Stephen Carlson wrote:Maybe.... it would be nice if the fence figured in the plot more explicitly but it just seems mentioned and dropped.
I think what you need, Stephen, is more examples of word order patterns in procedurals. It's entirely possible that the initial step in a procedure always gets a fronted object. The more I look at it, the more I'm inclined to think that's what's going on.
I just had a chat with Steve Runge about this. He's suggesting that the clause should actually be treated as predicate focus with the fronted object as simply the dominant focal element of the larger focus structure. In that vein, then, the way Matthew has initiated the narrative requires an anchor of some sort. Because he's already introduced the vineyard in the relative clause that came before, φραγμὸν is then the logical anchor for what follows, all of which then takes the normal predicate focus structure (in the same way that if we were to say "put a fence around it" in English, the sentence accent wouldn't fall on "put").
Note that Mark introduces the parable slightly differently without the vineyard in a relative clause, but instead in a full independent clause. That, then, allows Ἀμπελῶνα to function as the anchor for the following procedure much more naturally and everything after that parallels Mark. So let's assume that Matthew has Mark and takes the procedural bit, but then he writes his own introduction. So now he's changed who the vineyard is introduced and he needs a way to anchor the procedure and he then chooses φραγμὸν to fill that role.
Luke drops the procedure entirely and just goes with the thetic: Ἄνθρωπός τις ἐφύτευσεν ἀμπελῶνα and leaves it at that, cutting the Gordian knot, as it were.
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:But why should it be "emphasized" at all?
Well, the short answer is that focus doesn't mean emphasis.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:I'm saying that the saliency we see may not be what the author saw. Sometimes speakers of a language say something in a particular way not because of any special emphasis or meaning on the exegetical or even perceptible level, but because it sounds right to them.
I'm not saying you're wrong, Barry, in fact, you're certainly right. My question is:what could motivate "right-sounding-ness" and how could we evaluate it? This isn't about overthinking the question. This is about asking the question: "Why would X sound right and Y sound wrong?" In my mind, simply stopping the discussion at "it sounds right to them" is ending things right when they're getting interesting!
Jonathan Robie wrote:I was bringing up these distributions because I think they are at the heart of an approach to discourse analysis that I don't yet grok.
I'd encourage you to read Steve Runge's review of Kwong. He deals with a lot of the statistics issues:
I also talked about these things years ago while I was reading through Helma Dik's first monograph on Greek word order
https://evepheso.wordpress.com/2009/05/ ... cal-koine/