One of the primary goals of this blog is to practically demonstrate the benefits of a functional approach to language using discourse grammar. Most of my attention is focused on biblical languages, but I used to take things out of everyday life and analyze them using the same concepts as the LDGNT and HDNT projects. Some of you may already know about many of the concepts from your own study or reading. The difficult part is to bring all of that literary, rhetorical, grammatical or syntactic knowledge to bear on every passage. This can be a lot of plates to keep spinning at once, and knowledge can grow fuzzy with lack of use. These projects are intended to point out exegetical data that should be interacted with, to offer an opinion about the structure of the passage, much like a commentary. You still need to synthesize it as part of the larger interpretive process.

Last week in church we sang a classic hymn in preparation for communion. I grew up in  a liturgical church, not understanding much of the archaically-phrased content. Hymns were included in this. It was not until joining Evangelical Free Church that I began to understand the beauty and richness of the traditional content that I had rejected. There was a worship pastor that took a bit of time most weeks to explain things, to discuss the meaning behind the symbols on his stole, the phrasing of the hymn.

Although Greek and English are very different, functional discourse grammar allows me to appropriately compare languages devices based on what they accomplish. Below is an analysis of the words, describing the discourse task the phrase or wording accomplishes, embedded in footnotes. If you are using an RSS reader, you will want to read directly from the site to utilize the pop-up feature of the footnotes.

If you want to learn more about the concepts discussed besides the brief definition I provide, see the Glossary on the publications page. It provides an expansion and an example. The Discourse Grammar does this to an even greater extent, with a minimum of 10 examples discussed for each concept. There is an excerpt of the draft available here.

O1 sacred Head,2 now wounded
With grief and shame weighed down
Now3 scornfully surounded
With thorns, Thine only crown4
How art Thou pale with anguish
With5 sore abuse and scorn!
How does that visage languish
Which once was bright as morn!
What Thou, my Lord,6 has suffered
Was all for sinners’7 gain
Mine was the transgression
But Thine the deadly pain
Lo, here I fall, my Savior!8
‘Tis I9 deserve Thy place
Look on me with Thy favor
Vouch safe to me Thy grace

Sacred Head now wounded
Sacred Head with shame weighed down10

What language shall I borrow
To thank Thee, dearest Friend11
For this12 Thy dying sorrow
Thy pity without end?13
O14 make me Thine forever!
And should I fainting be15

How does that visage languish
Which once was bright as morn!

Hope this was helpful. Next time you sing a hymn, take the time to think about what you are singing. There is great richness in words, especially if they are used well. Discourse grammar does not breathe life into what is analyzed, the life was there all along. The same holds for the Greek NT. We simply need to take the time and develop the skills needed to read well. Leave a comment if this was helpful, or if there are other things to point out.

  1. English does not really mark cases, but the use of “O” in King Jamesish language typically signals that what follows is a vocative of address. Such expressions identify the intended addressee of a speech, e.g. “Hey Joe, where you going…” Joe is not the grammatical subject, but a separate expression identifying the intended referent of “you.” You will find “O” frequently used in conjunction with commas to mark expressions in the English Bible as vocatives. [↩]
  2. The “sacred Head” is actually Jesus, as most would discern readily. The “changed reference” to a thematically loaded expression introduces the possibility of confusion, but it is outweighed by the thematic benefit of being able to (re-)characterize Jesus in a particular way in particular context for a particular thematic purpose. John the baptist referring to the Pharisees as “You brood of vipers” or Jesus the temple as “my Father’s house” are other examples. Changing from the preferred referring expression represents the writer’s choice to highlight something, typically for thematic reasons. [↩]
  3. The repetition of “now” is not to update the time, but is more likely “resumptive,” indicating that what follows is concurrent with whatever was going on in the last mention. This technique is often found in the OT, e.g. Gen 39:1 repeating the content from the end of Gen 37 about Joseph’s situation following the story of Judah and Tamar. I call it “Meanwhile, back at the ranch…” [↩]
  4. All of what precedes is a description of the intended addressee, Jesus. The main clause about this addressee begins with “How art…” The writer has gone to great lengths to characterize Jesus in a particular way in this particular context, based on his intended goals for the hymn. [↩]
  5. Again we see the repetition used to indicate a parallelism, that “with sore abuse…” connects to “with anguish”. The same task could have been accomplished stating “with anguish, sore abuse and scorn.” Repeating “with” explicitly creates two parallel but distinct pieces rather than a list of three items. [↩]
  6. Here is another changed reference, a vocative expression set off by commas rather than “O”. It identifies the referent of “Thou,” providing a more expected reference compared to the thematically loaded one from the first lines above. However, it still calls the reader to think about Jesus as “Lord,” to consider this aspect about him. [↩]
  7. Probably another thematically-loaded reference, in that “our” could probably have been used, just as “mine” is in the next line. Referring to “sinners,” however, highlights the need we have for a savior, the need we have for an atoning sacrifice. Note the change to “Savior” from “Lord” in the next vocative. It all works toward a unified thematic goal. [↩]
  8. Another changed reference accomplished using a vocative, set off by commas. We started with Jesus characterized as the “sacred Head”, shifted to “Lord,” and now to “Savior” based on the thematic importance his death has in addressing the problem of sin. [↩]
  9. Here is an example of where the rigid ordering of English syntax bends to needs of information structure. Emphasis–taking what was already the most important part of an utterance, and adding extra prominence to it–is normally accomplished in English using intonation, primary stress in the clause. This is not possible in written discourse. English, French and many other rigid languages use what is called an It-cleft construction to set the emphasized element apart. The same is found in Eph 5:8, “It is by grace you have been saved” instead of ” You have been saved by grace.” The sentence should read, “I deserve Thy place,” but this could lead us to view “I” simply as the subject, without any emphasis. By placing it in the cleft construction, the writer explicitly indicates what would otherwise only have been implicit: that “I” is the most important information in the clause. E.g., in answer to “Who killed the maid?” one might say “It was the butler who killer her” instead of “The butler killed her.” More often though we elide the answer to “It was the butler” or simply “The butler.” For King James or Shakespeare, “Twas the butler” would provide the right tense. The same goes for the French C’est moi, it is a cleft construction used for emphasis. Most cleft constructions you find serve to emphasize the clefted element, to place it in marked focus. [↩]
  10. The repetition of the refrain or chorus between verses serves to segment the song into verses, and to highlight thematic information. The same technique can be used in instrumental music, repeating a theme as in Beethoven’s Fifth. Martin Luther King’s repetition of “I have a dream” marks the end of a unit. Whether it begins or ends it, it still marks the boundary of the two units, explicitly segmenting one thing into smaller units. Without the repetition of a refrain/chorus, the singer would have to judge based on either the content or the music as to where the transition from one verse to the next is to be found. Since the music itself often repeats the same basic theme during the verse, the lack of an explicit marker would have made this task very difficult. It could have seemed like one long verse without the repetition to explicitly segment the text. [↩]
  11. Another changed reference using another thematically loaded vocative, set off by the comma and identifying the antecedent of “thee.” An implicit consequence of the atoning sacrifice of our Lord is the relationship that it brings about, that we can call him friend. [↩]
  12. Forward-pointing reference using “this” to attract extra attention to the target: “Thy dying sorrow.” He could have more simply said “For Thy dying sorrow,” omitting “this.” The forward-pointing reference highlights the thing for which the writer is giving thanks, the thing for which there is no language to borrow. [↩]
  13. Rhetorical question, with the expected answer that there is no language, there are no words capable of expressing the thanks. [↩]
  14. Not sure on this one, but I think that the “O” here strengthens the sense of the imperative verb, essentially adding emphasis to the whole clause. [↩]
  15. I believe that “fainting” is fronted within the verb clause for emphasis’ sake, compared to “should I be fainting.”
    Lord, let me never, never ((Here the repetition is for emphasis’ sake, like the way my daughters used to multiply “really” to strengthen a request.
    Outlive my love to Thee!

    Sacred Head now wounded
    Sacred Head with shame weighed down

    O sacred Head, now wounded
    With grief and shame weighed down
    Now scornfully surounded
    With thorns, Thine only crown
    How art Thou pale with anguish
    With sore abuse and scorn!
    How does that visage languish
    Which once was bright as morn! ((The verbatim repetition of the entire first verse accomplishes a very significant thematic task in the hymn. There is a tendency to forget the huge sacrifice that was made on our behalf as soon as we begin to revel in the glorious state of affairs that it has brought about.  Verse two describes this glorious state, but the writer’s intention is not to make us happy, but to cause us to reflect on what a great price was paid. The repetition is the return to reality after the celebration, the reminder that although grace is free, it came at great cost. The hymn writer heeds the words of Eccl. 7:1-4 regarding the sobering, balancing role played by sorrow. Ending on a downer note in the hymn challenges us to more carefully consider our response to the great gift we have received. [↩]