Schedule for Open Session, Thematic Session on Discourse Markers, and Joint Session on Greek Phonology and PronunciationPosted: November 11, 2011 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment
For your convenience, the date, time, and venue of the open session, the thematic session on Discourse Markers, and the joint session with the Applied Linguistics for Biblical Languages Group on Greek Phonology and Pronunciation are gathered from the SBL online program book and reproduced below:
Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: 2004 – Convention Center
Cynthia Westfall, McMaster Divinity College, Presiding
Jonathan M. Watt, Geneva College / Ref. Pres. Seminary
The Community Diminutive (30 min)
Phillip S Marshall, Houston Baptist University
An Analysis of the Function of HOUTOS in Some Passages of the Book of Acts (30 min)
Sang-Hoon Kim, Chongshin University
Parallel Features in 1 John as Discourse Markers (30 min)
Francis G H Pang, McMaster Divinity College
Aspect and Aktionsart Once Again: Towards a Distinction between Properties of Verb and Verb Phrase (30 min)
Mark Beatty, Pacific Rim Bible College
Aspect in Biblical Greek Discourse: Insights from Hungarian, Russian, Vietnamese, English and Modern Greek (30 min)
Applied Linguistics for Biblical Languages
Joint Session With: Applied Linguistics for Biblical Languages, Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: 2002 – Convention Center
Theme: Greek Phonology and Pronunciation
William Warren, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Presiding
Oliver Simkin, Københavns Universitet
Greek Phonology from Alexander to the Modern Era (30 min)
Daniel B. Wallace, Dallas Theological Seminary
Erasmian Pronunciation (30 min)
Randall Buth, Biblical Language Center, Israel
Living Koine Pronunciation (30 min)
Michael P. Theophilos, Australian Catholic University
On the Pronunciation of Biblical Greek: A Re-assessment (30 min)
Discussion (30 min)
Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: 2004 – Convention Center
Theme: Discourse Markers
Randall Tan, Asia Bible Society, Presiding
Stephen Levinsohn, SIL International
“Therefore’ or “Wherefore”: What’s the Difference? (30 min)
Steve Runge, Logos Bible Software
Now and Then: Clarifying the Role of Temporal Adverbs as Discourse Markers (30 min)
Margaret Sim, SIL International
The Genitive Absolute in Discourse: More Than a Change of Subject (30 min)
Ray Van Neste, Union University
The Discourse Function of DE in 2 Timothy (30 min)
Cynthia Westfall, McMaster Divinity College, Respondent (15 min)
Discussion (15 min)
The abstracts for this year’s Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics Section papers for the open session (see open session abstracts) and thematic session (see thematic session abstracts) are available on this site as well for your convenience.
Online Links to SBL International PresentationsPosted: August 4, 2011 Filed under: Announcements Leave a comment
Some audio recordings and handouts from presentations on
Greek & linguistics at the Society of Biblical Literature International
Meeting in London this past July that have recently become available online may
be of interest. Stephen Levinsohn, Steve Runge, & Margaret Sim, three of
the scheduled speakers for the thematic session on Discourse Markers for our
section at the Society Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in San Francisco this
coming November, were among the presenters. Links to audio recordings and
handouts as well as information on who to contact to obtain additional links
may be found at Steve Runge’s blog (ntdiscourse.org) in the recent post http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2011/07/honoring-stephen-levinsohn-in-london.
Runge’s post also contains information about the publication
of a Festschrift honoring Stephen Levinsohn.
Road Map for This SitePosted: July 7, 2011 Filed under: Announcements Leave a comment
Right now the site contains mainly information that can be hunted down from the Society of Biblical Literature website (http://www.sbl-site.org/). However, this information is organized around & focused solely on the Biblical Greek Language & Linguistics section, including past session information (from 2004 to 2010), future session information (mainly program information for 2011), and preliminary abstracts for the 2011 sessions. We plan to post occasional updates and announcements on this site.
To gain immediate access to session info for the Biblical Greek Language & Linguistics section for 2011, please click on Future Meetings on the top right corner of this page (or click on the following url: https://greeklanguageandlinguistics.wordpress.com/future-meetings/). Note also that SBL has already made the entire preliminary SBL online program book live at http://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/Congresses_ProgramBook.aspx?MeetingId=19
Starting with 2011, we are strongly encouraging all presenters to make available on our website any content from their presentations at BGL&L sessions that they are willing to make public for distribution. This information can be submitted both before & after presentation at SBL. This content can be extended abstracts/summaries (beyond what has previously been submitted to the SBL program book), handouts, PowerPoint presentations, links to online content from presenters’ own websites/blogs, etc., up to & including full papers. If a version of a past presentation becomes published, we would also accept & post relevant bibliographic information. The goal of this new recommendation is to promote greater scholarly interaction with & access to the work presented at the sessions of the Biblical Greek Language & Linguistics section of SBL. How successful this new recommendation turns out to be depends on presenter response. Any material presenters make available through this site will come strictly from a voluntary labor of love on their part. It is not a requirement for acceptance of paper proposals for the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics section of SBL.
In addition, if you wish to gain access to papers from previous years, we encourage you to contact past presenters directly. The information on BGL&L sessions from past SBL meetings (please click on Past Meetings on the top right corner of this page or click on the following url: https://greeklanguageandlinguistics.wordpress.com/past-meetings/) should facilitate this. For SBL members, their contact information should be readily available. (To join SBL, please see http://www.sbl-site.org/membership/default.aspx.) After locating the presenter’s name from this page, all you would need to do is to look up his or her e-mail contact information from the SBL member directory http://www.sbl-site.org/membership/MemberDirectory.aspx (Note: SBL membership & log in is required to access the SBL member directory.)
Preliminary Abstracts for 2011 Open SessionPosted: June 15, 2011 Filed under: 2011 Presentations Leave a comment
The Community Diminutive (Jonathan M. Watt, Geneva College / Ref. Pres. Seminary)
In a paper on Greek diminutive suffixes presented to the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics section in 2010, I demonstrated from the literature that meanings of diminutive affixes across the world’s living languages correspond favorably with the semantic functions of NT Greek diminutive suffixes. These meanings included physical smallness, comparable quality, affection/endearment, and derogation – though sometimes they flag a semantic shift. I then proposed that a preponderance of diminutives in a speech act or written corpus might reflect a ‘colloquial word bank’ for members of a specific speech community. This paper investigates further that function which I had proposed for some NT diminutives. To accomplish this, I first discuss the settings and semantics of the roughly three dozen NT diminutives, including their topical concentration and preponderance in the gospel narratives (e.g. Swanson 1958; Petersen 1910). Second, I demonstrate from collected data, the field of pragmatics, and informant interviews connected with three living speech communities, that frequent diminution indicates specifically in-group communication of a self-aware community (e.g. Dressler et al 1994; Wierzbicka 1991). Third, I argue that there is sufficient evidence to interpret some diminutives in the gospels as reflecting distinctively Palestinian Jewish second-language usage of the language in specific settings, and should be interpreted accordingly in those contexts.
An Analysis of the Function of HOUTOS in Some Passages of the Book of Acts (Phillip S Marshall, Houston Baptist University)
The demonstrative pronouns HOUTOS and EKEINOS are commonly used in the Greek New Testament as deictic markers for entities and/or situations that are near or remote to the speaker in terms of space or time. As well, one detects their use in textual deixis, that is, to refer to a more recently mentioned referent in the text compared to one mentioned earlier. However, in a number of places in the Greek New Testament one finds the so-called “near demonstrative” HOUTOS used for items that are remote, and the so-called “far demonstrative” EKEINOS for items that are near. In this paper, we will analyze four sections of the book of Acts where the near demonstrative occurs in clusters: 4:10-11 (where the referent of HOUTOS alternates between Jesus and the lame man), 7:35-38 (where the referent of HOUTOS is Moses throughout, but Moses is thematic throughout as well, which situation invites us to ask why HOUTOS is used anaphorically to refer to a participant who is already thematic in the speech), 9:20-22 (where the referent of HOUTOS alternates between Jesus and Paul), and 10:36-43 (where anaphoric references to Jesus alternate between HOUTOS and AUTOS). We will investigate the pragmatic function of the use of HOUTOS to refer to different participants in narrative proximity and attempt to discern what the writer is communicating by using HOUTOS where the personal pronoun AUTOS might have been used.
Parallel Features in 1 John as Discourse Markers (Sang-Hoon Kim, Chongshin University)
This paper calls the readers to recognize the Johannine parallel features in 1 John, particularly as discourse markers, for proper understanding of 1 John that show the complexity of interactively-combined parallels, even in every line of the text. This phenomenon appears to be full of repetition, comparison, and contrasts. Without perceiving properly the certain rule of constructing phrases and sentences in terms of parallel (including chiastic or combined) relations in the discourse of 1 John, the readers may fail to evaluate the Johannine text, properly and meaningfully, disregarding its own way of network connection of meaning units. Designations, such as ‘beloved’ or ‘children’, in 1 John, and thematic issues such as ‘children of God’ have been generally considered as the significant factors among discourse markers. Structures of 1 John, however, are not depended upon these factors, but upon the unique designs of parallel features demonstrated over phrases and sentences. If we seriously regard the function of parallel features of 1 John as sectional markers, we may properly grasp its whole structure: A-B-A-C-A and B-C-B-C-B-C that reflects the specific, inter-related thematic arrangements, probably overcoming the controversial issue regarding the structure of 1 John.
Aspect and Aktionsart Once Again: Towards a Distinction between Properties of Verb and Verb Phrase (Francis G H Pang, McMaster Divinity College)
In the discussion of the verbal aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, Zeno Vendler’s characterization of verbal classes is often considered as a crucial development of the study. Quite a few works of Greek verbal aspect in the last thirty years use his quadripartition of lexical classes as part of their theory. This in turns fuels the debate among the aspect theorists on the distinction between semantics and pragmatics in the discussion of aspect. However, even though most of these proposals insist on articulating a clear distinction between semantics and pragmatics categories and a clear distinction between aspect and Aktionsart, such insistences break down when the tense-form under investigation lacks a clear expression of aspect. This study is an attempt to retrace the development of the verbal classes and to examine how it contributes to the discussion of verbal aspect in the New Testament Greek. It provides an up-to-date discussion of the nature of these verbal classes in cross-linguistic studies, and particularly regarding the question of whether the discussion of lexical aspect should be at the verb level or the verb phrase level. Advances from cross-linguistic studies are reviewed and used in the discussion of the Greek verbal system. It is argued that lexical aspect should be viewed as a property at the verb phrase level and more discussion on the classification criteria of various properties of verbs and verb phrases that are relevant to the understanding of Greek lexical aspect is needed.
Aspect in Biblical Greek Discourse: Insights from Hungarian, Russian, Vietnamese, English and Modern Greek (Mark Beatty, Pacific Rim Bible College)
From such Biblical Greek grammarians as Campbell, Fanning, Porter and Wallace, a prospective Greek Exegete is presented with a perplexity of aspectual schemata. An empirical flaw common to all, however, is the failure of each grammarian to fully incorporate periphrastic structures in their proposed aspectual systems. If one views “aspect” as human beings linguistically encoding kinds of action; and if one considers all human beings similar in their cognitive potential; then the question must be asked how the vast number of languages are similar in expressing aspect. The answer to this question lies in the periphrastic structures used in many languages. Hungarian and Russian have extensive morphological aspect. English, Modern Greek and Biblical Greek have a combination of morphological and lexical aspect. Vietnamese has no morphological aspect what-so-ever and thus all aspect in Vietnamese is lexical which can be considered “periphrastic.” This paper will show that all languages are similar in their aspectual abilities. The proposed aspectual schema will be verified by examining discourse patterns in the New Testament.
Preliminary Abstracts for 2011 Thematic Session on Discourse MarkersPosted: June 15, 2011 Filed under: 2011 Presentations Leave a comment
‘Therefore’ or ‘Wherefore’: What’s the Difference? (Stephen Levinsohn, SIL International)
This paper argues that the inferential connectives of New Testament Greek are best differentiated not ‘according to emphasis’ (Westfall), but in terms of the unique constraint on interpretation (Blakemore) that each conveys. Oun constrains what follows to be interpreted as an advancement of a theme line, whether the current one or an earlier one that is being resumed following intervening material (+Development). This constraint applies even to passages in which some have assigned an adversative ‘sense’ to oun. Ara is marked as +Consequence, so ara oun is +Consequence +Development. In contrast, dio constrains what follows to be interpreted as inferential material that does not advance the theme line (unmarked for development). When dia touto is used anaphorically, it constrains what follows to be related inferentially to a specific referent (+Specific). When hoste introduces an independent clause or sentence, it constrains it to be interpreted as the conclusion of a section or sub-section (+Conclusion). The differences between oun, dio and dia touto are illustrated with reference to Rom 15. Consideration of 2 Cor 4:16-5:21 then allows contrasts with ara and hoste to be added. The paper concludes with suggestions as to the constraints associated with other inferential connectives (toigarnun, toinun, dioper, plus dioti in Acts 13:35 and 20:26, together with hothen in non-locative contexts).
Now and Then: Clarifying the Role of Temporal Adverbs as Discourse Markers (Steve Runge, Logos Bible Software)
Conjunctions and temporal adverbs contribute significantly to the shaping of a discourse. Although conjunctions nearly always serve as discourse markers, the same cannot be said of temporal adverbs. Blakemore (2002:178) suggests that only a subset of temporal adverbs function as discourse markers, those which are not part of the propositional form, i.e. which are conceptually separate from the main proposition. However there is a tendency to treat temporal adverbs monolithically, e.g. as though NUN and TOTE always mark transitions in the discourse. This paper outlines principles for determining whether or not a temporal adverb is functioning as a marker within the discourse. The principles will be applied to NUN and TOTE and tested using representative examples from the Greek New Testament and Apostolic Fathers.
The Genitive Absolute in Discourse: more than a change of subject (Margaret Sim, SIL International)
For generations of scholars the genitive absolute in Classical and Koine Greek has been a well attested literary device parallel to the ‘ablative absolute’ in Latin. It effects cohesion in discourse and has been viewed as giving background information as well as indicating a change of subject or ‘switch reference’. This paper disputes the latter as being the predominant function of this participial construction and discusses its role in the New Testament, Xenophon and the papyri with reference to a modern theory of cognition which claims to give principles for the way in which humans communicate with one another.
The Discourse Function of DE in 2 Timothy (Ray Van Neste, Union University)
The meaning and function DE has been extensively discussed by both traditional and discourse linguists. According to traditional analysis DE has both a copulative and an adversative use. More recently Levinsohn and Heckert have argued that the basic function of DE is to mark new developments in a discourse (thus encompassing the two different uses discussed by traditional grammarians). It will be useful to examine the function of DE throughout one complete discourse. Since 2 Timothy contains the widest range of uses of DE in the Pastoral Epistles (including the only occurrences of certain constructions in the PE), 2 Timothy will provide a useful setting for this investigation. While Heckert’s analysis focused on the Pastoral Epistles, his treatment was necessarily selective, and was handled thematically by various functions. Thus, this paper will analyze the function of every occurrence of DE in 2 Timothy in order to further examine the discourse function of DE and to test the interpretive value of Levinsohn and Heckert’s understanding of DE.
Informational PurposePosted: June 15, 2011 Filed under: Announcements Leave a comment
The Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics (BGL&L) Section is part of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). This section aims to promote and discuss ongoing research into biblical Greek language and linguistics, covering the Septuagint and particularly the New Testament.
We meet once a year as part of the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting (which typical meets every November, from Saturday to Tuesday before the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S.). According to the SBL website:
The SBL Annual Meeting is the largest gathering of biblical scholars in the world. Each meeting showcases the latest in biblical research, fosters collegial contacts, advances research, and focuses on issues of the profession.
This site has an informational purpose. While it provides some information from past meetings, it will mainly serve to post announcements about future meetings of the Section at SBL and provide details of the papers to be presented.