Comments on: The value of linguistics for understanding Greek http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2010/03/value-linguistics-understanding-greek/ Removing the mystery from discourse grammar Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:31:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Steve Runge http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2010/03/value-linguistics-understanding-greek/comment-page-1/#comment-1465 Steve Runge Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:55:30 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=1180#comment-1465 Gary, although there are limited resources at the moment for doing so, I think there can be a middle ground, seeking to leverage the strengths of both. I think linguistics can provide a useful framework for thinking about language, beginning with English in my context. I am working on outlining a book that would provide just such an introduction. Regarding the problem of wide reading early, James Tauber has described a "<a href="http://vimeo.com/10489590" rel="nofollow">new kind of graded reader</a>" that would be great. But changes like I am describing are going to require more work on the part of the tutor, not only in researching them but in implementing them in the classroom. Gary, although there are limited resources at the moment for doing so, I think there can be a middle ground, seeking to leverage the strengths of both. I think linguistics can provide a useful framework for thinking about language, beginning with English in my context. I am working on outlining a book that would provide just such an introduction. Regarding the problem of wide reading early, James Tauber has described a “new kind of graded reader” that would be great. But changes like I am describing are going to require more work on the part of the tutor, not only in researching them but in implementing them in the classroom.

]]> By: Gary Simmons http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2010/03/value-linguistics-understanding-greek/comment-page-1/#comment-1464 Gary Simmons Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:41:04 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=1180#comment-1464 "Those who are widely read have internalized all that data, and can recognize a bad description when they see one EVEN IF they cannot articulate what the better alternative should be." I think this is important to remember. People who internalize a language will, to varying degrees, have an instinctual understanding of its process. The inability to consciously articulate the reasons why should not be held against traditionalists, even though I can understand how frustrating it must feel to hear "you're wrong. I can't quite put my finger on why." However, when you learn language by immersion with only the help of normal non-linguists, you have to hear that sort of response often anyway. Humility and, as you said, mutual respect, are key here. That said, which approach should be used for first-year Greek classes? It's very difficult to teach a class of students who do not know what an adjective is. So, at least for the first year (in which students cannot read a wide range of texts anyway) a linguistic approach may be more suitable. Lest I be seen as arguing for one side or the other overall, I am simply pointing out my concern from the perspective of the first-year tutor. “Those who are widely read have internalized all that data, and can recognize a bad description when they see one EVEN IF they cannot articulate what the better alternative should be.”

I think this is important to remember. People who internalize a language will, to varying degrees, have an instinctual understanding of its process. The inability to consciously articulate the reasons why should not be held against traditionalists, even though I can understand how frustrating it must feel to hear “you’re wrong. I can’t quite put my finger on why.” However, when you learn language by immersion with only the help of normal non-linguists, you have to hear that sort of response often anyway. Humility and, as you said, mutual respect, are key here.

That said, which approach should be used for first-year Greek classes? It’s very difficult to teach a class of students who do not know what an adjective is. So, at least for the first year (in which students cannot read a wide range of texts anyway) a linguistic approach may be more suitable.

Lest I be seen as arguing for one side or the other overall, I am simply pointing out my concern from the perspective of the first-year tutor.

]]> By: Steve Runge http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2010/03/value-linguistics-understanding-greek/comment-page-1/#comment-1461 Steve Runge Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:04:54 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=1180#comment-1461 Carl, this issue is indeed a two-way street, one littered with wrecks of head-on collisions by those who insist it is actually one-way. I think that we are nearing a corner in the discussion, but I expect it will take the better part of a generation to begin to see a change take hold. The change will probably not come from the majority of older scholars who have already driven a stake in their plot of lentils, but from the young Turks who see the pointlessness of the continued bickering. Your comments about the aspect wars souring the discussion are insightful. Trying to prove a theory by showing how inept the others are will win few over. It polarizes the discussion, probably ending it. Another point I have been noticing is the care (or lack of it) that scholars take in reading the work of others. The idea of "peer review" is oft upheld as what sets us apart from the common folk. Yet for all of this posturing, I continue to see instances where a peer should have caught an issue if there was a critical reading. As interest in linguistics grows, there are theses coming out from schools that are ill-equipped to supervise such research. The advisers lack the requisite background. Since it is new and innovative, it gets published, granting it an authority status that younger scholars are seemingly afraid to question. If it's published and peer-reviewed, it must be correct, right? I ran into this in my dissertation studies: a volume came out as I was midway through the writing process. It was a confused mess of ideas, and therefore difficult to summarize because it failed to adequately engage the literature. It took the shopping cart approach, adding things that were helpful, ignoring the rest. When I asked Christo about it, he told me to just ignore it. Since the author had not engaged the literature, there was little point in trying to engage his argument. Its flaws went clear to the bone. Unfortunately, that was not the last such work I have seen. The OT folks patrol the field quite well in linguistics, the peer-review process strikes me as much stronger there than in NT Greek. Classical studies also seems quite well policed, there is some fine work going on in information structure and pragmatics. As always, thanks for the dialogue and the comment. Carl, this issue is indeed a two-way street, one littered with wrecks of head-on collisions by those who insist it is actually one-way. I think that we are nearing a corner in the discussion, but I expect it will take the better part of a generation to begin to see a change take hold. The change will probably not come from the majority of older scholars who have already driven a stake in their plot of lentils, but from the young Turks who see the pointlessness of the continued bickering. Your comments about the aspect wars souring the discussion are insightful. Trying to prove a theory by showing how inept the others are will win few over. It polarizes the discussion, probably ending it.

Another point I have been noticing is the care (or lack of it) that scholars take in reading the work of others. The idea of “peer review” is oft upheld as what sets us apart from the common folk. Yet for all of this posturing, I continue to see instances where a peer should have caught an issue if there was a critical reading. As interest in linguistics grows, there are theses coming out from schools that are ill-equipped to supervise such research. The advisers lack the requisite background. Since it is new and innovative, it gets published, granting it an authority status that younger scholars are seemingly afraid to question. If it’s published and peer-reviewed, it must be correct, right? I ran into this in my dissertation studies: a volume came out as I was midway through the writing process. It was a confused mess of ideas, and therefore difficult to summarize because it failed to adequately engage the literature. It took the shopping cart approach, adding things that were helpful, ignoring the rest. When I asked Christo about it, he told me to just ignore it. Since the author had not engaged the literature, there was little point in trying to engage his argument. Its flaws went clear to the bone. Unfortunately, that was not the last such work I have seen. The OT folks patrol the field quite well in linguistics, the peer-review process strikes me as much stronger there than in NT Greek. Classical studies also seems quite well policed, there is some fine work going on in information structure and pragmatics.

As always, thanks for the dialogue and the comment.

]]> By: Carl Conrad http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2010/03/value-linguistics-understanding-greek/comment-page-1/#comment-1460 Carl Conrad Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:17:36 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=1180#comment-1460 Well, of course the discussion on B-Greek is not finished (some topics such as this recur, in any case); more has been said. As I see it, one problem is an arrogant self-sufficient attitude among many -- perhaps most -- who hold to traditional Greek grammar: they cannot believe and have yet to see evidence that linguistics can illuminate questions for which they seek their answers in traditional NT grammars; on the other side, there is a common (I won't say prevalent -- I just don't know) dismissal of the dead grammarians as still speaking to each other in a dead language that fails to communicate to living analysts of language (in academic philosophy there's a comparable contempt for the giants of centuries preceding Wittgenstein and Comte), coupled with an apparent gleeful determination to talk in any of a number of dialects of a newly-minted Orwellian Newspeak that the "living dead" grammarians across the gulf can't translate. It may be that there are unreconstructed and unreconstructable churlish rednecks on both sides of this academic chasm, but what is undeniably called for is a serious and meaningful endeavor by "right-thinking" practitioners of both methodological persuasions to construct a more intelligible metalanguage that will permit the older and rustier terminological framework of the dead grammarians to be cross-pollinated by the fresher and wet-behind-the-ears terminological scaffolding of the linguists. I rather doubt that it's a one-sided deficiency we're talking about. People have to earnestly want to communicate with each other and make anything useful they have learned intelligible to people who don't ordinarily speak the particular dialect in which the fresh insight is couched. It is that effort at communication across the chasm that I particularly applaud in Steve's Discourse Grammar: it is exceedingly rare. I do believe, however, that those who discern genuinely helpful and illuminating perspectives on how language functions in what the "foreigners" are saying will make it easier for still others to engage in real dialogue. Well, of course the discussion on B-Greek is not finished (some topics such as this recur, in any case); more has been said. As I see it, one problem is an arrogant self-sufficient attitude among many — perhaps most — who hold to traditional Greek grammar: they cannot believe and have yet to see evidence that linguistics can illuminate questions for which they seek their answers in traditional NT grammars; on the other side, there is a common (I won’t say prevalent — I just don’t know) dismissal of the dead grammarians as still speaking to each other in a dead language that fails to communicate to living analysts of language (in academic philosophy there’s a comparable contempt for the giants of centuries preceding Wittgenstein and Comte), coupled with an apparent gleeful determination to talk in any of a number of dialects of a newly-minted Orwellian Newspeak that the “living dead” grammarians across the gulf can’t translate. It may be that there are unreconstructed and unreconstructable churlish rednecks on both sides of this academic chasm, but what is undeniably called for is a serious and meaningful endeavor by “right-thinking” practitioners of both methodological persuasions to construct a more intelligible metalanguage that will permit the older and rustier terminological framework of the dead grammarians to be cross-pollinated by the fresher and wet-behind-the-ears terminological scaffolding of the linguists. I rather doubt that it’s a one-sided deficiency we’re talking about. People have to earnestly want to communicate with each other and make anything useful they have learned intelligible to people who don’t ordinarily speak the particular dialect in which the fresh insight is couched. It is that effort at communication across the chasm that I particularly applaud in Steve’s Discourse Grammar: it is exceedingly rare. I do believe, however, that those who discern genuinely helpful and illuminating perspectives on how language functions in what the “foreigners” are saying will make it easier for still others to engage in real dialogue.

]]>