If you’ve spent much time in the older Greek grammars or lexicons, you may have noticed that many of the descriptions of coordinating conjunctions like και and δε with list both a conjunctive and disjunctive usage. The fact that they can connect phrases or clauses that manifest semantic continuity and semantic discontinuity explains why the English glosses used include both and and but. Why? Because we have a mismatch here between Greek and English. The English conjunctions and and but differ from one another in one primary way. The former implies that the joined phrases or clauses are semantically related somehow, i.e. semantic continuity. The opposite is true of but; it constrains us to process the joined entities as having some kind of discontinuity between them. Take a look at what happens when you use but in a context where there isn’t contrast between the idea.
- I like bananas and I like grapes.
- *I like bananas but I like grapes.
Now if I had said that I loved, hated or some other kind of action in clause 2, there would be no problem using but. The same would hold true if I changed the subject to someone else but kept the action the same.
So what’s my point? The use of but constrains us to read the two things as somehow semantically discontinuous. If there is not some kind of contrast inherently present in the context, using but sounds wrong or strange. Take a look at the thing but with noun phrases this time.
- I like bananas and grapes.
- *I like bananas but grapes.
- I like everything but grapes.
- *I like everything and grapes.
- I like everything even/including grapes.
Note what happens in 2. with the but. You feel like there should be another sentence like “…. but grapes I strongly dislike.” Using it makes you expect that there is some kind of contrast. If it ain’t there, it doesn’t sound right. Now in 3. but is needed to indicate that grapes are being excluded from the everything. Note how using and in 4. sounds wrong. Why? Because you are trying to add grapes to something that theoretically already includes it: everything. However, using an “additive,” an adverb that either intensifies or portrays the added element as though it was the least likely possibility, is completely acceptable. Another candidate additive would be especially.
So just to summarize the point so far, certain conjunctions like but can constrain you to read the linked elements as contrastive. However, these words to not create contrast that wasn’t already there, they simply amplify it. If there is no contrast present, using a contrastive conjunction is infelicitous as the linguists say. It comes across as wrong.
Now let’s hop over to Greek. In contrast to and and but which indicate semantic continuity or discontinuity respectively, και and δε are unmarked for this feature. Since they do not indicate anything about semantic continuity/discontinuity, we find them used in both contexts. These Greek conjunctions are differentiated by development, not semantic continuity. If you have the Logos version of the Discourse Grammar, begin reading here. Otherwise, you can begin reading about the main Greek conjunctions on page 17 of the sample I’ve posted online.
So returning to the opening statement, many descriptions of Greek conjunctions treat them as though the contrast is inherently present in the conjunction, at times as though adding this conjunction creates contrast that another would not have created. If there is semantic contrast present in the context, then certain conjunctions can amplify what was already there. This is the case with αλλα versus και or δε. The former constrains what follows to be correcting or replacing some aspect of what precedes.
Continuity and discontinuity are not binary items, but two ends of a continuum. Here’s an older post on the matter. My kids are badgering me to take them to their youth group bbq, but head over to Rick Brannan’s blog for a great paper on αλλα that unpacks these issues in more detail. I’ll try to add the link later.
For the paper on αλλα, head to http://www.supakoo.com/rick/papers and scroll down to the 2008 ETS paper, “The Discourse Function of αλλα in Non-Negative Contexts”
[…] Where does contrast come from? | NT Discourse Tweet Cancel […]
I have to agree, but I see one problem with your text. You don’t tell what “contrast” means. BAGD says δε is “one of the most commonly used Gk. particles, used to connect one clause w. another when it is felt that there is some contrast betw. them, though the contrast is oft. scarcely discernible.” Development isn’t mentioned. αλλα is described as “adversative particle indicating a difference with or contrast to what precedes”.
Is “contrast” a bit like “emphasis”, used differently by different authors? Or can we say that both “development” and “discontinuity” are kind of “contrast”? I see your point and the greater explanatory power of the markedness theory, but the whole issue doesn’t feel clear if all the words and concepts used aren’t well defined, especially when we try to understand different sources. One explanation may feel completely understandable, but a poor reader may get confused when switching to another explanation which uses the same words with different meanings.
Eeli, you raise a great point; too often I assume a common understanding of non-technical words. Your quote from BAGD indicates that they are using it more as a technical term. What do I mean by contrast? Simply a discernible difference of some kind. It might be a semantic contrast between two similar things that differ in some way; they might share a quality like my fruit above, but differ in some way like color or kind. The contrast might concern degree, wherein one is big, but the other is bigger. In most cases items that are contrasted also share qualities in common. I could contrast sin and righteousness, both of which are moral, religious concepts, but they differ in terms of positive and negative. So with semantic contrasts, there will nearly always be cohesive qualities or characteristics that relate the contrasted elements to one another. Yet they can be differentiated from one another on some basis. This is what I mean by semantic contrast. It necessitates some kind of cohesive relation to make the contrast appropriate, and at least one distinguishing difference which can be contrasted.
Contrast can be applied more broadly, as in my discussion of it in analyzing verbal aspect of things like the historical present. We are still talking about distinguishable differences, but based on patterns and usage versus an invariable semantic meaning. This is essentially what asymmetrical or “qualitative” markedness is concerned with. I’ll use contrast in such cases to describe how the departure from an established or expected pattern makes the anomaly stand out in contrast to the surrounding context. I suppose one could call this pragmatic contrast, since it would vary depending on the context.
Thanks for raising the point, Eeli, hope this additional information helps. I’ll work on providing more background in the future, the post was quite rushed.
A question from someone illiterate in Greek who’s trying to follow your argument:
When we English speakers say something like “The sauce was sweet but sour,” doesn’t that imply a continuity?
Jenny,
Yes and no. Let’s look at the various options available and see what happens. But for starters, many would take sweet and sour more as antonyms than as synonyms, not withstanding the usage in Chinese cuisine. Because of the natural contrast between the terms, some measure will always be present. But there are choices about how much one ramps it up or minimizes it. Take a look:
Less contrast:
The sauce was sweet and sour. (This may sound more like the name than a description, but since ‘and’ signals +continuity, this is about as much continuity as one can get.)
The sauce was sweet. And the sauce was sour.
The sauce was sweet. It was sour too.
I am using words that strengthen connections, but there will always be some measure of contrast present because of the inherent differences between sweet and sour. I can also ramp up the contrast. Using “but” would do that, in my view.
More contrast:
The sauce was sweet but sour. (Since both comments are about the sauce, you are correct in saying there is some measure of continuity. If the comments had been about strawberries versus lemons, there would be even less continuity since continuity of subject/topic is gone.)
The sauce was sweet, yet it was sour.
The sauce was sweet, or rather it was sour.
The sauce was sweet. No, it was sour.
Contrast and continuity are not binary oppositions, but gradations present to one degree or another. Some of it is naturally there due to the semantics of the context, but writers can manipulate things to increase or decrease continuity and contrast. Hope that helps.
The sauce was sweet, yet it was sour.