The wonders of Discontinuity in discourse-II

This is a continuation of my last post on the relationship of discontinuity and the historical present (HP) in the Greek NT, where I was following up on Con Campbell‘s observation that HPs in the GNT predominately fall into two semantic categories, verbs of motion/propulsion and verbs of speaking, taken from his Verbal Aspect, The Indicative Mood and Narrative. I made the point that these two classes of verbs are naturally associated with discontinuity, as is the use of the HP itself.

Verbs of motion/propulsion

If I want to introduce some new participant into a discourse, I have a few options. The first one is to introduce him/her/it as the complement of a verb, e.g. “I looked out the window and I saw an X.” A second option is to predicate the existence of X using a dummy subject like “there,” as in “There was an X outside my window.” Both of these methods conform to an unwritten code: “Thou shalt not introduce a new entity and allow it to be the subject of a verb in the same clause.” Generally speaking, this command is followed, though I noted here and here that strategies like left-dislocations and conditional frames of reference allow folks to do both without getting struck by lightening or causing confusion.

There is another way to introduce entities besides these already mentioned, one that only the really tricked-out users of discourse employ. Keep in mind that languages typically frown on introducing a new topic as the subject of a verb. It ends up being TMI for those of you texters out there: Too Much Information.

However, most languages will allow the introduction of new participants as subjects of verbs as long as they verbs are verbs of motion. So, I will be going through Con’s explanation to see how many HPs can be accounted for in this way.

Natural Discontinuity

You see, it is most natural to segment the text in places where there is natural discontinuity. Talmy Givόn claims in his Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction Vol. 1, p. 245, that these places are changes in time, place, participant, or kind of action. I argued in my 2006 ISBL paper in Edinburgh that the more such discontinuities there are in a given context, the higher the level the break in the discourse. If you have followed my posts on information structure, I noted there that frames of reference provide a means of making a discontinuity more prominent. It is not for emphasis, but to highlight the transition so that the reader properly tracks the transition in the discourse. My paper used the witty title, “Where three or more are gathered, there is discontinuity,” and was delivered in borrowed clothes because my luggage was lost most of the time I was at the conference. The paper needs revision, or I would have it posted. I have learned some things since then, and I no longer stand by some of the claims. I was being too rigid, too driven by numbers and not enough by principle. Alas, I digress.

Another reason for verbs of motion being associated with discontinuity besides describing the arrival of new participants is to indicate changes in location. This provides another a natural link to a natural discontinuity and the association of the HP with verbs of motion. Furthermore, verbs of motion are also typically used to indicate changes in location, and may be used to bring on stage either returning or new participants. Thus, verbs of motion are strongly associated with two of Givόn’s four natural discontinuities. Transitions from travel/movement to stative activity or dialogue would represent a change in “kind of action,” meaning that verbs of motion could potentially entail three of the four kinds of changes in any given context. So the association of HP usage with verbs of propulsion seems quite natural based on their association with natural discontinuity and my claim that the HP is primarily a marker of discontinuity.

Verbs of Speaking

Well what about the verbs of speaking? What’s up with them? Again, I contend their association with the HP usage has everything to do with natural discontinuity. People who do conversational analysis have noted certain preferences or tendencies in how speeches are reported. Typically two speakers take turns talking in a conversation.1 There are also “expected directions” that a given conversation will follow, based on one of the two speakers being the initiator of that direction. If one of them is moving the conversation in a particular direction, the general expectation is that the latter will go along with it.  Sometimes the other speaker will try to take the conversation in a different direction than the initiator wants. This has often been called a countering move. The countering move represents a break from the expected direction, a natural discontinuity in the discourse.

Writers want readers to be able to read and understand what they write. One aspect of this is helping the reader properly process the discourse by signposting various things like discontinuities. I have done this in my post with things like topic headings and paragraphing to (try and) make it easier for readers to track where I am going. I had to make choices about how and where to segment the post. It is not mandatory, but good writers attend to such details, even Mark. We should not be surprised that the writers of the gospels and Hebrew narrative do the same thing.

Take a look at Luke 5:4-5 where Peter wants to hit the rack instead of putting the nets out again. Luke uses two devices that help make the natural discontinuity that was already present (i.e. the change in speakers) stand out more. The added discontinuity makes the countering move stand out more, though the content of the speeches alone would have been sufficient.

4 Ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν, εἶπεν πρὸς τὸν Σίμωνα· ἐπανάγαγε εἰς τὸ βάθος καὶ χαλάσατε τὰ δίκτυα ὑμῶν εἰς ἄγραν.
5 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς Σίμων εἶπεν· ἐπιστάτα, διʼ ὅλης νυκτὸς κοπιάσαντες οὐδὲν ἐλάβομεν· ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ ῥήματί σου χαλάσω τὰ δίκτυα.

4 When He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, “Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.”

5 Simon answered and said, “Master, we worked hard all night and caught nothing, but I will do as You say and let down the nets.”(NASB)

There is a natural discontinuity at the transition from one speaker to the other. It would have been there whether Peter wanted to keep fishing or not. However, since Peter wants to go in a different direction than Jesus is leading in the conversation (namely, to bed), markers of discontinuity are added, indicated by bolding. These are not mandatory, but represent an option that the writer may use to ensure that the reader properly processes the countering move. One finds this same kind of strategy employed throughout the gospels, including in the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3:2-11.

3 ῏Ην δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων, Νικόδημος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων· 2 οὗτος ἦλθεν πρὸς αὐτὸν νυκτὸς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ῥαββί, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος· οὐδεὶς γὰρ δύναται ταῦτα τὰ σημεῖα ποιεῖν ἃ σὺ ποιεῖς, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ ὁ θεὸς μετʼ αὐτοῦ.
3 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.
4 λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν [ὁ] Νικόδημος· πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων ὤν; μὴ δύναται εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ δεύτερον εἰσελθεῖν καὶ γεννηθῆναι;
5 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. 6 τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν. 7 μὴ θαυμάσῃς ὅτι εἶπόν σοι· δεῖ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν. 8 τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλʼ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος.
9 ἀπεκρίθη Νικόδημος καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· πῶς δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι;
10 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις;

3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2 this man came to Him by night, and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” 
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 
4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” 
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” 
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things? (NASB)

The bolded text represents more encoding of either the speaker or of the quotative frame that introduces the speech. The expected norm within reported speeches between two parties is that “he said” signals a switch of speaker and hearer. There is no explicit need to use “answer” when a question has been asked, using a form of “to say” or LEGW is quite common.

There is also no need to use explicit  NP references like “Jesus” or “Nicodemus.” Once the participants are established and the conversation has begun, there is no semantic need to reiterate either party as long as the expected switch occurs.

There is also no need for two verbs of speaking, especially in v. 9. The verb APOKRINOMAI is used three times in contexts where no question has been asked. It is only in John 3:10 that it is “properly used, though here there is no need for the second verb of speaking. One of them is redundant, but it accomplishes a specific discourse function.

Why use two verbs of speaking when one will do? Why use a historical present (John 3:10) when an aorist would be more appropriate? Why use a fully explicit reference to the speaker when a simple zero or articular hO DE will do? The redundant elements have the effect of adding prominence to the natural discontinuity that was already present from the change is speakers. They have the effect of making a “mountain out of a mole-hill.” For more on this, see Levinsohn’s Discourse Features of the Greek New Testament, 215-260, or chapters 6 and 7 of Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament.

By the way, the use of multiple verbs of speaking and overencoded references to participants is utilized regularly in BH narrative. For a quick overview of these issues, with citations for further reading, see my JNSL article on the discourse function of redundant references to participants in Genesis 27. For the “extended dance-version of the same, see my dissertation.

To be continued…

1. …unless they are junior high girls. In this case, they talk over the top of each other. [↩]