An earlier post in this series highlighted the difference in scope between what most linguists would claim about grounding (i.e. background, foreground) and the claims that Porter makes about grounding in his work on verbal aspect in Koine Greek. The key point was that linguists recognize the difference that changes in genre make to claims about foregrounding. None of them claim that there is one tense-aspect that globally carries the foreground. Instead, perfective aspect generally functions as the foreground in narrative, but not in other non-narrative genres. In contrast, Porter makes more sweeping claims, namely that certain tense-forms carry the foreground or background regardless of genre. There is no support for such a claim either from the literature he cites, or from any other that I am aware of. Yet this claim is a primary component of his overall model.

To be fair to Porter, it seems that he does recognize that there is variation from genre to genre in the role played by each tense-form. The problem is that he fails to reconcile this observation with his claims about his “planes of discourse” idea operating irrespective of genre. In other words, while he argues on the one hand that the aorist is always the background tense-form regardless of whether it is narrative or non-narrative, Porter also recognizes that the aorist only carries the mainline flow of the discourse in narrative proper, where as the present tense-form carries the mainline in the epistles. You see, in the literature he cites to support his model, the mainline is the foreground. It is not some distinct concept but a synonym for foreground.  Here is a little background.1

There are a number of paired terms used essentially as synonyms in grounding discussions, depending upon the researcher. This is due to the fact that “grounding” has been studied in the disciplines of art, literature, linguistics and psychology. Each group have developed their own terminology to refer to essentially the same concepts.2 These oppositions include “ground/figure,” “background/foreground,” “backbone/elaboration,” and “mainline/offline,” respectively. Porter uses the second grouping to describe his aspectual prominence model, grounding it in Wallace’s work and adding the tertiary “frontground.” 3 It is important to note that Porter does not outline the meaningful distinction between “foreground” and “mainline” despite the fact that the literature he cites uses these terms to refer to the same thing: that portion of the discourse which advances the plot, argument or procedure.

In his Verbal Aspect in the Greek New Testament volume, Porter uses “foreground/background” to refer to “planes of discourse,” whereby each tense-form indicates a certain plane of discourse regardless of what genre it occurs in. Each plane of discourse theoretically represents a different level of prominence. So for Porter, “foreground/background” do not necessarily refer to “that which advances the discourse,” but to what is most prominent in the discourse.

In his most recent article “Prominence: an Overview,”4 Porter has adopted a secondary set of terms–“mainline” and “offline”–to describe the difference that genre makes. Recall that foreground/background are used interchangably by most linguists with “mainline/offline,” referring to that which advances or does not advance the discourse, respectively. Porter uses the latter in a manner consistent with the rest of the linguistic world, but he fails to reconcile this use with his “background-foreground-frontground” model of aspectual prominence. You see, his claims about the global prominence of a given tense-form on a “plane of discourse” contradict the basic principle that the prominence of a form is directly related to its discourse function in a given genre. If in narrative the aorist carries the mainline, it will be the most salient form in the discourse. If the present carries the mainline in hortatory genres in Greek, then it will be the most salient in that genre. The other tense-forms are then understood to flesh out the offline details, those things which are needed to understand the discourse, but which do not advance it.

So there is a fundamental disconnect between how Porter substantiates his prominence model in the linguistic literature on grounding on the one hand, and how he draws an apparently meaningful distinction between “foreground/background” and “mainline/offline” on the other hand. I have not seen him provide any substantiation for the merits of this distinction, rendering his claims about global prominence vulnerable. The only logical alternative, based on the literature he cites, is for him to reframe his claims about “planes of discourse”  according to genre. Hence, in narrative proper the aorist typically conveys the foreground line, the imperfect and pluperfect the offline, with the historical present being pragmatically used for foreground material as a cataphoric highlighting device. These claims would then need to be reformulated for embedded speeches within narrative, and for the non-narrative epistles. Changing his planes of discourse would bring Porter much more closely in line with the literature he cites to support his model. However, doing so would completely undermine Porter’s model. He would no longer be able to claim that the stative aspect always conveys the most prominent plane of the discourse, since it would vary by genre. Aside from the article by Wallace, almost everything Porter cites deals strictly with narrative proper, not with the other genres. Keep this in mind as you read the literature.

Here is what I am talking about in saying that Porter is making contradictory claims. While Porter uses terminology that would lead you to believe that the “background aorist” is actually offline and part of the grounding, he uses the mainline/offline-supporting terms to argue the opposite. Here is a summary from his most recent article on the matter:

For the Greek speaker or writer, the aorist tense-form characterizes the mainline or storyline of the narrative discourse. Thus, in narrative sections of the Gospels, and other Greek narrative literature, the mainline of the narrative is usually carried by a string of aorist indicative verbs in primary clauses… The other tense-forms–the present/imperfect and perfect/pluperfect–are used for the foregrounding and frontgrounding of supporting material, including events but also evaluations and emotive statements (see below for further discussion of the Greek tense-forms). 5

It should not come as a big surprise that this mixture of figure-ground terminology to refer to the opposite of its typical usage has caused confusion. He is not just  inverting the meaning of background and foreground. Instead he apparently repurposes the terminology to suit his needs, referring not to grounding but to prominence. This repurposing of terminology has been severely criticized over the years. The larger problem is drawing an undefined distinction between “foreground/background” and “mainline/offline,” drawing a distinction cannot be supported from the literature he cites.

Porter indeed acknowledges what most linguists have claimed about grounding and genre distinctions, viz. the role played by each aspect varies from genre to genre. Having said that, there is still the little matter of reconciling these changes in grounding with his claims regarding the overall prominence of the tense-forms. The AORIST will tend to be the most salient in narrative, since it conveys the foreground/mainline events. In non-narrative, the PRESENT tense-form carries the foreground/mainline of the discourse, and thus conveys the most salient information. It is not the aspect itself that does this, despite what Porter might assert in his “planes of discourse” model. Instead, it is the FUNCTION of the aspect in the context. To claim otherwise is wishful thinking.

These are not irreconcilable differences, but they will require reformulation of Porter’s model. Adding secondary “mainline-offline” terminology will not make the problem go away, though it will likely quiet many of his critics. Porter must go back and address the impact that changes in genre have on his claims regarding global aspectual prominence. As it stands, he is playing both sides of the fence, acknowledging the relationship of genre and grounding, but ignoring the relationship of genre and prominence. This latter issue will be taken up in a future post.

Return to On Porter, Prominence and Aspect

  1. No pun intended [↩]
  2. For a helpful discussion of the nuances in terminology, see Helen A. Dry, “Foregrounding: An Assessment.” In Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, edited by Shin Ja J Hwang and William R Merrifield, 435–50. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992. [↩]
  3. I will return to the need for frontground in a future post. [↩]
  4. Porter, Stanley E. “Prominence: An Overview.” In The Linguist as Pedagogue, edited by Stanley E Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, 45-74. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd, 2009. [↩]
  5. Stanley E. Porter, “Prominence: An Overview.”Pp. 45-74 in The Linguist as Pedagogue, edited by Stanley E Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd, 2009), 57. [↩]