Split Constituent in John 2:11

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3744
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Split Constituent in John 2:11

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 1st, 2017, 3:52 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 3:39 pm
John 2:11 Ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ
.

Prof. Carlson is looking at something later from Levinsohn than Discourse Features NTG 2000, where on page 83 bottom this Ταύτην is underlined but not bold.
He may well be looking at this:

http://www-01.sil.org/~levinsohns/JohnBART.pdf

The coloring is described here:

http://www-01.sil.org/~levinsohns/Enhan ... playNT.pdf

Some of the annotations are easier to see as text, let me try:
Verse 1, Focus+
JHN.2.1!6 Focus+ - γάμος

Verse 1, Situational PoD
JHN.2.1!2-JHN.2.1!5 Situational PoD - τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ

Verse 3, Focus+
JHN.2.3!11 Focus+ - οἶνον

Verse 3, Historical Present
JHN.2.3!4 Historical Present - λέγει

Verse 3, Reported Speech
JHN.2.3!11-JHN.2.3!13 Reported Speech - οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσιν

Verse 4, Historical Present
JHN.2.4!2 Historical Present - λέγει

Verse 4, Over-encoding
JHN.2.4!4-JHN.2.4!5 Over-encoding - ὁ ἰησοῦς

Verse 4, Reported Speech
JHN.2.4!6-JHN.2.4!15 Reported Speech - τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί γύναι οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου

Verse 5, Focus+
JHN.2.5!7-JHN.2.5!11 Focus+ - ὅ τι ἂν λέγῃ ὑμῖν

Verse 5, Historical Present
JHN.2.5!1 Historical Present - λέγει

Verse 5, Over-encoding
JHN.2.5!2-JHN.2.5!4 Over-encoding - ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ

Verse 5, Reported Speech
JHN.2.5!7-JHN.2.5!12 Reported Speech - ὅ τι ἂν λέγῃ ὑμῖν ποιήσατε

Verse 6, Embedded Focus+
JHN.2.6!7-JHN.2.6!11 Embedded Focus+ - κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἰουδαίων

Verse 7, Historical Present
JHN.2.7!1 Historical Present - λέγει

Verse 7, Reported Speech
JHN.2.7!5-JHN.2.7!8 Reported Speech - γεμίσατε τὰς ὑδρίας ὕδατος

Verse 8, Articular Pronoun
JHN.2.8!10 Articular Pronoun - οἱ

Verse 8, Historical Present
JHN.2.8!2 Historical Present - λέγει

Verse 8, Reported Speech
JHN.2.8!4-JHN.2.8!9 Reported Speech - ἀντλήσατε νῦν καὶ φέρετε τῷ ἀρχιτρικλίνῳ

Verse 9, Embedded Focus+
JHN.2.9!8 Embedded Focus+ - οἶνον

Verse 9, Focus+
JHN.2.9!15 Focus+ - οἱ
JHN.2.9!17 Focus+ - διάκονοι

Verse 9, Historical Present
JHN.2.9!23 Historical Present - φωνεῖ

Verse 9, Over-encoding
JHN.2.9!4-JHN.2.9!5 Over-encoding - ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος
JHN.2.9!26-JHN.2.9!27 Over-encoding - ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος

Verse 9, Postposed them subject
JHN.2.9!26-JHN.2.9!27 Postposed them subject - ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος

Verse 9, Right-Dislocated
JHN.2.9!19-JHN.2.9!22 Right-Dislocated - οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ

Verse 9, Situational PoD
JHN.2.9!1 Situational PoD - ὡς
JHN.2.9!3-JHN.2.9!14 Situational PoD - ἐγεύσατο ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον καὶ οὐκ ᾔδει πόθεν ἐστίν

Verse 10, Embedded Focus+
JHN.2.10!8 Embedded Focus+ - καλὸν
JHN.2.10!19 Embedded Focus+ - καλὸν

Verse 10, Focus+
JHN.2.10!7-JHN.2.10!9 Focus+ - τὸν καλὸν οἶνον

Verse 10, Historical Present
JHN.2.10!2 Historical Present - λέγει

Verse 10, Referential PoD
JHN.2.10!4-JHN.2.10!5 Referential PoD - πᾶς ἄνθρωπος
JHN.2.10!16 Referential PoD - σὺ

Verse 10, Reported Speech
JHN.2.10!4-JHN.2.10!22 Reported Speech - πᾶς ἄνθρωπος πρῶτον τὸν καλὸν οἶνον τίθησιν καὶ ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν τὸν ἐλάσσω σὺ τετήρηκας τὸν καλὸν οἶνον ἕως ἄρτι

Verse 10, Situational PoD
JHN.2.10!6 Situational PoD - πρῶτον
JHN.2.10!12-JHN.2.10!13 Situational PoD - ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν

Verse 11, Focus+
JHN.2.11!1 Focus+ - ταύτην

Verse 11, Split Focal
JHN.2.11!3-JHN.2.11!5 Split Focal - ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων
And yes, this is something I'm looking at right now ;->
0 x


ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1104
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Split Constituent in John 2:11

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » April 1st, 2017, 4:53 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 3:52 pm

Verse 10, Focus+
JHN.2.10!7-JHN.2.10!9 Focus+ - τὸν καλὸν οἶνον

Verse 10, Historical Present
JHN.2.10!2 Historical Present - λέγει

Verse 10, Referential PoD
JHN.2.10!4-JHN.2.10!5 Referential PoD - πᾶς ἄνθρωπος
JHN.2.10!16 Referential PoD - σὺ

Verse 10, Reported Speech
JHN.2.10!4-JHN.2.10!22 Reported Speech - πᾶς ἄνθρωπος πρῶτον τὸν καλὸν οἶνον τίθησιν καὶ ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν τὸν ἐλάσσω σὺ τετήρηκας τὸν καλὸν οἶνον ἕως ἄρτι

Verse 10, Situational PoD
JHN.2.10!6 Situational PoD - πρῶτον
JHN.2.10!12-JHN.2.10!13 Situational PoD - ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν

Verse 11, Focus+
JHN.2.11!1 Focus+ - ταύτην

Verse 11, Split Focal
JHN.2.11!3-JHN.2.11!5 Split Focal - ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων
John 2:11 Ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.

I don't pretend to totally comprehend Levinsohn's concepts. Assuming that i was inclined to do topic - focus analysis on this passage, I would start looking for the focus element with word ἀρχὴν. But focus can be more than one word. So perhaps ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων could be understood as in focus. I am really not on this band wagon anymore so my thinking about it has become rusty. If you accept what the grammars are saying about Ταύτην ... ἀρχὴν then I don't see how we could have both Ταύτην and ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων as a focus constituent since they are not understood as members of a single constituent. Perhaps the problem is I don't understand what he means by split focal. In other words, split focal may be compatible with the syntax analysis found in the grammars.

My general criticism of this system of analysis is that it is too complex to be useful for students of the Greek Bible. A seminary student doesn't have five years to dedicate to information structure analysis.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Split Constituent in John 2:11

Post by Stephen Carlson » April 1st, 2017, 7:05 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 2:08 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 8:09 am
Stephen Levinsohn analyzes this as ταύτην in pre-verbal focus, with the rest of it following the verb. I haven't looked at the context so whether that's a plausible analysis.
I can't quite render this in English, but perhaps this comes close to the sense as Levinsohn sees it?
Well, the most usual way in English to handle an element in focus is to emphasize it in situ, which doesn't always come across well in writing, unless readers are particularly attuned to the way the discourse is being developed. Nevertheless, there are a number of devices, such as cleft sentences (e.g., "It is ${focus} that ${background}."), that can be used in writing to more unambiguously signal the information structure. But this yields something awkward like "It is this that Jesus did (as) the first of his signs, ..."

Let's look at some strategies in a couple of translations:
NRSV wrote:Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory;
In English, the normally expected place for focus is toward the end of a sentence, but the apposition, "the first of his signs," in effect created an ending, allowing for "this" to be in a good position for the focus. I think this is a fine attempt.
NET wrote:Jesus did this as the first of his miraculous signs, in Cana of Galilee. In this way he revealed his glory,
Probably the closest of the translations to Levinsohn's analysis, the NET employs a very similar strategy to the NRSV but renders the apposition as a second complement for ἐποίησεν (here, as an "as"-phrase), which fits a split focus analysis.
NIV wrote:What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory;
I'm not sure what the NIV is doing here. They don't actually translate the ταύτην. What they do instead is to employ a pseudo-cleft construction, which performs the function of "What ${background} is ${focus}." So it looks like the NIV translators read the Greek with Ταύτην ἐποίησεν ... ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας as some kinds of topicalizing or contextualizing fragment, with ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων in focus. Nothing I've learned about Greek information structure would support that analysis.
LEB (NKJV, KJV) wrote:This beginning of signs Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee, and revealed his glory,

Here, the Lexham English Bible (which is like the NKJV except for the preposition in front of "Cana") preposes the full object constituent. This does convey some emphasis on the constituent, and the demonstrative "this" naturally attracts the accent. Although it works, it does seem to have a different analysis of the information structure of the sentence than Levinsohn. Preposing in English is best used for contrastive topics (which are like a topic-focus hybrid and their analysis is still somewhat controversial).
RSV, ESV wrote:This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory.
The RSV and ESV are employing a similar strategy as the LEB, but the use of apposition more unambiguously emphasizes the demonstrative.
This he did - the first of his signs - in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory.
Here you are closely following the word order of the Greek, even though English and Greek use word order different to convey things differently. It is a lot like the RSV/ESV, except the apposition is moved farther away from what it pertains to.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Split Constituent in John 2:11

Post by Stephen Carlson » April 1st, 2017, 11:20 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 3:39 pm
John 2:11 Ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ
.

Prof. Carlson is looking at something later from Levinsohn than Discourse Features NTG 2000, where on page 83 bottom this Ταύτην is underlined but not bold.
Just call me Stephen. (I'm not a professor in the Australian system.)
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 3:39 pm
My understanding, not leaning on anyone else: Ταύτην is the link to the preceding context which I call a contextualizer. It isn't the most salient constituent. Ταύτην does not form a constituent with ἀρχὴν so nothing is divided.
Yes, I'm looking at his later BART stuff, which appears to have a different analysis. This looks like a fair explanation of Levinsohn's 2000 analysis. I wonder why he changed his mind?
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 3:39 pm
The traditional grammars taken collectively are somewhat confusing but if you are willing to muddle through them an approximation of clarity emerges. The idea that Ταύτην is moved forward is questionable. That concept can be traced at least as far back as Chomsky '57 (see movement in David Crystal, Dict. Lang. & Ling.). I have come to question some of the fundamental unspoken assumptions that linger just below the surface in NT Greek word order discussions and movement is one of them. Movement implies something akin to deep structure which combines with transformations. If you eliminate the idea of some fundamental prototypical word order then movement becomes unnecessary.
Yes, Chomsky's transformational / generative grammar is famous for movement, but not all grammars use that notion, especially not the functional grammar of Simon Dik that Levinsohn sort of follows. And generative grammar doesn't dealt with "prototypical" stuff. I'm not sure this explanation is helpful.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Split Constituent in John 2:11

Post by Stephen Carlson » April 2nd, 2017, 12:02 am

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 4:53 pm
Perhaps the problem is I don't understand what he means by split focal. In other words, split focal may be compatible with the syntax analysis found in the grammars.
I'm not sure I understand that either. He's constantly been updating his system and not everything is documented well.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 4:53 pm
My general criticism of this system of analysis is that it is too complex to be useful for students of the Greek Bible. A seminary student doesn't have five years to dedicate to information structure analysis.
My criticism is that it is still immature and being worked out. But that's a big improvement over the past which is to bury one's head in the sand about it.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Robert Crowe
Posts: 108
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Split Constituent in John 2:11

Post by Robert Crowe » April 3rd, 2017, 6:25 am

This thread reminds me of the day a dodgy optician tried to sell me a pair of bi-focal glasses. The more I learn about Discourse Analysis the less I am enthused about. It appears to lack a rigorous methodology. Fundamentally, it would be necessary to establish that Greek has a default word order. The studies on this are purely statistical and the results vary depending on the text being investigated.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 2nd, 2017, 12:02 am
My criticism is that it is still immature and being worked out. But that's a big improvement over the past which is to bury one's head in the sand about it.
As things stand, the advocates appear to be digging a hole for themselves.
0 x
Tús maith leath na hoibre.

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3744
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Split Constituent in John 2:11

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 3rd, 2017, 7:34 am

I'm very much still learning about discourse, and also considering which features should be represented in syntax trees and how.

Runge and Levinsohn have each done a lot of work on identifying discourse features and discourse grammar of the sentence. They have each gone through the entire Greek New Testament, creating datasets that give the discourse features they believe exist in each sentence. That's quite a serious look at the data, and they had to make their theories fit the data. I'm currently looking at a few passages using Levinsohn's data, and it is making more sense to me than it did before. But I'm tending to look at his data to understand what he is doing instead of reading his earlier writing, and I suspect that he might write differently about some things now.

When people talk about discourse analysis, they often say that it is about things that occur above the sentence level, but Runge and Levinsohn each focus primarily on features found within a sentence. Runge points out that the same features found in a sentence are used to structure discourse as a whole, and apparently showed how he would extend this to discourse analysis in his commentary of Romans, which I do not have and have not read. But when I started thinking of Runge and Levinsohn as grammar of discourse features, it was easier for me to grasp what they were doing.

I also found it helpful to stop thinking of discourse as one methodology. Different people are doing decidedly different things, and I have not yet grasped what they are all doing. I am slowly grasping what Levinsohn is doing, and I think I have come to realize that Levinsohn's Point of Departure is different from Runge's frames, though they have a lot in common. Does anyone know of a good comparison of their methods?

Steven Runge and Stephen Levinsohn have I suspect it might be useful to look at the entire passage of John 2:1-11, looking at Levinsohn's analysis in detail, then compare it to Runge's. I have only Levinsohn's analysis, but perhaps someone out there has Runge's?
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

MAubrey
Posts: 1030
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Split Constituent in John 2:11

Post by MAubrey » April 5th, 2017, 10:43 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 7:34 am
Steven Runge and Stephen Levinsohn have I suspect it might be useful to look at the entire passage of John 2:1-11, looking at Levinsohn's analysis in detail, then compare it to Runge's. I have only Levinsohn's analysis, but perhaps someone out there has Runge's?
Steve & Stephen checked their databases against each other. I'd expect that they aren't super different in the majority of cases.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Robert Crowe
Posts: 108
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Split Constituent in John 2:11

Post by Robert Crowe » April 6th, 2017, 5:05 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 7:34 am
I also found it helpful to stop thinking of discourse as one methodology.
I see a kind of method in your madness.
0 x
Tús maith leath na hoibre.

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Split Constituent in John 2:11

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 6th, 2017, 12:23 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 2:15 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 8:51 am
Cf. Luke 2:10

(Sorry I can't quote it).
Luke 2:10 wrote:καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ἄγγελος· Μὴ φοβεῖσθε, ἰδοὺ γὰρ εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν χαρὰν μεγάλην ἥτις ἔσται παντὶ τῷ λαῷ,
What parallel do you see? My poor blind eyes don't see a split focus here.
Yes. It seems to have disappeared from that verse. I'm sure it will turn up on another one later.

Here is another nice one to substitute for your lack of happiness.
John 4:54 wrote:Τοῦτο πάλιν δεύτερον σημεῖον ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἐλθὼν ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”