On Wednesday morning I delivered a paper that summarized two of the three findings regarding the theoretical model Stanley Porter uses to support his prominence-based model of aspect. The basic finding is that his sources do not support some of most important claims.
There are some key things to keep in mind. First, he has erroneously framed the debate about the Greek verbal system as though one must chose between two absolute categories: tense or aspect. The problem is a bit more complex than that, as outlined in my paper.
Another important distinction to be made is between arguing that aspect is present in the language (which most everyone does), and Porter’s prominence claims outlined in his “planes of discourse” model. His model must be seen as distinct from aspect. I argue for viewing Greek as a mixed system, best described as aspect-prominent. This means that although tense is present (only in the indicative), we should not be surprised that aspectual considerations trump the temporal ones. Robertson describes the quandry this way:
Because of this difference between the indicative and the other moods in the matter of time some grammars give a separate treatment to the indicative tenses. It is not an easy matter to handle, but to separate the indicative perhaps accents the element of time unduly. Even in the indicative the time element is subordinate to the kind of action expressed. A double idea thus runs through tense in the indicative (kind of action, time of the action). 1, 825.))
My general position on the verbal system is best outlined in my historical present paper delivered last year at SBL.
The paper that I link to is the shorter one read at the conference, not the article version that I will submit for publication. The latter is still being reviewed by some peers. Based on the seriousness of the issues, I do not want to post it prematurely.
If you are disturbed by my claims, I would urge you to read the core articles yourself. Regarding grounding and contrastive substitution, read Wallace. For a general overview of grounding, read Dry:
Wallace, Stephen. “Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories.” In Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, edited by Paul J. Hopper, 201–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982.
Dry, Helen A. “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. [Link]
Update 5/17/2013
A revised version of this paper was accepted for publication by NovT. It only covers the problems concerning contrastive substitution. For an overview of the broader issues, see the page entitles Porter, Prominence and Aspect. I till tackle the issues raised about grounding–and to a lesser extent markedness–at the annual SBL meeting in Baltimore, 2013.
- A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research ( (Logos, 1919; 2006 [↩]
[…] meet two of my blogging heroes Mike Bird and Nijay Gupta. Some other highlights from ETS included a paper on aspect and linguistics by Steve Runge with Buist Fanning, Dan Wallace and Con Campbell in attendance, a paper on God and possible worlds […]
After finishing my MDiv in seminary, I felt the Lord leading me to deeper study in the original language of God’s Word. Reading Steve Runge’s Discourse Grammar has turned out to become the best thing I have ever done for my scholarship and understanding of the Scripture. Nothing reveals the NT authors’ intents more accurately and vividly than being delivered from the need to study the Greek langauge as a translation language only and being exposed to the Greek langauge as it actually functioned in Greek.
Just the concept of understanding the difference between semantic meaning and pragmatic effect would have been deliverance enough, but moving onto specifics like understanding thematic/non-thematic near and far demonstrative, left and right dislocations, thematic addition, meta-comments, etc. have expanded and sharpened my understanding of the Greek NT beyond what I could have thought possible. Runge’s Discourse Bundle had not only been a blessing in itself, but has opened a whole new world of research toward the NT that has become a life direction for me as a scholar and believer in Jesus Christ. I have already started on Levinsohn’s Discourse Analysis book and plan to follow up with the papers which appear on SBL, as I am also a member. Discourse Analysis is indespensible for mining God’s Word and, in my opinion, should be a requirement before graduating ANY level of biblical scholarship.
Thank you Steve.