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 would ever do that ... nooOOOOoooo ) 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 and most need to be made points are done with humor. There's + and - and then there's - in order to mean ++ (sorry for the plus-plus, but it works well in this case). You can keep participants in the background by using pronouns. You can make the major participant extremely prominent by doing the same thing. The point I'm making in all this is that participant encoding--like nearly everything else in linguistics--must always be seen against the backdrop of what is expected. Normally, we talk about marked stuff. We generally expect, by definition, unmarked stuff. However, in certain situations (contexts) we EXPECT something to be marked. That is why I used the illustration from Luke. We EXPECT Jesus to be front and center, but Luke forces him into the background. That should throw the reader for a loop. And therefore a certain characteristic of the situation is brought prominently to the front. So, guess what. In that context, the unmarked is what is unexpected. And therefore strongly prominent. Odd. But that's the point, isn't it? It's odd. Someone...ummmm...let's see who was that....on list...hmmmm...said recently: > 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 I think you're right, Clay. -- Mike Sangrey msangrey@BlueFeltHat.org Landisburg, Pa. "The first one last wins." "A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth." --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu