Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Tue Nov 6 17:08:41 EST 2001
In 1 Cor 14:26-33 men are meant 2 Samuel 13:15, LXX This is a new thread, a branch from:Re: foreground & background, boundary markers-Longacre’sModelI wrote:> It seems that if Subject(agent) encoding is> considered in isolation from referential density, we can demonstrate that a> subject(agent) in any given clause may NOT be Topically prominent in the> episode. Again, the victim may be the most prominent participant in a given> clause and in an entire episode.Lets take a look at the Crucifixion in John 19b-27. After quickly readingthrough this I find Jesus as the subject+semantic-agent only in oneincident, Jn 19:26-27 where he speaks to his Mother and to “the disciple.”However, Jesus has a high level of participant referential density in thisepisode. I don’t think that we would be tempted to conclude that Jesus’topical prominence is low here because of the relative infrequency of hisappearing as the semantic agent.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
In 1 Cor 14:26-33 men are meant2 Samuel 13:15, LXX
Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27 Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Wed Nov 7 08:47:43 EST 2001
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Response to Ward Powers re Voice (1) On Tue, 2001-11-06 at 17:08, c stirling bartholomew wrote:> This is a new thread, a branch from:> Re: foreground & background, boundary markers-Longacre’sModel> > I wrote:> > > It seems that if Subject(agent) encoding is> > considered in isolation from referential density, we can demonstrate that a> > subject(agent) in any given clause may NOT be Topically prominent in the> > episode. Again, the victim may be the most prominent participant in a given> > clause and in an entire episode.> > Lets take a look at the Crucifixion in John 19b-27. After quickly reading> through this I find Jesus as the subject+semantic-agent only in one> incident, Jn 19:26-27 where he speaks to his Mother and to “the disciple.”> > However, Jesus has a high level of participant referential density in this> episode. I don’t think that we would be tempted to conclude that Jesus’> topical prominence is low here because of the relative infrequency of his> appearing as the semantic agent.> Another good example of this is Luke 22:54-23:23. Jonathan M. Watt[1]points out the infrequency of the word (name) `Jesus’ in the account. He mentions that the closest antecedent of the pronouns in Luke 22:63-64is Peter and NOT Jesus. He also points out the disparity in frequencybetween the other gospel accounts and this one in Luke. The frequencyof the use of Jesus’ name per verse in the other accounts varies from.23 to .42. In the Lukan account it is .07.Jonathan’s point is that the NAMELESSNESS of Jesus is there for itsrhetorical effect. The effect being the sense of shame and disgrace.My point is that an author can’t generate that type of effect withoututilizing what Heimerdinger says.Also, FWIW, Jonathan introduces his case by citing several examples ofhow this worked in the OT.—[1] “Pronouns of Shame and Disgrace in Luke 22.63-64” by Jonathan M.Watt in “Discourse Analysis and the New Testament, Approaches andResults” ed by Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed; Supplement Series170. 1999, Sheffield Academic Press– Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”
Acts 13:32-33 the ProphetResponse to Ward Powers re Voice (1)
Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Nov 7 12:49:25 EST 2001
forground & background, boundry markers-Longacre’sModel Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27 on 11/7/01 5:47 AM, Mike Sangrey wrote:> Another good example of this is Luke 22:54-23:23. Jonathan M. Watt[1]> points out the infrequency of the word (name) `Jesus’ in the account.> He mentions that the closest antecedent of the pronouns in Luke 22:63-64> is Peter and NOT Jesus. He also points out the disparity in frequency> between the other gospel accounts and this one in Luke. The frequency> of the use of Jesus’ name per verse in the other accounts varies from> .23 to .42. In the Lukan account it is .07.> > Jonathan’s point is that the NAMELESSNESS of Jesus is there for its> rhetorical effect. The effect being the sense of shame and disgrace.Mike,The socio-rhetorical analysis using the Honor/Shame scheme is somewhatremoved from Topic, Focus and Foreground. It is a different methodology withdifferent assumptions. I recently encounter an extensive use of theHonor/Shame scheme in J.H. Neyrey’s commentary on 2Peter/Jude (AB 1993). Butthat is a different subject.Participant Encoding and TopicalityHeimerdinger* does address the level of participant encoding (e.g., nounphrase, pronoun, zero anaphora) in his discussion of topicality (see pps.123-125). He argues that referential distance is not the only factor toconsider when observing how a participant is encoded.He notes that Abraham is encoded repeatedly as a full noun phrase (Gen. 22)where the referential distance does not require this. He suggests that usinga full noun phrase for Abraham in a context where a pronoun or zeroanaphora would be sufficient increases the topical prominence of Abraham.I will need some time to think this one over. The example you cite from Luke(see above) seems at first glance to undermine this idea.greetings,Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062*Heimerdinger, Jean-Marc. Topic, focus and foreground in ancient Hebrewnarratives, Sheffield Academic Press, c1999.
forground & background, boundry markers-Longacre’sModelTopic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27
Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Nov 7 14:32:55 EST 2001
Didache Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet > Participant Encoding and Topicality> > Heimerdinger* does address the level of participant encoding (e.g., noun> phrase, pronoun, zero anaphora) in his discussion of topicality (see pps.> 123-125). He argues that referential distance is not the only factor to> consider when observing how a participant is encoded.> > He notes that Abraham is encoded repeatedly as a full noun phrase> (Gen. 22) where the referential distance does not require this. Hesuggests> that using a full noun phrase for Abraham in a context where a pronoun orzero> anaphora would be sufficient increases the topical prominence of Abraham.> > I will need some time to think this one over. The example you> cite from Luke (see above) seems at first glance to undermine this idea.Not necessarily. Participant reference is specific to the language. Hebrewuses many more proper names than English does, so we translators havelearned many times to translate a proper name from a Hebrew text with apronoun. It has little to do with topical prominence, just a feature ofHebrew participant reference.Similarly, Greek uses lots of pronouns where English requires a proper name.In Greek narratives it is common for the main participant to be referred toby a pronoun or just a pronominal affix in the verb. But that does not meanthat a pronoun always refers to the main character. One has to distinguishbetween the main characters in one section as opposed to a differentsection. And there may be two main/major characters. Participant referenceis a fascinating discourse study topic, but can be complex.An idiomatic translation into English from Greek will often use a propername or noun phrase rather than a pronoun. Otherwise, the reader cannot keeptrack of the participants. Mark 9:14-21 is a section we commonly use indemonstrating this kind of thing to prospective Bible translators.Just take a look at the following section from KJV and see if you can followthe participants:”And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnashethwith his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that theyshould cast him out; and they could not.He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I bewith you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. And they broughthim unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and hefell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. And he asked his father, How longis it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.”Iver Larsen
DidacheActs 13:32-33 the Prophet
Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Nov 7 15:07:21 EST 2001
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Review of Bibleworks 5 on 11/7/01 11:32 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:> Not necessarily. Participant reference is specific to the language. Hebrew> uses many more proper names than English does, so we translators have> learned many times to translate a proper name from a Hebrew text with a> pronoun. It has little to do with topical prominence, just a feature of> Hebrew participant reference.> Similarly, Greek uses lots of pronouns where English requires a proper name.> In Greek narratives it is common for the main participant to be referred to> by a pronoun or just a pronominal affix in the verb. But that does not mean> that a pronoun always refers to the main character. One has to distinguish> between the main characters in one section as opposed to a different> section. And there may be two main/major characters. Participant reference> is a fascinating discourse study topic, but can be complex.> An idiomatic translation into English from Greek will often use a proper> name or noun phrase rather than a pronoun. Otherwise, the reader cannot keep> track of the participants. Mark 9:14-21 is a section we commonly use in> demonstrating this kind of thing to prospective Bible translators.> > Just take a look at the following section from KJV and see if you can follow> the participants:> > “And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth> with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they> should cast him out; and they could not.> He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be> with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. And they brought> him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he> fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. And he asked his father, How long> is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.”> > Iver LarsenIver,Very good points all of them.You know this example from the KJV reminds me of a comment made by MacPhee(That Hideous Strength, C.S. Lewis) and I quote from memory:”Women speak a language without nouns . . . they will say ‘Put this in thatover there . . .'”.So referential encoding isn’t only language dependent, according to MacPheeit is also gender dependent. Of course MacPhee could be wrong about this.;-))))thanks,Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Acts 13:32-33 the ProphetReview of Bibleworks 5
Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27 Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Wed Nov 7 16:11:24 EST 2001
Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27 Didache On Wed, 2001-11-07 at 12:49, c stirling bartholomew wrote:> on 11/7/01 5:47 AM, Mike Sangrey wrote:> > > Another good example of this is Luke 22:54-23:23. Jonathan M. Watt[1]> > points out the infrequency of the word (name) `Jesus’ in the account.> > He mentions that the closest antecedent of the pronouns in Luke 22:63-64> > is Peter and NOT Jesus. He also points out the disparity in frequency> > between the other gospel accounts and this one in Luke. The frequency> > of the use of Jesus’ name per verse in the other accounts varies from> > .23 to .42. In the Lukan account it is .07.> > > > Jonathan’s point is that the NAMELESSNESS of Jesus is there for its> > rhetorical effect. The effect being the sense of shame and disgrace.> > Mike,> > The socio-rhetorical analysis using the Honor/Shame scheme is somewhat> removed from Topic, Focus and Foreground. It is a different methodology with> different assumptions. [snip]> > Heimerdinger* does address the level of participant encoding (e.g., noun> phrase, pronoun, zero anaphora) in his discussion of topicality (see pps.> 123-125). He argues that referential distance is not the only factor to> consider when observing how a participant is encoded.> > I will need some time to think this one over. The example you cite from Luke> (see above) seems at first glance to undermine this idea.> Let me see if I can get you to think outside the box (not that you wouldever do that … nooOOOOoooo <smile>)Seriously…If I want to be funny, I try to be funny (hopefully it works)If I need to make a serious point, I’m serious right?Well, maybe not. Isn’t that interesting. Some of the best points andmost need to be made points are done with humor.There’s +<whatever> and -<whatever> and then there’s -<whatever> inorder to mean ++<whatever> (sorry for the plus-plus, but it works wellin this case). You can keep participants in the background by usingpronouns. You can make the major participant extremely prominent bydoing the same thing.The point I’m making in all this is that participant encoding–likenearly everything else in linguistics–must always be seen against thebackdrop of what is expected. Normally, we talk about marked stuff. Wegenerally expect, by definition, unmarked stuff. However, in certainsituations (contexts) we EXPECT something to be marked. That is why Iused the illustration from Luke. We EXPECT Jesus to be front andcenter, but Luke forces him into the background. That should throw thereader for a loop. And therefore a certain characteristic of thesituation is brought prominently to the front. So, guess what. In thatcontext, the unmarked is what is unexpected. And therefore stronglyprominent. Odd. But that’s the point, isn’t it? It’s odd.Someone…ummmm…let’s see who was that….on list…hmmmm…saidrecently:> The author has the freedom to break every rule in the book. He starts> with something he wants to say (the meaning) and the more brilliant> and innovative he is the more likely he will be to bend, break and> torture the normal rules of language to get it said. If we try to> define a set of transformations which will lead from surface structure> to meaning we will grow old in the process and fail. It can’t be done.wrote by c stirling bartholomew <cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net>I think you’re right, Clay.– Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”
Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27Didache