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.
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 11th, 2017, 12:00 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 2:55 pm
I think a lot of contradictory and sometimes overblown claims have been made by some people who talk about discourse analysis (don't ask me how that makes discourse any different from other areas of Greek language study ...). I'm slowly beginning to see through all that fog, but I suspect you are way ahead of me.
I 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?

Stephen
0 x


Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

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 11th, 2017, 7:50 am

MAubrey wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 11:53 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 2:55 pm
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 I could pdf and share that lays out linguistic choice very nicely.
I would appreciate that.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

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 11th, 2017, 7:56 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 12:00 am
I 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?
I'm not sure how much of this is me misunderstanding things, but I 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.

That said, as I begin to see through the fog, I think it's less complicated and more clear-cut than I once thought, at least at the Discourse Features level. And part of the problem may be that I was exposed to this long ago but only now am beginning to look at it more seriously.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

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 11th, 2017, 7:07 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:56 am
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 12:00 am
I 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?
I'm not sure how much of this is me misunderstanding things, but I 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. A 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. I wish I knew why, because in the end there really is no alternative to a scientific investigation of language.

(3) :D
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:56 am
That said, as I begin to see through the fog, I think it's less complicated and more clear-cut than I once thought, at least at the Discourse Features level. And part of the problem may be that I was exposed to this long ago but only now am beginning to look at it more seriously.
I remember people talking about discourse analysis twenty years ago on B-Greek. I didn't get it then. Now, I need more out of my Greek than identifying syntactic relations.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

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

Re: Split Constituent in John 2:11

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » April 12th, 2017, 3:21 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:07 pm

I remember people talking about discourse analysis twenty years ago on B-Greek. I didn't get it then. Now, I need more out of my Greek than identifying syntactic relations.

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.

My current reading: The Colon Hypothesis, has helped solidify my understanding of the fundamental issues in text linguistics: cohesion, texture/textuality, scenarios, scripts. I 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?
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

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 12th, 2017, 3:36 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:07 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:56 am
That said, as I begin to see through the fog, I think it's less complicated and more clear-cut than I once thought, at least at the Discourse Features level. And part of the problem may be that I was exposed to this long ago but only now am beginning to look at it more seriously.
I remember people talking about discourse analysis twenty years ago on B-Greek. I didn't get it then. Now, I need more out of my Greek than identifying syntactic relations.
I'm beginning to get it now. And I've always needed more out of my Greek than identifying syntactic relations, I've usually done that via inductive Bible study and phenomenological approaches to the text.
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. I 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? I'd like to learn.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

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 12th, 2017, 4:42 pm

MAubrey wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 1:50 pm
Linguistic choice isn't authorial choice.
Intriguing. Taking pause before listing it under sophistry. Thinking along the lines that language is a rigged system.
0 x
Tús maith leath na hoibre.

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 12th, 2017, 7:01 pm

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. I 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?
I'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 I can recall, he's mostly interested in the order of colons, and he uses word order (among several other criteria) to diagnose his colons.
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 13th, 2017, 4:40 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. I know accomplished writers and editors who admit to having a poor grasp of grammar. I don't arrogantly pretend to have a better understanding than they do. Anyone who thinks that Discourse Analysis inculcates a superior understanding of the NT is in a sad delusion.
0 x
Tús maith leath na hoibre.

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 13th, 2017, 10:44 am

Robert Crowe wrote:
April 13th, 2017, 4:40 am
I know accomplished writers and editors who admit to having a poor grasp of grammar. I don't arrogantly pretend to have a better understanding than they do.
I know accomplished writers and editors who admit to having a poor grasp of Grammar. I don't arrogantly pretend to have a better understanding of grammar than they do.

Robert's Editor
0 x
Tús maith leath na hoibre.

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”