Campbell: Advances in the Study of Greek

cwconrad
Posts: 2109
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Campbell: Advances in the Study of Greek

Post by cwconrad » February 23rd, 2016, 7:36 am

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Stanley Porter has begun a series of blog posts reviewing Campbell's book, starting here: http://domainthirtythree.com/2015/09/08 ... -part-one/
Part three is interesting. Porter sounds somewhat bitter. He doesn't appreciate Campbell's representation of SFL, critiques Levinsohn's and Runge's lack of framework and completeness and is sceptical about all pronunciation systems and living language/immersion approach. I would love to see responses by Runge and Buth.
It is a pretty damning review; why am I not surprised?
0 x


οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

serunge
Posts: 26
Joined: May 23rd, 2011, 11:07 am
Location: Bellingham, WA
Contact:

Re: Campbell: Advances in the Study of Greek

Post by serunge » February 24th, 2016, 1:40 pm

I posted a reply to the Nerdy Language Majors thread on Facebook since that seemed to be where the discussion was initiated. https://www.facebook.com/groups/NerdyLa ... 740536698/

Porter's entitled to his opinions, but it seems to be degenerating into him disagreeing with linguistic work that was not by himself or a (former) student. I found it intriguing that the value he places on prestige is bleeding through of late, as thought that is a valid basis for rejecting an argument. I had suspected that, but never really expected he'd say it outright. His rebuttal to my forthcoming BBR critique also includes a similar admission about footnotes. I submitted my first critique of his use of contrastive substitution to NovT because it seemed like a legit journal. I learned in November that he's tasked one of his doctoral students with the response, who met with me to discuss the issues.

I have stopped trying to figure him out, and am just going to move along with my projects. Unfortunately, they will increasingly overlap with his prized areas as I move into sketching a methodology for DA. I end up addressing some pitfalls of a verb-form-only approach to grounding in my non-narrative contribution to "The Greek Verb Revisited." It's just not as simple as he wants it to be, but he seems hellbent on defending his claims as originally written. Such a course of action will make more deconstruction of his claims inevitable in order to advance the discussion.
0 x
Steve Runge

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 736
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Campbell: Advances in the Study of Greek

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » February 24th, 2016, 3:41 pm

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: Part three is interesting. ... critiques Levinsohn's and Runge's lack of framework and completeness ...
The framework question is certainly not something which will cause much grief among practicing textlinguists. Eons ago C. Westfall agreed[1] that being eclectic is what 'Discourse Analysis' is all about. If by framework we mean something like "Standard Theory" (an early form of generative grammar), Robert Longacre made some movement in that direction with his Grammar of Discourse. I have read most of the names mentioned in this discussion and at least a dozen who have not been mentioned. I have yet to see a framework. Please let me know when a framework arrives.

[1] private communication.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

serunge
Posts: 26
Joined: May 23rd, 2011, 11:07 am
Location: Bellingham, WA
Contact:

Re: Campbell: Advances in the Study of Greek

Post by serunge » February 24th, 2016, 4:07 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote: The framework question is certainly not something which will cause much grief among practicing textlinguists. Eons ago C. Westfall agreed[1] that being eclectic is what 'Discourse Analysis' is all about. If by framework we mean something like "Standard Theory" (an early form of generative grammar), Robert Longacre made some movement in that direction with his Grammar of Discourse. I have read most of the names mentioned in this discussion and at least a dozen who have not been mentioned. I have yet to see a framework. Please let me know when a framework arrives.

[1] private communication.
Porter seems more after a complete theory of communication, and that a full discourse analysis should account for all of these variables. The vast scope of his expectations is what also makes his model unworkable in practice. So I think that he is using framework in a much more encompassing sense that Levinsohn or I, which means we would always fall short in his view.

In my view, an eclectic, functional linguistic framework is something akin to Legos. Sometimes you only need a few modules to get the descriptive job done, but other times you run into issues that require more specialized components. For me, I was able to accomplish a lot with mastering information structure, cognitive processing, redundancy effects and mental representations. But as I headed into temporal adverbs I needed another component, so I added the prototype theory kit. There were lots of options available, but I went with John Taylor's Linguistic Categorization. When I moved on to the perfect verb I had to incorporate diachronic factors, so I added Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca's approach to grammaticalization.

As I add new bits that are compatible with the whole, each one enriches and challenges the other bits. I apply the pieces I need based on the task at hand, reflected in my citations and bibliography, but rarely do I bring to bear all the same ones on every task. So in this sense, I likely will fall short of the framework you are looking for in that it will look inconsistent and haphazard. But just because I don't bring out all my tools for every job (or Levinsohn for that matter) doesn't mean that there is not an organized wall of tools back in the shop, always with room for more.

I shifted metaphors midway through, apologies. I'm eclectic. :shock:
0 x
Steve Runge

Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 397
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Campbell: Advances in the Study of Greek

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen » February 24th, 2016, 7:37 pm

serunge wrote:I posted a reply to the Nerdy Language Majors thread on Facebook since that seemed to be where the discussion was initiated. https://www.facebook.com/groups/NerdyLa ... 740536698/
I belong to the small minority who's not in Facebook and it doesn't let me into that page. Is your reply available elsewhere?

Thanks for the honest and forthright reply here. I have had a feeling that something like this is going on. Probably it will lead to a situation where there are two camps in New Testament linguistics: porterites or McMaster school and all the others. The two camps will not interact much expect that the McMaster school will critique all the others. All the others will not bother because will find it useless. The McMaster school will be out of touch with linguistics at large, all the others will use all the possibilities of linguistics and will interact with linguistics outside New Testament scholarship. Finally the McMaster school will die away because it will be inbred, and all the others will include people who have studied primarily linguistics keeping the field fresh and healthy.

Not kind words, but I believe many others think something like this, too.
0 x

serunge
Posts: 26
Joined: May 23rd, 2011, 11:07 am
Location: Bellingham, WA
Contact:

Re: Campbell: Advances in the Study of Greek

Post by serunge » February 24th, 2016, 7:58 pm

Not sure how this will come out, and there were some previous comments that I omitted:

Cliff Kvidahl I'm sorry, but I find Porter's tone appalling. His undermining remark about Steve Runge's DA only available in a software package is comical when you consider his own publications with Brill are far more. Until he publishes something that attempts what Con has attempted-and not something that will cost and arm, leg, and kidney!-he does not have much ground to criticize.

Justin Woods Incisive and penetrating critique from a professional level linguist. He thrusts into the light areas most biblical scholars gloss over in ambivalence that are truly critical areas of linguistic insight. Biblical scholars are tossing the right terms but for all the wrong reasons. Its time to fess up: modern advances in linguistic modeling are required skills for Biblical language study. Those who lag behind in this area will meander around a reality that God is calling us toward for the next phase of Biblical scholarship--new insights from the only thing we have left from that original Jesus movement, the language of the New Testament. I miss being at McMaster dearly. And pray to return.

William Varner I have always hoped that he would never review one of my works. He can be rather sharp in his evaluations. Is that a euphemism?

Cliff Kvidahl Sharp and penetrating are expected. But would you not say this goes a few steps beyond that?

William Varner Cliff Kvidahl Expect it when he is criticized and Runge hit him pretty hard. Interesting that he gets back at Runge through a criticism of Campbell!

Steve Runge I have intentionally opted for accessibility and applicability in my work, both in terms of terminology and publishers. I have been chastised by colleagues for both, but the choices stem from placing a higher value on practicality than prestige. I have no doubt my academic prestige has suffered as a consequence, but I'm more concerned with pursuing my personal mission statement. Stan can hold me to his standards for DA and find me wanting, fair enough; but I know I’m being faithful to what I was called to do.

Below is a juxtaposing view of the same works that Stan finds unhelpful. The scholar has read the commentaries and has used the database. He purchased all of them; none were offered gratis. This suggests that we are dealing with opinions here. Stan seems to have a very specific idea of what qualifies as DA, and I look forward to the day when those of us who haven't studied with him can see his methodology exhaustively worked out on an entire NT book.

"Everyone who reads commentaries on biblical books knows they have different strengths. Some focus on words, others on Greek syntax, others on critical theory, still others on theological reflection -- and a few attempt a bit of everything. This High Definition Commentary: James (which follows up on Steven Runge's earlier HD commentaries on Philippians and Romans) reads James through the discipline of discourse analysis. The focus is less on what James says than on how he says it, so as better to appreciate the flow and emphases of what he writes. Runge's earlier volume, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction of Teaching and Exegesis (2010) unpacks his take on this discipline and tells readers how to use discourse analysis as they study the Greek New Testament, but does not do it for them. These HD commentaries do it for them in a readable, simple, helpful way, pitched at those who who want to understand the flow of the argument but whose Greek is minimal (or even non-existent). Readers who depend on visual learning will appreciate the clear and simple graphics; others will happily skip over them. But all will be helped to ponder with fresh eyes some of the easily overlooked elements of what God has given us through his servant James."

D. A. Carson
From https://www.logos.com/.../high-definiti ... tary-james
0 x
Steve Runge

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2662
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Campbell: Advances in the Study of Greek

Post by Stephen Carlson » February 24th, 2016, 11:32 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: Part three is interesting. ... critiques Levinsohn's and Runge's lack of framework and completeness ...
The framework question is certainly not something which will cause much grief among practicing textlinguists.
Nor even (certain) linguists, e.g. Martin Haspelmath's framework-free grammatical theory.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2662
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Campbell: Advances in the Study of Greek

Post by Stephen Carlson » February 25th, 2016, 6:30 am

serunge wrote:Porter's entitled to his opinions, but it seems to be degenerating into him disagreeing with linguistic work that was not by himself or a (former) student. *** I have stopped trying to figure him out, and am just going to move along with my projects. Unfortunately, they will increasingly overlap with his prized areas as I move into sketching a methodology for DA.
Well, my reading of Porter's critique of you is that he doesn't quite know what to make of you and your approach. There's no real criticism on substance, just on there not being enough of it and being too practical. I've read worse criticisms from him.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3372
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Campbell: Advances in the Study of Greek

Post by Jonathan Robie » February 26th, 2016, 12:10 pm

Someone emailed me and said he felt that some of these posts violate our respectful discourse policy:
If discussion of this nature is to succeed, proper respect and courtesy to other list members is important. While scholarly debate, including disagreement, is encouraged as a goal of this conference, attacks upon the character, intelligence, or faith of those participating are not acceptable. Criticism must focus upon the arguments of others; it may not be directed to the individual.
Let's try not to question people's motives or character, and focus on their reasoning.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

MAubrey
Posts: 898
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Campbell: Advances in the Study of Greek

Post by MAubrey » March 1st, 2016, 3:52 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: Part three is interesting. ... critiques Levinsohn's and Runge's lack of framework and completeness ...
The framework question is certainly not something which will cause much grief among practicing textlinguists.
Nor even (certain) linguists, e.g. Martin Haspelmath's framework-free grammatical theory.
Haspelmath has a very narrow definition of "framework." He's firmly in the cognitive linguistics camp.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Post Reply