Statistics: Posted by
Stephen Carlson — April 12th, 2017, 7:01 pm
MAubrey wrote: ↑
April 10th, 2017, 1:50 pm
Linguistic choice isn't authorial choice.
Statistics: Posted by
Robert Crowe — April 12th, 2017, 4:42 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑
April 11th, 2017, 7:07 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
April 11th, 2017, 7:56 am
That said, as
ι begin to see through the fog
, ι think it's less complicated and more clear-cut than
ι once thought, at least at the Discourse Features level. And part of the problem may be that
ι was exposed to this long ago but only now am beginning to look at it more seriously.
ι remember people talking about discourse analysis twenty years ago on .
ι didn't get it then. Now
, ι need more out of my Greek than identifying syntactic relations.
ι'm beginning to get it now. And
ι've always needed more out of my Greek than identifying syntactic relations
, ι've usually done that via inductive Bible study and phenomenological approaches to the text.
My current reading:
The Colon Hypothesis, has helped solidify my understanding of the fundamental issues in text linguistics: cohesion, texture/textuality, scenarios, scripts.
ι think some people consider word order and foreground/background the main issues and they are not.
Could you take a text or two and show us how these tools enhance our understanding of the text?
ι'd like to learn.
Statistics: Posted by
Jonathan Robie — April 12th, 2017, 3:36 pm
That's right. Some of us have been doing this forever. It isn't news. Long since given up trying to win people over. Some of the books from the 70's and the 80's are still being cited, Brown & Yule, Halliday and Hassan. We keep mentioning these books and keep adding to the list to bring it up to date. But people who simply refuse to do the basic minimal work to get familiar with the discipline keep asking questions that have been answered a thousand times in the literature.
Statistics: Posted by
Stirling Bartholomew — April 12th, 2017, 3:21 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑
April 11th, 2017, 12:00 am
ι don't want to appear obtuse or anything, but what overblown claims are you talking about? In my experience, both Levinsohn and Runge (the only two names mentioned in this thread) are measured in their claims. Is someone else giving discourse analysis a bad rap?
ι'm not sure how much of this is me misunderstanding things, but
ι think the main things that confused me for the longest time were (1) the distinction between Discourse Grammar (at the sentence level) and Discourse Features versus Discourse Analysis, (2) a feeling that all choices imply interpretive meaning, (3) a feeling that this is all clear-cut, well understood, and simple once you learn it.
Thanks.
α few comments:
(1) The very terminology of "grammar" and "feature" as opposed to "analysis" is a recognition that all they are offering is some building blocks toward a larger theory that is still under investigation.
(2) For some reason the heuristic "choice implies meaning" really rubs people the wrong way.
ι wish
ι knew why, because in the end there really is no alternative to a scientific investigation of language.
(3)

δ" width="15" height="17" />
Statistics: Posted by
Stephen Carlson — April 11th, 2017, 7:07 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑
Statistics: Posted by
Jonathan Robie — April 11th, 2017, 7:56 am
Stephen Hughes wrote:
In regard to something you mentioned earlier....
It is quite possible to pronounce both stress and tonality at the same time in the same syllable (or in different ones for that matter). Have you tried to do that successfully with Greek? The rules of relative intonation, and relative stress and relatiive word length may all funciton separately for all ι know. It is something that ι would like to look at further.
We do see evidence of stress-based effects in Koine, so that was certainly present.
ι assume that in the Koine period stress and pitch accents (largely?) coincided. (They don't coincide, for example, in Swedish for "tone 2" or grave words, whose different pitch on the ultima
ι tend to misperceive as greater stress.) English too has a pitch accent, and it can move from word-to-word (or stressed syllable to stresss syllable) in an intonation unit for pragmatic reasons, but
ι don't see a lot of evidence for such a mobile pitch accent in Koine. Rather, the main Koine strategy is to move constituents to the place of greater (or lesser) phonological prominence. Since the highest peak is usually at the beginining of an intonation unit (modulo the behavior of graves) per
δ&
;σ, this may explain why Koine fronts words for emphasis, e.g, narrow focus. In other words, the general reliance on movement for pragmatic reasons suggests to me that the pitch accent in Koine may still be following the
δ&
;σ rules (obtained by analyzing Koine period evidence, though earlier than the
ντ), even if there is also a coinciding (lexical) stress accent.
Statistics: Posted by
Stephen Carlson — January 23rd, 2014, 5:29 am
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Do ι need to consider re-evaluating my modelling?
Perhaps?
ι'm not sure that there should be correspndence.
ι'm trying primarily to make sentence timing. That may not necessarily be coincident with intonation anyway.
Their rule is a very simple one of resetting.
It is quite possible to pronounce both stress and tonality at the same time in the same syllable (or in different ones for that matter). Have you tried to do that successfully with Greek? The rules of relative intonation, and relative stress and relatiive word length may all funciton separately for all
ι know. It is something that
ι would like to look at further.
Statistics: Posted by
Stephen Hughes — January 23rd, 2014, 4:37 am
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Could you check for me, by applying the rules of intonational phonology, in so far as you understand them, and let me know whether my assumptions of equivalence give the same point of highest peak.
Does πᾶς γὰρ ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν have its highest peak at the
χαίρειν as you have suggested it is for ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν
If
ι understand
δ&
;σ right, there would be an initial peak on the full accent in πᾶς. Ordinarily, there would be a downtrend (
catathesis) following the initial peak wherein the next full accent would be lower, but this is canceled by a (nonlexical) grave. We can call that
anathesis. So the highest peak would be on the full accent in λέγων. At this point, catathesis applies and the χαίρειν would have a lower peak than in λέγων. By contrast, the γὰρ in ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν follows λέγων, so the peak should be after it. (
ι'm not clear yet on the status of αὐτῷ:
δ&
;σ state that full accents (here the circumflex) don't do anything in nonlexicals, which is why
ι thought the next peak would be on the following χαίρειν, but
ι suppose if αὐτῷ is emphasized, the intonation would be different...) Also, internal prosodic breaks could reset the intonation.
and does ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν / πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἀν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν have its highest peak at
λέγειν as you've suggested for ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν