Comments for NT Discourse

Comment on About by Jerry Jacques

Jerry Jacques — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:31:16 +0000

Hey Steve,

Though the content of your site are way over my head, I enjoy the headaches that I get trying to understand them .

Comment on Continuity versus Cohesion by Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 23:02:37 +0000

Thanks for the comments, Jared. I’d suggest Paul Kroeger’s Analyzing Grammar: An Introduction (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) for general linguistics, and Sebastiaan Floor’s From Information Structure, Topic and Focus, to Theme in Biblical Hebrew Narrative for a broader introduction to information structure. Floor provides some very nice surveys. I’d also suggest reading some of the works I cite that hit your interests, like Butler’s “Focusing on Focus” article. That also provides a really tidy comparison, and should be understandable based on the background you gained in the discourse grammar text.

Comment on Continuity versus Cohesion by Jared Lovell

Jared Lovell — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:25:19 +0000

Your grammar has been most helpful in a number of ways in enriching my exegetical methodology. Thank you! One of the most interesting chapters was 9 on information structure and it really gave real insight into “General Linguistics” as the discipline is usually referred to.

I was wondering if there are any introduction to “General Linguistics” as a discipline apart from Greek or Hebrew study, for the interested “lay reader”? I have spoken with Jean-Marc Heimerdinger of London School of Theology and he, of course, mentioned Lambrecht whose monograph is most certainly written for the specialist.

Is there any such work in existence or does an accessible understanding need to be gleaned and pieced together from various works?

Thank you also for this article as I now understanding what DA is within linguistics!

Comment on Honoring Stephen Levinsohn in London by Clif Olson

Clif Olson — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:39:20 +0000

Thanks for posting the info on this. I have a great admiration for Stephen and his work. This is great!

Comment on Review copies of Discourse Grammar available at JETS and RBL by Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:56:11 +0000

You can send me an email at srunge at logos dot com and I’ll add it to the list. There is a second printing from Hendrickson that was released this Spring which included a number of corrections from the first printing. If you are using the electronic edition, you should be able to right click on the word, click “Selection,” then “Report a typo.”

Comment on Review copies of Discourse Grammar available at JETS and RBL by JK

JK — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:48:08 +0000

Do you have a place where we can report possible errata?

Comment on Continuity versus Cohesion by Phillip Marshall

Phillip Marshall — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:00:15 +0000

Well, it sounds like you’re still learning . . . just like the rest of us!

Comment on Continuity versus Cohesion by Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:43:29 +0000

Hey Patrick,
DA is a term thrown around a lot these days, everyone wants to do it. I have not seen much quality for all the hubbub. Attending to discourse considerations is an important part of exegesis, whether just connectives or other things like what’s described in the grammar. I would rather see someone add discourse grammar to what they already do than to try and reinvent the wheel to do DA. If both are attending accurately to the same data in the text, shouldn’t the results look pretty similar? I’d hope so! If there are radical differences, someone is wrong. This is why I stress in the grammar that what I claim is consistent with the dead grammarians.

Comment on Continuity versus Cohesion by Patrick Brown

Patrick Brown — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:48:44 +0000

“Discourse analysis, in my view, is the synthesis of all linguistic, rhetorical, literary, semantic or pragmatic information in a discourse into a coherent and cohesive whole.”

Given your comment above about what DA is, how would you advise someone on incorporating elements of your discourse grammar into exegesis? For example, would it be appropriate or right to incorporate only discourse markers (de, kai, gar, etc.) and information structure into a typical exegetical paper? If so, what would be the best way of going about that? And, would that be DA at all, or just the incorporation of discourse grammar?

Your grammar has been a joy to read, and very clarifying on a lot of issues. Thank you for your work.

Comment on Continuity versus Cohesion by Geoff Husa

Geoff Husa — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:34:44 +0000

I’m excited to see what conclusions you’re able to arrive at after doing some DA! Your work so far has been very helpful. I can imagine that adding DA to your background would result in your already great resources even more helpful!

Not sure what kinds of charting you’re using, but I’ve been introduced to one that allows a comprehensive (at least in my newbie DA experience) analysis of the areas of discourse… all in one chart. If you’re interested, maybe I can email it to you. I’m sure you’ve already seen this particular chart, but thought I’d mention it.

I really appreciate your work!