This is the final post in a series considering Porter’s model of “grounding” (e.g. background, foreground) to describe how the Greek tense-forms convey prominence. There is one last issue I want to consider. Even though “it is possible to posit a third plane of exposition,”1 is it needed or even helpful? According to Stephen Wallace’s and Paul Hopper’s studies of aspect and grounding in the world’s languages, the binary opposition of  foreground and background seemed to have worked just fine. I have not found anyone other than Porter claim the need for another plane of discourse.2 He infers that Wallace has left open the door for further subdivision, yet the subdivision to which Wallace refers in the article is that of Grimes: “In actual fact, Grimes’ (51-70) use of the term ‘background’ is more restricted than that of the other authors. For Grimes, ‘background’ is only one sort of non-primary information in discourse, the others being ‘setting,’ ‘evaluations,’ and ‘collateral.'”3 While Wallace readily admits that there are limitations to how strict a subdivision one might make–i.e. that background and foreground may be more like a continuum–there is no reference to the need for another plane of discourse. The limitations are not based on the binary nature of the system, but upon the complexity of the relationship between tense, aspect and mood in language on the one hand, and the impact of genre-specific factors on the other hand. These are the two factors from Porter’s linguistic literature that he fails to acknowledge. Wallace concludes, “Consequently, one should not expect simple all-or-none compartmentalization, but prepare to weigh numerous contributing influences.”4

So is there a need for positing a third plane of discourse? Based on the broader linguistic literature, the answer would be “no”. It seems that no other language has necessitated creation of a Frontground, that the binary opposition of Hopper has proven sufficient for the world’s languages. I was once told that if you claim that some language feature is completely unique to a certain language–that it has no counterpart elsewhere–then you are most likely wrong. Yet Porter’s statements would lead you to think otherwise.

Consider the opening sentence describing “planes of discourse” from his Idioms of the Greek New Testament: “Recent work by linguists in the analysis of discourse differentiates the planes of discourse into three (see Chapter 21): background, foreground and frontground.”5 I would encourage you to do some web searches on collocations like “background/frontground,” “frontground/verbal aspect”, or “frontground/linguistics.” I did so using Google Scholar, and failed to find use of the term within linguistics except by those applying Porter’s model within NT studies, mostly his students. I did find “frontground” used in computational applications, but as a synonym for “foreground” to form a more contrastive antonym to “background.” Even here the binary opposition is retained. If Porter or someone else could cite some of the “recent work by linguists” that is not a circular citation of those applying his model, it would greatly bolster his argument.

In his most recent article “Prominence: an overview,” Porter follows his introduction to Wallace’s model of background and foreground by saying: “For Greek, a third category of frontground is also useful to introduce, as a means of introducing a more finely gradated cline of semantic grounding.” 6

In a footnote he states, “Note that the Greek verbal system is not bi-partite but rather tri-partite, with aorist, present and perfect tense-forms, one of the reasons for such a distinction.”7 There are many other languages that manifest three or more different tenses or aspects, yet the binary opposition has been successfully applied. Why? Because prominence derives from the usage in a context. Each genre tends to have a primary verb form that advances the plot or argument of the discourse. The other verb forms play off of this main one, creating an opposition: foreground and background. It either advances the discourse or it does not. It is not a matter of how many verb forms exist in the language, but what the given form does in a given context.

A few sentences later he cites Helen Dry’s work on “planes of discourse” as ostensive support for his model. However the “planes” that she is discussing are events, episodes, characters and linguistic constructions.8 What Dry is describing is essentially a taxonomy of discourse, descending from the discourse as a whole, to paragraph or groups of paragraphs (e.g. events and episodes), to what sounds like individual components within a given clause (e.g. characters and linguistic constructions, whatever the latter is). This is the only mention of “planes of discourse” in the whole article.

I ask again, is there really any merit for positing a third plane of discourse, the frontground? To be sure, Porter’s purpose in building a tri-partite prominence-based model of aspect requires it. But I have shown that:

  1. His claim that each verbal aspect always communicates a certain level of prominence–regardless of genre–lacks any support from the linguistic literature he cites. It may be valid, but it will require Porter to either provide other linguistic literature to support his claim, or else argumentation to justify such a drastic departure from the linguistic literature. See posts one, two and three.
  2. His claim that a third plane of discourse has proven helpful to linguists or is even needed is overstated. I could not find any evidence in the linguistic literature to support the notion that a tripartite model of grounding is being used by anyone other than those applying Porter’s model in NT studies. To claim that this usage is evidence in support would be patently circular.  It seems that the all the worlds languages can be adequately described within the binary opposition of background and foreground. The one exception, Porter claims, is Koine Greek.

Remember the warning mentioned earlier: “If you claim that some language feature is completely unique to a certain language, that it has no counterpart elsewhere, then you are most likely wrong.” If you have questions about the claims that I am making, I would strongly encourage you to read the primary literature for yourself. If there are issues you think I have misread or misrepresented, I would appreciate hearing about it.

  1. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 92-93. [↩]
  2. The notable exceptions are those following in Porter’s footsteps, applying his model to Greek. I have found no evidence in the linguistic literature to indicate that others are using a tripartite grounding model. [↩]
  3. Wallace continues, “I am here using the term ‘background’ to subsume all these four sorts. Longacre and Levinsohn, and Longacre (1979, MS), distinguish ‘backbone’ (= my ‘foreground’) from ‘background.'” (Wallace, “Figure and Ground,” 219, note 5, bolding mine. [↩]
  4. Ibid., 216. [↩]
  5. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1999), 23. [↩]
  6. 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), 54. [↩]
  7. Ibid. [↩]
  8. Helen A. Dry, “Foregrounding: An Assessment.” Pp. 435-50 in Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, edited by Shin Ja J Hwang and William R Merrifield (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992), 441. [↩]