linguistic model behind Greek syntax

[A. Smith]

I believe I've read the Hebrew syntax module is comprehensively and coherently built around a generative model (I haven't dug that deeply into it). But I can't seem to find anywhere that explains the theoretical basis of the greek module. And, while I generally understand and agree with its constituency models, the labels don't correspond with any particular theory I've seen. Of course, there is nothing wrong with an eclectic approach. However, I think it would benefit users and academia at large to know what lies behind the choices made in the syntax module. It would allow greater usability and interaction as a research tool. 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

I have said similar things before Anthony, and I agree, that having a grasp of the terminology and model is helpful.

 

Ok, for Greek the model is basically the same as for Hebrew, with some exceptions as to implementation details. The one off the top of my head that I recall is the treatment of covert subjects. The Hebrew module makes these overt will nulls in all cases, whereas the Greek only does so for non-finite verbs.

 

There is a bit of what you are asking for in the tool that describes the syntax module, and a bunch of examples. I believe the module is part of the syntax modules now. It used to be a separate PDF. Here is the module page for it : https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=Hebrew%20Syntax%20Guide

 

There are a few posts about from when I was making a nuisance of myself trying to understand this stuff.

 

https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/20170-greek-n-clause-with-no-subject/?hl=%2Bgreek+%2Bnull+%2Bsubject+%2Bfinite&do=findComment&comment=98507

https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/19145-draft-syntax-manual-%E2%80%94-readers-wanted/?hl=%2Bgenerative+%2Bgrammar&do=findComment&comment=93190

https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/15819-a-little-theory/?hl=%2Bgenerative+%2Bgrammar&do=findComment&comment=76529

 

Thx

D

[A. Smith]

I've seen the guide, but it was a while ago. I was under the impression (perhaps incorrect) that this applied to the Hebrew database only. Perhaps I'm wrong. 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

The guide is oriented towards the Hebrew and all the examples (I think all) are Hebrew, but the same theory underlies both.

If you want examples in Greek there are older ones in the forum for the Greek Syntax Modules, or I uploaded a bunch to the exchange, built for finding constructions described in Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. I have a slightly more up to date set of examples (covered a few more cases) in my github repo but the ones in the exchange should still work.

 

Thx

D

[MattChristianOT]

I believe the Greek syntax is based on Dan Wallace's work. I don't think he did it but it seems to me he was followed. Mainly due to the CSNTM items found in Accordance, an organization Dan started and runs.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

The tagging was done by Marco Fabbri at University of Milan.

I don't know what CSNTM items you are referring to Matt. Could you elaborate ?

 

Thx

D

[MattChristianOT]

The tagging was done by Marco Fabbri at University of Milan.

I don't know what CSNTM items you are referring to Matt. Could you elaborate ?

 

Thx

D

A lot of the Greek images are from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. Dan Wallace heads this up. It is an organization dedicated to digitizing manuscripts before they disintegrate. There are a few video podcasts on iTunes worth watching in which the methods and imaging that have taken place so far are documented. Also considering the fact that his grammar and syntax are the staples in the field it was an assumption on my part. I may be way off.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Ah ok.

 

The product page for the Greek syntax points to this doc http://www.accordancefiles1.com/products/Getting%20Started%20with%20Syntax.pdfwhich states "Even though the syntactical structure of Greek and Hebrew are different, the same concepts are used to describe the syntax for both languages." and goes on to credit Dr Holmstedt with the basic conceptual design. "...Accordance Syntax feature uses standard concepts developed by Prof. Robert Holmstedt in the University of Toronto."

 

thx

D

[A. Smith]

Ah ok.

 

The product page for the Greek syntax points to this doc http://www.accordancefiles1.com/products/Getting%20Started%20with%20Syntax.pdfwhich states "Even though the syntactical structure of Greek and Hebrew are different, the same concepts are used to describe the syntax for both languages." and goes on to credit Dr Holmstedt with the basic conceptual design. "...Accordance Syntax feature uses standard concepts developed by Prof. Robert Holmstedt in the University of Toronto."

 

thx

D

Thank you. I missed that. 

[MattChristianOT]

Interesting. I do not believe that Dr Holmstedt would agree with most scholars interpretation of Hebrew syntax (VSO ordering), which would make more sense of the general model used for Greek (SVO or SOV)

[rwrobinson88]

Most studies in κοινἠ word order/information structure suggest VSO (Runge, Levinsohn, Buth, etc.).

[Robert Holmstedt]

Word order is a complex topic. It requires a rigorous theory of syntax that incorporates information structure. Very few studies in BH word order begin with a robust theory of syntax. From very quick surveys a few years ago, my impression is the same for koine Greek studies. BH is either an SVO language (as I have argued) or a V2 language with very specific V1 constructions (a view I am open to, and does not stand in deep contrast to my SVO argument).

 

That said, I'm not sure how this thread switched to word order. The NT syntax database uses the basic scheme of the Hebrew ones, but departs in specific ways. You'd need to ask Marco for a full accounting.

[A. Smith]

Most studies in κοινἠ word order/information structure suggest VSO (Runge, Levinsohn, Buth, etc.).

 

 

Word order is a complex topic. It requires a rigorous theory of syntax that incorporates information structure. Very few studies in BH word order begin with a robust theory of syntax. From very quick surveys a few years ago, my impression is the same for koine Greek studies. BH is either an SVO language (as I have argued) or a V2 language with very specific V1 constructions (a view I am open to, and does not stand in deep contrast to my SVO argument).

 

That said, I'm not sure how this thread switched to word order. The NT syntax database uses the basic scheme of the Hebrew ones, but departs in specific ways. You'd need to ask Marco for a full accounting.

 

 

We can discuss word order; that's fine with me. Of course, even word order assessment is not independent of theory. Runge, Levinsohn, Buth, Kwong, Dik, etc are all operating from a theoretical background which influences their perspective. For example, there is a major argument over whether greek (well, Koine Greek) actually possess VP (which gets super technical and complicated when placed alongside discontinuous syntax. Ugh).  Either way, a clear and thorough explanation of the linguistic background of the module enables better scholarly interaction.

 

After further research, I realize that I was looking at a different document than the one linked above. This document https://www.accordancefiles1.com/exchange/downloads/documents/holmstedt_syntax_14.pdfexplicitly states the theoretical foundation of the Hebrew module (minimalist program) while also clarifying the desire to be as theory neutral  as possible and, most importantly, justifying the decisions made at various points. This bit of information is very helpful and allows us to look at the module through a clearer lens. Is this, in fact, the approach of the Greek module as well? Looking at it, I tend to think so. But I don't know. And, as they say, you don't know what you don't know. 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

My understanding is that this is basically correct for both the Holmstedt Hebrew syntax (we also now have ETCBC) and the Greek (we only have one Greek model so far). However when it came to implementing the tagging for Greek and Hebrew databases each was done by different people. Certain decisions, as in the case of overt/covert subjects I mentioned above were decided differently. I do not know if other divergences exist but that one is one of theoretical perspective. The description of that divergence came up in a forum post somewhere. Any other cases are a question for Marco as Robert said above.

 

Anthony, regarding the argument over the existence or not of a VP in Koine I would be interested in any pointers to material on this you might have.

 

Thx

D

[A. Smith]

My understanding is that this is basically correct for both the Holmstedt Hebrew syntax (we also now have ETCBC) and the Greek (we only have one Greek model so far). However when it came to implementing the tagging for Greek and Hebrew databases each was done by different people. Certain decisions, as in the case of overt/covert subjects I mentioned above were decided differently. I do not know if other divergences exist but that one is one of theoretical perspective. The description of that divergence came up in a forum post somewhere. Any other cases are a question for Marco as Robert said above.

 

Anthony, regarding the argument over the existence or not of a VP in Koine I would be interested in any pointers to material on this you might have.

 

Thx

D

 

The place to start is Michael Palmer, Levels of Constituent Structure in New Testament Greek. Then consider the widely varied constituent order of the greek sentence/clause, discontinuous syntax, (a place to start here is Devine and Stephens, Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek, etc.). I'm unsure, to be honest, as the discussion of the technicalities is generally above my full comprehension. Linguistics becomes a lot like higher math in that there are some things you can conclude that look good at one level, but when you consider all the other levels, that answer no longer holds. I failed math miserably. I'm trying not to fail linguistics, lol. 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Thanx for these. I'll look them out. My linguistics, such as it is, is self taught which is probably the least good way, but it's what I have time for.

 

Thx

D

[Robert Holmstedt]

This is backwards, in my opinion. Don't start with the koine Greek works. The place to start is by investigating general linguistics theories and their positions on the reality of a VP. Then reflect on Greek, starting first with linguistic works on Greek other than koine, then moving back to koine. I suspect you'll find that koine studies is pretty idiosyncratic, just like a lot of BH work.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

That makes sense to me. Thanx for that.

 

Thx

D

[A. Smith]

This is backwards, in my opinion. Don't start with the koine Greek works. The place to start is by investigating general linguistics theories and their positions on the reality of a VP. Then reflect on Greek, starting first with linguistic works on Greek other than koine, then moving back to koine. I suspect you'll find that koine studies is pretty idiosyncratic, just like a lot of BH work.

Yes. Of Course. As was said above, all of these conclusions (or, rather, hypotheses) are based on a theory or some eclectic combination of theories. 

[A. Smith]

This is backwards, in my opinion. Don't start with the koine Greek works. The place to start is by investigating general linguistics theories and their positions on the reality of a VP. Then reflect on Greek, starting first with linguistic works on Greek other than koine, then moving back to koine. I suspect you'll find that koine studies is pretty idiosyncratic, just like a lot of BH work.

Much of the literature on koine is worse than idiosynchratic. It's linguistically ignorant. Or, in a few notable cases, horribly linguistically misinformed, misusing terms and redefining established linguistic notions to suit a particular theory of greek grammar.

[Robert Holmstedt]

Well, I thought about saying something like that, but I woke up on the diplomatic side of the bed this morning.

[MattChristianOT]

Word order is a complex topic. It requires a rigorous theory of syntax that incorporates information structure. Very few studies in BH word order begin with a robust theory of syntax. From very quick surveys a few years ago, my impression is the same for koine Greek studies. BH is either an SVO language (as I have argued) or a V2 language with very specific V1 constructions (a view I am open to, and does not stand in deep contrast to my SVO argument).

 

That said, I'm not sure how this thread switched to word order. The NT syntax database uses the basic scheme of the Hebrew ones, but departs in specific ways. You'd need to ask Marco for a full accounting.

LOL- totally my fault but a good discussion. I was just thinking in terms of the head of a clause being the constituent piece in BH syntax and that I have read many works that push for SVO in BH with waw pushing V to the head of the clause due to syntax needs (and some other variations)- which pushed me to think of Koine syntax which is (for the most part) dealing in SVO. Just a glimpse at my brain and how it's like a bag of cats.

I am still working through general linguistics myself and am pretty open to most theories and experimenting. It is a growing discussion and worth every word.

[rwrobinson88]

I for one wouldn't characterize the names I used earlier as linguistically ignorant (Levinsohn's Ph.D. is in linguistics for goodness sakes, not theology or Greek studies). What Robert said as a progression is exactly what some of them have consulted me in doing. They just don't have a specific model they *only* adhere to. They've been influenced by functional grammar but now primarily focus on Cognitive Linguistics and it's submodels (whether construction grammar, cognitive grammar, etc.) However, must cognitive linguists recognize that functional approaches aren't opposed to cognitive approaches. They (Cognitive linguists) are just approaching language with a different question.

 

Anyways. I know we are way off course here. However, I just wanted to put it out there that I didn't think it was fair to paint some of the names mentioned earlier as linguistically ignorant. Especially since the advice given by Robert was identical to what those people have told me (I have heard Runge literally say the same thing -- Read Linguistics proper - then a lot of what the classicists are putting out - Don't read much of what is NT/Koine applications of linguistics today)

 

If I'm misunderstanding the comments, I'm sorry for my misreading. 

[A. Smith]

I for one wouldn't characterize the names I used earlier as linguistically ignorant (Levinsohn's Ph.D. is in linguistics for goodness sakes, not theology or Greek studies). What Robert said as a progression is exactly what some of them have consulted me in doing. They just don't have a specific model they *only* adhere to. They've been influenced by functional grammar but now primarily focus on Cognitive Linguistics and it's submodels (whether construction grammar, cognitive grammar, etc.) However, must cognitive linguists recognize that functional approaches aren't opposed to cognitive approaches. They (Cognitive linguists) are just approaching language with a different question.

 

Anyways. I know we are way off course here. However, I just wanted to put it out there that I didn't think it was fair to paint some of the names mentioned earlier as linguistically ignorant. Especially since the advice given by Robert was identical to what those people have told me (I have heard Runge literally say the same thing -- Read Linguistics proper - then a lot of what the classicists are putting out - Don't read much of what is NT/Koine applications of linguistics today)

 

If I'm misunderstanding the comments, I'm sorry for my misreading.

 

Since I made the comment, I’ll respond. The names mentioned do not fall into that category. I’ve got humility and generosity left in me that I would not call someone out by name like that. Truth be told, guys like Levinsohn and Runge, to name a few, have done heaps to pull New Testament studies into account for its theoretical sloppiness.

[rwrobinson88]

Now I think I'm picking up what you're putting down, and I agree.

 

And just so Robert can be at peace (in part), I've personally been following that advice from Runge. For example. I'm presently working through Van Valin's book on Syntax (that's why I said in part  ). My linguistics book collection has been growing more and more, it just tends to fall on the CL/Functional side more. Maybe I need to be convinced otherwise on that.