Context in Text - ISFLA

Context in TextA Systemic Functional Analysis

of the Parable of the Sower

Philip L Graber

A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate Schoolof Emory University in partial fulfillment

of the requirement for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

Department of New TestamentGraduate Division of Religion

ccopy2001 by Philip L GraberAll rights reserved

Abstract

The relationship between text and context is a fundamental issue in the inter-pretation of the text of Matthew The contention of this study is that certainlimited aspects of context are embedded in texts Systemic functional grammar(SFG) is a linguistic theory oriented toward describing how language functionsin context This study applies SFG to the Parable of the Sower the explanationfor Jesusrsquo speaking in parables and the interpretation of the parable in Matthew131ndash23 in order to clarify how language functions in these texts and how thetexts predict limited but important aspects of their own context as a contri-bution to a better understanding of them Analysis of the synoptic parallelsin Mark and Luke is included to test how differences in context is reflected indifferences between parallel texts SFG makes explicit the relationships betweenthree linguistically relevant variables of context of situation mdash field tenor andmode mdash and the semantic functions that realize them mdash experiential inter-personal and textual meanings These kinds of meanings are in turn realizedby grammatical structures that are mapped onto one another in linear textThe analysis of the portion of Matthewrsquos narrative points to context in whichthe evangelist addresses readers to convey the story of Jesusrsquo words and deedswith authority from a social position of higher status relative to those beingaddressed and a relatively low degree of social contact The language of the textplays a constituting role in the social activity in which the evangelist is engagedrather than an accompanying role relative to a social activity with a degree offormality corresponding to the authoritative status of the writer The socialactivity in the instantial situation is an explanation in which the evangelistthrough Jesusrsquo own authoritative words accounts for differences in the ways inwhich two groups of people respond to him Those who understand (who arealso being addressed) do so by the enabling actions of God and those who failto understand fail because of their own self-disabling actions

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the New Testament faculty of Emory University for not only al-lowing but encouraging me to pursue my interest in a linguistic theory that is notwell represented in the United States This pursuit has been made much easierfor me in this project by the careful reading and helpful comments of MichaelGregory Professor Emeritus at York University in Toronto an institution inwhich systemic linguistics is well represented I owe special thanks for the en-couragement and friendship given me by Hendrikus Boers my adviser and theenthusiasm with which he helped me to shape an interdisciplinary project thatattempts to be thoroughly linguistic while not ceasing to be a New Testamentdissertation

In addition I owe special thanks to all the members of my committee fortheir support in the difficult final stages of the process of graduation In extraor-dinary circumstances the faculty and administrators of the Graduate Divisionof Religion gave me extraordinary support and help

I am indebted to the Session and congregation of the Ronceverte Presbyte-rian Church for their support and encouragement and for generously allowingtheir pastor the necessary time and resources to write I am also grateful toKathy and Bill Shirk Mary Anna and Tom Brooks and Judy and Mark Flynnfor providing me with quiet places to stay and write on those occasions

I could not have completed this project or even begun it without the sup-port of my wife Ann she encouraged me each step of the way and helped meto maintain perspective seeing her support for me as a part of her own calling

Finally I give thanks to God by whose grace I live My desire to hear Godrsquosword and my calling to proclaim that word for others has been and continuesto be my motivation for studying the Bible Thanks be to the One who speaksthe word of the kingdom and opens hearts to hear and understand it

Contents

Abstract iii

Acknowledgements v

1 Systemic Functional Grammar and New Testament Interpreta-tion 111 Context and Interpretation 112 The Background to Systemic

Functional Grammar 413 Meaning and Context in

Systemic Functional Grammar 9131 Context Genre and Register 9132 Text Semantic Components of Language 13133 The Relationship between Semantics and Register 55134 Overview of the Study 56

2 The Interpretation of Matthew 131ndash23 and Parallels 5921 Kingsbury and Redaction-Criticism 6222 Sellin and Text-linguistics 6423 Du Plessis and Pragmatics 67

3 Ideational Meanings and Field of Discourse 7531 Logical Meanings

Relations Between Clauses 7632 Activity and Object Focus Processes Participants and Circum-

stances 80321 Activity and Object Focus of the Narrative Frame 80322 Activity and Object Focus of the Parable 84323 Activity and Object Focus of the Parable Rationale 88324 Activity and Object Focus of the Parable Interpretation 92

33 Summary and Conclusions 99

4 Interpersonal Meanings and Tenor of Discourse 10341 Interpersonal Meanings Limitations on the Analysis of Written

Texts 10442 Status Contact and Affect Grammatical Realizations 105

421 Status Contact and Affect in the Narrative Frame 107422 Status Contact and Affect in the Parable 110423 Status Contact and Affect in the Parable Rationale 114424 Status Contact and Affect in the Parable Interpretation 120

5 Textual Meanings and Mode of Discourse 13151 Interaction and Role Theme and Thematic Development 132

511 Interaction and Role in the Parable 135512 Interaction and Role in the Parable Rationale 141513 Interaction and Role in the Parable Interpretation 146514 Interaction and Role in the Narrative 156

6 Conclusions Context in the Text of Matthew 131ndash23 and Par-allels 16561 The Context of Situation within Mt 131ndash23 and Parallels 16662 The Context of Situation of Mt 131ndash23 and Parallels 16863 Meanings and Issues of Interpretation in Mt 131ndash23 and Parallels 17164 Areas for Further Research 174

A Clause Level Analysis of Experiential Interpersonal and Tex-tual Meanings in Mt 131ndash23 177

B Clause Level Analysis of Experiential Interpersonal and Tex-tual Meanings in Mk 41ndash20 197

C Clause Level Analysis of Experiential Interpersonal and Tex-tual Meanings in Lk 84ndash15 215

List of Figures

11 Simple model of language as a communication conduit 712 System of Circumstances 1613 Relational Processes System 2214 System of Process Types 24

21 Narrative Frames in Mt 131ndash23 69

List of Tables

11 Speech Function Pairs (Initiations and Responses) 2612 Modal Adjuncts 2813 Theme-Rheme Analysis of Acts 89ndash14 4714 A Grammatically Simple Lexically Complex Clause (Hebrews

13ndash4) 5215 Theme in Philemon 10ndash14 53

31 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mt 131ndash3a 10a11a (Narrative Frame) 81

32 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mk 41ndash2 9a 10ndash11a 13a (Narrative Frame) 82

33 Processes (Verbal) in Luke 84 8c 9a 10a (Narrative Frame) 8334 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mt 133bndash9 (Parable) 8435 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mk 43ndash8 9b (Parable) 8636 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Lk 85ndash8b 8d (Para-

ble) 8737 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mt 1310b 11bndash17

(Rationale) 8938 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mk 411bndash12 (Ra-

tionale) 9039 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Lk 89b 10b (Ra-

tionale) 91310 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mt 1318ndash23 (Para-

ble Interpretation) 93311 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mk 413bndash20 (Para-

ble Interpretation) 97312 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Lk 811ndash15 (Parable

Interpretation) 99

41 Interpersonal Elements in Mt 131ndash3 10 11 (Narrative Frame) 10742 Interpersonal Elements in Mk 41ndash2 9 10ndash11 13 (Narrative Frame)10843 Interpersonal Elements in Lk 84 8 9ndash10 (Narrative Frame) 10844 Types of Adjuncts in the Narrative Frame 10945 Types of Non-major Clauses in Adjuncts in the Narrative Frame 11046 Interpersonal Elements in Mt 133ndash9 (Parable) 111

47 Interpersonal Elements in Mk 43ndash8 (Parable) 11148 Interpersonal Elements in Lk 85ndash8 (Parable) 11249 Mood in the Parable of the Sower (ranking clauses only) 113410 Types of Adjuncts in the Parable of the Sower 113411 Types of Non-major Clauses in Adjuncts in the Parable of the

Sower 114412 Interpersonal Elements in Mt 1311ndash17 (Rationale) 114413 Interpersonal Elements in Mk 411ndash12 (Rationale) 116414 Interpersonal Elements in Lk 810 (Rationale) 117415 Mood in the Rationale for the Parables (ranking clauses only not

including initiating question) 118416 Modality and Polarity in the Rationale for the Parables (ex-

pressed through Predicator constituents) 119417 Expressions of Modality in the Rationale for the Parables 119418 Types of Adjuncts in the Rationale for the Parables 120419 Participial Phrases as Adjuncts in the Rationale for the Parables 120420 Interpersonal Elements in Mt 1318ndash23 (Interpretation) 121421 Interpersonal Elements in Mk 413ndash20 (Interpretation) 122422 Interpersonal Elements in Lk 811ndash15 (Interpretation) 123423 Mood in the Interpretation of the Parable (ranking clauses only) 124424 Modality and Polarity in the Interpretation (expressed through

Predicator constituents) 125425 Types of Adjuncts in the Interpretation of the Parable 125426 Types of Non-major Clauses as Adjuncts in the Parable Interpre-

tation 126

51 Theme in the Parable (Mt 133ndash9) 13652 Theme in the Parable (Mt 133ndash9) 13953 Theme in the Parable (Mk 43ndash9) 13954 Theme in the Parable (Lk 85ndash8) 14155 Theme in the Rationale (Mt 1310ndash17) 14256 Theme in the Rationale (Mk 411ndash12) 14557 Theme in the Rationale (Lk 89ndash10) 14558 Theme in the Interpretation (Mt 1318ndash23) 14658 Theme in the Interpretation (Mk 413ndash20) 15359 Theme in the Interpretation (Lk 811ndash15) 155510 Theme in the Narrative Frame of Matthew 131ndash23 156511 Theme and Method of Development in Matthew 131ndash23 157512 Theme in the Narrative Frame of Mark 41ndash20 160513 Theme in the Narrative Frame of Luke 84ndash15 161

Chapter 1

Systemic FunctionalGrammar and NewTestament Interpretation

11 Context and Interpretation

The role of context in the interpretation of the Gospel according to Matthewhas been a fundamental issue in the history of scholarship To some extentthe development of historical criticism of Matthew has been an attempt toplace Matthew in its proper historical context often deriving that context fromthe gospel itself Attention to source criticism and the history of traditionsincreasingly resulted in the fragmentation of the synoptic gospels and a lack ofconcern for their individual contexts as whole gospels by placing the focus on thevalue of the gospels as historical documents Form criticism began to address thequestion of the contexts of the gospels themselves eg Martin Dibeliusrsquo (1961first published in 1919) conclusion that preaching is the Sitz im Leben of mostgospel material Krister Stendahlrsquos (1954) important study challenged Dibeliusrsquoconclusions and those of G D Kilpatrick (1946) who stated that Matthew inparticular was the record of material used liturgically Stendahl drew the limitedbut very significant conclusion from careful analysis of Old Testament citationsin the text that the context of Matthew was to be found in a school whichset about producing material for the training of church leaders and teachers1

With the rise of redaction criticism studies of Matthew gave attention to thetheological context of Matthew2 With each of these developments in historical

1This conclusion was based on an examination of the relationship of the scripture citedin Matthew with available versions and a comparison of some of the formula citations withknown examples of pesher midrash

2See especially Jack Dean Kingsburyrsquos work on Matthew 13 (Kingsbury 1969) which willbe treated in Chapter 2 below and on the structure and theology of the gospel as a whole(Kingsbury 1975)

2 Systemic Functional Grammar and NT Interpretation

criticism the focus moved further from the historical setting of Jesus and closerto the setting of the actual documents in their canonical form This movementreflected an increasing awareness of how modest is the amount of historicalinformation that can be derived from the texts including information aboutthe contexts of the texts

Nevertheless in the past two decades or so there has been an increas-ing interest in the social and historical context of Matthew Stephenson HBrooks (1987) attempted to understand the development of Matthewrsquos commu-nity against the backdrop of formative Judaism through an analysis of Mat-thewrsquos special (M) material into distinct layers of tradition Andrew J Over-man (1990) also studied the relationship between Matthewrsquos gospel and for-mative Judaism but using sociological methods3 Bruce Malina and JeromeNeyrey (1988) used methods derived from anthropology to contextualize cul-turally the labels given to Jesus in the conflict stories of Matthew Daniel JHarringtonrsquos (1991) commentary on Matthew is a sustained argument for theplace of the Matthean community in the context of formative Judaism Thesecond edition of Robert H Gundryrsquos (1994) commentary bore a new subti-tle (A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution)that demonstrated an increased interest in the whole question of the contextof the gospel in relation to formative Judaism Anthony J Saldarini (1994) inMatthewrsquos Christian Jewish Community addressed this issue using an eclecticassortment of methods but leaning heavily on sociology4

As non-historical methods are increasingly supplementing and even replacinghistorical ones in an effort to derive context from texts as the basis for inter-preting the same texts certain questions arise Apart from the fact that someinformation about the historical setting of the texts is available independent ofthe texts as background to them and non-historical methods no longer viewthe texts primarily as historical sources such methods are nevertheless depen-dent on the texts as the primary source for information about the [rhetoricalsociological etc] context Is the reconstruction of context a matter of buildinga speculative hypothetical context that can shed light on certain interpretivematters in a given text or are any aspects of context actually embedded intext If the reconstruction of context is only speculation then the text loses itsown voice and interpretation becomes creative construction of meaning usingthe text as a point of departure or inspiration but not a conversation partnerwith its own voice In order for the text to speak from a standpoint other thanthat which is provided by the interpreter the text must convey something ofits own context If this is the case how much of context and exactly which

3He consciously abandoned historical methods in favor of sociological ones demonstratingthe dangers of building on historical speculation (eg by debunking the scholarly myth of theldquoCouncil of Jamniahrdquo) However he ended up engaging in historical speculation himself byconcluding that the Matthean community should be located in Galilee rather than in Syriaand most probably in Sepphoris

4This is not intended to be a complete listing of scholarship which is focused on thecontext of Matthew but a representative sampling Other notable examples include Amy-JillLevinersquos (1988) study and David Balchrsquos (1991) collection of papers on the social history ofMatthew

Context and Interpretation 3

aspects of context can be legitimately derived from a text and what methodsare available for doing so

Linguistics promises to address the relationship between text and contextIn specialized areas such as pragmatics and sociolinguistics linguistics makesexplicit the relationship between how the language of the text works and the con-text in which it works Pragmatics is concerned with cultural information thatspeakerswriters presuppose that hearersreaders share with them informationthat appears in the speech situation rather than in the text Sociolinguisticsis concerned with language as behavior in the context of a social system withwhat is appropriate in context (as opposed to what is ldquogrammaticalrdquo regardlessof context) Linguistics as a whole discipline is concerned with how the vari-ous components of language function both in relation to one another and inthe way people use language This concern makes linguistics especially usefulin addressing questions of context Linguistic theories are created to exploreand explain something about the nature of language including how language isused in social contexts and texts (including New Testament texts) provide thedata for such exploration Linguistics therefore offers analytical tools that areappropriate to identifying and organizing texts in a systematic way as a steptowards the process of interpretation

Linguistics could be useful for the New Testament interpreter by compensat-ing for the interpreterrsquos lack of native familiarity with the language of the NewTestament One who has an ability in a living language knows how to do thingswith the resources of that language how to communicate how to accomplishcertain tasks in concrete communicative contexts Such a person also has theability to recognize what others are doing in their use of the language Thisability this knowing how is not like the ability of a knowledgeable sports fanwho can recognize and talk about good and bad performance violations of therules etc It is instead like the knowledge of a well-trained athlete who knowshow to play the game from years of repetition and who recognizes moves notin order to talk about them but so as to be able to react seemingly withouteffort In this respect the well-trained scholar is a knowledgeable fan who willnever be able to play the game Linguistics offers to the interpreter a way ofacquiring explicitly at least in part what people once possessed implicitly byliving in the social context of the language of the texts To push the sportsanalogy further linguistics offers the interpreter the opportunity to become aneducated play-by-play analyst or commentator describing and explaining whatthe producers of the text did by means of implicit knowledge and without ex-plicit analysis In the process this text-oriented discipline has the potential toprovide the interpreter with the resources to predict what aspects of the contextare likely to be embedded in a text as well as methods for determining how tolook for them

Systemic functional grammar is a current linguistic theory that suits thepurposes of the New Testament interpreter by systematically examining textsin terms of the ways in which the language of the texts functions and the waysin which the functions relate to context Not all linguistic theories are function-ally oriented in the sense of studying languages in terms of how they are used

and how they are structured for use Some linguistic theories by contrast areoriented toward describing languages as formal systems Nor are all pragmaticand sociolinguistic theories rooted in an overall linguistic model that makes ex-plicit the relationship between aspects of context and the grammatical functionsof particular texts Pragmatics and sociolinguistics as sub-disciplines grew outof a need to recognize language use in context within the framework of linguisticmodels that describe languages as formal systems The orientation of systemicfunctional grammar towards function in context can best be understood in re-lation to the background of the development of twentieth century linguisticsa development which has given rise to both functional and formalist theoriesWe will see that the development of systemic functional linguistics as a com-prehensive linguistic theory that has its origins in functionalist anthropology isparticularly well suited to our task of exploring the functions of text in context

12 The Background to SystemicFunctional Grammar

In the nineteenth century scholars viewed languages as entities analogous toliving organisms that could be seen to change and develop over time Lan-guages could be named and their genetic relationships to one another couldbe identified Scholars looked at languages comparatively noting differencesand similarities and accounting for these in terms of development and evolu-tion Spanish and Italian for example were more similar to each other thaneither was to German Their similarities were explained in terms of their ldquode-scendingrdquo from the common ancestor Latin The scholars were interested inunderstanding the processes by which these languages came to differ Theywere not interested in understanding ldquolanguagerdquo as such or in the structure ofa particular language from the standpoint of those who speak it

Modern linguistics was born when scholars began to look at language fromthe perspective of its speakers (Sampson 1980 37) This perspective is syn-chronic viewing language at one point in time in contrast to the diachronicperspective that dominated the nineteenth century The shift to modern iesynchronic linguistics is usually associated with Ferdinand de Saussure andthe posthumous publication by his students of the Cours de linguistique gen-erale (de Saussure 1916) He no longer viewed language as an entity to beobserved from the outside as it changes on its journey through time Insteadhe viewed language from the inside as a system (langue) frozen at a single pointin time System represents the potential of the language the possibilities forwhat speakers can say This potential is defined by paradigmatic relationshipsrelationships between signs in the system For example in Standard Englishthere are two choices for first person pronouns in the subject position ldquoIrdquo andldquowerdquo In the sentence ldquox went to workrdquo a speaker referring to her- or himselfcan say ldquoI went to workrdquo or if others are included ldquoWe went to workrdquo Thesignificance of the choice of terms in this case is determined by the fact that

Background to Systemic Functional Grammar 5

there are only two terms for this purpose in the system one singular and oneplural If however there were also a choice of a dual term then the significanceof ldquowerdquo as a plural would be different because choosing it would exclude thedual meaning Furthermore if there were an additional term for inclusive plu-ral (ldquowe including yourdquo) and ldquowerdquo were used for exclusive plural (ldquowe but notyourdquo) the significance of the term ldquowerdquo would once more be changed because itsrelationship to other terms in the system would be different It is in this senseof language as system (langue) that Saussure saw language from the perspectiveof its speakers for whom (as speakers) the history of the language is irrelevantAs they speak only the state of the system at that moment is important

Saussure looked at the system as a property of the whole community ofspeakers independent of what any particular speaker actually says (parole)This system according to Saussure exists apart from what people actually saythe contexts in which they say it and what they talk about In this way thelanguage as system (langue) resembles any social convention or a societyrsquos legalsystem The system as a whole is not completely within the grasp of any par-ticular individual Saussure was not interested in studying parole what peopleactually said for its own sake his interest was in langue the system whichenabled people to say things His ideas were influential in the development ofstructuralism and post-structuralism as well as structural anthropology andsemiotics (eg Levi-Strauss 1966 Propp 1968 Greimas 1966 Barthes 1968Derrida 1976 Culler 1975) These approaches sought to uncover ldquodeep struc-turesrdquo underlying actual discourse continuing Saussurersquos concern with language(langue) which made actual discourse (parole) possible Saussurersquos conceptionof language as system as potential was a major contribution to the study oflanguage in terms of its functions even though his focus was not on the functionsof actual discourse in particular contexts

While Saussure was giving his lectures on synchronic linguistics in Paris in1911 the Czech linguist Vilem Mathesius was publishing his own independentwork on a non-historical approach to the study of language an approach thatviewed language in terms of function in context (Mathesius 1964) A group oflinguists known as the Prague School gathered around Mathesius in the 1920sand interacted with one another before they were scattered by World War II5

ldquoThey analyzed a given language with a view to showing the respective functionsplayed by the various structural components in the use of the entire languagerdquo(Sampson 1980 103) Prague School linguists occasionally followed Saussure bydefining the function of a linguistic element in terms of its place in a systembut the major concern in their functionalist approach was with what people dowith language Mathesius (1964 22) denied that linguistics and stylistics (orrhetoric) differed in their materials arguing that they differed only in their aimsWhile linguistics aims to discover all of the materials available in a languageand the potentiality of their usage stylistics aims to examine only how givenmaterials are used in a concrete literary work In other words Mathesius was not

5Among the more famous Prague School linguists in addition to Mathesius were thewell-known Russian linguists Nikolai Trubetzkoy and Roman Jakobson

interested in describing language as system (langue) independent of how peopleuse it but language as resource (system and structures) for doing the thingsthat people do with it Texts are not simply the data from which langue can beabstracted but provide the actual materials of linguistics just as they providethe materials for stylistics This approach to the study of language providesa model for linguistic analysis as it applies to the systematic examination oftexts with a concern for understanding how the language of the texts functionsin actual contexts

Another development was systemic functional grammar which arose fromthe London School of linguistics a parallel development to the Prague SchoolScholars from these two traditions have been in frequent conversation6 A signif-icant difference between the development of British and continental linguisticshad to do with the particular languages which served as the objects of study Onthe continent the European languages which were already known to the linguistswere the objects of study British linguistics in the early twentieth century likeAmerican linguistics of the same period known as American descriptivist lin-guistics developed in the context of the study of non-Indo-European languagesIn the case of American descriptivism the impetus for development was thepresence of numerous Native American languages In the British case linguis-tics developed in the context of the variety of languages throughout the BritishEmpire7 The motive for studying these languages ranged from needing to learnand use them to the teaching of English to native speakers of other languagesall of which was intended to serve the administration of the Empire includingthe construction of language policies The latter task involved understandingthe roles languages play in social interaction and how they function sociologi-cally So for example an expression which may appear innocent to an outsidercould prove offensive to insiders in the context in which it is made Concernssuch as these have influenced the development of systemic functional grammar

J R Firth8 the first Professor of General Linguistics in England and founderof the ldquoLondon Schoolrdquo developed his theory in conversation with his colleaguethe anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski Malinowskirsquos functional anthropologycontributed the notion that language is a mode of action It is a specialized kindof observable behavior that people engage in within particular cultural and

6Another major functional ldquoschoolrdquo not discussed in this study is the Copenhagen Schoolrepresented by Louis Hjelmslevrsquos (1970) glossematics and Sydney Lambrsquos (1966) stratifica-tional linguistics Other function-oriented models include the text linguistics of Robert deBeaugrande and Wolfgang Dressler (1981) Simon Dikrsquos (1980) functional grammar and JanFirbasrsquo (1992) functional sentence perspective which follow most closely the trajectory begunby the Prague School Ilah Flemingrsquos (1988) adaptation of Sydney Lambrsquos stratificationallinguistics Kenneth Pikersquos (1971 1981) tagmemics Victor Yngversquos (1986) human linguisticsetc All of these models share a lot in common and their differences are minor compared totheir points of agreement

7J R Firth the founder of the ldquoLondon Schoolrdquo of linguistics discussed below gainedfirst-hand experience of a variety of languages during tours of duty in India Afghanistan andAfrica during World War I (Butler 1985 1)

8See Butler (1985 1ndash13) for an extended discussion of Firth as background to Hallidayrsquosdevelopment of systemic functional linguistics including Malinowskirsquos influence on Firth andHalliday

Senderrsquos encode ideas Channel decode ideas Receiverrsquosmind rArr rArr mind

Figure 11 Simple model of language as a communication conduit

social environments This idea stands in contrast to the portrayal of languageas a conduit for transporting ideas or meanings from one mind to another asdepicted in Figure 11

In contrast in a systemic functional approach meaning is the function oflanguage it is what people do in their use of language (Firth 1957 182 andall of chapter 14 ldquoPersonality and language in societyrdquo) Conveying ideas isonly one of the things people do with language From a functional point ofview meaning including conveying ideas is something that people do ratherthan something language has This notion of function is not limited to theperformatives of speech act theory (ldquoI hereby promise rdquo) or even to speechacts as such9 Rather all language is a mode of action which functions inrelation to context That is Firth did not understand function only as theparadigmatic relationship between elements in a system He also saw functionas the relationship between context and the particular choices that are made ina system that result in particular structures in a text or particular linguisticbehaviors in a context

This understanding of language as system was different from Saussurersquos no-tion of langue For Firth language was polysystemic That means that lan-guage consists of multiple paradigmatic systems People regularly use languageto do a variety of things in different contexts by simultaneously making choicesin each of these different systems For example one system might consist ofchoices concerning the communication of information about the world anotherhow information is to be structured for a given purpose10 and another the re-lationship between the communicants Not every system is operative in everycontext For example phatic speech may result from a speaker making choicesin a system governing the relationship between communicants but making nochoice in a system (ie never entering the system) governing communication ofspecific kinds of information about the world In many contexts however peo-ple often do more than one thing at the same time making choices in severalsystems simultaneously For example a speaker may make choices in a sys-tem governing relationships between the communicants and a system governingcommunication of information about the world resulting in phatic and informa-

9On speech act theory see the section on du Plessis and pragmatics in Chapter 2 below(page 67)

10Eg face to face communication with a friend or written communication to a generalaudience

tional functions in the same utterance11 Meaning is not simply a matter of howsigns are related to one another paradigmatically in a single system that canbe conceived of apart from the context in which language is used (Saussurersquoslangue) Rather paradigmatic systems define the linguistic choices availableto a speaker or writer precisely for the purpose of acting within the broadercontext and more narrowly within the specific context Firth following Mali-nowski referred to the broader context as context of culture and the specificcontext as context of situation According to Firth language is social in naturenot because langue is shared by a social group12 but because language is usedwithin social contexts and used to do particular things in those contexts13

Firthrsquos student M A K Halliday inherited his understanding of system fromwhich systemic functional grammar derives its name

Halliday developed Firthrsquos ideas further especially in the area of syntaxMost of Firthrsquos theoretical work had been in the areas of phonology and se-mantics Hallidayrsquos early development of systemic theory first called ldquoscale andcategory linguisticsrdquo came in a very practical context Like his teacher beforehim he began his career in service of the Empire Prior to the withdrawal ofthe British from China Halliday trained as a Sinologist was assigned to teachEnglish there Making use of the concept of systems of choices he began to workup a grammar of English that reflected the linguistic choices available to a na-tive speaker of English choices that were realized in normal English sentencesBy learning these systems of choices native speakers of Chinese were enabled toproduce natural sounding English rather than ldquoChinese Englishrdquo In contrastto the generative grammar of Noam Chomsky Halliday was more concernedwith what people actually said and with what they were doing when they saidit than with a speakerrsquos intuition concerning what sentences were grammaticaland with what the speaker ldquoknewrdquo about the language to enable such judgmentsto be made From the beginning systemic theory was developed in the contextof ldquoapplied linguisticrdquo concerns Many systemic functional linguists hold posi-tions in applied linguistics departments or in English departments where theirconcerns are with teaching composition teaching English as a second languageor interpreting literary texts Halliday himself has engaged in the applicationof systemic functional grammar to the interpretation of both literary (Halliday1971) and non-literary texts (Halliday 1994 368ndash91)

This section has sketched the historical background of systemic functionalgrammar with a focus on the orientation of systemic theory toward understand-ing how language functions in actual texts and how the language of texts relatesto their contexts As a functionalist model the focus of systemic functionalgrammar is on meaning in context The next section will describe the tools ofthis theory and demonstrate their applicability to the task of the New Testa-ment interpreter

11This idea of simultaneously realized functions will be discussed in detail below in termsof three components of the semantic level of language

12Ie exists in a Durkheimian collective mind (Durkheim 1982)13Firth (1957 ch 16) criticizes the Saussurean dichotomy of langue and parole

Meaning and Context in Systemic Functional Grammar 9

13 Meaning and Context inSystemic Functional Grammar

131 Context Genre and Register

Systemic functional grammar is one of several functional theories in the currentdiscipline of linguistics which conceives of text as social interaction14 It is thussuited not only for increasing the interpreterrsquos understanding of the languageof the texts to be interpreted but also for relating those texts to their contextSystemic functional linguists view language as systems of meaning potentialin human interaction that are realized by various structures The organizingconcept is not structure described by rules but system

With the notion of system we can represent language as a resourcein terms of the choices that are available the interconnection ofthese choices and the conditions affecting their access We can thenrelate these choices to recognizable and significant social contextsusing sociosemantic networks The data are the observed facts oflsquotext-in-situationrsquo what people say in real life (Halliday 1978 192)

In other words systemic linguists study texts as communicative behavioras meaning production in the context of a culture the behavioral matrix withinwhich all social interaction takes place15 The choice to engage in a culturallyrecognized social process is made at the level of the genre plane J R Mar-tin (1992 505) defines genre as ldquoa staged goal-oriented social processrdquo Aneasily recognizable example of linguistic genre in the New Testament is the non-literary letter According to work on genre summarized by David Aune (1987163ndash164) the ancient Greek letter regularly consisted of opening formulas bodyand closing formulas Opening formulas include a prescript consisting of super-scription adscription and salutation often following the pattern ldquoX [nomina-tive] to Y [dative] greetings [χαίρειν]rdquo a health wish (which may occur amongthe closing formulas) and a prayer (often of thanksgiving) Optional closingformulas include a closing greeting a closing farewell and sometimes the dateThis example shows obvious stages of which writers and readers would likely bequite consciously aware stages by which a goal is achieved through a recognizedsocial process namely communicating something through letter writing

While letter-writing is a clear example of a staged goal-oriented social pro-cess there are many other such processes defined by a culture of which theparticipants may not be so consciously aware For example we might identify

14A good summary of how systemic linguistics relates to other approaches socially orientedas well as knowledge oriented can be found in Halliday 1978 8ndash35 In addition to the influenceof Malinowski and Firth noted above Halliday was also strongly influenced by the sociologistBasil Bernstein see especially chapter five of Language as Social Semiotic (Halliday 1978101ndash107) which is the reprinted forward to Bernstein (1973)

15Contrast this with a generative grammar the goal of which is to represent the linguisticcompetence of a speaker mdash what the speaker knows without regard to context

the public lecture as a genre in our own culture with identifiable stages in a par-ticular order that allow people to achieve certain [educational] purposes withinthe context of our culture We may not know those stages on a conscious levelbut we can identify a lecture when we hear one Part of that identification willbe the use of language within the lecture itself but there are other aspects ofbehavior associated with this social process that enable us to identify it as a lec-ture and therefore understand it as purposive behavior Some of these aspects ofbehavior will also be linguistic such as introductions of the lecturer or questionsaddressed to the lecturer at the conclusion Others are non-linguistic such asuse of certain audio-visual aids the distribution of handouts or applause eitherat the end of the lecture or following questions Clearly such stages are notunique to a public lecture genre It is the configuration of stages as a wholethat makes a particular social process identifiable as a public lecture Somestages of the process are required for the process to be identifiable as a lectureand some are optional as was also clear in the letter-writing example Thegeneric structure of a social process (ie the stages that are actually used) inwhich language is used to accomplish something enables people to do certainthings like giving lectures or writing letters and also allows people to identifythis purposive behavior when they see it

The question of genre which cannot be discussed in depth within the scopeof this study can be of interest in connection with the Parable of the Sowerand its interpretation within the context of each of the gospels Only Markindicates that Jesus was teaching the crowds in speaking the parable (Mk 41cf Mt 133 and Lk 84) Nevertheless the pattern of behavior is clear in allof the synoptic gospels Jesus sat down in a public place the crowds gatheredaround him and he spoke to them This context of staged behavior must havegiven at least a clue to the overall generic structure of the social process inwhich Jesus was engaged that would enable the reader to know what purposewas served within the gospel narrative16 by speaking the parable The wholequestion of whether parables in general are intended to shed light or to obscureis relevant to the question of genre It may very well depend on the particularsocial process that is being engaged in when a parable is told J G du Plessisas we will see in the next chapter argued that the admonition ldquoWhoever hasears hearrdquo is impolite since Jesusrsquo commands his hearers to understand whenhe has not given them sufficient information to understand (du Plessis 198740) Du Plessis made certain assumptions about the genre about the culturallyrecognized social process in which Jesus was engaging when he made that claimWhile this study will not address this question in a comprehensive way it willprovide some of the data necessary to begin exploring the question of genre Acomprehensive study of genre would entail significant comparative studies aswell as the question not only of the culturally recognized process reflected inJesusrsquo speech but also of the culturally recognized process of reporting suchspeech ie the question of the genre of the gospels themselves as wholes

16Ie the purpose as the evangelists portray it for the reader not necessarily the purposethat the historical Jesus may have had in actually speaking the parables

In addition to the context of culture (the general context that gives meaningto culturally recognized activities) a text is produced in a specific context ofsituation (the instantial situation)17 Choices made on the level of genre arerealized by configurations of context-of-situation variables In systemic theorythese variables are used to talk about the aspects of the immediate contextthat are embedded in a text These variables or aspects of the context ofsituation embedded in a text are referred to in systemic functional grammar asthe register plane18 The register variables are field tenor and mode19

1 Field of discourse what is going on in the context or the kind of activity(as recognized by the culture) in which language is playing some partEggins (1994 52) defines field of discourse as ldquowhat the language is beingused to talk aboutrdquo This variable includes not only the specific topicof discourse but also the degree of technicality or speciality on the onehand or everyday quality on the other For example a Society of BiblicalLiterature seminar on Matthew a seminary lecture on Matthew and aSunday School class on Matthew would involve three different fields ofdiscourse even though the topic is in some sense the same

2 Tenor of discourse negotiation of social relationships among participantsin social action or who is taking part in the exchange and the interactingroles of those involved in the exchange of which the text is part In ameeting between a student and a faculty advisor to fill out andor signa registration form the role relationship is one of unequal status andthe degree of social contact and affective involvement might be quite lowThis example contrasts to a casual conversation between friends in whichpower or status is equal and contact and affective involvement are bothhigh

3 Mode of discourse the role played by language in realizing social actionincluding the channel (written spoken written to be read aloud etc) andthe degree to which language constructs what is going on in the contextor merely accompanies it20 For example a [good] novel is a carefullycrafted written work in which there is usually no contact between writer

17The terms and the concepts ldquocontext of culturerdquo and ldquocontext of situationrdquo as noted inthe previous section originated with Malinowski (1923 1935)

18The distinction between genre and register as distinct communication planes was madeby Martin (1992 501ndash508) He further distinguishes an ideology plane ldquoaboverdquo genre sinceldquoa culturersquos meaning potential is distributed unevenly across social groups and so constantlychangingrdquo (1992 507) Ideology codes orientations that constitute a culture and is concernedwith the redistribution of power Some systemists have followed Martin in distinguishing thesevarious contextual planes (eg Eggins (1994)) However this is a modification of Hallidayrsquoswork which tends to equate genre with register and to define it as the semantic actualizationof context of situation This study is concerned primarily with the register and semanticplanes with register understood as Martin defines it

19Other theories might refer to these as sociolinguistic variables See also footnote 2220Halliday includes rhetorical mode (persuasive expository etc) with mode of discourse on

the plane of register (Halliday amp Hasan 1989 12) Martin (1992) who distinguishes betweenregister and genre planes places rhetorical mode on the genre plane

and reader and certainly no immediate feedback to the writer if any atall and the written work itself constitutes a social activity which doesnot have any bearing on what else may be happening in the immediatecontext of the reader The example given above of a meeting between astudent and faculty advisor on the other hand is characterized by a face-to-face oral mode in which feedback is immediate and in which the oraltext accompanies a culturally defined social activity and relates explicitlyto the immediate context in which the speakers find themselves

ldquoPublic lecturerdquo was given as an example above of a genre in the contextof our culture A particular public lecture would not only have a generic struc-ture but would also occur in a particular context of situation For example aparticular public lecture might be described in terms of register as

field New Testament studies (or perhaps more specifically the Gospel of Mat-thew or the Parable of the Sower etc) at a high level of specialization

tenor professionalteacherldquoexpertrdquo to specialist audience (colleagues non-expert professionalsteachers and students in the field)

mode formal lecture written to be read by the author to a group with visualand aural contact but with delayed feedback (eg questions only at theend in contrast to casual conversation)

In systemic linguistics these three variables are deemed to be the only as-pects of the context of situation of a text that are linguistically relevant It isclear that they are relevant to the cultural context and therefore to the questionof genre insofar as a genre might be described in part as the limits a cultureplaces on the field tenor and mode of a text that is used to accomplish a par-ticular social goal While this project is not concerned directly with genre it isconcerned with register on two levels First of all it is concerned with the fieldtenor and mode of the speech considered as texts within the gospels Whatare the interactants (especially Jesus) talking about in the narrative (ie whatis the field) What are the role relationships between Jesus the crowds and thedisciples in the speech (ie what is the tenor) What role does language playin the interaction between Jesus the crowds and the disciples (ie what is themode) Secondly this project is concerned with the register of the gospel textswhich contain and include the speech of the participants within it What isMatthew (or Mark or Luke) talking about (field) What is the role relationshipbetween the evangelist and the audience for which the gospel is written (tenor)What role is language playing in the interaction (mode) Systemic theory pre-dicts that these aspects of context mdash field tenor and mode mdash will be embeddedin the text by being realized in the semantic and grammatical structures of thetext

The hypothesis on which this study is based is that there is a link betweentext and context that will enable us to recover the linguistically relevant aspectsof the context (ie register) from an examination of the semantic structures of

the text Whereas register describes situational context (albeit linguisticallyrelevant context) the semantic plane which will be discussed in detail in thenext section describes systems of linguistic choices choices which are realizeddirectly by grammatical structures Just as the grammar and lexicon realizemeaningful choices made on the semantic plane so the functions on the semanticplane realize the values of the register variables Systemic functional grammaranalyzes the semantics of a language and the situational contexts in which thelanguage is used in such a way that each serves to predict the other (Hallidayamp Hasan 1989 45) This predictability is the link between text and contextsuch that listeners or readers have expectations about what is coming next andare able to follow what is being said or written The following section on thesemantic plane of language will enable us to define this link between text andcontext more precisely

132 Text Semantic Components of Language

Register is realized directly by the semantic plane of the language21 whichconsists of three functional components or metafunctions (Halliday 1978 128ndash133 186ndash188)22 The three metafunctions are ideational sometimes treatedas separate experiential and logical components23 interpersonal and textualThese metafunctions which will be defined below illustrate the polysystemicnature of language each metafunction can be described independently of theothers as a system of choices that relate to certain aspects of context and arerealized by certain structures The structural (grammatical) realizations of thesemultiple systems are simultaneous ie independent choices made in each of themetafunctions must be realized in overlapping grammatical structures In otherwords a single clause can be analyzed in terms of different structures whichreflect the realizations of the various kinds of meaning simultaneously in thatclause

Ideational Metafunction

The ideational component on the semantic plane consists of experiential mean-ings and logical meanings These are the functions associated with ldquocontentrdquo

21For an introductory discussion of the semantic system in the context of general systemictheory see Eggins 1994 and Martin 1992

22Semantics is commonly understood to concern only what systemic theory includes in theideational metafunction This common understanding is reflected in the work of Brian KBlount (1995 7) who uses systemic terminology derived from Halliday but identifies seman-tics with the ideational metafunction and field variable sociolinguistics with the tenor variableand interpersonal metafunction and the textual metafunction and mode variable with gram-mar However field tenor and mode are all sociolinguistic variables (ie components of thecontext of situation) and are realized by ideational interpersonal and textual meanings whichare all semantic components According to Halliday these are in turn realized in English bygrammatical structures through Transitivity Mood and Theme systems respectively

23Martin (1992) for example gives separate chapters to the logical and experiential meta-functions within what he calls the discourse-semantic level I will distinguish these metafunc-tions in the proposed project although they will sometimes be referred to together as theideational metafunction

with talking about the world as we conceive of it or hypothesize about it or as wemight imagine it could be These functions operate at various structural levelsof the text as well as in a cohesive way at the level of the entire discourse Thecohesive device of lexical relations is an example of experiential meanings operat-ing at the level of the whole discourse Lexical relations include both taxonomicrelations between lexical items and expectancy relations Taxonomic lexical re-lations are either classsubclass relations (eg χόρτοcσίτοc lsquoplantwheatrsquo) orpartwhole relations (eg νθοcχόρτοc lsquoblossomplantrsquo) Classsubclass rela-tions include relations between two lexical items that are subclasses of the sameclass (eg σίτοcζιζάνιον lsquowheatweedrsquo) as well as synonyms and antonymsLikewise partwhole relations include lexical items of which both could beparts of a whole (eg χείρπούc lsquohandfootrsquo) Expectancy relations also calledcollocational relations are relations between lexical items in which the presenceof a lexical item is predictable on the basis of the presence of another item (egacircmicroβαίνωπlοOslashον lsquoboardboatrsquo24) Lexical relations without regard for clause orother grammatical boundaries in a text contribute to the cohesiveness of thetext aiding the reader of a text in determining the experiential meanings of thetext

Experiential Meanings Experiential meanings at the grammatical rank ofthe clause are those functions that reflect or represent processes participantsand circumstances For example the following clause represents a single processtwo associated participants and a circumstantial element καEgrave κοlούθησαναIcircτAuml icircχlοι ποllοEgrave πauml τumlc Γαlιlαίαc καEgrave ∆εκαπόlεωc καEgrave ltΙεροσοlύmicroων καEgrave gtΙου-

δαίαc καEgrave πέραν τοUuml gtΙορδάνου lsquoAnd great crowds followed him from GalileeDecapolis Jerusalem Judea and beyond the Jordanrsquo (Mt 425) The verb κο-lούθησαν represents a process of following the nominal group icircχlοι ποllοEgrave andthe pronoun αIcircτAuml represent participants in that process and the prepositionalphrase πauml τumlc Γαlιlαίαc καEgrave ∆εκαπόlεωc καEgrave ltΙεροσοlύmicroων καEgrave gtΙουδαίαc καEgraveπέραν τοUuml gtΙορδάνου represents a circumstance of spatial location of the pro-cess In Hallidayrsquos analysis of English experiential meanings are accounted forin clauses by the transitivity system (Halliday 1994 102ndash137 (chapter 5)) Thetransitivity system includes choices of process type and the configuration of pos-sible participants and circumstances which can be associated with a particularprocess type (Since the term transitivity is used in traditional grammar to dis-tinguish verbs that are capable of taking a direct object [transitive verbs] fromother verbs [intransitive] I shall avoid the term in this study using instead theterm process type) In the following paragraphs we will examine the six processtypes material mental behavioral verbal relational and existential25

24In fact acircmbaETHnw occurs 16 times in the New Testament and each time it occurs with eitherploOslashon or ploiĹpion which two words occur a total of 72 times in the New Testament (all inthe gospels)

25Eggins presents definitions of the six process types together with means for identifyingeach process type in English (Eggins 1994 227ndash266) The following material draws on Egginsrsquodefinitions Reed only mentions five process types in his summary of Koine Greek grammarfrom a systemic functional perspective (Reed 1997 69)

Material Processes Material processes are processes of doing or actionA clause which reflects a material process can be read as the answer to a ques-tion ldquoWhat did x dordquo where lsquodorsquo is a [usually] concrete tangible actionMaterial processes have an obligatory participant the Actor26 which is thedoer of the action The example from Mt 425 above is an example of a ma-terial process ^Οχlοι ποllοEgrave lsquogreat crowdsrsquo is the Actor the participant thatldquodoesrdquo the following In this case the Actor is identified by the presence of anominative case subject of the verb Actors in Greek are commonly identifiedonly by the morphology of an active verb Although a material process alwayshas an Actor the Actor may be suppressed through the use of a passive verbas is commonly the case in the New Testament in the so-called ldquodivine passiverdquo(eg IacutemicroOslashν δέδοται γνAgraveναι τ microυστήρια τumlc βασιlείαc τdegν οIcircρανAgraveν lsquoTo you hasbeen given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavensrsquo (Mt 1311))The use of the passive does not necessarily suppress the Actor however sincethe Actor associated with a material process which is represented by a passiveverb can be explicitly realized by Iacuteπό with the genitive (eg καEgrave acircβαπτίζοντοacircν τAuml gtΙορδάνugrave ποταmicroAuml Iacuteπ αIcircτοUuml lsquoAnd they were being baptized in the JordanRiver by himrsquo (Mt 36)) A second participant the Goal of the action isthe participant in some material processes to which the doing is done In Mt425 cited above (καEgrave κοlούθησαν αIcircτAuml icircχlοι ποllοEgrave πauml τumlc Γαlιlαίαc καEgrave ∆ε-καπόlεωc καEgrave ltΙεροσοlύmicroων καEgrave gtΙουδαίαc καEgrave πέραν τοUuml gtΙορδάνου) the Goal isrealized by αIcircτAuml indicating the participant to which the action of following isdone Traditionally the term transitive is used of verbs which require a Goal(whether it is made explicit in the clause or not) and intransitive is used ofverbs which do not take a Goal participant Two related participants are Rangeand Beneficiary Range often looks like a Goal but differs in that it restates orextends the process itself Range is often a cognate accusative eg τaumlν καlaumlνγAgraveνα γώνισmicroαι lsquoI have fought the good fightrsquo (2 Tim 47) in which the partic-ipant τaumlν καlaumlν γAgraveνα extends the meaning of the process γώνισmicroαι It doesnot make sense to ask ldquoWhat have I done to the good fightrdquo in the same waythat it makes sense to ask of Mt 425 ldquoWhat did the great crowds do to himrdquoBeneficiary is semantically what is traditionally called indirect object In theclause δόc microοι τοUumlτο τauml Iacuteδωρ lsquogive me this waterrsquo (Jn 415) τοUumlτο τauml Iacuteδωρ is theGoal of the process realized by δόc and microοι is the Beneficiary of the process

In addition to the participants material processes share with other pro-cesses that they may also be accompanied by circumstantial elements typicallyrealized by adverbial elements including prepositional and participial phrasesFigure 12 represents the range of choices available to a speaker or writer oncethe choice has been made to include a circumstantial element27

Each square bracket in the figure represents a logical ldquoorrdquo system in whichone and only one of the terms of the system can be chosen Thus the system ofcircumstance includes seven terms Extent Accompaniment Location MatterManner Role and Cause When the system is entered one and only one of these

26Throughout this study functional labels defined within systemic theory are capitalized27Figure 12 as well as the definitions and probe questions to follow is adapted from (Eggins

1994 237ndash239)

circumstance -

Extent -

Accompaniment

Location -

Matter

Manner -

Cause -

duration (temporal)

distance (spatial)

time (temporal)

place (spatial)

qualitycomparison

reasonpurpose

behalf

Figure 12 System of Circumstances

terms must be chosen28 Some choices in the system become entry conditionsfor a further system of choices For example if the term Manner is chosen themanner system is entered and one and only one of the terms Means Qualityand Comparison must be chosen Circumstantials are identified by consideringwhat the questions are that can be asked for which the circumstantials are theanswer Following are questions that are helpful in identifying circumstantialstogether with an example of each of the seven terms of the systemExtent ldquoHow longrdquo (duration) ldquoHow farrdquo (spatial distance) In the followingexample the opening prepositional phrases answer the question ldquoHow long (orsince when) has the kingdom of heaven suffered violencerdquo

Ćpauml dagrave tAgraven ŹmerAgraven IwĹnnou toUuml baptistoUuml

from but the days of-John the Baptist

Circextent

aacutewc Łrti

until now

Circextent

28This does not mean that there cannot be more than one circumstantial element in a clauseclearly there can be It means that each time the system is entered only one term is chosenMore than one circumstantial element in a clause indicates that the system of circumstancemay be entered more than once

Ź basileiĹ tAgraven oIcircranAgraven

the kingdom of-the heavens

biĹzetai (Mt 1112)has-suffered-violencecome violently

Processmaterial

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of theheavens has suffered violencecome violently

Location ldquoWhenrdquo (temporal) Where (spatial) In the following examplethe initial participial phrase answers the question ldquoWhen did he stand on alevel placerdquo The closing prepositional phrase answers the question ldquoWheredid he stand after he came down with themrdquo Note that in the absence of anexplicit subject the verb morphology in this clause realizes the Actor participantthe verb in this (and many other clauses) thus realizes both process and aparticipant

KaEgrave

katabřc metfl aIcirctřn

coming-down with them

Circlocationtime

ecircsth

he-stood

Prmaterial (Actor)

acircpEgrave tigravepou pedinoUuml (Lk 617)upon place level

Circlocplace

And coming down with them he stood on a level place

Manner ldquoHow With whatrdquo (means) ldquoHow How x-lyrdquo (quality) ldquoWhat

likerdquo (comparison) In the first example immediately following acirclαίuacute an-swers the question ldquoHowwith whatby means of what did lsquoyoursquo not anointlsquomy headrsquordquo In the second example the prepositional phrase answers the ques-tion ldquoHowwith what quality is she to gordquo (Answer ldquoPeacefullyin peacerdquo)

acirclaETHuacute

with-oil

Circmannermeans

tăn kefalăn mou

the head of-me

oIcirck ćleiyac (Lk 746)not you-anointed

Prmaterial (Actor)

You did not anoint my head with oil

poreOcircou

Prmaterial (Actor)

eEcircc eEcircrănhn (Lk 848)in peace

Circumstancemannerquality

Go in peace

Cause ldquoWhyrdquo (reason) ldquoWhat forrdquo (purpose) ldquoWho forrdquo (behalf) Theprepositional phrase in the example below answers the question ldquoFor whomshould we buy foodrdquo

ŹmeOslashc

ĆgorĹswmen

should buy

Prmaterial

eEcircc pĹnta taumln laaumln toUumlton

for all the people this

Circcausebehalf

bryumlmata (Lk 913)food

we should buy food for this entire people

Accompaniment ldquoWith whomrdquo The first prepositional phrase below σIgraveναIcircτοOslashc answers the question ldquoWith whom did he enter the templerdquo

KaEgrave

eEcircsĺljen

he-entered

Prmaterial (Actor)

sIgraven aIcirctoOslashc

with them

Circaccomp

eEcircc tauml Eacuteeraumln (Acts 38)into the temple

Circlocation

And he entered with them into the temple

Matter ldquoWhat aboutrdquo The genitive absolute construction in the examplebelow is generally translated as a temporal clause but it does not really answerthe question ldquoWhenrdquo It answers the question ldquoConcerning what matterinwhat circumstance does the evil one comerdquo

pantaumlc ĆkoOcircontoc taumln ligravegon tĺc basileETHac kaEgrave mŸ suniegraventoc

all hearing the word of the kingdom and not understanding

Circumstancematter

ecircrqetai

Prmaterial

aring ponhraumlc (Mt 1319)the evil-one

Everyone who hears the word of the kingdom and does notunderstand the evil one comes

Role ldquoWhat asrdquo The phrase plusmnc eacuteνα τAgraveν microισθίων σου below answers thequestion ldquoWhat are lsquoyoursquo to make lsquomersquo as What role are lsquoyoursquo to place lsquomersquoinrdquo The use of plusmnc here indicates role

poETHhsigraven

Prmaterial (Actor)

śc eacutena tAgraven misjETHwn sou (Lk 746)as one of-the hired-hands of-you

Circumstancerole

Make me like one of your hired hands

Mental Processes Mental processes are processes of cognition (eg νοέωεIacuteρίσχω γινώσκω acircπίσταmicroαι θέlω) perception (eg aringράω βlέπω κούωγεύοmicroαι) and affection (acircπιθυmicroέω φιlέω εIcircδοκέω βούlοmicroαι)29 In contrast tomaterial processes mental processes always have two participants a Senser anda Phenomenon even if the Phenomenon is not explicitly realized The Senserunlike an Actor of a material clause is always a conscious agent and the men-tal process happens within the consciousness of the Senser The Phenomenon isthe participant that is sensed For example in the clause οEacuteτινεc κούουσιν τaumlνlόγον lsquowho hear the wordrsquo (Mk 420) κούουσιν realizes the mental (percep-tion) process οEacuteτινεc realizes the Senser and τaumlν lόγον the Phenomenon which

29These examples are taken from Reed (1997 65)

is sensed The exception to the presence of a Phenomenon is the use of projec-tion a grammatical construction which is characteristic of mental processes butnot material ones Projection is a relationship between two clauses such thatone is projected by another completing the process of the other In the case ofa mental process the projected clause functions in place of the PhenomenonConsider Pilatersquos question of Jesus in Mt 2713 ΟIcircκ κούειc πόσα σου καταmicroαρ-τυροUumlσιν lsquoDonrsquot you hear how much they testify against yoursquo ΟIcircκ κούειc is asimple clause which realizes a mental process of perception (hearing) This firstclause projects a second clause πόσα σου καταmicroαρτυροUumlσιν providing a furtherprocess (a verbal process discussed below) that functions as the Phenomenonthat is sensed30 The examples given here point toward two further processtypes Verbal processes share in common with mental processes that they canbe realized by clauses that project other clauses These will be discussed belowA second process type that is indicated here is one that shares characteristicsof both material and mental processes namely the behavioral process

Behavioral Processes Behavioral processes are action or doing like ma-terial processes but actions that must be experienced by a conscious being Theverb κούω was given above as an example of a verb that can realize a mentalprocess of perception (hearing) But this verb can also realize a behavioral pro-cess when it is used in the sense of listening When it is used in this way thePhenomenon is frequently a genitive case nominal participant that realizes theparticipant being listened to rather than what is heard eg τumlc φωνumlc αIcircτοUumlin the following example

tĹ prigravebata

the sheep

Behaver

tĺc fwnĺc aIcirctoUuml

his voice

Phenomenon

ĆkoOcircei (Jn 103)hear

Processbehavior

The sheep hear his voice

Verbal Processes Verbal processes are verbal actions performed by aSayer Unlike the Senser of a mental process a Sayer does not have to be a con-scious being eg ΟOgraveδαmicroεν δagrave iacuteτι iacuteσα aring νόmicroοc lέγει τοOslashc acircν τAuml νόmicrouacute lαlεOslash lsquoButwe know that whatever the law says it says to those under the lawrsquo [Rom 319]in which both lέγει and lαlεOslash realize verbal processes with aring νόmicroοc as Sayer31

Maximally a verbal process may (and frequently does) have a Verbiage partici-pant and may have a Recipient (the verbal equivalent of a material Beneficiary)as well Verbiage may be absent as in the following example

30Acts 1926 contains a more complex example of a mental process clause projecting amaterial process clause kaEgrave jewreOslashte kaEgrave ĆkoOcircete (Process mentalSenser) iacuteti oIcirc migravenongtEfegravesou ĆllĂ sqedaumln pĹshc tĺc gtAsETHac (Circumstance location) aring PaIgraveloc oYacutetoc peETHsac (Actor)metegravesthsen (Process material) Eacutekanaumln icircqlon (Goal) Jn 931 contains an example of a mentalprocess of cognition clause projecting another clause oNtildedamen iacuteti ĄmartwlAgraven aring jeaumlc oOcirck ĆkoOcircei

31Note that this is an example of a mental (cognitive) process clause (OOgravedamen degrave) projectinga clause complex (beginning with iacuteti) that itself consists of a verbal process clause (toOslashc acircntAuml nigravemuacute laleOslash) projecting another verbal process clause (iacutesa aring nigravemoc legravegei)

kaEgrave

Ćnefyumlnhsen

she-exclaimed

Prverbal (Sayer)

kraugň megĹlugrave (Lk 142)with a-loud shout

Circmanner

And she exclaimed with a loud shout

If Verbiage is realized it may be realized by a nominal element eg τνacircντοlν ταύτην in Mk 10532

Praumlc tŸn sklhrokardETHan IacutemAgraven

because of your stubbornness

Circcause

ecircgrayen

he wrote

Prverbal (Sayer)

IacutemOslashn

to you

Recipient

tŸn acircntolăn taOcircthn

this command

Verbiage

It was because of your stubbornness that he wrote you thiscommand

Instead of Verbiage the verbal process clause may project another clause orclauses that realize that which is verbalized as in the following example fromMt 4633

kaEgrave legravegei aIcirctAuml

and he-says to him

Prverbal (Sayer) RecipientProjecting clauseEEcirc uEacuteaumlc eUacute toUuml jeoUuml

if son you-are of God

Value Printenstive (Token) ValueProjected [relational] clause

And he says to him ldquoIf you are Godrsquos Son rdquo

The processes discussed up to this point mdash material mental behavioral andverbal mdash have in some sense all been processes of action The remaining twoprocess types are processes of being rather than action Existential processeswhich will be discussed below are those in which something is simply statedto exist Relational processes discussed immediately below are those in whichsomething is stated to exist in relation to something else

Relational Processes Relational processes are a rich and varied processtype in which a relationship is established between two terms This relationshipcan be one of two sub-types attributive or identifying In the former sub-type an Attribute is assigned to a Carrier specifying a quality classification

32See also the clause in Mt 273 given above as an example of a projection of a mentalprocess pigravesa sou (Verbiage) katamarturoUumlsin (PrverbalSayer)

33In this case the first clause of the projected clause complex realizes a relational processFor more on the analysis of relational clauses see the following section

or description of the Carrier In the latter the emphasis is not on describingor classifying but on defining The participants in identifying processes arecalled Token and Value In addition to the distinction between attributive andidentifying sub-types relational processes whether attributive or identifyingcan also be differentiated into intensive circumstantial and possessive relationalprocesses Intensive processes are those in which sameness is posited betweenthe two terms of the relationship In the following example from Mt 1322 thesameness is posited between the word which is identified from the precedingclause (καEgrave πάτη τοUuml πlούτου συmicroπνίγει τaumlν lόγον lsquoand the deception of wealthchokes the wordrsquo) and its acquired attribute of fruitlessness

kaEgrave

Łkarpoc

fruitless

Attribute

gETHnetai (Mt 1322)it becomes

Printenstive (Carrier)

And it [the word] becomes fruitless

In Jn 635 the sameness is posited between the speaker (gtΕγώ) and thedescription aring ρτοc τumlc ζωumlc

gtEgyuml

eEcircmi

Printenstive

aring Łrtoc tĺc zwĺc (Jn 635)the bread of life

I am the bread of life

Circumstantial processes are those in which a circumstantial element is at-tributed to or used to identify a participant The first of the following examplesis a circumstantial attributive process and the second is a circumstantial iden-tifying process

kaEgrave EcircdoIgrave

and behold

Ź dokaumlc

the log

Carrier

acircn tAuml aeligfjalmAuml soUuml (Mt 74)in your eye

AttributeCirclocation

And look the log is in your eye

meETHzwn toOcirctwn

greater than these

ValueCircmannercomparison

Łllh acircntolă

another command

oIcirck ecircstin (Mk 1231)is not

Prcircumstantial

Commands greater than these do not exist

Possessive processes are those in which the relationship between the twoterms is one of possession The first example of a possessive process whichfollows is identifying and the second is attributive

relational -

attributive

identifying

intensivecircumstantialpossessive

Figure 13 Relational Processes System

tAgraven gĂr toioOcirctwn

for to such as these

Valuepossessor

acircstEgraven

isbelongs

Prpossessive

Ź basileETHa tAgraven oIcircranAgraven (Mt 1914)the kingdom of the heavens

Tokenpossessed

For to such as these belongs the kingdom of the heavens

gtArgOcircrion kaEgrave qrusETHon

silver and gold

Carrierpossessed

oIcircq IacutepĹrqei

do not existbelong

Prpossessive

moi (Acts 36)to me

Attributepossessor

Silver and gold I do not have

The system of relational processes is summarized in Figure 13 The curlybracket represents a logical ldquoandrdquo specifying that both terms of the systemmust be chosen if the system is entered As in Figure 12 the square bracketsrepresent choices which must be made between terms of the system In therelational system either attributive or identifying must be chosen and one andonly one of intensive circumstantial or possessive must be chosen

Existential Processes Existential processes in contrast to relational pro-cesses have only one participant (not counting circumstantial elements) namelythe Existent or that participant which is said to exist Existential processclauses can frequently be translated by English existential clauses with thedummy subject ldquothererdquo34 For example

34Cf [pisteUumlsai gĂr deOslash taumln proserqigravemenon tAuml jeAuml] iacuteti ecircstin lsquo[for it is necessary for the onecoming to God to believe] that he isrsquo (PrexistentialExistent) (Heb 116)

ecircstin

[there] is

Prexistential

aring zhtAgraven kaEgrave krETHnwn (Jn 850)the-one seeking and judging

Existent

There is one who seeks and judges

Existential process clauses like other clauses can include circumstantialelements and it is not always easy to distinguish between such an existentialclause and a relational circumstantial process clause The following clause isanalyzed as existential with two circumstantial elements

gETHnetai

Prexistential

Existent

acircnyumlpion tAgraven Ćggegravelwn toUuml jeoUuml

before the angels of God

Circlocation

acircpEgrave aacuteni ĄmartwlAuml metanooUumlnti

over one sinner repenting

Circcause

(Lk 1510)

There is joy before Godrsquos angels over one sinner who repents

Summary of Process Types The summary of the process types in Fig-ure 1435 shows that this system represents experiential meanings at the levelof the clause In the system of experiential meanings at the clause level oneand only one process type must be chosen The choice of whether to include acircumstantial element is independent of the choice of process type The smallarrows pointing diagonally from left to right and downward indicate realizationEach process type is realized by a process and its accompanying participantsOptional participants appear in parentheses The clause level however is notthe only lexico-grammatical level at which experiential meanings are realized

Another important level at which to analyze experiential meanings is themorphological level especially of the verb In addition to the important resourceof circumstantials that New Testament Greek has at the clause level for realizingexperiential meanings related to time there are the important morphologicalcategories of tense and aspect that have received considerable attention in recentyears36 As Mari Broman Olsen (1997) has demonstrated aspect itself cannotbe properly accounted for at a single level such as the morphological level ofthe verb She has demonstrated that aspect can be fully accounted for only inthe interplay between lexical aspect which is a semantic property of particularverbs and grammatical aspect which is a semantic property of verb morphologyI mention this important area of research to emphasize that the grammaticalrealization of experiential meanings are not exhausted by analysis of clausesbut properly includes analysis of lower level constructions (such as verb phrases)

35This figure is adapted from Eggins (1994 228)36Stanley Porterrsquos Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament is one major study that

draws on systemic concepts and notation (Porter 1989) Other significant studies of verbalaspect in Greek include those of Buist Fanning (1990) James Voelz (1993) and KennethL McKay (1994) The recent dissertation by Mari Broman Olsen is also a significant study(Olsen 1994)

clause

materialprmaterial Actor (Goal)(Range)(Beneficiary)

mentalprmental Senser Phenomenon

verbalprverbal Sayer (Receiver)(Verbiage)

behavioralprbehavioral Behaver (Phenomenon)

existentialprexistential Existent

relational -

identifyingpridentifying Token Value

attributiveprattributive Carrier Attribute

circumstanceCircumstance

Figure 14 System of Process Types

and lexical items Nevertheless clause level realizations and process types inparticular will be the focus of my analysis of experiential meanings in this study

Logical Meanings As noted above the ideational metafunction includes notonly experiential meanings but logical ones as well Logical meanings are real-ized by relationships of coordination and subordination between clauses or otherstructural units often through the use of conjunctions relative pronouns ellip-sis and so on In the discussion of process types above each clause whetherdependent independent or embedded in another clause can be analyzed interms of process participants and circumstances This way of analyzing theclauses produces constituency structures Logical meanings in contrast to thisare associated with interdependency structures The relationship between headwords and the words that modify them or are dependent on them (eg nounsand the adjectives and articles that modify them verbs and the adverbs thatmodify them) are examples of logical meanings Another example is the relation-ship that holds between clauses in a text The relationship between independentclauses and clauses that are dependent on them as well as logical relationshipsbetween independent clauses in a text are logical meanings Logical meaningmust be taken into account in any ideational analysis Nevertheless the focus ofideational analysis in this study will be on experiential meanings at the clauselevel37

Interpersonal Metafunction

Introduction Text as Exchange The second metafunction the interper-sonal component of the semantic level has to do with the exchange that takesplace between speaker and listener or writer and reader The functions withinthis component include giving or demanding information expressing intentionassessing degree of probability expressing attitude and so on These functionshave more to do with social interaction than with ldquocontentrdquo In Hallidayrsquos anal-ysis of English the interpersonal component is associated with mood modalityand person These functions are realized in a variety of ways from the use ofvocatives and the use of first and second person forms of identification to the useof distinctions between imperative and indicative moods and the use of modalsand negatives

Since interpersonal meanings have to do with interaction or exchange be-tween people they are most conspicuous in conversation or dialogue and leastconspicuous in formal texts written for a general audience Nevertheless lan-guage is social behavior and by its very nature text is exchange Languagecan be used to exchange information or ldquogoods and servicesrdquo Information isgenerally exchanged verbally whereas goods and services can include materialobjects or actions that are given or demanded in the exchange in addition to

37It will be necessary in this study to give some attention to logical meanings as well asto patterns of experiential meanings across the discourse including lexical relations to theextent that these are necessary for the analysis of register Nevertheless the focus will remainon the clause rank

Initiating Respondingspeech function speech function

Supporting Confrontingoffer acceptance (may be non-verbal) rejectioncommand compliance (may be non-verbal) refusalstatement acknowledgment contradictionquestion answer disclaimer

Table 11 Speech Function Pairs (Initiations and Responses)

verbal responses and thus a positive response in a goods-and-services exchangemay be non-verbal Table 1138 summarizes initiating and responding speechfunctions

The offer and command functions have to do with offering and demandinggoods and services respectively The statement and question functions have todo with giving and requesting information respectively

Mood The Grammar of Interpersonal Meanings Interpersonal mean-ings are realized through the grammar of mood in the same way that experien-tial meanings are realized through the grammar of process types Whereas thegrammar of experiential meanings focuses on the clause as a representationalunit structured as a configuration of process participants and circumstancesthe grammar of interpersonal meanings focuses on the clause as a unit of ex-change structured as Subject Predicator Complements and Adjuncts Whenthese elements are used in the exchange of information the resulting structureis a proposition When these elements are used in the exchange of goods andservices the resulting structure is a proposal The speech functions of exchangeand how clauses are structured to realize them will be illustrated following abrief discussion of the Subject Predicator Complement and Adjunct labels

The Predicator is the primary focus of mood analysis because of the mor-phology of the Greek verb for the identification of mood and for the identificationof the Subject While the Subject element of the clause is optional the Subjectis identifiable from the verb morphology and this identification is important foranalysis of the clause as exchange When the clause realizes an assertion in anargument for example the Subject is the element about which the remainderof the clause is asserted ldquothe thing by reference to which the proposition canbe affirmed or denied It provides the person or thing in whom is vested thesuccess or failure of the proposition what is lsquoheld responsiblersquordquo (Eggins 1994156ndash157)39 We might add that the Subject can also be the one in whom is

38This table is taken from Eggins 1994 15139See also Halliday 1994 76

vested the success or failure of a proposal ie the one who is held responsiblefor the proposal especially the carrying out of a command or responding to anoffer The Predicator is the part of the clause that specifies the process thatis going on in the clause It can be identified as the finite verb which carriesthe morphological identification of the Subject and of mood We shall returnto mood below since it is the primary means of grammaticalizing the speechfunctions of exchange in New Testament Greek The importance of the Subjectin interpersonal meaning can be seen in the fact that every non-elliptical finiteclause in Greek has either a Subject or a finite verb the morphology of whichidentifies the Subject

Other less important participants than the Subject are labeled as Comple-ments In experiential analysis it was important to understand the particularconfiguration of participants in relation to each process type In interpersonalanalysis however all non-Subject participants are labeled the same way AComplement can be defined as a non-Subject participant that has the potentialto become the Subject of the clause with the use of the passive voice (Eggins1994 163) Complements along with Predicators constitute the major part ofwhat is being asserted of the Subject in a proposition

The remaining element of clauses in interpersonal analysis is the AdjunctAdjuncts are additional but non-essential information of various sorts thatis added to the clause (Eggins 1994 165) Adjuncts are generally realized byadverbs particles and prepositional phrases They can be classified broadlyaccording to whether they add experiential interpersonal or textual meaningto the clause Circumstantial elements in an experiential analysis are consideredAdjuncts of circumstance in an interpersonal analysis Textual Adjuncts aregenerally conjunctions and adverbs or particles that function to give continuityor to announce that a message is coming40

In addition to experiential and textual Adjuncts a number of Adjuncts aresignificant to interpersonal analysis One is the Vocative Adjunct by whicha particular participant in the exchange is directly addressed and it is madeclear who is expected to respond in an exchange The Polarity Adjunct (ναίor οOuml) is most often used in answer to ldquoyesnordquo questions usually elliptically(eg προσεlθdegν δagrave aring χιlίαρχοc εUacuteπεν αIcircτAuml Lέγε microοι σIgrave ltΡωmicroαOslashοc εUacute aring δagrave ecircφηΝαί lsquoAnd approaching the commanding officer said to him ldquoTell me are youa Romanrdquo And he said ldquoYesrdquorsquo [Acts 2227]) More common are the ModalAdjuncts mdash adverbs and particles that express such categories as probabilityusuality obligation and inclination categories generally associated with moodJeffrey T Reed (1997 83) has compiled the modal adjuncts shown in Table 12

We should probably add the general category of Polarity to this collectionsince negation (οIcirc microή οIcirc microή microή οIcirc) occurs very much like any of these Adjuncts

The categories chosen by Reed to represent Modal Adjuncts are used bysystemic linguists to represent the broader meanings of modality Propositions

40Textual Adjuncts of continuity include words in conversational English such as ldquoyeahrdquoldquowellrdquo and ldquouhrdquo when used at the beginning of sentences with only a textual function Ogravedeand EcircdoOcirc lsquobeholdrsquo sometimes function this way in the New Testament (eg Jn 1629 Acts110)

probability πάντωc καlAgravec σφαlAgravec icircντωc εEcirc microήν ν + imperfect(apodosis of conditional) microήποτε ρα Ograveσωc τάχα

usuality εί πάντοτε acircκάστοτε εEcircc αEcircAgraveνα ποllάκιc ποlυmicroερAgravec

πυκνότερον ποσάκιc δι παντόc ποτέ πώποτε δήποτε

microήποτε microηδέποτε οIcircδέποτε

obligation ναγκαστAgravec δεOslash

inclination acircκουσίωc προθύmicroωc acircκτενAgravec σπουδαίωc σmicroένωc δέ-

ωc φόβωc

Table 12 Modal Adjuncts

are used to assert what is or with Polarity what is not But these two extremesare not the only choices The grammar of modality enables people to assert thatthings are or are not with varying degrees of certainty about the probability orlikelihood (possible probably certain) of something being and the usuality orfrequency (sometimes usually always) of something being (Eggins 1994 178ndash179 Halliday 1994 88ndash92 354ndash367) Likewise we use proposals to influenceeach otherrsquos behavior and commands and offers reflect the extremes of whatwe want to see happen The grammar of modality enables people to conveyvarying degrees of obligation (must should may) to do what is demanded andinclination (willing want to determined) to do what is offered (Eggins 1994183ndash187 Halliday 1994 89ndash91) While such meanings are sometimes realizedby Modal Adjuncts in New Testament Greek they are more frequently realizedby the same verb endings marked for mood that also realize the speech rolesdisplayed in Table 11 The following examples illustrate the major concepts andlabels that have been introduced and defined here for analyzing the grammarof interpersonal meanings These examples show how the various interpersonalmeanings are realized (grammaticalized)

The Grammar of Propositions Exchanging Information The de-fault grammatical realization of propositions (exchange of information) is the useof indicative mood This is true of both statements and questions While ques-tions may have been differentiated from statements by inflection or intonationin oral speech they are typically not differentiated grammatically Questionsmust sometimes be recognized from their co-text in the New Testament Inthe following exchange from Jn 1126ndash27 the second clause is understood as aquestion even though it is not grammatically distinct from a statement

kaEgrave

Adjconj

pŘc aring zAgraven kaEgrave pisteOcircwn eEcircc acircmagrave

all the-ones living and believing in me

Subject

oIcirc mŸ

not not

Polarity

ĆpojĹnugrave

shall-die

Predicator

eEcircc taumln aEcircAgravena

into the age

Adjcirc

ldquoAnd all who live and believe in me shall never dierdquo

pisteOcirceic

you-believe

Predicator (Subject)

toUumlto

Complement

ldquoDo you believe thisrdquo

Adjpolarity

kOcircrie

Adjvocative

acircgř

Subject

pepETHsteuka

have-come-to-believe

Predicator

ldquoYes Lord I believe rdquo

iacuteti

Adjconj

sIgrave

eUacute

aring Qristaumlc aring uEacuteaumlc toUuml jeoUuml

the Christ the son of-the God

Complement

aring eEcircc taumln kigravesmon acircrqigravemenoc

the [one] into the world coming

(Complement)

ldquo that you are the Christ the son of God who is coming into theworldrdquo

In addition to the grammar of the question this exchange illustrates severalother aspects of the grammar of propositions The answer like the questionis given in the indicative mood accompanied by an Adjunct of Polarity (ναί)which indicates the affirmative response to the question and a Vocative Adjunct(κύριε) which not only directs the answer back to the questioner but servesto acknowledge (or define) something about the role relationship between theparties in the exchange

The opening assertion that led to the question in the above exchange καEgrave πcaring ζAgraveν καEgrave πιστεύων εEcircc acircmicroagrave οIcirc micro ποθάνugrave εEcircc τaumlν αEcircAgraveνα illustrates that proposi-tions are not always grammaticalized by the indicative mood In that assertionthe subjunctive mood (the mood of the verb ποθάνugrave) grammaticalizes modal-ity The double negative οIcirc micro is combined with the phrase εEcircc τaumlν αEcircAgraveνα lsquointothe age (ie forever)rsquo to represent an emphatic polarity (ldquonever everrdquo)41 andthis emphatic ldquoneverrdquo is combined with the modality of the subjunctive moodgrammaticalizing possibility rather than certainty to express a strong denialthat something will happen The effect is similar to using the modalized Englishconstruction ldquocanrsquot possibly dierdquo instead of the normal declarative construction

41Cf John 414 851 852 1028 138 and 1 Cor 813

ldquowill not dierdquo to deny emphatically a possibility rather than simply to make anassertion

Less common means of realizing modalized propositions include the use ofmodal Adjuncts and the use of the optative mood42 In the following example(from Lk 2347) the modal Adjunct icircντωc represents a modification of theassertion by realizing the speakerrsquos attitude of certainty

^Ontwc

Adjconj

aring Łnjrwpoc oYacutetoc

the man this

dETHkaioc

Complement

Truly this man was just

The following example demonstrates that the use of the optative mood realizesa lower degree of possibilityprobability than does the subjunctive mood in aproposition mdash in this case an interrogative proposition In response to Philiprsquosquestion whether he understands what he is reading the Ethiopian eunuch inActs 831 responds

PAgravec

Adjcircinterr

Adjconj

Adjmodal

dunaETHmhn

I might be able

Pred (Subj)

How can I How could I possibly

acircĂn mă

unless

Adjconjmodalpolarity

someone

Subject

aeligdhgăsei

will guide

Predicator

unless someone guides me

Note that the Ethiopian eunuchrsquos question in the previous example in con-trast to the question from Jn 1126 discussed above is marked as interrogativenot only by context but also by the use of an interrogative element in theclause The interrogative word is a circumstantial Adjunct in the above ex-ample In general terms an interrogative word can be an Adjunct Subject orComplement The functional label of the interrogative word defines the kind ofinformation for which the question is asking In the above example the ques-tion is asking for a circumstance the full answer to the question would be ofthe form ldquoI might be able to understand in the circumstance xrdquo In this casethe question is rhetorical and the answer is given in the following clause iex = the circumstance in which someone will guide me In the following questionfrom Mk 163 the interrogative is Subject

42The optative mood is never used in Matthew and only once in Mark (1114) Apart fromPaulrsquos well-known use of the expression mŸ gegravenoito most uses of the optative in the NewTestament occur in Luke-Acts

Subjinterr

ĆpokulETHsei

will roll away

Predicator

ŹmOslashn

for-us

taumln lETHjon

the stone

acirck tĺc jOcircrac toUuml mnhmeETHou

from the entrance of the tomb

Adjunctcircum

Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb

The interrogative word acts as a variable seeking an answer of the form ldquoxwill roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tombrdquo

In addition to questions that request information by using interrogativewords there are also yesno questions that present information in the formof a proposition and request an affirmation or rejection of that informationOnce again the example from Jn 1126 given above is of this type The use ofa polarity element in a clause however helps to distinguish a question from astatement while at the same time suggesting the expected answer to the ques-tion In the following example (from Mt 722) the use of οIcirc rather than microήindicates that the expected answer is in the affirmative much as a tag questionwould do in English (ie ldquowe did didnrsquot werdquo)

KOcircrie kOcircrie

Lord lord

Adjvocative

oIcirc

Polarity

tAuml sAuml aelignigravemati

in your name

Complement

acircprofhteOcircsamen

we prophesied

Lord lord we prophesied in your name didnrsquot we

The answer however is not a supporting proposition acknowledging theexpected answer but a confronting one In essence the question is rejected bya disclaimer

OIcircdegravepote

Adjmodal

ecircgnwn

I-knew

IacutemŘc

Complement

I never knew you

The Grammar of Proposals Exchanging Goods and Services Thegrammar of proposals differentiates clearly between offers and commands Thelatter are typically realized by the imperative mood Examples of this are easyto obtain The following example from Mt 99 demonstrates a command witha positive non-verbal response

ŁkoloOcircjei

follow

Complement

Follow me

kaEgrave

Adjconj

ĆnastĂc

rising up

Adjcircum

ŽkoloOcircjhsen

he followed

aIcirctAuml

Complement

And rising up he followed him

The imperative mood in the verb κοlούθει marks the clause as a commandThe next clause in the narrative indicates that the person addressed by thesecond person imperative verb responded positively by carrying out the actionintended by the command

A command can be issued in Greek without being addressed directly to theagent responsible for carrying it out and at the same time without losing theforce of the command Third person imperative forms realize this semanticoption Lk 311 contains an example of a third person imperative in which theagent of the desired action is the subject as would be the case in a secondperson imperative but the use of third person enables the speaker to issue adirective that applies to a class of people many of whom are not present to beaddressed Nevertheless the command does not lose its force as a commandie it is not merely a suggestion for being in the third person

ltO ecircqwn dOcirco qitAgravenac

the one-having two frocks

Subject

metadigravetw

Predicator

tAuml mŸ ecircqonti

with not one-having

Complement

Whoever has two frocks must share with one who has none

Such commands are difficult to translate into English since English does nothave third person imperatives The nearest equivalents are the traditional trans-lation using ldquoletrdquo (ldquoLet whoever sharerdquo) and the use of the modalized indica-tive (ldquoWhoever must sharerdquo) The following example from Mt 813 demon-strates how the third person imperative can be used to issue a command to Godwithout naming God as the agent responsible for the proposed action much likethe ldquodivine passiverdquo is used to avoid explicitly identifying God as agent

śc acircpETHsteusac

as you-believed

Adjcircum

genhjătw

be-[it]

to-you

Complement

Be it done for you as you have believed (RSV)

The negative particle microή gives negative polarity to a command Such negativecommands are traditionally referred to as prohibitions Whereas a commandcommunicates what the speaker wants done a prohibition communicates whatthe speaker does not want done Negated second person imperatives are alwaysin the present tense in the New Testament43 as in the following example fromMt 619

43Negated aorist imperatives in the second person are rare in any case (Smyth amp Messing1984 sect1840)

Adjpol

jhsaurETHzete

store-up

Pred (Subj)

IacutemOslashn

for yourselves

jhsauroIgravec

stores

acircpEgrave tĺc gĺc

on the earth

Adjcircum

Do not hoard treasures for yourselves on earth

Second person present imperative prohibitions are sometimes interpreted ascommands to cease doing an action that has already begun (ldquostop doing xrdquo)in contrast with second person aorist subjunctive prohibitions which are inter-preted as a complete prohibition against an action not already begun (ldquodonrsquot[ever] do xrdquo) (Brooks amp Winbery 1979 127) An example of a second personaorist subjunctive prohibition is found in Lk 38

Adjpol

ćrxhsje legravegein

you-should-begin to-say

Pred (Subj)

acircn aacuteautoOslashc

among yourselves

Adjcircplace

Donrsquot start saying among yourselves

As the two preceding examples make clear the difference in meaning betweena present imperative prohibition and an aorist subjunctive prohibition is notalways a difference between calling for the cessation of an action that has alreadybegun and prohibiting absolutely an action that has not yet begun Often bothforms are used as a more general prohibition (ldquodonrsquot do xrdquo) the context ofwhich may determine whether the action referred to is a potential action or oneactually in progress (Smyth amp Messing 1984 sect1841a) Nevertheless the aoristsubjunctive prohibition is frequently a general absolute prohibition This maybe related to the fact that the subjunctive is also used to realize a degree ofobligation (similar to the English modals ldquoshouldrdquo and ldquomayrdquo) in other contextswithout having the force of a command

The subjunctive mood can realize the expression of varying degrees of obliga-tion that fall between the polar extremes of positive command and prohibitionThis function shares much in common with the function of expressing degreesof certainty discussed above The grammar of expressing degrees of obligationis in fact like the grammar of propositions in which information is being offeredor demanded In this case however the information that is being offered or de-manded is information concerning obligation In this way the offer or demandof goods and services expressed by the imperative can be softened This useis an instance of what Halliday calls grammatical metaphor in which meaningsare realized by lexico-grammatical structures that are less congruent with thosemeanings than another expression eg the use of the grammar of propositionsto express obligation (Halliday 1994 342ndash343 see especially 354ndash367 on inter-personal metaphors) The following example from Lk 314 is in the form of aquestion a demand for information concerning obligation

Complinterr

poiăswmen

should-do

Predicator

kaEgrave

Adjconj

ŹmeOslashc

Subject

And we what should we do

One would expect the answer to such a question to be in the form either of astatement in kind of a degree of obligation to perform a certain action or evenof a command The answer that is in fact given in Lk 314 is a series of aoristsubjunctive prohibitions and an imperative command (microηδένα διασείσητε microηδagraveσυκοφαντήσητε καEgrave ρκεOslashσθε aeligψωνίοιc IacutemicroAgraveν ldquoDo not extort nor falsely accuseanyone and be satisfied with your wagesrdquo)

In the same way that the subjunctive can be used to express obligationthe future indicative can also express obligation metaphorically As with thesubjunctive the grammar is like that of propositions even to the point of usingthe indicative mood and allowing for either statements or questions The fol-lowing example from Mt 121 contains a future indicative statement in whichan obligation of the addressee to carry out the future action is implied

kalegraveseic

you-will-call

Pred (Subject)

tauml icircnoma aIcirctoUuml

the name of-him

Complement

gtIhsoUumln (Mt 121)Jesus

Complement

You shall name him Jesus

Obligation can also be expressed in the indicative mood through choice oflexical items namely with certain modal verbs (eg δεOslash and aeligφείlω) togetherwith an infinitive The following example is from Mt 2527

ecircdei

was-necessary

Predicator

se oTHORNn baleOslashn tĂ ĆrgOcircriĹ mou toOslashc trapezETHtaicyou therefore to-deposit the money of-me with-the bankers

Subject AdjconjYou should have deposited [were obligated to deposit] my moneywith the bankers

The syntax of ldquoquasi-impersonalrdquo verbs such as δεOslash (Smyth amp Messing 1984sect1984ndashsect1985) places the mood element as the main verb and all of the experien-tial meanings in an infinitival phrase (σε βαlεOslashν τ ργύριά microου τοOslashc τραπεζίταιc)which functions as the subject of the verb

The future indicative is the default realization of an offer in Greek (Reed1997 87) The following example from Mt 49 shows an offer realized by a futureindicative clause to which a condition has been attached

taUumltĹ soi pĹntathese to-you all

Compl Compldyumlsw [acircĂn pesřn proskunăsugravec moi]

I-will-give [if falling down you were to worship me]

I offer you all these things [on the condition that you prostrateyourself before me]

The following co-text of this offer (Mt 410) indicates that the offer is rejectedThe command that is issued by the party to whom the offer is made directs theparty making the offer to do something other than the action that was offered(Otildeπαγε ldquogo awayrdquo rather than δίδου ldquogiverdquo)

In addition to the modal verbs mentioned above which express obligationthe Greek of the New Testament also has modal verbs (such as βούlοmicroαι θέlωand ζητAgrave) to express degrees of inclination in the indicative mood togetherwith an infinitive that expresses the desired outcome or action The followingexample from Lk 1331 expresses inclination toward a certain action or thedesire to carry out that action

ltHruacutedhc

Subject

jegravelei

Predicator

se ĆpokteOslashnai

you to-kill

Complement

Herod wants to kill you

The following from Lk 619 is perhaps a stronger example of inclination in thatthose who want the action of the infinitive to take place are actively seeking tomake it happen

kaEgrave

Adjconj

pŘc aring icircqloc

all the crowd

Subject

acirczătoun

were-seeking

Predicator

Ľptesjai aIcirctoUuml

to-touch him

Complement

And everyone in the crowd was trying to touch him (REB)

This section has considered and illustrated how interpersonal meanings arestructured in New Testament Greek texts The structures of exchange are simul-taneously realized with experiential meanings in a single clause Yet anotherset of meanings is structured independently of experiential and interpersonalmeanings but simultaneously realized with them in a single clause To thesemeanings textual meanings we now turn

Textual Metafunction

The textual component consists of the enabling or text-forming functions Theseinclude some aspects of cohesion44 information structure and Theme all of

44Halliday (1994 308ndash309) following his foundational work and that of his collaborationwith Hasan (Halliday 1973 eg the chart on p 141 Halliday amp Hasan 1976) treats co-hesion as textual meaning realized by semantic relationships at the level of discourse ratherthan as structural relationships (as for example Theme is within the clause and informationstructure is within tone groups [units defined by intonation patterns] in English) (Martin1992 26) analyzes cohesive relationships in English as four separate discourse systems nego-tiation identification conjunction and ideation corresponding to the interpersonal textuallogical and experiential metafunctions which also include corresponding structural systems inEnglish Mood Theme interdependency (parataxis and hypotaxis) and Transitivity Eggins(1994 113) follows Martinrsquos analysis of cohesion with some adjustments In this study I willtreat the various aspects of cohesion as analyzed by Martin with the appropriate metafunctionrather than treating all cohesion as part of the textual metafunction Nevertheless all cohesive

which give texture to a text Since they are enabling functions textual mean-ings are not independent of ideational and interpersonal meanings For examplethe selection of particular participants and processes in the ideational compo-nent (eg the participants ldquoboyrdquo and ldquoballrdquo and process ldquohitrdquo such that ldquoboyrdquois the actor and ldquoballrdquo is the goal of the process) can be textually organizedin a variety of ways (eg ldquoThe ball was hit by the boyrdquo or ldquoHe hit itrdquo) Theactual realization of these ideational meanings (as well as interpersonal and tex-tual ones) will be shaped by textual meanings including cohesion informationstructure and Theme

Cohesion as Textual Meaning Two of the resources that a language hasfor realizing textual meanings at the level of the discourse are referential andconjunctive cohesion While participants of a process are part of the experi-ential meaning of a text the way those participants are referred to is part ofthe textual meaning of the text Similarly while the logical relations betweenclauses in a text are part of the ideational meaning of the text logical meaningsare sometimes reflected in the use of conjunctions one of the textual devices forconnecting clauses together in a text Reference and conjunction are both real-ized at the level of the clause but the function of both is cohesive over multipleclauses45

Participant reference contributes to the cohesiveness of a text when a partic-ipant is referred to multiple times in a text The way in which a participant isreferred to in any particular case however is determined largely by the flow ofinformation in the text A major character in a narrative for example might beintroduced with a descriptive phrase or means of identifying the character thatneed not be repeated again in the narrative Such introductions frequently takethe form of identifying clauses or of descriptive nominal phrases with salientidentifying information in the attributive position A briefer description of thecharacter or a name is generally only used after the introduction when the iden-tity of the character might be in doubt Otherwise minimal references suchas verb or pronoun morphology are the norm46 To realize a character refer-ence by a name where the identity is not in doubt risks confusion supplyinginformation that is not needed in order to communicate clearly Such unneces-sary information might even suggest that another character of the same nameis being referred to47

devices contribute to the texture of text and to that extent have an enabling function As weshall see particular patterns of cohesion are significant semantic predictors of the contextualvariable mode

45Compare the way in which lexical choices within the clause realize ideational meanings atthe level of the discourse give lexical cohesion to the text while realizing the field of the text(see under Ideational Metafunction on p 13)

46Stephen H Levinsohn (1992) outlines particular conditions under which the identity ofa character is not in doubt eg when the subject of a finite verb is unchanged from thepreceding clause or is the last character referred to in the preceding clause Levinsohn alsomakes the helpful observation that the articular pronoun is the default means of referringto a Sayer in a verbal process clause when that Sayer has just been addressed in a runningdialogue

47Compare the following examples

An example of a reference chain beginning with the introduction of a char-acter in a narrative is Simon in the story of the Samaritan mission of Philipin Acts 8 In the following section (vv 9ndash13) explicit references to Simon aredouble-underlined and finite verbs of which Simon is the subject (ie implicitreferences by verb morphology) are

wavy-underlined Other nominal elements

that agree in gender number and case with a reference to Simon are underlinedSuch elements are not references in and of themselves but descriptions that mod-ify references to Simon

9gtΑνρ δέ τιc aeligνόmicroατι Σίmicroων

προocircπumlρχεν acircν τnot πόlει microαγεύων καEgrave

acircξιστάνων τό ecircθνοc τumlc Σαmicroαρείαc lέγων εUacuteναί τινα aacuteαυτaumlν microέγαν10Aring προσεOslashχον πάντεc πauml microικροUuml eacuteωc microεγάlου lέγοντεc ΟYacuteτόc

acircστιν

δύναmicroιc τοUuml θεοUuml καlουmicroένη Μεγάlη11προσεOslashχον δagrave αIcircτAuml δι τauml

EacuteκανAuml χρόνuacute ταOslashc microαγείαιc acircξεστακέναι αIcircτούc12iacuteτε δagrave acircπίστευσαν

τAuml Φιlίππuacute εIcircαγγεlιζοmicroένuacute περEgrave τumlc βασιlείαc τοUuml θεοUuml καEgrave τοUuml aeligνό-

microατοc gtΙησοUuml ΧριστοUuml acircβαπτίζοντο νδρεc τε καEgrave γυναOslashκεc13aring δagrave

Σίmicroων καEgrave αIcircτaumlcacircπίστευσεν καEgrave βαπτισθεEgravec

ordfν προσκαρτερAgraveν τAuml Φιlίπ-

πuacute θεωρAgraveν τε σηmicroεOslashα καEgrave δυνάmicroειc microεγάlαc γινοmicroέναcacircξίστατο

9But there was a man named Simon who had previously practiced magicin the city and amazed the nation of Samaria saying that he himself wassomebody great 10They all gave heed to him from the least to the greatestsaying ldquoThis man is that power of God which is called Greatrdquo 11And theygave heed to him because for a long time he had amazed them with hismagic 12But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about thekingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized bothmen and women 13Even Simon himself believed and after being baptizedhe continued with Philip And seeing signs and great miracles performedhe was amazed (RSV)

Simon is introduced with the descriptive phrase νρ τιc aeligνόmicroατι Σίmicroων lsquoa certainman named Simonrsquo in v 9 The basic referent is νρ τιc lsquoa certain manrsquoto which is added in predicative position aeligνόmicroατι Σίmicroων lsquonamed Simonrsquo thus

(1) I saw John yesterday He was making deliveries with his car(2) I saw John and Bill yesterday John was making deliveries with his car(3) I saw John yesterday John was making deliveries with his car(4) I saw John yesterday He was making deliveries with Johnrsquos car(5) I saw John yesterday John was making deliveries with Johnrsquos car

It is natural to infer from (1) and (2) that John was making deliveries with his own carldquoJohnrdquo is used as the subject of the second sentence in (2) to avoid the ambiguity thatthe pronoun rdquoherdquo would have produced However when ldquoJohnrdquo is used as the subject in(3) where there is no ambiguity produced by the preceding sentence the reader is left withseveral possible inferences One possibility is that ldquoJohnrdquo is intended to contrast with someoneelse not mentioned in the co-text (ldquoUnlike you John was making deliveries with his carrdquo)Another possibility is that the second occurrence of ldquoJohnrdquo refers to a second person with thesame name The third possibility is that there is no cohesion between the two sentences thewriter started to say one thing and started over The same sorts of confusion on a larger scaleare produced by the three-fold use of ldquoJohnrdquo in (5) Example (4) however exhibits cohesionbetween the first ldquoJohnrdquo and the subject pronoun The natural inference is that the secondldquoJohnrdquo refers to a second person

supplying the name by which the character will be referred to as the narrativecontinues Successive references are realized by the pronouns aacuteαυτaumlν (v 9) Aring(v 10) οYacuteτόc (v 10) and αIcircτAuml (v 11) All but οYacuteτόc are in oblique cases andtherefore minimal references ΟYacuteτόc is not a minimal reference since the formof the verb acircστιν refers already to Simon as its subject This reference howeveroccurs in reported speech and in the context of that speech the demonstrativefunctions to make clear that Simon and not another is being identified as δύναmicroιc τοUuml θεοUuml καlουmicroένη Μεγάlη lsquothe power of God called Greatrsquo In eachcase the referent of these pronouns was not ambiguous because no interveningcharacters appear in the narrative except the crowds who are referred to usingplural forms In v 12 however the character Philip appears once again inthe narrative so that the reference to Simon in v 13 must be aring Σίmicroων καEgraveαIcircτόc acircπίστευσεν lsquoEven Simon himself believedrsquo rather than simply καEgrave αIcircτaumlcacircπίστευσεν lsquohe himself believedrsquo The remaining references to Simon in v 13 arethe minimal implied references of the verb morphology of the successive verbsof which Simon is subject

Conjunction contributes to the cohesiveness of a text by realizing certainaspects of the relationship between clauses In so doing conjunction is part ofthe resource that a language has for giving structure to a text and revealingits method of development Since the method of development of a text is bothconstrained by genre and subject to the choices of individual speakerswritersThus the pattern of conjunction will naturally vary with genre and from authorto author Certain general tendencies can be recognized in the use of conjunc-tions in a language For example the most common conjunctions in Greeknarratives are καί and δέ and asyndeton is relatively rare Καί frequently indi-cates chronological simultaneity elaboration or other close relationship betweenclauses that does not serve to advance the narrative In the story of Simon re-ferred to above the clause aring δagrave Σίmicroων καEgrave αIcircτaumlc acircπίστευσεν lsquoeven Simon himselfbelievedrsquo is followed by καEgrave βαπτισθεEgravec ordfν προσκαρτερAgraveν τAuml Φιlίππuacute lsquoand afterbeing baptized he continued with Philiprsquo (Acts 813) The καEgrave at the beginningof the second clause indicates that in this narrative Simonrsquos baptism and at-tending to Philip are a part of the complex event of Simonrsquos believing not anew event in the narrative∆έ unlike καί is frequently used to indicate significant difference or ad-

vancement In the first clause of Acts 813 δagrave indicates that Simonrsquos believingis an event that pushes the narrative forward Reading the independent clausesin Acts 84ndash25 with δagrave is to read a summary of the salient points of the narra-tive Philip preached the crowd paid attention many were healed there wasmuch joy there Simon was already there the crowds paid attention to himwhen they believed Philip they were baptized Simon also believed the apostlessent Peter and John the people had only been baptized (ie not received theHoly Spirit) Simon offered Peter and John money Peter spoke to him Simonanswered

The conjunction οTHORNν tends to be used in narrative to indicate both a closerelationship like καί and significant advancement like δέ (Buth 1992) ΟTHORNνis used to make the transition into the story about Simon ΟEacute microagraveν οTHORNν δια-

σπαρέντεc διumllθον εIcircαγγεlιζόmicroενοι τaumlν lόγον lsquoNow those who were scatteredwent about preaching the wordrsquo It is also used to transition from the Si-mon story to the next story ΟEacute microagraveν οTHORNν διαmicroαρτυράmicroενοι καEgrave lαlήσαντεc τaumlνlόγον τοUuml κυρίου Iacuteπέστρεφον εEcircc ltΙεροσόlυmicroα ποllάc τε κώmicroαc τAgraveν ΣαmicroαριτAgraveν

εIcircηγγεlίζοντο lsquoNow when they had testified and spoken the word of the Lordthey returned to Jerusalem preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samar-itansrsquo In both of these transitions the message of the clauses summarizes whathas gone before while communicating salient information about the movementof the larger narrative The uses of conjunctions illustrated here are of courseonly tendencies The Fourth Gospel uses οTHORNν much more frequently in narrativethan Acts or the synoptic gospels48 and Mark uses καί more frequently thanother New Testament narratives

Much more could be written about cohesion in New Testament Greek I havementioned briefly reference insofar as it is relevant to information structure towhich we turn next and conjunction insofar as it is relevant to the thematicstructuring of clauses Theme will be the primary focus of my analysis of tex-tual meanings for two reasons The level of focus in this study is the level of theclause As we will see below Theme is realized at the level of the clause whereasinformation structure may or may not coincide with clauses More importantlythere are inherent difficulties and limitations associated with analyzing infor-mation structure in an ancient language such as New Testament Greek Beforeturning to Theme we will examine these difficulties and limitations

The Information Structure and Problem of Ancient Languages In-formation structure is the textual resource of a language that allows multi-dimensional structures (such as narrative worlds and plots) to be conveyed in alinear fashion which is after all the way language must convey things49 Theinformation comes one bit at a time along with implicit instructions for whereto add the new information to the developing structure The next bit of salientinformation is referenced to information presented as recoverable by the hearerfrequently information that has been previously supplied in the text or perhapsavailable from the context The salient information mdash that which is presentedas non-recoverable mdash is labeled New and the information that provides a pointof reference for adding the New information to the developing structure mdash thatwhich is presented as recoverable mdash is labeled Given Since the choice to presentinformation as Given or New lies with the speaker Given information is not nec-essarily recoverable nor New non-recoverable by the hearer50 The terms Given

48The different use of asyndeton kaETH degrave and especially oTHORNn in the Fourth Gospel comparedto the synoptic gospels is the primary issue investigated by Randall Buth (1992)

49I am indebted to Helma Dik (1995 23ndash24) for this metaphor She in turn cites Gernsbacher(1990) as the source for the image of text production and text processing as structure-building

50Halliday (1994 200) notes that the potential for presenting information enables a varietyof rhetorical effects For example a speaker might flatter a hearer by presenting what isactually new information to the hearer as Given implicitly communicating ldquoBut of courseyou already knew thatrdquo Not giving sufficient information to actually inform in the samecircumstances might be a rhetorical move to put down the hearer implicitly communicatingldquoYou should know this but I know that you donrsquotrdquo

and New are nevertheless used to distinguish information structure from a dif-ferent kind of textual structure namely thematic structure discussed furtherbelow

The distinction between information and thematic structure which is charac-teristic of systemic functional grammar is not characteristic of most functionallinguistic theories Various functional approaches use the terms ThemeRhemeTopicComment or TopicFocus with regard to flow of information or infor-mation structure without distinguishing it from thematic structure as definedby systemic grammar Halliday borrowed the terms Theme and Rheme fromthe Prague School linguists but he developed the terms differently His anal-ysis of Theme in English led him to the conclusion that in spite of the factthat they are often conflated Theme and Rheme are not the same as Givenand New information (Halliday 1967ab 1968) Whereas information structure(Given and New) is listener-oriented thematic structure (Theme and Rheme)is speaker-oriented (Halliday 1994 299) The difference between the two is thedifference between how one might outline a sermon to aid in onersquos delivery of it(thematic structure) and the structure of the information that one hopes onersquoshearers will take away from it (information structure) The distinction betweenthe two will become more apparent as Theme is defined in the next sectionThe difference in how Theme and information structures are realized is wherethe problem for our analysis of information structure arises

Whereas thematic structure is realized in the grammar at the level of theclause information structure is realized instead phonologically at the level ofintonation units or what Halliday (1994 292) calls tone groups Tone groupsmay and frequently do coincide with clauses but they sometimes do not Buteven if we could identify the boundaries of tone groups in ancient Greek texts wedo not know the intonation patterns or even where the tonic prominence wouldhave been as the words of the texts were read aloud Helma Dik (1995) in herapplication of the analysis of information structure to understanding word orderin ancient Greek understood this problem ldquoUndoubtedly many problems ofinterpretation would be solved if we had access to intonation but the fact isthat this is one thing we do not have We will have to deal with the evidencewe do have in the form of word order datardquo (Dik 1995 5) She recognized thatthe information unit the purpose of which is to communicate ldquoa piece of newinformation which is grounded in given informationrdquo is an intonation unit (Dik1995 24) She conducted her analysis on the assumption that the informationunit can be equated roughly with the clause and that the pragmatic categoriesof Topic and Focus acquired from Simon Dikrsquos functional grammar can beanalyzed at the level of the clause

Evidence for intonation in ancient Greek texts is not completely lacking asHelma Dik demonstrated in her analysis of postpositive elements that fall in sec-ond position in Greek She demonstrated that it is reasonable to conclude thatldquosecond positionrdquo is determined phonologically (ie within tone groups) ratherthan grammatically (ie within clauses) ldquoUnfortunately apart from conclu-sions drawn on the basis of postpositive placement and general assumptions onthe basis of research on modern languages we have no access to intonation and

prosody of Greek clausesrdquo (Dik 1995 35) We do in fact have other evidence aswell such as the evidence of reference chains briefly presented in the previoussection including the use of ldquoemphaticrdquo nominative personal pronouns whichsuggest tonic prominence Nevertheless the evidence for intonation is meager

Since the assumption of this study is that information structure is realizedprimarily by intonation about which we know little in ancient Greek51 thefocus of our analysis of textual meanings will be on thematic structure insteadInsofar as information structure tends to coincide with thematic structuring ofthe clause it will surface in our analysis of Theme structure to which we nowturn

Theme as textual meaning Thematic structure as noted in the previoussection is the way textual meanings are realized at the grammatical level ofthe clause Just as process types structure the clause as representation andpropositions and proposals structure the clause as exchange thematic structureis the semantic structure in view when the clause is analyzed as a message(Halliday 1994 37) The functional labels given to the constituents of thematicstructure are Theme and Rheme ldquoThe Theme is the element which serves as thepoint of departure of the message it is that with which the clause is concernedThe remainder of the message the part in which the Theme is developed iscalled in Prague school terminology the Rhemerdquo (Halliday 1994 37) Themefunctions as ldquothe starting point for the message it is the ground from which theclause is taking offrdquo (Halliday 1994 38) the ldquoorienter for the message whichis about to come uprdquo (Fries 1993 339) Peter H Fries (1995a 58 1995b 4)proposed to define Theme less metaphorically as the part of a message unit thatprovides a framework for the interpretation of the remainder of the message (theRheme) In the following examples Theme is in boldface

(1) The boy hit the ball(2) The ball was hit by the boy

The experiential meanings in these examples remain the same but the thematicstructure changes In (1) ldquothe boyrdquo provides the framework for interpretingthe message The clause communicates albeit in a much more subtle waythe textual meaning ldquoLet me tell you something about the boy he hit theballrdquo In (2) the passive voice is used to make ldquothe ballrdquo the Subject which isunmarked Theme in English52 The textual meaning realized by this thematicstructure (but again subtler than this) is ldquoLet me tell you something aboutthe ball it was hit by the boyrdquo Note that in the absence of a context the same

51Martin Davies has written on how readers discern information structure in writing in spiteof the fact that intonation is not represented in written English through cohesion (Davies1994) eg the clues given by referential cohesion as we saw above Davies also explored theimplications of the use of cohesion Theme and method of development to identify informationstructure in English prior to sound recording going back to Chaucer Donne and Shakespeare(Davies 1996) This is an avenue worthy of pursuit after further work has been done oncohesion Theme and method of development in New Testament Greek

52Note that changing the Subject also changes the interpersonal meaning

intonation pattern is natural when either clause is read aloud with the tonicprominence at the end In this unmarked case the New information (the mostsalient information of the information unit) comes at the end of the clauseChanging the thematic structure by using the passive voice also changes theexperiential constituent that is unmarked New information the textual effect ofthe passive voice in this case is to reverse the Theme and New roles played by theparticipants The thematic structure could be preserved and the informationstructure shifted by changing the tonic prominence as in (3) (tonic prominenceindicated by italics) or by using a ldquopseudo-cleftrdquo construction as in (4)

(3) The boy hit the ball(4) It was the boy who hit the ball

ldquoThe boyrdquo in (3) is still the orienter for the message and is in addition thesalient New information Note how the tonic prominence in (4) naturally fallson ldquoboyrdquo mdash italics are not necessary to communicate the information structureeven in writing ldquoThe boyrdquo is placed in the position of being unmarked Newwhile remaining Subject of the Predicate ldquohitrdquo53

The significance of the Theme function for our study is the part it plays in themethod of development of texts The descriptions of Theme given above mdash pointof departure that with which the message is concerned starting point orienterframework for interpretation mdash illustrate the speaker-oriented organizationalfunction of thematic structure If information structure is the resource thatenables hearers to build multi-dimensional structures of meaning from lineartext then thematic structure is the resource that enables speakers to developthe linear text Again it is a difference between an outline from which a speakerspeaks (= thematic structure) and the notes of salient points that a hearer mighttake down (= information structure) However Fries noted the tendency inwritten text for New information to be realized in ways that would be unmarkedin spoken text resulting in an expectation that the Rheme will contain the mostsalient information in a text ldquoinformation which is directly relevant to the goalsof the text or text segmentrdquo (Fries 1993 339 Fries 1995c) Theme in writtentext according to Fries is less likely to contain meanings which are directlyrelevant to the goals and purposes of the text or text segment respondinginstead to ldquolocal issues in the textrdquo namely the issues of orienting the messageof the clause (Fries 1993 339) These tendencies of written text make it possibleto identify the method of development of a written text by analyzing thematicstructure We can expect to see a correlation between method of developmentand clause Theme and we can expect to see information that contributes to theoverall purpose of the text in the Rheme

53This construction illustrates what Halliday calls grammatical metaphor The literal con-struction consists of two clauses ldquoThe boyrdquo appears in the Rheme (as unmarked New in-formation) in an identifying relational process clause ie a clause devoted to identifying theboy and is referred to again by ldquowhordquo the Theme of the second clause This is a grammaticalmetaphor which expresses in a marked way the textual meaning of example (3) one mightanalyze the whole of (4) as ldquoIt was the boy who hit the ballrdquo where the boldface text isTheme

Theme as it is defined here is realized in Greek as in English by initialplacement of the thematic element in the message unit54 While I am not awareof any previous studies of Theme in New Testament Greek from a systemicfunctional perspective there are reasons that we should be predisposed to thenotion that Theme is realized by initial position One reason is the expectationbased on experience with other languages In the absence of a particle affixedto the thematic constituent as in languages such as Japanese and Tagalog alanguage will tend to realize Theme by constituent ordering in which case it isnatural for Theme to be in initial position in the message unit (Halliday 199438) Another reason for us to begin with the hypothesis that Theme is realizedby initial position in the message unit is the evidence of relevant studies fromvarious non-systemic perspectives

Recent studies55 of constituent order in Greek clauses using eclectic theoret-ical models have noted the significance of first position in the Greek clause interms of ldquoprominencerdquo variously defined Stanley E Porter used the conceptsof markedness and topicality (or prominence) to analyze constituent order inNew Testament Greek He focussed on the subject as the primary marker oftopicality (Porter 1993) The most unmarked clause according to Porter ispredicate-complement order with subject not explicit56 An explicit subject ininitial position marks primary topic a position following the predicate markssecondary topic and following a complement even less attention is drawn to thesubject (Porter 1993 200ndash201) Porter argued that predicate-first order doesnot draw attention to the predicate what matters is the position of the subjectwhich is always marked whenever it is explicit Topicality in Porterrsquos analysisseems to describe in Hallidayrsquos terms participant reference as it is affected byinformation structure Furthermore it is only relevant when there is a deviationfrom normal (ldquounmarkedrdquo) word order Although the notions of ldquoprimaryrdquo andldquosecondaryrdquo topic and ldquoattentionrdquo are somewhat vague Porter has given reasonto conclude that there is special significance to initial position in a clause espe-

54As we shall see below the message unit can be larger than the clause when an indepen-dent clause has one or more dependent clauses While analysis of Theme can still be donestrictly on the level of the clause pre-posed dependent clauses may also act as Theme ofan independent clause and contribute to thematic development especially when such clausesfunction as circumstantial elements in relation to the process of the main clause

55Some significant older studies reviewed by Dik (1995 chapter 9) are Dover 1960 Loepfe1940 Frisk 1933

56Numerous attempts have been made to determine ldquonormalrdquo unmarked word order forGreek Davison (1989) concluded that the basic word order of clauses in Paul and Luke isVSO which according to Greenbergrsquos (1963) word order universals has an alternate orderof SVO Timothy Friberg (1982) also argued for VSO word order Porter criticized such at-tempts for failing to take into account that no element (Verb Subject or Object) is obligatoryin Greek one might even argue that the unmarked position for the Subject is to be implicitHowever Irene Philippaki-Warburton (1985 1987) has argued convincingly for VSO as un-marked word order in Modern Greek on the basis of intonation evidence applied to all possibleclause constituent combinations including the absence of an explicit subject Her argumentis not that VSO is statistically more frequent than other orders (Porter may be correct thatunmarked position for the Subject is to be implicit if by unmarked he means most frequent)but that it bears unmarked intonation in spoken Greek whereas alternative orders requiremarked intonation

cially if the clause is marked with respect to the particular constituents presentor their order

Jeffrey T Reed also followed the prominencetopicality model of word order(Reed 1995a 1997 117) but distinguished three levels of prominence namelybackground theme and focus (Reed 1997 107) According to Reed thesethree levels are not absolute levels but are on a cline from least prominent(background) to most prominent (focus) ldquoA general rule to follow is that themore to the right a linguistic item occurs the more prominent (in terms oftopicality) it tends to be in the clause The more to the left an item occurs themore prominent topically it tends to be in the discourserdquo (Reed 1997 117ndash118)Prominence (or topicality) is as vague in Reedrsquos analysis as in Porterrsquos It isnot clear what prominence in the clause and prominence in the discourse areWhat is clear is that there are different kinds of prominence (represented byReedrsquos cline) and that the beginning of a message unit tends to carry one kindof prominence and the end of the message unit another

Using ldquothemerdquo in the sense of ldquotopicrdquo or what the clause is about Levinsohnwrote ldquoIn general terms it is the theme rather than the subject of a clausewhich is or is not forefrontedrdquo (Levinsohn 1987 7) Levinsohn thus agrees withPorter that deviation from an unmarked order is what marks prominence butdisagrees that the subject is necessarily the marked constituent Indeed whilePorter denied that predicate-initial clauses were marked for prominence he didnot address the issue of non-subject participants in initial position Levinsohndid not however go as far as Halliday in allowing circumstantial constituentsto be ldquothemerdquo since this did not accord with his definition of theme Many ofLevinsohnrsquos rules to describe when a theme is or is not forefronted are necessaryonly if non-participants cannot be theme Levinsohn differed from the systemicunderstanding of Theme both by ignoring non-participant constituents in initialposition and by taking an understanding of theme that like Porterrsquos and Reedrsquostopic resembles Hallidayrsquos Given information function Nevertheless his studydoes point to the significance of the clause-initial position

Iver Larsen (Larsen 1991 29) argued that ldquothe more to the left an itemoccurs the more prominent it isrdquo regardless of what word order might beunmarked (Larsen 1991 33) Larsen pointed out that an unmarked order isdifficult to identify Even if there is such an order he allows that there mightbe unmarked prominence as well as marked prominence His study offered evenless clarity and precision than did Porterrsquos and Reedrsquos however concerning theconcept of prominence He was clear that there is significance to initial positionin the clause but not clear on the nature of that significance It is not clearwhether the significance is similar to that of systemic information structure asit was for the other studies cited here

Helma Dikrsquos study Word Order in Ancient Greek (Dik 1995) is especiallyimportant in warranting a hypothesis of initial position as realization of Themeas that term is understood in systemic theory Dikrsquos careful study made useof slightly modified technical terms from the Functional Grammar theory of Si-

mon C Dik57 Even though the terms used by Dik mdash Topic and Focus mdash do notmean the same as Hallidayrsquos Theme and Rheme they are clearly and preciselydefined which allows us to draw specific conclusions about the relevance of herresults to the analysis of Theme Her analysis of word order is clearly in termsof information structure (Dik 1995 20ndash25) Her definition of Topic makes it asubset of Hallidayrsquos Given information Topic is not all Given information ina clause but Given information ldquowhich the speaker regards as an appropriatefoundation for constructing a message which is relevant to the subject matter ofthe discourserdquo (Dik 1995 24) Along with her description of Topic as ldquoinforma-tion that serves as a point of orientationrdquo (Dik 1995 24) this definition comestantalizingly close to Theme in systemic grammar Nevertheless Dik is clearthat Topic functions in the information unit which is roughly equated with theclause but defined by intonation As Topic is a subset of Given informationso Focus is a subset of New information it is that information which is themost urgent or most salient part of the message (Dik 1995 24ndash25)58 Accordingto Dik unmarked Topic is in first position of an information unit (like Giveninformation in English) giving a ldquopoint of orientationrdquo and unmarked Focusis in second position following the Topic element (Dik 1995 12) Topic andorFocus may of course be marked and occur in other positions in the informationunit Since unmarked Given information in English occurs in initial positionconflating with Theme but can occur elsewhere in the marked case it is rea-sonable to hypothesize that the same is true of Greek In the unmarked casethe information unit and the clause will be conflated information contained inthe clause Theme will be Given and information in the clause Rheme will beNew

Certain grammatical classes are natural Themes occurring overwhelminglyin initial position An example of a natural Theme is a relative pronoun Re-gardless of case relative pronouns tend to occur in initial position in relativeclauses orienting the message of the clause In the following example from Acts810 Aring lsquowhomrsquo is Theme providing the framework for interpreting the rest ofthe clause

proseOslashqon pĹntec Ćpauml mikroUuml eacutewc megĹlou

they-were-heeding all from small to great

to whom they were paying close attention from the smallest tothe greatest of them

Since relative pronouns tend to be anaphoric they are naturally Given infor-mation and therefore naturally orient the clause relative to information in thepreceding clause hence the term lsquorelative clausersquo Another natural Theme is aninterrogative word which tends also to occur in initial position in a clause Inthe following clause from Rom 724 τίc is Theme

57Especially from Dik 198958Cf Peter Friesrsquo (1993 339) definition of N-Rheme which he identifies as the final con-

stituent of a clause in written English ie the realization of unmarked New information

me ucircOcircsetai acirck toUuml syumlmatoc toUuml janĹtou toOcirctou

me will-deliver from the body of-the death this

ldquoWho will rescue me from this body of deathrdquo

When actually used to ask a question the interrogative word naturally providesthe framework by which the remainder of the clause is to be interpreted

Both of these examples of word classes that are natural Themes also illustratenon-topical Themes The term ldquotopical Themerdquo is used in systemic linguisticsto refer to the element of Theme that is an experiential constituent But non-experiential elements also frequently occur at the beginning of clauses Relativepronouns serve a dual function realizing a textual meaning in connecting therelative clause to another clause as well as realizing an experiential role (usuallya participant) In the example from Acts 810 above Aring realizes both a textualmeaning showing the connection to the preceding clause and an experientialmeaning the participant role of Beneficiary to the material process προσεOslashχονInterrogative pronouns when used to ask a question also realize an experien-tial role in addition to the interpersonal function of indicating that a questionis being asked rather than a statement being made In the example from Rom724 above τίc realizes the interpersonal meaning of question as well as the ex-periential meaning of Actor to the material process ucircύσεται and both of thesemeanings are thematic providing the framework for interpreting the messageOther textual and interpersonal functions can be realized in thematic positionsas well The discussion of conjunctions above illustrates the most common oftextual Themes59 Particles serving as modal adjuncts (such as ν) and voca-tives though not as common as conjunctions are elements that are potentialinterpersonal Themes While each message unit (clause or clause complex) willhave a topical Theme it may have textual and interpersonal Themes as wellThe first clause in Philemon 20 is an example of a clause with all three kinds ofThemes

Ćdelfegrave

brother

interp

acircgyuml

top Theme

sou aelignaETHmhn acircn kurETHuacute

from-you would-benefit in Lord

Yes brother I want a favor from you in the Lord

The order of these Themes is significant Textual Themes when used alwaysoccur first in a message unit and interpersonal Themes always occur prior tothe topical Theme but not before a textual Theme

The topical Theme can be any constituent of the clause that realizes anelement of the experiential structure of the clause Since the basic word order

59While all clause-level conjunctions realize meanings that contribute to the texture of atext only conjunctions occurring initially in a message unit (clause or clause complex) willbe treated as textual Themes The distinction between conjunctions that occur as Themeand post-positive conjunctions that are never textual Theme is apparent in the relationshipbetween Theme and mode which we will explore in detail in chapter five

of Greek is VSO (Friberg 1982 Davison 1989) the least marked topical Themeof a clause is the finite verb60 The finite verb in thematic position can thematizethe process but can also thematize the Mood of the verb and the implied subjectof the verb For any participant including the grammatical subject of the finiteverb to be unambiguously Theme it must be realized in initial position beforethe verb The question arises whether there can be more than one topicalTheme when more than one participant reference occurs prior to the verb asin the example from Philemon 20 above (acircgyuml sou aeligναίmicroην acircν κυρίuacute lsquoI wanta favor from you in the Lordrsquo) In answering this question it is important tokeep in mind that ldquothe Theme is not so much a constituent as a movementfrom the beginning of the clauserdquo (Halliday 1994 52) Thus an element thatwould clearly be a marked Theme if it were clause initial but which followsthe first experiential element is also thematic but perhaps less so than theinitial element In the case of a clause complex in which a dependent clause isTheme the participant constituent that is Theme of the main clause becomesldquodisplacedrdquo as Theme of the message unit yet remains thematic in the messageunit61 A dependent clause as Theme is typically a circumstantial element anexample of a non-participant topical Theme

If the systemic concept of Theme seems vague it is because it is best under-stood as a textual function in connected text Observe how Theme at the levelof the clause functions in connected text from Acts 8 cited on page 37 in the sec-tion entitled ldquoCohesion as Textual Meaningrdquo In Table 13 verse numbers areindicated on the left and multiple message units within a verse are labeled withalphabetic characters consecutively Textual Themes are in italics The post-positive conjunction δέ occurring in the midst of a topical Theme is enclosedin square brackets A participant reference as marked Theme is underlined Acircumstantial element as marked Theme is wavy-underlined

Table 13 Theme-Rheme Analysis of Acts 89ndash14

Theme Rheme9 gtΑνρ [δέ] τιc aeligνόmicroατι Σίmicroων προocircπumlρχεν acircν τnot πόlει microαγεύων

καEgrave acircξιστάνων τauml ecircθνοc τumlc

Σαmicroαρείαc lέγων εUacuteναί τινα

aacuteαυτaumlν microέγαν

man and certain named Simon was-beforehand in the citypracticing-magic and amazing thepeople of-the Samaria saying to-besomeone great

60This statement is based on the understanding that lsquobasicrsquo word order means lsquoleast markedrsquoword order not necessarily most frequently occurring word order (Philippaki-Warburton1985) See also n 56

61David Rose has compared the realization of Theme in a variety of languages and concludedthat more than one experiential element can be included in topical Theme (Rose forthcoming)Thus in the example from Philemon 20 both acircgyuml and sou can be topical Theme accordingto Rose Nevertheless elements become less thematic the further they are from the front ofthe message unit

Theme Rheme10a Aring προσεOslashχον πάντεc πauml microικροUuml eacuteωc

microεγάlου lέγοντεc

whom they-were-heeding all from smallup-to great saying

10b ΟYacuteτόc acircστιν δύναmicroιc τοUuml θεοUuml

καlουmicroένη Μεγάlη

this is the power of-the god theone-(power)-called Great

11 προσεOslashχον [δagrave] αIcircτAuml δι τauml EacuteκανAuml χρόνuacute ταOslashc

microαγείαιc acircξεσταξέναι αIcircτούc

they-were-heeding and him because-of the for-enough timeby-the magic to-amaze them

12iacuteτε [δagrave]

acircπίστευσαν

τAuml

Φιlίππuacute

εIcircαγγεlιζοmicroένuacute

περEgrave

τumlc

βασιlείαc

τοUuml

θεοUuml

καEgrave

τοUuml

aeligνόmicroατοc

gtΙησοUuml

ΧριστοUuml

acircβαπτίζοντο νδρεc τε καEgrave

γυναOslashκεc

when and they-believed the Philippreaching-good-news about thekingdom of-the God and the nameof-Jesus Christ

were-baptized men both and women

13a aring [δagrave] Σίmicroων καEgrave αIcircτaumlc acircπίστευσεν

the and Simon even himself believed

13b kaEgraveβαπτισθεEgravec ordfν προσκαρτερAgraveν τAuml Φιlίππuacute

and being-baptized he-was keeping-with the Philip

13cθεωρAgraveν

σηmicroεOslashα

καEgrave

δυνάmicroειc

microεγάlαc

γινοmicroέναc

acircξίστατο

observing both signs andacts-of-power great happening

he-was-amazed

14gtΑκούσαντεc [δagrave]

οEacute

acircν

ltΙεροσοlύmicroοιc

πόστοlοι

iacuteτι

δέδεκται

Σαmicroάρεια

τaumlν

lόγον

τοUuml

θεοUuml

πέστειlαν πρaumlc αIcircτοIgravec Πέτρον

καEgrave gtΙωάννην

hearing and the in Jerusalemapostles that have-received theSamaria the word of-the God

they-sent to them Peter and John

The text in Table 13 illustrates several aspects of the realization of Themein Greek that have not yet been discussed One of these is the status of par-ticiples Participial phrases eg those in the Rheme of v 9 can be viewed asclauses from the standpoint of an experiential analysis The participle realizesa process and all of the various participants (Actor etc) associated with theprocess can also be realized62 From the standpoint of interpersonal analysis

62What is said here of participles can also be said of infinitives and infinitive phrases orldquoinfinitival clausesrdquo See for example the articular infinitive that is object of a preposition inv 11

however participles do not realize mood ie they are not finite (not markedfor person and mood) and do not have a Subject that agrees with the verb inperson and thus do not realize propositions which can be argued or proposalswhich can be accepted or rejected They are dependent on predications Evenfrom the standpoint of experiential analysis because of the nominal nature ofthe participle and its agreement with another nominal element in the clause(sometimes only implied if the subject of the finite verb) the participial phrasehas the formal status of an adjectival element It clearly can be and often isseparated from the nominal element it ldquomodifiesrdquo in a clause and so will betreated as a separate element in the clause This analysis will recognize par-ticipial phrases (such as those in v 9) as having the same status as embeddedclauses they have an internal thematic structure of their own63 but will notbe considered in the pattern of Themes in the sequential message units of thetext64 Note that this status also allows a participial phrase itself as an expe-riential element of a clause to be Theme of that clause as vv 13b 13c and 14in Table 13

A related issue is the treatment of preposed dependent clauses as in Acts812 (see Table 13) We have alluded to this issue above in mentioning clausecomplexes as message units Clearly a dependent clause has a thematic structureof its own and the main clause on which it is dependent has a thematic structureof its own However a dependent clause when placed before the main clausedisplaces the Theme of the main clause in the sequential flow of the text by pro-viding the orientation the point of departure the framework of interpretationfor the message In this case the clause complex rather than the individualclauses becomes the primary message unit in the analysis of connected textIn Acts 812 the whole dependent clause is a circumstantial component of themain clause that is also topical Theme It orients the main clause which assertsthat both men and women were baptized to the time when those baptized be-lieved Philiprsquos proclamation of good news about the kingdom of God and thename of Jesus Christ

The text in Table 13 illustrates some tendencies of thematic method ofdevelopment in Greek narratives Narratives move forward through processesthat can be termed ldquoeventsrdquo The Themes in a narrative tend overwhelminglyto be participants that might be termed ldquocharactersrdquo in the narrative and cir-cumstantial elements that might be termed ldquosettingsrdquo Of the nine independentclauses in Acts 89ndash14 four have participant Themes (referring to Simon in eachcase) four have circumstantial Themes and one has a process (realized by afinite verb) as Theme65 In the 39 independent clauses of the whole episodeabout Simon (Acts 84ndash25) 15 have participant Themes 16 have circumstantial

63It can be argued that other phrases and groups below the clause level such as nominalgroups and prepositional phrases also have thematic structure The focus of this studyhowever is on the clause

64Helma Dik (1995 12) also treats participial phrases as clause constituents on formalgrounds in her analysis of Topic and Focus

65The process as Theme in v 11 repeats the earlier process of v 10a resuming the narrativefollowing direct discourse but this time with the process itself rather than the Beneficiary ofthe process as Theme

Themes and eight have process (finite verb) Themes (four of these in direct dis-course) In the clauses preceding those displayed (ie in vv 4ndash8) the thematicdevelopment moves from those dispersed by the persecution to Philip in partic-ular to the signs he did to the crowds who witnessed them and benefited fromthem In the displayed clauses the thematic development shifts to Simon fora number of clauses as he is introduced to the story66 He becomes more focalwhen the process of paying attention is made Theme in contrast to the earlieroccurrence of the same process (v 6) in which the crowds are first introduced aspaying attention to what Philip was saying and doing The Theme then shiftsto a circumstantial element mdash the response of faith to Philiprsquos preaching mdash thatprovides the setting for men and women from the crowds being baptized Simonreturns as Theme when he too responds in faith Participles indicating Simonrsquossubsequent baptism and observations of the signs that the crowds earlier sawprovide the Themes for the remainder of this section that introduces Simon intothe narrative The Theme then shifts again to a circumstantial element indicat-ing that the apostles in Jerusalem heard what was happening as a setting forthe next episode in the narrative

A different method of development is illustrated by Hebrews 11 This exposi-tory section begins with ecircστιν as Theme and πίστιc in the Rheme of the openingclause to identify the concept that is being characterized in this attributiveclause The circumstantial phrase acircν ταύτugrave is Theme of the next clause bring-ing the entire characterization of πίστιc forward as the point of orientation forthe next clause There follows a series of clauses in which πίστει a circumstanceof means is Theme In Heb 113ndash9 this pattern is broken only by χωρEgravec πίστεωcin v 6 which is still a circumstance of means expressed negatively

These two examples of thematic development illustrate at least two of thethree methods of development described by Frantisek Danes (Danes 1974 Fries1995c 321 Fries 1995b 8) One method of thematic development can be de-scribed as linear In its purest form linear development makes use of an elementof Rheme for one clause as the Theme of the next an element of Rheme of thenew clause as Theme of the next and so on This method is evident on a smallscale in Acts 810ndash11 where the finite verb προσεOslashχον in the Rheme of v 10ais the Theme of v 11 and in Heb 111ndash3 where πίστιc is in the Rheme of v 1and πίστει is the Theme of v 3 The second method of thematic developmentis Theme iteration a method in which a series of clauses has the same (or co-referential) Themes orienting a series of different Rhemes Hebrews 11 providesa classic example of this method of development with a series of messages con-cerning ldquopeople of oldrdquo all interpreted within the framework of πίστει lsquoby faithrsquothe circumstance of means A third method can be described as progressionwith derived Themes In this method a text is unified by a general notion andthe individual Themes each relate to the general notion in some way67 Texts

66The fact that Simon is introduced in thematic position (v 9) illustrates that Theme isnot always Given information

67Hebrews 11 seems to be an example of derived Rhemes The notion expressed by acircmar-turăjhsan oEacute presbOcircteroi lsquothe people of old received approvalrsquo in the Rheme of v 2 is devel-oped in the Rhemes which are all predications with various ldquopeople of oldrdquo as subjects One

are rarely developed with a single method more commonly with a combinationof methods

The description of Theme in the above examples has focused on topicalTheme to this point but textual Themes also play a significant role In Heb11 the iterative Themes are topical and what is remarkable is the lack of tex-tual Themes (ie the asyndeton) in these clauses The narrative of Acts 89ndash14 while not characterized by asyndeton has only two textual Themes in tenclauses A clear change of topical Theme is accompanied by the presence ofthe conjunction δέ suggesting that in this narrative the thematic developmentand the logical development of the narrative are closely aligned In addition tothe six occurrences of δέ in 10 clauses three other clauses are also independentclauses Only one of these v 13b has a textual Theme The only dependentclause the relative clause in v 10a also has a textual Theme the relative pro-noun While conjunctions point to the logical relationships that exist betweenclauses in the text textual Themes do not play a significant role This is animportant fact about the textual structure which contributes significantly topredicting the mode of the text Spoken texts tend to have a higher proportionof textual Themes than written texts The kind of textual Themes used in atext however also realize mode

The kind of textual Themes used in a text is an indicator of the amountof information that is packaged in each message unit A high proportion ofcoordinating conjunctions in a text (whether textual Themes or post-positiveconjunctions) suggests that a high proportion of message units are independentclauses and independent clauses with conjunctions such as καEgrave and δέ indicateclauses that are paratactically related A large number of subordinating con-junctions and relative pronouns as textual Themes in a text indicate a highproportion of hypotactically related clauses Whether the predominant logicalrelation between clauses in a text is paratactic or hypotactic is directly relatedto the density of information in a text There are two primary ways to packagea given amount of information in message units One way is to use a singlemessage unit with a simple grammatical structure at the level of the clause butwith lexical complexity Lexical complexity is achieved by using nominalizationincluding the use of abstract nouns participles and infinitives by chaining to-gether prepositional phrases and by heavier use of attributive adjectives alsoincluding participles These grammatical devices function within the nominalgroups making nominal groups very complex and creating a high proportion oflexical items (ldquocontent wordsrdquo as distinct from ldquofunction wordsrdquo) per messageunit The message units within which such complex nominal groups are usedcan be grammatically simple The structure of the following clause from Heb13ndash4 is quite simple at the level of the clause but the initial nominal phraseto which the material at the end of the clause also belongs grammatically islexically very dense The density is achieved by adding three participial phrasesto the nominal element ccedilc before the verb and an additional participial phrase

might hypothesize that derived Rhemes might be the rule where the thematic development isiterative

with an embedded clause at the end of the message unit

Table 14 A Grammatically Simple Lexically Complex Clause(Hebrews 13ndash4)

ccedilc raquoν παύγασmicroα

τumlc δόξηc καEgrave

χαρακτρ τumlc

Iacuteποστάσεωc αIcircτοUuml

φέρων τε τ πάντα

τAuml ucircήmicroατι τumlc

δυνάmicroεωc αIcircτοUuml

καθαρισmicroaumlν τAgraveν

microαρτιAgraveν

ποιησάmicroενοc

acircκάθισεν acircν δεξιͺ τumlc

microεγαlωσύνηc acircν

IacuteψηlοOslashc

τοσούτuacute κρείττων

γενόmicroενοc τAgraveν

γγέlων iacuteσuacute

διαφορώτερον παρ΄

αIcircτοIgravec

κεκlηρονόmicroηκεν

icircνοmicroα

who being brillianceof-the glory andexact-likeness of-thebeing of-himbearing and theall-things by-theword of-the powerof-him purificationof-the sinshaving-made

sat at right-hand of-themajesty on high

so-much greaterhaving-becomethan-of-the angelsas-much-as superiorto themhe-has-inheritedname

nominal group finite verb prepositionalphrase

nominal group

who being the brilliance of his glory and his exact likeness and bearingeverything by his powerful word having made purification for sins sat at the right ofthe Majesty on high having become so much greater than the angels as much as he

has inherited a name greater than them

Note that the entire portion of the nominal group preceding the verb is thetopical Theme of the clause

The alternative to packaging the same amount of information is to increasethe grammatical complexity The experiential information in the above exam-ple could have been presented in a series of hypotactically related clauses Thegrammar in such a case becomes more complex in terms of the number andrelationship between clauses and in the addition of explicit grammatical infor-mation associated with finite verbs such as mood and number In the followingexample from Philemon 10ndash14 the number of lexical items (ldquocontent wordsrdquo)is similar to the number in the above example from Heb 13ndash4 but the lexicalitems are distributed across eight clauses Textual Themes are in italics

Table 15 Theme in Philemon 10ndash14

Theme RhemeπαρακαlAgrave σε περEgrave τοUuml acircmicroοUuml τέκνου

I-urge you concerning the my child

ccediln acircγέννησα acircν τοOslashc δεσmicroοOslashc gtΟνήσιmicroον τόν

ποτέ σοι χρηστον νυνEgrave δagrave [καEgrave] σοEgrave καEgrave acircmicroοEgrave

εOumlχρηστον

whom I-fathered in the imprisonment Onesimusthe-one then to-you useless now but [both]to-you and to-me useful

ccediln νέπεmicroψά σοι αIcircτόν τοUumlτ΄ ecircστιν τ acircmicro

σπlάγχνα

whom I-sent to-you himself this is the myinward-parts

ccediln acircγdeg acircβουlόmicroην πρaumlc acircmicroαυτaumlν κατέχειν

whom I-myself wanted with myself to-keep

Ntildena Iacuteπagraveρ σοUuml microοι διακονnot acircν τοOslashc δεσmicroοOslashc τοUuml εIcircαγγεlίου

so-that on-behalf-of you me he-might-serve in the imprisonment of-thegospel

χωρEgravec δagrave τumlc σumlc γνώmicroηc οIcircδagraveν θέlησα ποιumlσαι

without but the your knowledge nothing I-wanted to-do

Ntildena micro plusmnc κατ νάγκην τauml γαθόν σου reg

so-that not as by necessity the good of-you should-be

ĆllĂ [ellipsis] κατ aacuteκούσιον

but [your goodness should be] by willing

I appeal to you for my child Onesimus whose father I have become in myimprisonment (Formerly he was useless to you but now he is indeed useful to youand to me) I am sending him back to you sending my very heart I would havebeen glad to keep him with me in order that he might serve me on your behalf

during my imprisonment for the gospel but I preferred to do nothing without yourconsent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own

free will (RSV)

Note that the first of these eight clauses is independent the next three arerelative clauses each successively dependent on the preceding one and thefifth clause is also dependent on the fourth The sixth clause is independentparatactically related to the fifth clause (not to the first independent clause) andis followed by two dependent clauses again forming a hypotactic chain eachrelated to the immediately preceding clause By contrast with the precedingexample from Hebrews the topical Themes are all quite simple internally

The significance of grammatical intricacy versus lexical density for this studyis the relationship it has to the contextual variable of mode According toHalliday (1987) grammatical intricacy is characteristic of oral language andlexical density is characteristic of written language Wallace Chafe and JaneDanielewicz (1987) attribute the difference in lexical density between oral and

written language to cognitive processing Both speaker and hearer are undercognitive constraints on the amount of information they can process at a timeThe result is information in smaller packets although as Halliday pointed outspeakers have a remarkable ability to produce grammatical complexities in whichldquodependencies are resolved and there are no loose endsrdquo (Halliday 1987 67)Writers and readers on the other hand have the luxury of editing readingslowly and rereading and are generally too self-conscious to produce the kindsof grammatically intricate constructions that people regularly produce in orallanguage without thinking about it68 There remain cognitive limits on the flowof information but they are clearly less restrictive than in spoken language

The distinction between spoken and written language is not a simple binarydistinction These are extremes on a cline Heavily edited academic or scholarlywriting is perhaps at one end of the cline and completely spontaneous informalconversation at the other There are forms of spoken language such as academiclectures in which there is much forethought and a great presumption on thepart of the speaker that hearers have the training and the ability to processmore information for the particular field of discourse than would otherwise bepossible Even though such language is spoken it has a written quality aboutit though not to the degree that a published paper might Likewise a casualletter quickly written with little editing has a spoken quality about it

Of the two examples cited above Heb 13ndash4 is decidedly more written incharacter In spite of the fact that the example cited is itself a relative clausethe proportion of dependent and hypotactic clauses is small in the text byvirtue of the fact that so much information that might have been strung alongin six or eight hypotactic clauses is included in the one clause The Philemontext on the other hand has a spoken character about it One might evennote that the rather long second clause in the text displayed above is easilyand naturally read as three information units rather than one unit coincidingwith the clause boundaries The first unit ccedilν acircγέννησα acircν τοOslashc δεσmicroοOslashc lsquowhomI fathered in prisonrsquo could have been a clause by itself The second unitgtΟνήσιmicroον τόν ποτέ σοι χρηστον lsquoOnesimus useless to you thenrsquo expandsupon the description of the participant to which the clause Theme ccedilν refersThe third unit νυνEgrave δagrave [καEgrave] σοEgrave καEgrave acircmicroοEgrave εOumlχρηστον lsquobut now useful [both] to youand to mersquo still belongs to the same nominal group but in terms of informationprovides a contrast to the previous information unit The use of the conjunctionδagrave especially marks this last text segment as a distinct information unit (Dik1995 35) On the cline between spoken and written the text from Acts 89ndash14 (see Table 13 on p 47) exhibits characteristics of written text with use ofparticiples (especially in Theme position) and coordinating conjunctions butfew textual Themes Nevertheless there are more features of oral text than inHebrews perhaps due to the nature of expository versus narrative genre

68Halliday cited an utterance that he heard mdash lsquoitrsquollrsquove been going torsquove been being testedevery day for the past fortnight soonrsquo mdash in which the complexity of tense in the verbal grouplsquowill have been going to have been being testedrsquo was so great (Halliday analyzed the tense aspresent in past in future in past in future as well as being passive voice) that the speakerwhen made aware of it denied that he did or could have said it (Halliday 1987 57)

This section has introduced the range of textual meanings from referentialand conjunction cohesion to information structure to thematic structure Sincethe focus of this study is on the grammatical level of the clause the focus ofthis section has been on the analysis of Theme which is realized by constituentordering at the level of the clause and the clause complex The focus on Themedoes not ignore cohesion and information structure insofar as they interact withthematic structure

The three metafunctions described above are the semantic components of alanguage They are the ways of meaning that lie behind this functional approachto language A text does not have either one function or another Rather textshave an ideational an interpersonal and a textual component An entire textcan be analyzed from the perspective of each of the components69 The essenceof a functional approach to language is to ask what people do with languageand what are the resources that are available for them to do it In order tounderstand what is being done in a particular text we must examine each ofthe three functional components in the text In so doing we systematically raisethe full range of questions concerning how the language of the text works andthus what the text means

133 The Relationship between Semantics and Register

The choices made on the semantic plane are related to the context of situationin which those choices are made Systemic functional grammar ldquoanalyze[s] thecontext of situation into three components corresponding to the three metafunc-tions This enables us to display the redundancy between text and situation mdashhow each serves to predict the otherrdquo (Halliday amp Hasan 1989 45)70 The re-lationship of the semantic plane to the register plane is one of realization Justas lexico-grammatical resources such as word order diction classes of words(nouns verbs adverbs etc) realize meaningful choices made on the semanticplane so the functions on the semantic plane realize the values of the registervariables Field predicts experiential meanings representing the ideational com-ponent on the semantic plane of the text Tenor predicts interpersonal meaningson the semantic plane or what Martin refers to as the negotiation system Modepredicts textual meanings on the semantic plane (Martin 1992) Predictabilityin this context means that there is a link between text and context such thatlisteners or readers have expectations about what is coming next This pre-dictability is what enables communication to take place The hypothesis onwhich this study is based is that this same link between text and context willalso enable us to recover the linguistically relevant aspects of the context (ieits register) from an examination of the semantic structures of the text

69Appendices A (page 177) B (page 197) and C (page 215) present a conflated analysis ofall three metafunctions for each clause in the Parable of the Sower in Matthew Mark andLuke respectively

70Note that the logical metafunction is often ignored in the discussion of register since itis the experiential functions within the ideational metafunction that are most often discussedin relation to register In the context of her introductory textbook Eggins does not discussthe logical metafunction at all (Eggins 1994)

134 Overview of the Study

The following chapters focus on the semantic level with attention to how itrelates to register While I will examine the lexico-grammatical resources thatrealize meanings in the Parable Discourse I will not attempt to describe allof the lexico-grammatical potential of which the text is an instance ie I willnot produce a complete systemic functional grammar of New Testament GreekWhile the meanings in the text will predict certain features of the context withinwhich it was produced I will not attempt to reconstruct that context in its en-tirety In this study I will apply systemic functional grammar in an analysisof specific New Testament texts in order to clarify how language functions inthese texts and how the texts predict limited but important aspects of theirown context as a contribution to a better understanding of them The textsare the synoptic parallels of the Parable of the Sower the explanation for Jesusrsquospeaking in parables and the interpretation of the parable (Mt 131ndash23||Mk 41ndash20||Lk 84ndash15) No one has used systemic functional grammar to analyze theseor other New Testament texts systematically in this way Only two studies havemade extensive use of systemic theory for the study of New Testament GreekStanley Porterrsquos Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament (1989) whichis one of the major contributions to the study of verbal aspect in New Testa-ment Greek in recent years uses systemic terminology and notation HoweverPorter follows a branch of systemic theory developing in England which differsfrom Hallidayrsquos work on which the present study is based in several importantrespects This branch of systemic linguistics is represented by the British lin-guist Robin Fawcett who has focused on cognitive linguistics (what one mustknow to be a native speaker of a language) as Halliday has continued to focuson the social and cultural dimension of language (Fawcett 1974 1975 19761980) Fawcettrsquos interest in cognitive linguistics has produced a concern for ex-plicit formalism in syntax a concern that Porter shares in his work HoweverPorter does not engage the syntactic issues in terms of the semantic metafunc-tions Jeffrey T Reedrsquos A Discourse Analysis of Philippians (1997) appliesdiscourse analysis to the question of the literary integrity of Philippians71 Al-though his approach is somewhat eclectic and oriented toward the applicationof discourse analysis broadly defined to historical critical problems his modelis based on systemic functional grammar His book contains the outline of asystemic grammar of New Testament Greek which informs this study In ad-dition G H Guthrie (1994) used some systemic concepts in his study of thestructure of the Epistle to the Hebrews New Testament scholars have usedHallidayrsquos work on social semiotics on occasion in support of the notion thatsemantic choices reflected in language are related to recognizable significantsocial contexts (Blount 1995 Malina amp Neyrey 1988 Introduction)

Chapter two reviews the history of New Testament scholarship on Mt 131ndash23and parallels and on their contexts Chapter three is a comparative examination

71See also Reedrsquos work on theme (Reed 1995a) and his eclectic application of discourseanalysis which draws on systemic functional grammar to the study of the unity of 1 Timothy(Reed 1992 1995b)

of the texts in terms of the ideational metafunction with a focus on experientialmeanings The purpose of this examination is to discover something about therange of experiential (and logical) meanings in the texts by observing how thelanguage of the texts works such that parallel texts with obvious similarities arenevertheless structured differently in order to function differently I will givespecial attention to how the functions realized in particular structures in thetexts may serve to predict the field of discourse of each text Chapters four andfive repeat the examination in terms of the interpersonal and textual metafunc-tions respectively with special attention to how the functions realized in thetexts predict the tenor and mode of discourse for each text After reviewing theinterpretive issues raised by this examination of texts using the tools of systemicfunctional grammar chapter six summarizes what this approach offers the in-terpreter about how the language of the texts works and about what aspectsof the context of situation of the texts can be predicted from the text

Chapter 2

The Interpretation ofMatthew 131ndash23 andParallels

The interpretation of Mt 131ndash23 and its parallels (Mk 41ndash20 and Lk 84ndash15)1

in the past century has been dominated by parable research This portion oftext is after all the beginning of the Parable Discourse in Matthewrsquos Gospel(131ndash52) as is its parallel in Markrsquos Gospel (41ndash41) The Parable of theSower followed by a statement of the reason for speaking in parables and aninterpretation of the parable appear together in all three of the synoptic gospelsThese parallel passages together with Gospel of Thomas 9 have provided datafor those seeking the original message of Jesus in the parables They haveprovided examples of what the gospel writers understood parables to be andhow they understood them to be appropriately interpreted The major focus onthe parables since Adolf Julicherrsquos ground-breaking work Die GleichnisredenJesu (Julicher 1899 originally published in 1888) has been on the parables asparables of Jesus2 Julicher characterized Jesusrsquo parables as expanded similes

1I have referred to these texts as Matthew and parallels because my primary interestis in the interpretation of the texts of the gospels and not in either the reconstruction orinterpretation of an underlying form This will become increasingly clear below I havechosen to focus on the interpretation of Mt 131ndash23 in comparison and contrast to its parallelsas texts in their own right without regard to whether one text was constructed using anotheras source

2Warren Kissinger (1979 72) notes that G V Jones (1964) divides the history of parablesinto ldquobefore and after Julicherrdquo in the opening chapter of The Art and Truth of the ParablesMary Ann Tolbert (1979 18) describes modern research on the parables as two streamssince Julicher The parables as parables of Jesus have received considerably more focus thanparables as parables of the gospels Examples of the latter include Tolbertrsquos own work andthat of Madeleine Boucher (1977) as well as redaction-critical work such as that of JackDean Kingsbury (1969) which is discussed below Dan O Via in The Parables (Via 196721) distinguished within the dominant stream (parables of Jesus) the lsquoseverely historicalapproachesrsquo from those which take account of the literary and aesthetic nature of the parables

60 The Interpretation of Matthew 131ndash23 and Parallels

with a clear self-explanatory single point which can be expressed in the mostgeneral terms as a moral This is in sharp contrast to allegories which Julicherruled out as a speech form of Jesus According to Julicher the gospels havemade something mysterious out of genuine parables of Jesus by transformingthem into metaphors allegories and example stories However the text withwhich I am concerned the Parable of the Sower is one that Julicher identifiedas a true allegory and for that reason he denied that it originated with Jesus3

It stands instead as part of the gospel writerrsquos mistaken theory of the mysteriousparables Joachim Jeremias (1972) represents the height of development of theresearch begun by Julicher4 He attributed the predominance of the allegoricalmethod of interpretation to the ldquohardeningrdquo theory which considers the parablesas a means of hiding the Kingdom from outsiders He followed Dodd (1961) inrecognizing the eschatological nature of Jesusrsquo speech and of the parables inparticular But more importantly he followed Dodd in asserting that Jesusrsquoparables did not possess general moral points which could be summarized asmaxims ldquobut each of them was uttered in an actual situation of the life ofJesus at a particular and often unforeseen pointrdquo (Jeremias 1972 21)5

More recent parable research represented by Robert W Funk and JohnDominic Crossan has focused on the interpretation of the parables in theirown right without abandoning Jeremiasrsquo interest in the parables as parables ofJesus6 This research has been driven by hermeneutical concerns and character-ized by literary approaches that give attention to the function of the languageof the parables7 Funk (1966 1982 30) and Crossan (1973 13) followed Amos

3C H Dodd (1961) followed Julicher in focusing on the parables of Jesus and in reject-ing allegory but his judgment about the Parable of the Sower was strongly affected by hisjudgment that the parables of Jesus had an eschatological nature After Schweitzerrsquos VonReimarus zu Wrede (Schweitzer 1968) it was difficult to read the parables as having a gen-eral moral point rather than an eschatological nature Dodd saw the Parable of the Sower asan authentic part of a collection of growth parables which made the point in the context ofJesusrsquo preaching that the Kingdom had come at the end of a process of Godrsquos working justas harvest does

4According to Norman Perrin (1976 102ndash103) ldquoto all intents and purposes the currentdiscussion of the parables of Jesus is a discussion of the parables of Jesus as Jeremias hasreconstructed themrdquo

5As Bernard Brandon Scott (1989 47) has noted Jeremias substituted a lsquosingle situationrsquomethod for Julicherrsquos lsquosingle pointrsquo method of interpretation He argued that the groupingof parables in the discourse of Mark 4 (and Matthew 13) was an artificial grouping andthat the gospels did not reflect the true situation in which Jesus spoke each of the parablesThe particular situations in which Jesusrsquo parables were spoken according to Jeremias weresituations of conflict of correction reproof and attack and especially conflict with Pharisaism(Jeremias 1972 11 21)

6Perrin referred to Jeremias as ldquothe archetypal lsquoold questerrsquordquo (Perrin 1976 92) and notedthat the weakness of his severe historical approach was that it was not ultimately concernedwith the interpretation of the parables in their own right (Perrin 1976 105)

7The literary approach was directly influenced by the groundwork provided by the lsquoNewHermeneuticrsquo and in particular by the idea of Sprachereignis (language event) in the writingsof Ernst Fuchs (see Fuchs 1964) The language of the parables was not viewed by Fuchs as ameans of transmitting ideas but as a means of bringing into existence that which existed priorto the language event namely the possibility of the hearer sharing in Jesusrsquo own understandingof existence before God

Introduction 61

N Wilder (1964 92) in understanding the parable as an extended metaphor8

a major departure from Julicherrsquos original understanding The parable is nolonger seen as a vehicle for conveying information from one mind to anotherbut it is the bearer of reality9 The parables are not illustrations or ornamentsthey are the message itself10 Dan O Via (1967 25) pressed the effort to inter-pret the parables in their own right arguing for an aesthetic definition of theparable according to which the parables have a certain autonomy11 As aestheticobjects parables are not as time-conditioned as other texts Their meaningsare not determined by the particular situation in which they are uttered andshould not be thus interpreted12

This study builds on a different trajectory of interpretation from that of para-ble research as it is outlined above insofar as it is not concerned with whetherthe Parable of the Sower andor its interpretation are authentic nor with thenature of parables and how they might be defined and contrasted with other fig-ures of speech or whether the Parable of the Sower was intended as an aestheticobject which in its authentic form is relatively undetermined by the particularsituations in which it has been uttered I am concerned instead with Matthewrsquostelling the story of the telling of this parable the purpose for speaking in para-bles and the interpretation of the parable In particular I am interested inwhat the text can tell us about its own context and about what the evangelistis doing with the text in that context Since my primary concern is with the

8Funk went beyond the understanding of parable as metaphor in applying literary analysisto the parables He also analyzed the narrative parables in terms of participant and plot Heused structuralist concepts of Vladimir Propp (1968) and A-J Greimas (1966) to analyze theplot structure of the parables in terms of ldquothe contractual moverdquo In so doing Funk broughtlinguistic analysis to the parables in service of determining the structures of the authenticparables of Jesus

9In his more recent work The Dark Interval (Crossan 1988) Crossanrsquos view of parableshifted Myth took the place of parable in establishing world and parable was described assubverting world

10Like Funk Crossan held that the message was not so much the conveying of informationas the creation of world ldquoWhen a metaphor contains a radically new vision of world it givesabsolutely no information until after the hearer has entered into it and experienced it frominside itselfrdquo (Crossan 1973 13)

11ldquoThere is more than one important element in a parable and all of these features must begiven consideration but they do not relate primarily and in the first place to an event eventsor ideas outside of the parable They relate first of all to each other within the parable andthe structure of connections of these elements is not determined by events or ideas outside ofthe parable but by the authorrsquos creative compositionrdquo (Via 1967 25)

12Bernard Brandon Scott (1989) further developed Viarsquos conception of parables as aestheticobjects that resist contextualization He characterized them as short narrative fiction thestructures of which we should seek to interpret He argued that the orality of the parablesmakes it impossible to recover the ipsissima verba of Jesus Furthermore he considered ithighly unlikely that Jesus used a parable only once It is structure and not exact words thatare remembered and performed again by others including the Gospel writers Scott seemedto agree with Viarsquos assessment that the Gospels were not able to assimilate the parables com-pletely He examines how each of the Gospels (including Thomas) interprets the parablesbut always the goal was to reconstruct the basic structure of the parable that resists contex-tualization He was perhaps even more reticent than Via to draw conclusions concerning thehistorical Jesus arguing that what we are able to reconstruct is only the implied author ofthe parables projected by them

evangelistrsquos text it is particularly useful to compare and contrast what Matthewis doing in telling his story with what Mark and Luke are doing in telling whatis in some sense the same story These concerns have been addressed previouslyfor Mt 131ndash23 and its parallels primarily by redaction criticism and linguisticcriticism

21 Kingsbury and Redaction-Criticism

In his redaction-critical study of Matthew 13 Jack Dean Kingsburyrsquos (1969)point of departure was the parable research that had preceded him His re-daction-critical method however put him outside of the trajectory of parableresearch described above He turned the focus away from a general theory ofparables and from the question of whether individual parables originated withJesus and how they were intended as he spoke them to the question of how theparables were intended to be understood as they were presented in MatthewThis redaction critical approach was thus concerned with context in two sensesIt was concerned with the context of the parables within the gospel of Matthewitself and it was concerned with the situation in which that gospel was writtenor more precisely the situation in which the materials available were redactedfor particular theological purposes His focus was on context in this latter senseand in particular on how ldquoMatthew employed parables that had come down tohim to meet the demands of the situation of the Church to which he belongedrdquo(1969 10) While his study was not linguistic he did begin to turn the focusfrom the sources and the history of the traditions to the function of the text inthe writerrsquos own context His redaction-critical method was only a beginningin this change of focus however since he emphasized the theological activityevident in Matthewrsquos editorial work as he used sources such as Mark

Kingsbury began his study with an examination of the structure of Matthew13 and its context within the Gospel He understood the immediate context ofthe parable discourse to be defined in terms of the classic Five Books struc-ture of Matthew formulated by Bacon (1930) mdash each of the ldquofive discoursesrdquoare delimited by the formula καEgrave acircγένετο iacuteτε acircτέlεσεν aring gtΙησοUumlc lsquoand it hap-pened when Jesus had finishedrsquo13 The parable discourse concludes a division ofthe Gospel 112ndash1353 which begins with a narrative presentation of steadilymounting intensity of opposition to and rejection of Jesus (Kingsbury 1969 15)including a series of conflict stories which pit Jesus against the Jewish leader-ship This narrative section concludes with a pericope in which Jesusrsquo disciplesthose who do the will of God are identified as the true family of Jesus in contrastto the crowds surrounding him Kingsbury understood this narrative contextto set the stage for the parable discourse But whereas the narrative depicted

13Kingsbury later abandoned the Five Books approach as the major structural principle ofMatthew in favor of the tripartite structure of which he has become a chief proponent basedon the formula gtApauml tigravete ćrxato aring gtIhsoUumlc + infinitive The presentation of Jesus (11ndash416)The ministry of Jesus to Israel and Israelrsquos repudiation of him (417ndash1620) and The journeyof Jesus to Jerusalem and his suffering death and resurrection (1621ndash2820) (Kingsbury 19751988)

Kingsbury and Redaction-Criticism 63

Jesus in conflict with various segments of Jewish society in the beginning of theparable discourse Jesus ldquofaces in the crowds the whole of unbelieving Judaismrdquo(Kingsbury 1969 16) Thus the narrative context within which the parablesare told is a situation of escalating hostility culminating in rejection to whichJesus responds in parables

The largest section of Kingsburyrsquos study is a chapter on Jesusrsquo parables to theJewish crowds beside the sea (131ndash35) from which he drew specific conclusionsabout the theological function of the text and about the context of situation inwhich and for which the text was written He concluded that this first part of thechapter has an apologetic function aimed at unbelieving Jews The ldquosituationis characterized by the disappointing results of the Christian mission to theJews and the attendant debate between the Church and Pharisaic Judaism overwhich of these two communities was the true people of Godrdquo (Kingsbury 196951) The dominant apologetic function of this text does not however rule outthe paraenetic function that it might have had for the members of Matthewrsquosown community They are urged to be those who bear fruit as the seed ongood soil did in the parable In 1310ndash17 they are reminded that they arethe true eschatological community of God The interpretation of the parableis spoken to the disciples and has a predominantly paraenetic function (andwas hence identified by Kingsbury as an excursus) ldquoThrough it Jesus theexalted Kyrios exhorts the members of a Church that was beset by lawlessnesspersecution and affliction secularization and materialism to make certain thatthey are disciples who are hearing the Word aright ie that their response tothe Word by which they have been called into Godrsquos kingly rule is a hearing withunderstanding a knowing and a doing of the will of Godrdquo (Kingsbury 1969 63)In these statements of the apologetic and paraenetic function of Jesusrsquo speechKingsbury summarized his understanding of the context of situation in whichMatthew wrote and shaped this text

While Kingsburyrsquos use of redaction criticism turned attention to the textitself and how it functions within its own context its nature was to continue togive significant attention to sources and the use of those sources As a resultmuch of his energy as a redaction critic was still focused on what lay behind thetext rather than on the text itself This focus of redaction criticism generallycan be seen in Graham N Stantonrsquos caution while urging the continued use ofredaction criticism

Even though it is very difficult indeed to isolate with confidencechanges made to Mark Q or lsquoMrsquo traditions by redactors other thanMatthew there are good grounds for urging caution not every dif-ference between Matthew and the sources on which he drew repre-sents a modification introduced by the evangelist himself (Stanton1993 40)

The focus is not so much on how the text of Matthew functions as it is onthe ways in which the redactor of Matthew shaped and changed his sourcesOne consequence of this is the excessive attention given to differences between

Matthew and the other synoptics14 The method does not provide a way foranalyzing the context of situation of the text as it stands apart from consid-eration of parallel texts and use of sources While one would expect to benefitby comparing similar texts that are undoubtedly genetically related a linguisticmethod that focuses on the function of the language of the text is a necessarycomponent of a complete analysis of the context of situation within which a textis produced I would suggest that an understanding of the linguistic functions ofa text and what they convey about the context of situation should be done priorto asking questions about sources and could potentially provide important datafor the source- and redaction-critical tasks including the consideration of theldquosynoptic problemrdquo

Another characteristic of redaction criticism is its interest in the theologicalmotivations of the redaction This theological interest often results in focus ondifferences in wordings between the gospels and speculation as to the theologicalmotivation for choices of wordings that differ from what the sources are surmisedto contain But theological motivation is only a part of the context of situationwhich is reflected in the text Furthermore the theological motivations thatare identified are not derived from the analysis of the text as much are theyare inferred by the critic in order to explain differences between a redactorrsquoschoice of wordings and the reconstructed sources Just as historical and socialbackground studies must be done for a more comprehensive understanding ofthe situation in which a text is produced15 so an analysis of the function of thetext in its own right must be done to uncover from the text itself clues it maycontain to the situation in which it was produced Only after such preliminarywork has been done should the critic attempt to interpret differences betweenthe related texts and surmise theological significance of differences between thosetexts

22 Sellin and Text-linguistics

Gerhard Sellin (1983) shared Kingsburyrsquos commitment to redaction criticism asan important exegetical tool For Sellin this commitment was explicitly relatedto a concern for context He stated that redaction-critical analysis is primaryin exegesis if onersquos concern is for the function of a text part (Teiltext) in its

14Stanton also warns against this tendency of redaction criticism (Stanton 1993 41ndash42)although he is more concerned about the fact that critics too often draw theological conclusionsfrom every redactional change of a source rather than allowing that some changes might bepurely stylistic My concern is that too much emphasis is put on the redactional differencesand not enough on the text of Matthew in its own right Presumably the evangelists (andlater editors perhaps) wrote what they did because they were trying to say something evenif that something was already partially expressed in the sources (Sellin 1983 514) On thispoint see the discussion of Gerhard Sellin (1983) below

15Stanton (1993) is essentially arguing this point urging that newer sociological and literaryapproaches be used in conjunction with redaction criticism rather than in place of themAnthony J Saldarini (1994 4) representing a more sociological approach also understandsthe need to be eclectic methodologically using various historical sociological and literaryapproaches in investigating the social context of Matthewrsquos Gospel

Sellin and Text-linguistics 65

overall context (Sellin 1983 511) or more properly the overall co-text16 Theimportance of context for Sellin can be seen in his statement that the termrsquoRedaktionsgeschichtersquo is unfortunate because it suggests a methodologicallyshaky model in which one moves from isolated text (Einzeltext) to the setting(Sellin 1983 515) The correct model according to Sellin is one in whichthe whole text ranks hierarchically over the isolated text Sellin did not denythat the message of the sources influenced the author who used those sourcesIn fact he argued that literary (source) criticism was a necessary preparationfor exegesis However source material that is taken over can function as anelement of a new message and the exegete must ask of each text part whetherit functions within the whole text of which it is part

This understanding of redaction criticism illustrates Sellinrsquos general method-ological approach which was to use linguistic and semiotic methods to give moreprecision to traditional exegetical methods not to supplant them If our goalis the exegesis of texts linguistics and semiotics provide a starting point byenabling us first to clarify what a text is and then to gain precision regardingwhat we do when we exegete a text Sellin defined text pragmatically ie inrelation to text-external context More specifically he defined lsquotextrsquo as a signthat functions in a speech act (Sellin 1983 508) A text can be a simple signat the level of a word or it can be a super-sign at the level of extended textwhich consists of multiple parts each in turn consisting of multiple sentencesand so on As a sign a text stands in relation not only to that to which itrefers (sigmatics) to concepts (semantics) and to other signs (syntax) but alsoto participants in the communicative situation (pragmatics) This is what itmeans for text to be defined in terms of function within a speech act Textsare demarcated according to the communicative situations in which they areproduced not according to text-internal or grammatical criteria A very im-portant implication of this definition is that the New Testament texts which weexegete are in fact fossils of speech acts fixed vestiges of communicative actsthat took place in a distant time (Sellin 1983 526 n 1) From this perspectiveexegesis is far more than understanding abstract meanings and grammatical re-lations it is understanding how a text functioned in a human act in a particularcommunicative situation

Sellinrsquos primary concern in the parable discourse of Mark however was notfor the text-external context of the whole text of Mark but for the levels ofldquocontextrdquo provided within the text (ie co-text) for the ldquoworldsrdquo constitutedby the text Each text as a whole is constitutive of ldquoworldrdquo which stands insome relationship to the ldquoworldrdquo of the communicative situation (Sellin 1983511) But Sellin did not explore this relationship in his study of Mark 4 Hewas interested instead in the world constituted by the whole text which providedldquocontextrdquo for the parables that are told within that world Just as the text isproduced in a particular context so the ldquotextsrdquo spoken by characters withinthe narrative are ldquoproducedrdquo within the ldquocontextrdquo or communicative situation

16It is a convention in text-linguistics to distinguish between two senses of context by refer-ring to linguistic context as co-text and to extra-linguistic context as context This conventionwill be used throughout this study

provided by the narrative If those ldquotextsrdquo are also narrative in nature thencharacters within them can also potentially produce their own ldquotextsrdquo withinthe world constituted by the embedded narrative and so forth17 When a char-acter in the narrative tells a story yet another ldquoworldrdquo is embedded at anotherlevel within the text Of course not all texts produced (as speech acts) withinthe larger text are also narratives Whether narrative or not however manysuch embedded texts referred to as parables including various non-narrativemetaphors and similes also constitute ldquoworldsrdquo Sellin was primarily interestedin the parables but like Kingsbury he was interested in them as they functionin the text of the gospel rather than in what they might have looked like ata previous stage of the tradition history even if that history for a particularparable could be traced all the way back to the historical Jesus

The purpose of exegesis then according to Sellin is to determine the func-tion of the text in its bygone speech act (Sellin 1983 514) As noted abovesource criticism is a necessary preparation for this task But the speech actwithin which source material originated is only the starting point Sellin help-fully described the process through which a text is used or appropriated and inbeing used becomes part of a new speech act The producer of the new speechact may incorporate the function of the source material or he may change it toserve a new purpose The compilers of the synoptic gospels for example usethe old texts (their sources) from the communication acts that were performedprior to them as material for their new arguments Those new arguments mayor may not reflect the function of the sources in their previous speech acts18

Exactly the same wording can have a very different sense in various speech actsEvery publication of a collection is thus a new speech act This shows onceagain how the communication situation belongs to the text (Sellin 1983 528 n33)

Sellinrsquos analysis of Mk 41ndash34 began with an analysis of the hierarchy ofembedded levels within the text and with source criticism He distinguished fivelevels (Sellin 1983 516) the first of which is the communicative setting externalto the text Within the text there is the narrative setting and embedded withinit is speech which creates a world of its own Within this spoken world isembedded non-narrative metaphorical speech and a further narrative worldThis analysis of levels raises the question of the sources of these various partsand to what extent each part either functions within the context or clearlybrings with it a function from an earlier stage of tradition Sellin concludedthat only the parable of the seed which grows by itself and the parable of themustard seed can be understood as individual speech acts on a pre-Markan level

17John G Cook (1995 122ndash125) refers to these ldquoworldsrdquo as levels or communication framesthat are embedded in one another The term communication level is applied to this conceptby text linguists such as Gulich Heger and Raible (1979 81) and Hellholm (1980 77ndash78)

18Sellin points out that the context Sitz im Leben yielded by form criticism is generalrather than specific The lsquoSitz im Lebenrsquo is not understood as the historical origin of respectiveindividual texts but as the typical setting of pragmatic functions of a Gattung thus of a classof texts (Sellin 1983 515) Form criticism thus cannot tell us about the tradition history ofan individual text or the sources and strata behind the texts Nor can it tell us about thefunction of a text part in a specific speech act

Du Plessis and Pragmatics 67

by themselves (Sellin 1983 519) The parable of the sower and its interpretationfunction completely within the context of Mk 41ndash34 both operating not onlyat the same literary level but specifically at the literary level of the Markanredaction The function of this text part Sellin understood to be related toapocalyptic esoteric and the messianic secret

In particular the theological function of the parable and interpretation istwofold (Sellin 1983 523) 1) It exemplifies the purpose of Jesusrsquo teaching toconceal and to require interpretation 2) Its content exemplifies the generalesoteric motif in that the lόγοc lsquoword speechrsquo is not correctly heard and un-derstood by everyone As a whole Mk 41ndash34 has five distinctive characteristics(Sellin 1983 523ndash524) 1) It is microυστήριον lsquomysteryrsquo 2) The hearers are sepa-rated into insiders and outsiders 3) The outsiders only hear but the speech isalso interpreted for the insiders 4) The insiders cannot understand by them-selves but are dependent on the interpretation 5) The teaching is presented asπαραβοlή lsquoparablersquo which is understood as allegory or secret symbol Accordingto Sellin these characteristics together constitute the Gattung lsquoallegoryrsquo andderive historically from Jewish apocalyptic Its pragmatic function cannot bedetermined with a great deal of specificity The closest analogy for understand-ing its pragmatic function is probably the oracle of a priest which the priestthen interprets for his congregation

Sellinrsquos analysis of the parable of the sower and its interpretation drew ontext linguistic theory and in the process he made very helpful observationsabout the relationship between text and context However his basic methodof analysis was not linguistic but the traditional historical-critical methodsnamely literary- (source-) form- and redaction-criticism He made good use ofgenerally accepted linguistic concepts in defining the text or parts of a text thatare the objects of the exegetical activity and he drew on linguistic theory in aneclectic way to sharpen the historical-critical methods especially with regardto the understanding of text and its relation to the context that is implicit inthose methods He did not fully exploit the potential of applying a specificlinguistic theory to a text as a separate step in the exegesis of the text in orderto understand how the text as it stands functions and to make explicit thoseaspects of pragmatic context that are embedded in the text Sellin was correctto use linguistics as a supplement to the exegetical tools currently availablerather than to supplant them but his work does not yet demonstrate the fullpotential of rigorously applying specific linguistic theories to a text

23 Du Plessis and Pragmatics

J G du Plessis (1987) presented a specific linguistic theory Geoffrey Leechrsquos(1983) principles of pragmatics and applied it to the Parable of the Sower andits interpretation in Matthew 131ndash2319 Pragmatics is defined by Leech (1983

19Du Plessis (1987 34) noted that pragmatics is an extension of speech act theory whichoriginated with the philosophical research of J L Austin (1962) John Searle (1969) andH Paul Grice (1975) and has been used in parable research by Anthony C Thiselton (1970)

6) as ldquothe study of meaning in speech situationsrdquo Du Plessis contrasted prag-matical meaning with the ldquosenserdquo of a text While the latter represents theliteral or verbal meaning of a text the former must be read from ldquobetween thelinesrdquo In particular according to Leech (1983 17) pragmatic meaning impli-cated by an utterance can be described in terms of two ldquoforcesrdquo at work in everyutterance Illocutionary force is a reconstruction of the act that the speaker ofan utterance was attempting to perform as the goal of the communication (Leech1983 14ndash15) For example the illocutionary force of the utterance ldquoBewarerdquois a warning if the goal of the speaker was that someone should be warned ofa specific danger (du Plessis 1987 34) Rhetorical force is a reconstruction ofthe social goals of the speaker which consist of adherence to (or flouting of)principles such as truthfulness and politeness

Leech (1983 16) divided rhetorical force into ldquointer-personal rhetoricrdquo andldquotextual rhetoricrdquo The latter includes principles of processibility clarity econ-omy and expressivity These principles have to do with the ease of process-ing lack of unintentional ambiguity avoidance of excessive brevity or repeti-tion and the aesthetic aspect of texts Inter-personal rhetoric according todu Plessis is where Leech made his most important contributions He beganwith Gricersquos (1975) cooperative principle and added to it the politeness princi-ple and the irony principle to name the most important ones The cooperativeprinciple consists of a number of maxims known as Gricersquos maxims the maximof quantity states that a speaker should give the audience enough informationbut not too much the maxim of quality states that a speaker should be honestand not lie the maxim of relation states that a speaker should advance bothhis own and the audiencersquos goals the maxim of manner states that the illocu-tionary force of an utterance should be indicated Leechrsquos (1983 132) majorcontribution the politeness principle includes the maxims of tact generosityapprobation modesty agreement and sympathy These maxims have to do withmaximizing benefit and praise to the other and minimizing their opposites inthe exchange maximizing cost and minimizing praise to self and maximizingagreement and sympathy between self and other while minimizing disagreementand antipathy

Pragmatic force (illocutionary force and rhetorical force combined) is theintended effect of an utterance Pragmatic analysis is represented by a set ofimplicatures deductions made from an utterance about how the principles oftextual and inter-personal rhetoric have been held to or flouted by the speakerand about the illocutionary force(s) implied by the utterance Du Plessis (198736) noted that instances of flouting of the principles (or maxims thereof) areoften most significant because flouting of one principle or maxim usually indi-cates that another is implicated in order to compensate as we shall see in thesummary of du Plessisrsquos analysis which follows The total set of implicatures fora text represents the intended effect or pragmatic force of the text Du Plessisnoted that this effect must be viewed in light of the fact that the expectationsof the listener plays a constitutive role and thus meaning ldquocomes into being in

Tullio Aurelio (1977) and Edmund Arens (1982)

THE LITERARY (NARRATIVE) WORK

Presented world

Concreteauthor asymp

AbstractAuthor

Narrators Narrated worldCharacters in the

narrative

Fictivereader

ImpliedReader

rarraddresseeconcrete

The orga-nizationof the book

Imperson-alomni-scientvoicetelling thestory ofMatthew

Jesusdisciplesothers

the sowerThe citedworld

Vacant inMatthew

The idealreader

larrrecipient

Figure 21 Narrative Frames in Mt 131ndash23

the relation between addresser and addresseerdquo (du Plessis 1987 37)Like Sellin du Plessis used a ldquoscheme of narrative rolesrdquo which distinguishes

the context external to the text from the world presented in it worlds nar-rated by characters and so on Du Plessis chose a narrative model that ofWolf Schmid (1973) which describes narrative roles in terms of real (concrete)authors and recipients abstract authors and implied (ideal) recipients andcharacters within the narrative who act and speak Figure 21 taken fromdu Plessis (1987 38) represents the narrative roles In this scheme the ad-dressee is the one to whom the work is directed A recipient is one who actuallyldquorealizesrdquo the work by reading it By adding narrative frame analysis du Plessismade it clear that his analysis of Mt 131ndash23 was designed to probe the relation-ship between writer and reader only insofar as that relationship is embeddedin the text or at least implied by the text and not in a complete historicalsense He was interested in showing the pragmatic force or intended effect ofthe discourse both in terms of the relationship between Jesus as speaker andthe disciples as addressees and in terms of the relationship between impliedauthor and implied reader of the narrative ie the relationship between authorand intended addressee that is implied by the text itself not as it is knownthrough historical research

Du Plessisrsquos method then is to ldquoread between the linesrdquo analyzing thetext for what is implied given Leechrsquos pragmatic principles about the goals of

communication between Jesus and the disciples internal to the narrative and be-tween the abstract author and implied reader of the narrative of Matthew Theanalysis proceeds through the text (Mt 131ndash23) as a communication processbeginning with Jesusrsquo telling of the parable continuing with the conversationbetween Jesus and the disciples and ending with Jesusrsquo interpretation of theparable

The focus of du Plessisrsquos analysis of the parable itself was on the apparentflouting of the cooperative principle of inter-personal rhetoric and of the clarityprinciple of textual rhetoric In particular the maxims of quantity and relationare at stake In his telling of this brief story Jesus dwelt on the failure ofseed to produce for a variety of reasons all having to do with the nature ofthe tracts of land on which the seed is sown Only in the end is good soiland success brought in but the abundance of the harvest demonstrates thatsuccess was assured and the ldquowasterdquo of seed that fell on unproductive soil isnot an issue But how is the telling of the story relevant to the goals of Jesusin telling it as demanded by the maxim of relation Has enough been saidas per the maxim of quantity to enable the images to be decoded It seemsthat both of these maxims of the cooperative principle have been flouted byJesus Furthermore Jesusrsquo concluding remark aring ecircχων Acircτα κουέτω (Mt 139)flouts the politeness principle specifically the tact maxim which requires thatthe speaker maximize the benefit and minimize the cost to the hearer Afterhaving flouted the cooperative principle by having said less than is necessaryfor the hearers to understand Jesus ordered the hearers to understand Thispresents a challenge to the hearers that implies a cost to them The reader isleft also to ponder the relevance of the parable and its narrative at this pointin the gospel and to wonder at the challenge issued by Jesusrsquo command

Within the narrative we can infer that the disciples do not understand thecommunication process to be complete or at least they assume that the floutingof the cooperative principle will be rectified by an explanation of the parableto them for their question to him (v 10) concerns Jesusrsquo reason for havingflouted the cooperative principle and the politeness principle in speaking to thecrowds (du Plessis 1987 41) This assumption is validated by Jesusrsquo response(v 11) that they (the disciples) have been given knowledge of the mysteries ofthe kingdom of heaven Pragmatically benefit to them has been maximized andthe promise of explanation implied While Jesusrsquo relationship to the disciples ismaintained and even strengthened the disciples are assured that the social goalsof Jesusrsquo communication through the parable are in fact not failing despite theapparent flouting of the cooperative and politeness principles in speaking to thecrowd Jesusrsquo explanation makes it clear that the people are not intended tounderstand The use of the negated passive οIcirc δέδοται lsquoit has not been givenrsquo(v 11) implies that the withholding of understanding is Godrsquos doing or inaccord with Godrsquos plan The statement that their lack of understanding fulfillsscripture (v 14) makes this explicit Du Plessis noted that the pattern of theparable itself parallels the entire conversation in that Jesusrsquo utterance like theaction of sowing in the parable is apparently unsuccessful and futile but in theend success (of some sort) is assured (du Plessis 1987 41)

There are implications for the reader of this conversation as well as for thedisciples who are involved in it Du Plessis noted that although the conversationis directed toward the disciples and not the others there are implied threats tothe others that are repeated a total of four times (vv 11 12 13 14ndash15) inviolation of the textual principle of economy (du Plessis 1987 46) These threatsfunction as a contrast to the favored position of the disciples but they alsofunction as a warning to the reader The reader along with the disciples hasbeen assured that Jesusrsquo proclamation will not be fruitless but is accomplishingthe will of God The reader is also privy to the statements that those who donot have will lose even what they have because (iacuteτι) seeing they do not seeand hearing they do not hear nor understand (vv 12ndash13) On the level of theabstract author and implied reader then there is an implied warning ratherstrongly stated to the reader The reader overhears the conversation betweenJesus and the disciples and is thus an insider in terms of the information that isavailable to the disciples But the reader must choose whether to associate withthe disciples and accept the message concerning Jesus or not The reader of thegospel may deduce that the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish authoritiesis becoming more intense and that the rejection of Jesus is widespread ldquoTheincident becomes an assurance that the crucifixion as the climax of this rejectionis not a chance happening due to unforeseen circumstances but is a calculatedeffectrdquo (du Plessis 1987 50) Thus the exhortation of v 9 (ldquoWhoever has earslet him hearrdquo) is a warning to the reader a challenge to choose to be amongthe disciples to whom the mysteries will be explained The repetition of thiswarning throughout the conversation as well as the extravagance of what isgiven to the disciples (the prophets longed to hear and see what they see butdid not) creates comity between Jesus and the disciples and by implication thereader is invited into this relationship as well

The explanation of the parable (vv 18ndash23) makes explicit the parallel be-tween the content of the parable and Jesusrsquo response to the disciplesrsquo questionAt the same time this explanation fulfills the implied promise understood bythe disciples that Jesus would give them understanding and thus repair thedamage done to the cooperative principle in the telling of the parable itselfDu Plessis described the illocutionary force of the explanation as the assertionof ldquothe relationships between the parable world and the disciplesrsquo circumstancesrdquo(du Plessis 1987 52) A promise is entailed in the abundant fruitfulness that isportrayed in spite of apparent failure that is described in an open-ended list ofcauses and a warning is entailed in the failure The seed that fails is associatedwith those who see but do not see and hear but do not hear nor understandldquoThe attention is directed to the various causes for disobedience The addresseesare implored by implication to consider their own position and to listen withresponsibilityrdquo (du Plessis 1987 52)

Du Plessis summarized the results of his pragmatic analysis of Mt 131ndash23in the following paragraph which is worth quoting at length

The pragmatical force of the conversation with the disciples whichwas initiated by the telling of the Sower and which reaches a prelim-

inary conclusion with the giving of the explanation of the parableis the creation of a relationship between Jesus and the disciples inwhich he is the dominant partner and they are shown to be depen-dent on him They are urged to accept and adhere to his wordsBy doing this they are part of the future success of the kingdomIn brief the disciples must adhere to the relationship of discipleshipwith Jesus Everything converges on this the promise and assuranceof the parable the implied warning the assertion that the kingdomcomes in this way the stress on Godrsquos and Jesusrsquo full control of thesituation the stress on the lack of obedient listening as a calculatedevent the continuous assurance given to the disciples of their priv-ileged position and the illumination of the dangers threatening therelationship (du Plessis 1987 53 emphasis original)

This summary draws attention to the illocutionary goals of Jesus within theconversation especially the goals of assurance and warning and his social goalsto maintain a certain relationship with the disciples in which they accept theassurance and heed the warning At the same time Jesusrsquo flouting of cooperativeand politeness principles in speaking the parable to the crowd obscured theillocutionary force thus intentionally guaranteeing that the crowd would notexecute the illocutionary goal of the parable

Although he focused on a different part of the model Du Plessisrsquos model oflanguage is essentially the same as Sellinrsquos This model presents syntax as therelation between signs in texts semantics as the relationship between signs andmeaning20 and pragmatics as the relationship between signs their meaningsand the users of the signs (both producer and recipient of texts) The tendencyin using this model is to treat syntax semantics and pragmatics as autonomouscomponents of language that can be examined adequately independently of oneanother Du Plessis makes reference to semantic meanings and to a lesserextent syntactic relations in his study on occasion because he is interested ina complete interpretation of the text But his analysis of the pragmatics of thetext does not make explicit reference to the semantic or syntactic structure of thetext In short the focus of his study was on what is ldquobetween the linesrdquo of thetext rather than on what the text says He sought to elucidate the illocutionaryand rhetorical force that can be inferred by reading the text in light of a set ofpragmatic principles thereby reconstructing something of the communicationsituation of the text or the way in which the text was used by specific personsThis approach to pragmatics must use terms such as ldquoinferencerdquo ldquoimplicaturerdquoand ldquobetween the linesrdquo because it assumes a formal approach to semantic andsyntactic structure

In contrast to this perspective on language a functional approach such asthe one presented in the previous chapter views language from the start as a tool

20Sellin distinguished between semantics as the relationship between sign and concept (com-monly referred to as connotation) and sigmatics as the relationship between sign and object(commonly referred to as denotation) (Sellin 1983 508) John G Cook (1995 4) in hislinguistic approach to the study of Mark represents the more common practice of includingconnotation and denotation as meaning treated by semantics

which people use to make meanings in particular contexts Thus the questionasked by pragmatic theory mdash ldquoHow do people use languagerdquo mdash also guides theanalysis of the texts themselves It is not merely a matter of what is betweenthe lines but what is in them From a functional standpoint the companionquestion to the above is ldquoHow is language structured for userdquo (Eggins 1994 2)The systemic-functional approach to semantics is to ask what kind of meaningspeople make in the process of using language to do what they do In otherwords it is expected that linguistic meanings will realize social goals Thesystemic-functional approach to grammar is to ask how the meanings that peoplemake are mapped onto one another in grammatical and lexical structures Theassumption of this approach is that while the relationship between content andexpression is arbitrary and conventional the structures on the expression planeof the language (grammatical and lexical structures) are functionally organizedfor the express purpose of expressing meanings and the semantic structuresof the language are functionally organized for the express purpose of enablingpeople to do things with language The implication of this functional approachto language is that a careful examination of the lexico-grammatical and semanticstructures of a text as defined by a functional approach will reveal somethingof the uses in the situational and cultural context of the text

Of the studies of the Parable of the Sower and its interpretation discussedin this chapter Kingsburyrsquos and du Plessisrsquos focused on Matthewrsquos version andSellinrsquos on Markrsquos In the following chapters I will focus on the text of Matthewto see what functions are evident in it and how they relate to context I willhowever also give consideration to the Markan and Lukan parallels pointingout similarities and differences not as an engagement in issues of mutual depen-dence but in order to highlight the features of each text To focus on issues ofdependence which I will nevertheless not ignore may tend to distract from thelinguistic features by resolving them even if rightly as issues of mutual depen-dence My primary concern is to elucidate aspects of context that are embeddedin the texts and to show the differences those aspects of context make in theway a story of the telling and explanation of a parable by Jesus is told withinthree different gospels

Chapter 3

Ideational Meanings andField of Discourse

We begin our search for the context in the text with the aspect of the contextof situation (or register variable) that was identified in the first chapter as ldquofieldof discourserdquo Field of discourse is the activity in regard to which language isfunctioning in the context of situation In the first chapter we defined field ofdiscourse as what is going on in the context the kind of activity (as recognizedby the culture) in which language is playing some part or ldquowhat the languageis being used to talk aboutrdquo (Eggins 1994 52) What we sometimes refer to astopic is an important aspect of the context of situation People who producetexts are talking or writing about something with some degree of specializationor generality But field is more than topic or subject matter It includes activityas well as subject matter or ldquowhatrsquos going on with reference to whatrdquo (Gerot1995 39) In this chapter we will examine the field of discourse of Mt 131ndash23 interms of Activity Focus (ie ldquowhat is going onrdquo in the context of situation) andObject Focus (ie ldquowith reference to whatrdquo is the focal activity ldquogoing onrdquo)1

Since field of discourse is predicted by the ideational metafunction the focusof this chapter is on the ideational (especially experiential) meanings in thetext In particular the focus is on the experiential meanings realized at theclause rank as processes participants and circumstances experiential meaningsrealized by patterns of lexical choices in the text and logical meanings realizedby conjunctions and other grammatical devices for showing the relationship ofclauses to one another I begin with an examination of logical meanings in orderto give a framework for the analysis of experiential meanings that follows it

1These terms are used by Linda Gerot (1995 39)

76 Ideational Meanings and Field of Discourse

31 Logical MeaningsRelations Between Clauses

An analysis of the contextual features embedded in a text assumes that the textthat is the object of analysis is a whole text or a part of a text that has not beenarbitrarily or randomly delimited The text under analysis in this study Mt131ndash23 is commonly viewed as a discrete section within Matthew on the parableof the sower and its interpretation2 The section can be further subdivided intoa narrative introduction (vv 1ndash3a) the parable (vv 3bndash9) a dialogue in whichJesus explains why he speaks in parables (vv 10ndash17) and the interpretation ofthe parable (Davies amp Allison 1991 373) A major reason this portion of thetext of Matthew is commonly understood in this way is because of the logicalrelations between clauses3 It is helpful to note these logical groupings of clauseswhen analyzing the experiential meanings realized by the clauses

The most prominent logical relation that explains why the structure of Mt131ndash23 is understood in this way is projection Projection as defined in the firstchapter4 is a relation that most commonly holds between a clause that realizesa verbal process and one or more clauses that realize that which is verbalized bythe Sayer of the verbal process5 In Mt 131ndash23 there are a number of verbalprocesses that project multiple clauses Since these clauses are logically relatedas a group to the verbal process that projected them it is natural that eachinstance of direct discourse will be perceived as a discrete text part Projectiongoes a long way toward giving a linguistic explanation to du Plessisrsquo narrativeframe analysis of the text described in the previous chapter

The display below demonstrates the logical relations between clauses at thehighest level of Mt 131ndash23 taken as a unit Each clause that stands in relationto the clauses around it is boxed in Clauses that are paratactically related (ietheir logical relationships place them on the same level neither is subordinateto the other) are lined up at the left margin of the display The clause thatis a subordinate clause (in a hypotactic relationship to a neighboring clause)is indented Conjunctions and relative pronouns that point to the logical rela-tionship that holds between clauses are underlined Words that realize a verbalprocess and project other clauses appear in bold and italic typeface Clauses

2Eg Gundry (1982 251) Davies amp Allison (1991 373) and Harrington (1991 193)3John G Cookrsquos (1995 190ndash192) linguistic outline of Mark which shows a similar struc-

ture for the Markan parallel to Mt 131ndash23 (Mk 41ndash20) depends heavily on what systemiclinguistics identifies as logical meanings At the broadest level of outline of Mk 41ndash20 Cookshows the introduction to teaching in parables (vv 1ndash2a) the parable spoken to the crowd(vv 2bndash8) the challenge to hear the parable (v 9) and Jesus speaking to his disciples alone(vv 10ndash20) He adds at the same level of the outline Jesus turning to speak more parables tothe crowds (vv 21ndash34) paralleling the remainder of the ldquoparable discourserdquo in Mt 1324ndash52Cookrsquos analysis parallels those of Gundry Davies amp Allison and Harrington for the Mattheanparallel in that he subdivides vv 10ndash20 into the question about the parables (v 10) and theanswer which divides into the part about the mystery of the kingdom (vv 11ndash12) and theexplanation of the parable (vv 13ndash20)

4See the discussion of Mental Processes (p 18) and Verbal Processes (p 19) above5As noted in chapter one mental process clauses may also project other clauses

Logical Meanings 77

that are projected as a group by a single verbal process appear in a single boxand the logical relationships within the box are not indicated although the con-junctions and other grammatical markers that help to realize tactic relationshipsbetween clauses are underlined131 gtΕν τnot microέρoslash acircκείνugrave acircξεlθdegν aring gtΙησοUumlc τumlc οEcircκίαc acircκάθητο παρ τν

θάlασσαν

καEgrave συνήχθησαν πρaumlc αIcircτaumlν icircχlοι ποllοί

sup1στε αIcircτaumlν εEcircc πlοOslashον acircmicroβάντα καθumlσθαι

καEgrave πc aring icircχlοc acircπEgrave τaumlν αEcircγιαlaumlν εEacuteστήκει

133 καEgrave acirclάlησεν αIcircτοOslashc ποll acircν παραβοlαOslashc legravegwn

projectiongtΙδοIgrave acircξumllθεν aring σπείρων τοUuml σπείρειν

134 καEgrave acircν τAuml σπείρειν αIcircτaumlν microagraveν ecircπεσεν παρ τν aringδόν

καEgrave acirclθόντα τ πετειν κατέφαγεν αIcircτά

135 llα δagrave ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη

iacuteπου οIcircκ εUacuteχεν γumlν ποllήν

καEgrave εIcircθέωc acircξανέτειlεν δι τauml micro ecircχειν βάθοc γumlc

136 lίου δagrave νατείlαντοc acircκαυmicroατίσθη

καEgrave δι τauml micro ecircχειν ucircίζαν acircξηράνθη

137 llα δagrave ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τc κάνθαc

καEgrave νέβησαν αEacute κανθαι

καEgrave ecircπνιξαν αIcircτά

138 llα δagrave ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τν γumlν τν καlν

καEgrave acircδίδου καρπόν

ccedil microagraveν aacuteκατόν

ccedil δagrave aacuteξήκοντα

ccedil δagrave τριάκοντα

139 aring ecircχων Acircτα κουέτω

1310 καEgrave προσεlθόντεc οEacute microαθηταEgrave eUacutepan αIcircτAuml

projectionδι τί acircν παραβοlαOslashc lαlεOslashc αIcircτοOslashc

1311 aring δagrave ποκριθεEgravec eUacutepen αIcircτοOslashc

projectionVΟτι IacutemicroOslashν δέδοται γνAumlναι τ microυστήρια τumlc βασιlείαc τAumlν οIcircρανAumlν

acircκείνοιc δagrave οIcirc δέδοται

1312 iacuteστιc γρ ecircχει

δοθήσεται αIcircτuacute

καEgrave περισσευθήσεται

iacuteστιc δagrave οIcircκ ecircχει

καEgrave ccedil ecircχει ρθήσεται π΄ αIcircτοUuml

(continued)

(continued)1313 diĂ toUumlto acircn parabolaOslashc aIcirctoOslashc lalAuml

iacuteti blegravepontec oIcirc blegravepousin

kaEgrave ĆkoOcircontec oIcirck ĆkoOcircousin

oIcircdagrave sunETHousin

1314 kaEgrave ĆnaplhroUumltai aIcirctoOslashc Ź profhteETHa gtHsaEgraveou Ź legravegousa

gtAkoň ĆkoOcircsete

kaEgrave oIcirc mŸ sunĺte

kaEgrave blegravepontec blegraveyete

kaEgrave oIcirc mŸ Ogravedhte

1315 acircpaqOcircnjh gĂr Ź kardETHa toUuml laoUuml toOcirctou

kaEgrave toOslashc šsEgraven baregravewc ćkousan

kaEgrave toIgravec aeligfjalmoIgravec aIcirctAumln acirckĹmmusan

măpote Ogravedwsin toOslashc aeligfjalmoOslashc

kaEgrave toOslashc šsEgraven ĆkoOcircswsin

kaEgrave tň kardETHoslash sunAumlsin

kaEgrave acircpistregraveywsin kaEgrave EcircĹsomai aIcirctoOcircc

1316 IacutemAumln dagrave makĹrioi oEacute aeligfjalmoEgrave

iacuteti blegravepousin

kaEgrave tĂ Acircta IacutemAumln

iacuteti ĆkoOcircousin

1317 ĆmŸn gĂr legravegw IacutemOslashn

iacuteti polloEgrave profĺtai kaEgrave dETHkaioi acircpejOcircmhsan EcircdeOslashn Č blegravepete

kaEgrave oIcirck eUacutedan

kaEgrave ĆkoUumlsai Č ĆkoOcircete

kaEgrave oIcirck ćkousan

1318 ltUmeOslashc oTHORNn ĆkoOcircsate tŸn parabolŸn toUuml speETHrantoc

1319 pantaumlc ĆkoOcircontoc taumln ligravegon tĺc basileETHac kaEgrave mŸ suniegraventoc ecircrqetai aring ponhraumlc

kaEgrave ĄrpĹzei tauml acircsparmegravenon acircn tň kardETHoslash aIcirctoUuml

oOtildetigravec acircstin aring parĂ tŸn aringdaumln spareETHc

1320 aring dagrave acircpEgrave tĂ petryumldh spareETHc oOtildetigravec acircstin aring taumln ligravegon ĆkoOcircwn kaEgrave eIcircjIgravec metĂ

qarŘc lambĹnwn aIcirctigraven

1321 oIcirck ecircqei dagrave ucircETHzan acircn aacuteautAuml

ĆllĂ prigraveskairigravec acircstin

genomegravenhc dagrave jlETHyewc ń diwgmoUuml diĂ taumln ligravegon eIcircjIgravec skandalETHzetai

1322 aring dagrave eEcircc tĂc ĆkĹnjac spareETHc oOtildetigravec acircstin aring taumln ligravegon ĆkoOcircwn

kaEgrave Ź megraverimna toUuml aEcircAumlnoc kaEgrave Ź ĆpĹth toUuml ploOcirctou sumpnETHgei taumln ligravegon

kaEgrave Łkarpoc gETHnetai

1323 aring dagrave acircpEgrave tŸn kalŸn gĺn spareETHc oOtildetigravec acircstin aring taumln ligravegon ĆkoOcircwn kaEgrave sunieETHc

ccedilc dŸ karpoforeOslash

kaEgrave poieOslash

ccedil magraven aacutekatigraven

ccedil dagrave aacutexăkonta

ccedil dagrave triĹkonta

Logical Meanings 79

The independent clauses that are normally read as the introduction or narra-tive setting to the parable discourse are paratactically linked by the conjunctionκαEgrave and are thus closely related to one another Furthermore the clauses in vv10 and 11 that realize verbal processes use the conjunctions καί and δέ indicat-ing continuity with the preceding narrative rather than the beginning of a newsection Most of the rest of the text is in two large blocks mdash the projected groupof clauses that constitute the parable and the projected group of clauses thatconstitute the answer to the question regarding the use of parables includingthe interpretation of the parable

Just as the narrative frame in the opening verses is linked to that of vv10 and 11 by conjunctions so the answer given by Jesus beginning in v 11is linked to the question which precedes it by a conjunction namely iacuteτι (ldquobe-causerdquo) which answers the question δι τί (ldquowhyrdquo) Within the projecteddirect discourse blocks there are also logical relations consisting largely of sub-ordinating relationships indicated by relative pronouns and conjunctions such asll and iacuteτι and paratactic relationships indicated by conjunctions such as καίand δέ The notable departure from ordinary tactic relations is the use of οTHORNνin v 18 indicating a special logical relationship to what precedes that clausefollowed by asyndeton which helps to indicate the beginning of something newThe logical relationships alone hint at a distinction between the explanationfor why Jesus is speaking in parables in vv 10ndash17 and the explanation of theparable of the sower in vv 18ndash23 In the Markan parallel this distinction ismade by separating the two sections (Mk 411ndash12 and Mk 413ndash20) with anothernarrative clause καEgrave lέγει αIcircτοOslashc realizing a verbal process that distinguishesthe interpretation of the parable (the real answer to the question in Mark) fromthe statement about the mysteries of the kingdom (a diversion in Mark)6

The logical relations in this passage help to make clear the texts within thetext and are thus important to examine in preparation for an analysis of theexperiential meanings realized in the clauses of the text In particular the logicalrelations give warrant to treating the direct discourse material as texts that canbe analyzed independently of the surrounding text prior to being considereda part of the whole text This means that the narrative frame as du Plessiscalled it might also be fruitfully examined independently of the direct discoursematerial for which it provides a frame I shall not give further attention to thelogical meanings of the text insofar as doing so is beyond the scope of this studyI turn instead to an analysis of the processes participants and circumstancesrealized in the clauses of the various text parts It is in these experientialmeanings that the object focus and activity focus of the text-in-context areembedded

6On the gratuitous nature of the parable rationale in Mark (and in Luke) as a delay inanswering the real question by interpreting the parable itself see Section 323 beginning onp 88

32 Activity and Object Focus Processes Par-ticipants and Circumstances

The purpose of examining the experiential meanings of the text is to determinefrom them how that aspect of the situational context here referred to as ldquofieldof discourserdquo is reflected in the semantic structure of the text The first stepis to analyze the text into its components of experiential meaning at the levelof the clause7 In particular we are interested in the processes participantsand circumstances It is this semantic information that realizes the activity andobject focus of the situational context ie what is going on with regard towhat in the situation in which the text is produced We are not concerned atthis stage with what grammatical case or class of words is used to refer to theparticipants word order whether the active passive or middle voice is used etcWe are only concerned with which processes occur in the text and what typesof processes they are what participants are associated with those processes andthe particular semantic roles they play in relation to the processes and underwhat circumstances the processes are said to occur

It is important to note that the entire text stands in a particular relationshipto Matthewrsquos situational context However the status of the narrative frameis special In addition to being a part of Matthewrsquos text it also provides anexplicit situational context for the direct discourse that stands in relation to it byprojection Thus our interest in the parable the rationale and the explanation ofthe parable is on two levels Jesus the disciples and the crowds are participantsin relation to processes within the narrative frame and are thus related toMatthewrsquos activity and object focus In addition however those narrativecharacters utter speech within the narrative that has its own activity and objectfocus in relation to their situational context constituted by the narrative8

An analysis of the experiential meanings of Mt 131ndash23 confirms the distinc-tions between the narrative frame the parable of the sower the discourse onthe purpose of the parables and the interpretation of the parable suggested bythe logical relations at the highest level of the text I will examine each of theseparts of the text in turn then return to Mt 131ndash23 as a whole in the concludingsection

321 Activity and Object Focus of the Narrative Frame

The activity and object focus of the narrative frame is straightforward Thenarrative frame is relatively small consisting of only seven clauses in these 23verses The processes participants and circumstances ie the information rele-vant to activity and object focus has been extracted from the whole experiential

7The results of the experiential analysis of Mt 131ndash23 is displayed in Appendix A on p 1778Already in mentioning narrative we are talking in terms of genre and context of culture

The analysis reflected here is relevant to the analysis of genre and hypotheses about genre inthe sense in which it is defined here can be made However a complete analysis of genre wouldinvolve comparative analysis of a range of texts which is beyond the scope of this study

Activity and Object Focus 81

analysis for all of these clauses and displayed in Table 319 This table makesexplicit the obvious that the whole of the narrative frame is divided betweenmaterial and verbal processes and that the participants are Jesus (references towhom are in boldface) the crowds (references to which are underlined) and thedisciples (references to whom are in italics) There are a relatively high numberof circumstantial elements explaining why the narrative frame is perceived asldquosetting the scenerdquo for the direct discourse material (Davies amp Allison 1991373)

Table 31 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mt 131ndash3a 10a 11a (Narrative Frame)

Actor Process CircumstanceProcess

aring gtIhsoUumlc acircκάθητο acircν τnot microέρoslash acircκείνugrave

acircξεlθdegν aring gtΙησοUumlc τumlc οEcircκίαc

παρ τν θάlασσαν

icircχlοι ποllοί συνήχθησαν πρaumlc αIcircτaumlν

aIcirctaumln καθumlσθαι εEcircc πlοOslashον acircmicroβάντα

πc aring icircχlοc εEacuteστήκει acircπEgrave τaumlν αEcircγιαlaumlν

Sayer Verbal Recipient Verbiage CircumstProcess

[Jesus] acirclάlησεν αIcircτοOslashc ποll acircν παραβοlαOslashc

lέγων

oEacute majhtaEgrave εUacuteπαν aIcirctAuml προσεlθόντεc

aring ĆpokrijeEgravec εUacuteπεν aIcirctoOslashc

What can be said about the activity and object focus of this text on the basisof this information It can be said that the focal activity of the text is teachingand that the participants are in rather clear roles with regard to that activityThe material processes in these clauses involve no goals or beneficiaries but onlyactors Those actors are Jesus and the crowds What Jesus does is to sit (twoprocesses convey this information one realized by a finite verbal clause and theother by an infinitival clause) and what the crowds do is to gather round himand to stand These actions lead up to Jesus speaking to the crowds As in thebeginning of the Sermon on the Mount (51) these actions indicate a didacticsituation in which Jesus teaches from a position of authority and the peoplelisten (Newman 1983 Luz 1990 297 Harrington 1991 194) The remainingverbal processes in the narrative frame are of a different character Jesus andthe disciples are now the participants and the nature of the verbal processes isan exchange The disciples ask and Jesus answers The narrative frame itselfthen takes on the character of a narrative in which Jesus is being portrayed

9The entire experiential analysis can be found in Appendix A on p 177 The lexical andgrammatical glosses of the texts presented in tables throughout this chapter as well as freetranslations can also be found in the appendices

as an authoritative teacher to the crowds and a source of information to hisdisciples Yet the narrative does not develop It simply provides backgroundfor what Jesus has to say to two groups of people the crowds who gather tohear authoritative teaching and the disciples

A similar action and object focus is present in the Markan parallel Table 32shows that the didactic activity is made explicit by the repetition of the mate-rial process of teaching as well as the (redundant) reference to teaching as thecircumstance of the first verbal process ie the one which projects the para-ble Mark has not only used structures that appear to be generic of a teachingsituation as Matthew has he goes out of his way to emphasize the teachingactivity

Table 32 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mk 41ndash29a 10ndash11a 13a (Narrative Frame)

Actor Material Beneficiary Goal CircumstanceProcess

[Jesus] centρξατο

διδάσκειν [crowd] πάlιν

παρ τν

θάlασσαν

icircχlοc

πlεOslashστοc συνάγεται πρaumlc αIcircτaumlν

aIcirctaumln καθumlσθαι acircν τnot

θαlάσσugrave

εEcircc πlοOslashον

acircmicroβάντα

[Jesus] acircδίδασκεν αIcircτοIgravec ποllά acircν παραβοlαOslashc

Carrier Relational Process Attributeπc aring

icircχlοc ordfσαν πρaumlc τν θάlασσαν acircπEgrave τumlc γumlc

Sayer Verbal Recipient Verbiage CircumstanceProcess

[Jesus] ecirclεγεν αIcircτοOslashc acircν τnot διδαχnot

αIcircτοUuml

[Jesus] ecirclεγεν [crowds]oEacute perEgrave

aIcirctaumln sIgraven

toOslashc dyumldeka ρώτων aIcirctaumln τc

παραβοlάc iacuteτε acircγένετο

κατ microόναc

[Jesus] ecirclεγεν aIcirctoOslashc

[Jesus] lέγει aIcirctoOslashc

Mark also uses a concentration of circumstantial elements in the narrativeframe as Matthew does Mark however separates out one element of circum-stance which appears as the relational (attributive) process that places thecrowd on the shore as Jesus begins to teach

The nature of the participants is also somewhat different in Mark than inMatthew Jesus is much more prominent appearing as the Actor of the twoteaching processes that do not occur in Matthewrsquos text and as Sayer in moreverbal processes In addition the distinction between the disciples and thecrowd is not as clear as it is in Matthew It is not merely the disciples whoask Jesus a question but οEacute περEgrave αIcircτaumlν σIgraveν τοOslashc δώδεκα lsquothe ones around himwith the twelversquo This fuzziness is amplified by the nature of the questionthey did not ask why Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables as the disciplesdid in Matthew Instead Mark simply tells us using Verbiage rather thanprojected direct discourse that they ldquoasked him the parablesrdquo The distinctionbetween the crowds and the disciples is not clear either in the reference to theparticipants in Markrsquos text or in their understanding of the parables

Lukersquos telling of this story is all the way around much briefer than Matthewrsquosand Markrsquos In the narrative frame it is clear that Luke has distilled the essenceof what is in the other two gospels to its bare minimum Table 33 shows thatthere are only four clauses in Lukersquos narrative frame and that they are allverbal process clauses Luke prefaces the parable itself with only one clausealbeit one with embedded clauses in it These verbal process clauses containwithin themselves the circumstantial elements that provide the setting for thediscourse a function carried by the material process clauses in Matthew andMark This reduction also means that the crowd plays a smaller role neverserving as the Actor of a material process appearing only as the beneficiaryof the verbal processes of which Jesus is the Sayer As in Matthew it is thedisciples who ask the question of Jesus They are clearly distinguished from thecrowd even though their question resembles the one in Mark

Table 33 Processes (Verbal) in Luke 84 8c 9a 10a (NarrativeFrame)

Sayer Verbal Recipient CircumstanceProcess

[Jesus] εUacuteπεν [crowds] συνιόντοc icircχlου ποllοUuml καEgrave

τAumlν κατ πόlιν acircπιπορευ-

οmicroένων πρaumlc αIcircτaumlν

δι παραβοlumlc

[Jesus] acircφώνει [crowds] ταUumlτα lέγων

oEacute majhtaEgrave aIcirctou acircπηρώτων aIcirctaumln

aring [Jesus] εUacuteπεν [disciples]

322 Activity and Object Focus of the Parable

Two things stand out at a glance in Table 34 First is that the parable ismade up entirely of material process clauses in Matthewrsquos telling of it untilthe final exclamation by Jesus As with the narrative frame the process typesused have a bearing on the question of genre We might hypothesize that atypical generic structure of a narrative would consist largely of material processtypes The text is describing happenings We noted above that Mark used arelational process to convey circumstantial or setting information We shall seein the direct discourse which follows the parable that a preponderance of otherprocess types are used to accomplish tasks other than conveying a narrativeFor example the interpretation of the parable repeats many material processesas the narrative itself is repeated in order to interpret it But there are a highpercentage of relational processes used there not to clarify the setting of thestory but to identify the processes and participants used in the story as a meansof explaining the meaning of the narrative

Table 34 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mt 133bndash9(Parable)

Actor Material Goal CircumstanceProcess

aring σπείρων

τοUuml σπείρειν acircξumllθεν

Č ecircπεσεν acircν τAuml σπείρειν αIcircτaumlν

παρ τν aringδόν

τ πετειν κατέφαγεν aIcirctĹ acirclθόντα

Łlla ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη iacuteπου

οIcircκ εUacuteχεν γumlν ποllήν

[seeds] acircξανέτειlεν εIcircθέωc

δι τauml micro ecircχειν βάθοc γumlc

[sun] acircκαυmicroατίσθη [seeds] lίου νατείlαντοc

[sun] acircξηράνθη [seeds] δι τauml micro ecircχειν ucircίζαν

Łlla ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τc κάνθαc

αEacute κανθαι νέβησαν

[thorns] ecircπνιξαν aIcirctĹ

Łlla ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τν γumlν τν καlν

[seeds] acircδίδου καρπόν

ccedil [yielded] aacuteκατόν

ccedil [yielded] aacuteξήκοντα

ccedil [yielded] τριάκοντα

Senser Mental Process Phenomenonaring ecircχων Acircτα κουέτω [the meaning of the parable]

The second observation that can be made readily about Table 34 is the

repeated occurrence of references to the seeds and what grows from the seedsas participants in the material processes of the narrative (such references are initalics in the table) Other participants include the sower who sows the seedsthe birds the sun and thorns all of which are actors of processes of which theseeds are the goal and fruit which is ldquogivenrdquo or produced in various proportionsby the last seeds mentioned in the parable Seeds are either goal or actor (ofprocesses of falling growing up bearing fruit) in nearly every clause in theparable The field of discourse of this parable can be described as things thathappen to seeds after they are sown

While the parable is referred to by Jesus as ldquothe parable of the sowerrdquo (τνπαραβοlν τοUuml σπείραντοc) in Mt 1318 the sower only appears as a participantin the opening clause and is referred to again only in the circumstantial elementof the next clause Robert H Gundry (1982 258) states that Matthew created aparallel between Jesus and the sower10 and that the meaning of this reference isas much to call the disciples to listen to the interpretation that comes from thesower himself as it is a title for the parable11 Only if one accepts Gundryrsquos viewin identifying the sower with Jesus and acknowledges that the whole narrativeof the gospel is about Jesus can one say that the parable is ldquoaboutrdquo the sowerNor can it be said that the parable focuses on the four soil types (cf Daviesamp Allison 1991 374ndash376) which are only referred to in circumstantial elementsrelated to the processes in the parable The object focus of the parable is clearlythe seeds12

This analysis demonstrates the importance of examining experiential mean-ings at the clause rank and not simply examining the meanings of lexical itemsin the text The summary statement of the field of discourse given above mdashthings that happen to seeds after they are sown mdash clearly depends on the var-ious lexical items used in the text However the object focus mdash the seeds mdashturns out to be something that is referred to only by pronouns whether demon-strative personal or relative and implied subjects of both active and passiveverbs Never does a lexical item refer to seeds present in the text Furthermoreit is not the specific lexical items in isolation but as configured by the gram-mar (largely at the clause rank) that communicate a field that is organizedknowledge Charting occurrences of various lexical items is useful for studyingthe cohesiveness of a text but the grammatical relationships that hold betweenthem is necessary in order to understand how knowledge is organized in thetext

In the parable in Matthew there are several taxonomies related to one an-other through the object focus of the text (ie the seeds) that together summa-rize what is known in the narrative world of the text about seeds that are sown

10Eg both Jesus and the sower ldquogo outrdquo (Jesus in v 1 the sower in v 3) We are toinfer according to Gundry that Jesus was doing what he attributes to the sower in theinterpretation when he went out namely spreading the word

11One must wonder in what sense ldquoThe Parable of the Sowerrdquo is a title at all (Harrington1991 196) It is not a title in the sense of being the opening word or words of a text sincethe sower is the last element of the opening clause of the parable and is in a different casethan in v 18 On the extent to which the parable is ldquoaboutrdquo the sower see below

12So also Guelich (1998 196ndash197) with regard to the parable in Mark

For example a taxonomy of normal stages of a plantrsquos development from a seedis implicit in the text it falls (πίπτει) to the ground it springs up (acircξανατέllει)from the ground it develops a root (ucircίζαν) it grows up (ναβαίνει) it bears fruit(δίδωσιν καρπόν) There is also a taxonomy of places where the seed can fallthat will have a bearing on the success of the development it can fall on a path(aringδόν) rocky ground (πετρώδη) upon thorns (acircπEgrave τc κάνθαc) or in good soil(καlν γumlν) which is plentiful (ποllν γumlν) and has depth (βάθοc γumlc) Anybut the good soil leaves it vulnerable to things that will prevent its full develop-ment on a path the birds eat it (πετειν καταφάγει αIcircτό) on rocky ground thesun scorches it (iexcllιοc καυmicroατίζει αIcircτό) so that it withers (ξηραίνεται) if it fallsupon thorns they choke it (αEacute κάνθαι πνίγουσιν αIcircτό) Without being referredto lexically the seeds are nevertheless the focal object with reference to whichthe various objects and activities represented in the text are mentioned

The experiential meanings in Mark (Table 35) are similar to those in Mat-thew with some minor but intriguing differences The parable in Mark isimmediately preceded by a behavioral process (the command to listen) thatparallels the mental process (the warning to hear what has been said) thatconcludes the parable in all three synoptic accounts The parable then beginswith an existential clause (using acircγένετο an apparent Semitism of which Markis fond) These differences have little if any effect on the field of discourse ofthe parable as a whole Their effect is more on the mode of the text which willbe discussed in Chapter 5

Table 35 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mk 43ndash89b (Parable)

Behaver Behavioral Process[crowd] gtΑκούετε

Existent Existential Process Circumstance[following events] acircγένετο acircν τAuml σπείρειν

aring σπείρων acircξumllθεν σπεOslashραι

ccedil ecircπεσεν παρ τν aringδόν

τ πετειν ordflθεν

[the birds] κατέφαγεν aIcirctigrave

Łllo ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τauml πετρAumlδεc iacuteπου

εUacuteχεν γumlν ποllήν

[seed] acircξανέτειlεν εIcircθIgravec

[sun] acircκαυmicroατίσθη [seed] iacuteτε νέτειlεν aring iexcllιοc

[sun] acircξηράνθη [seed] δι τauml micro ecircχειν ucircίζαν

Łllo ecircπεσεν εEcircc τc κάνθαc

[thorns] συνέπνιξαν aIcirctigrave

[seed] οIcircκ ecircδωκεν καρπaumlν

Łlla ecircπεσεν εEcircc τν γumlν τν καlήν

[seeds] acircδίδου καρπaumlν ναβαίνοντα καEgrave

αIcircξανόmicroενα

atilden ecircφερεν τριάκοντα

atilden [yielded] aacuteξήκοντα

atilden [yielded] aacuteκατόν

Senser Mental Process Phenomenonccedilc ecircχει Acircτα κούειν κουέτω [the meaning of the

parable]

Perhaps the most significant difference in the experiential meanings of theparable in Mark compared to Matthew however is the use of the singular inreferring to ldquoseedrdquo rather than ldquoseedsrdquo It seems that the fate of one particularseed is described in each of three environments prior to describing the pluralseeds that have fallen on good soil When it comes to these again one seedeach (atildeν) produces the various yields This difference changes the nature ofthe participants and therefore the object focus of the text from seeds that aresown and fall in various places to each of several specific seeds that suffer variousfates

Luke also uses singular references for the seeds (see Table 36) His telling ofthe parable is much briefer than Matthewrsquos or Markrsquos leaving out any explicitreference to the sun and reducing the report of the yield to a single seed thatyielded a hundred-fold The ldquodepthrdquo of the field of discourse is thus reducedSince there are fewer participants and processes the taxonomies evident in thetext are simpler than those in Matthew

Table 36 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Lk 85ndash8b8d (Parable)

aring σπείρων acircξumllθεν τοUuml σπεOslashραι τaumlν σπόρον

αIcircτοUuml

ccedil ecircπεσεν acircν τAuml σπείρειν αIcircτaumlν

[someone] κατεπατήθη [seed]τ πετειν

τοUuml οIcircρανοUuml κατέφαγεν aIcirctigrave

eacuteteron κατέπεσεν acircπEgrave τν πέτραν

[sun] acircξηράνθη [seed] φυagraveν

δι τauml micro ecircχειν Ecircκmicroάδα

eacuteteron ecircπεσεν acircν microέσuacute τAumlν κανθAumlν

αEacute κανθαι πέπνιξαν aIcirctigrave συmicroφυεOslashσαι

eacuteteron ecircπεσεν εEcircc τν γumlν τν γαθήν

[seed] acircποίησεν καρπaumlν aacuteκατον-

ταπlασίονα φυagraveν

Senser Mental PhenomenonProcess

aring ecircχων Acircτα

κούειν κουέτω [the meaning of the parable]

323 Activity and Object Focus of the Parable Rationale

This section begins a marked difference between Matthew and the parallel ac-counts This difference is seen immediately in the size of Matthewrsquos text mdash 35clauses13 to Markrsquos eight and Lukersquos five In Lukersquos case one of these clauses isthe question asked by the disciples This question is a relational clause14 seekingan explanation of the nature of the parable itself ie it seeks an answer of theform ldquothe parable is xrdquo where x is a meaning or explanation attributed to theparable This fact explains in large measure why this ldquorationalerdquo section in Lukeis so brief it appears to be gratuitous information that is completely unneces-sary in order to answer the question that seeks information about the parableThe question in Mark which is indirect discourse in the narrative frame is un-clear but is perhaps best understood in the sense in which Luke has it sincethe interpretation of the parable rather than this excursus (ie the rationale)seems to be the real answer to the question As in Luke Matthewrsquos text alsoincludes the question asked of him In Matthewrsquos case however rather thana relational question about the nature of the parable the question is a verbalprocess clause15 asking why he is speaking in parables ie it seeks an answerof the form ldquoI speak in parables because xrdquo where x is the reason that is thecircumstance of the verbal process In Matthew this large section is in directanswer to the question that Jesus is asked16 and the interpretation that follows

13Even if we were to accept the view of Davies and Allison (1991 394) that 1314ndash15 are avery early post-Matthean interpolation we are still left with 22 clauses in Matthewrsquos versionThe most persuasive of their arguments is that only here is a formula quotation placed onJesusrsquo lips and it differs in other significant ways from other formula quotations in MatthewAlso in their favor is that these verses agree almost exactly with Acts 2826ndash27 although theinfluence could have gone either way In any case my concern is with the text as it standsldquoMatthewrdquo in this study is shorthand for the producer of the text as it stands Neverthelessit should be noted that these two verses do not substantially change the overall makeup ofthe text since the quotation is highly repetitious of the material and mental process clausesthat are otherwise present

14See the only relational process clause in Table 3915See the verbal processes in Table 3716Contra Hagner (1993) ldquoAn initial problem concerning the structure of the discourse mdash

the apparent digression in the passage on the purpose of the parables (1310ndash17) mdash is explainedas something the evangelist decided to accept from his sourcerdquo As Sellin noted (see chaptertwo) the purposes of a text are not necessarily those of the source from which it is derived Ifwe accept that Matthew has used Mark as a source we must recognize that he has expandedthe source considerably at this point My argument here is that whereas the text in Mark isa digression the expansion of it in Matthew is precisely because the purpose of the text in

is superfluous to the question though not to the point of Jesusrsquo answer as weshall see

Table 37 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mt 1310b11bndash17 (Rationale)

Actor Material Goal BeneficiaryProcess

[God] δέδοται γνAumlναι τ microυστήρια

τumlc βασιlείαc τAumlν

οIcircρανAumlν IacutemOslashn

[God] οIcirc δέδοται acircκείνοιc

[God] δοθήσεται αIcircτuacute

[God] ρθήσεται ccedil ecircχει π΄ αIcircτοUuml

[God] ναπlηροUumlται προφητεία gtΗσαEgraveου

lέγουσα αIcircτοOslashc

[God] acircπαχύνθη καρδία τοUuml lαοUuml

τούτου

[the crowds] acircκάmicromicroυσαν τοIgravec aeligφθαlmicroοIgravec

αIcircτAumlν

[the crowds] acircπιστρέψωσιν [to God][God] Ecircάσοmicroαι αIcircτούc

Carrier Relational AttributeProcess

iacuteστιc ecircχει [knowledge of the mysteries][God] περισσευθήσεται [knowledge of the mysteries]iacuteστιc οIcircκ ecircχει [knowledge of the mysteries]IacutemAumln oEacute

aeligfjalmoEgrave [are] microακάριοι

tĂ Acircta IacutemAumln [are] [blessed]

Senser Mental Phenomenon CircumstanceProcess

[the crowds] οIcirc βlέπουσιν [mysteries of kingdom] βlέποντεc

[the crowds] οIcircκ κούουσιν [mysteries of kingdom] κούοντεc

[the crowds] οIcircδagrave συνίουσιν [mysteries of kingdom][the crowds] κούσετε [mysteries of kingdom] κοnot

[the crowds] οIcirc micro συνumlτε [mysteries of kingdom][the crowds] βlέψετε [mysteries of kingdom] βlέποντεc

[the crowds] οIcirc micro Ograveδητε [mysteries of kingdom][the crowds] centκουσαν [mysteries of kingdom] τοOslashc sup2σEgraveν

βαρέωc

[the crowds] Ograveδωσιν [mysteries of kingdom] τοOslashc aeligφθαlmicroοOslashc

[the crowds] κούσωσιν [mysteries of kingdom] τοOslashc sup2σEgraveν

Matthew is such that vv 10ndash17 are not a digression but the main point

[the crowds] συνAumlσιν [mysteries of kingdom] τnot καρδίoslash

[disciples] βlέπουσιν [mysteries of kingdom][disciples] κούουσιν [mysteries of kingdom]ποllοEgrave

προφumlται

καEgrave δίκαιοι acircπεθύmicroησαν

EcircδεOslashν βlέπετε

[manyprophets amprighteous] οIcircκ εUacuteδαν [mysteries of kingdom]

[prophets amprighteous] κοUumlσαι κούετε

[prophets amprighteous] οIcircκ centκουσαν [mysteries of kingdom]IacutemeOslashc (disc) κούσατε τν παραβοlν τοUuml σπείραντοc

Sayer Verbal Recipient Vbge CircumstanceProcess

[Jesus] lαlεOslashc αIcircτοOslashc δι τί

acircν παραβοlαOslashc

[Jesus] lαlAuml αIcircτοOslashc δι τοUumlτο

[Jesus] lέγω IacutemOslashn

Table 38 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mk 411bndash12 (Rationale)

Actor Material Beneficiary GoalProcess

[God] δέδοται IacutemicroOslashν tauml mustărion tĺc

basileETHac toUuml jeoUuml

[outsiders] microήποτε acircπιστρέψωσιν [God][God] φεθnot αIcircτοOslashc

Carrier Relational Attribute CircumstanceProcess

acircκείνοιc

τοOslashc ecircξω γίνεται τ πάντα acircν παραβοlαOslashc

[outsiders] βlέπωσιν [the mystery] βlέποντεc

[outsiders] micro Ograveδωσιν [the mystery][outsiders] κούωσιν [the mystery] κούοντεc

[outsiders] micro συνιAumlσιν [the mystery]

Table 39 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Lk 89b10b (Rationale)

αOtildeτη παραβοlή εOgraveη τίc

Actor Material Beneficiary Goal CircumProcess

[God] δέδοται IacutemOslashn γνAumlναι τ

microυστήρια

τumlc βασιlείαc

τοUuml θεοUuml

[God] [giving] τοOslashc lοιποOslashc [the mysteries] acircν παραβοlαOslashc

Senser Mental Phenomenon CircumProcess

[the rest] micro βlέπωσιν [the mysteries] βlέποντεc

[the rest] micro συνιAumlσιν [the mysteries] κούοντεc

In all three accounts Jesusrsquo speech prior to the interpretation of the parableconsists of material and mental process clauses17 Both of these are multipliedin Matthew but the focus is on the mental processes These are processes of see-ing hearing knowing and understanding mdash all processes of perception Mostof these mental process clauses do not have explicit Senser and Phenomenonparticipants the ldquoactivityrdquo seems to be more in focus than the ldquoobjectsrdquo How-ever the identity of the participants is not difficult to discern from the contextMost of the text is focussed on those to whom the parables are spoken ie thecrowd and on that which is given to the disciples but not to those to whom theparables are spoken ie the mysteries of the kingdom The addressees of thisspeech ie the disciples like the crowd appear as Sensers as do lsquomany prophetsand righteous onesrsquo While the latter are made explicit in the clauses in whichthey appear as participants the mysteries of the kingdom as Phenomenon mustbe inferred from the material process clauses that occur early in the discourse(v 11) IacutemicroOslashν δέδοται γνAumlναι τ microυστήρια τumlc βασιlείαc τAumlν οIcircρανAumlν acircκείνοιcδagrave οIcirc δέδοται lsquoto you has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom ofthe heavens but to those it has not been givenrsquo Those to whom Jesus speaksparables and the disciples to whom he is speaking in this section are referencedhere as Beneficiaries of the material process of giving The Goal of the process

17See Tables 37 38 and 39 The crowd to whom the parable is spoken is identified inthe tables with underlining the disciples with italic script and Jesus with boldface as in thenarrative frame tables above

is another process a mental one to know the mysteries of the kingdom of theheavens We can infer from this that the Phenomena of the mental processeslater in the discourse are also the mysteries of the kingdom

God is a major participant in this section of text especially as Actor to thematerial processes Explicit reference is avoided by use of the ldquodivine passiverdquo(Harrington 1991 195) For example in v 11 cited above God is the Actor ofthe giving process the Goal of which is to know the mysteries of the kingdomand of which the disciples are the Beneficiary God is Actor of seven of the ninematerial process clauses in this text part mdash God gives takes fulfills the wordsof the prophets hardens hearts and heals Those to whom the parables areaddressed are the Actors of the remaining material processes

The action focus of this section of discourse then is on various forms ofperception and on happenings that enable or disable that perception Theobject focus of the section is God the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavensthose to whom the parable was spoken the disciples and many prophets andrighteous ones God alone is Actor of material processes that result in peopleperceiving the mysteries of the kingdom Those who perceive them do not actto enable their perception But those who do not perceive do act to preventtheir own perception Those who perceive are not only enabled by God but arealso hearers of Jesusrsquo word mdash the many prophets and righteous ones did notdisable themselves from perceiving but lacked the opportunity to hear JesusThe field of discourse then can be described as those who hear Jesus eitherperceiving the mysteries of the kingdom as enabled by actions of God or failingto perceive the mysteries as disabled by their own actions

I have so far ignored the relational process clauses five of which occur in thissection of Matthewrsquos text and none in the parallels These clauses all attributiveprocesses may help signal the genre of the text The information conveyedthrough these attributive structures could have been included in circumstantialelements of other clauses as for example the information in Markrsquos attributiveclause in the narrative frame about the crowds standing on the shore is containedin a circumstantial element in Matthew Information that might be setting orbackground to a narrative is elevated to relational clauses when the (generic)purpose of the text is to explain rather than to tell a sequence of happenings Inthis text the attributive clauses give information about important participantsin the material and mental process clauses namely the mysteries of the kingdomGod who gives them and those to whom they are given or not given

324 Activity and Object Focus of the Parable Interpre-tation

If relational process clauses show something about the generic structure of thediscourse on the reason for speaking in parables in Matthew they are focal inthe interpretation of the parable in all three synoptic texts They account forseven of 16 clauses in Matthew (see Table 310 on page 93) eight of 22 clauses inMark (see Table 311 on page 97) and seven of 15 clauses in Luke (see Table 312on page 99) The relational process clauses in the text to this point have been

attributive clauses conveying information about participants of other processtypes In the interpretation of the parable there are a series of identifying aswell as attributing relational process clauses18 The material process clauses inthe interpretation run parallel to those of the parable that is being interpretedBut the relational processes and especially the identifying ones help to markthis part of the discourse as an explanatory text as the interpretation that itis

Table 310 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mt 1318ndash23 (Parable Interpretation)

aring πονηρaumlc ecircρχεται παντaumlc κούοντοc

τaumlν lόγον

καEgrave micro συνιέντοc

[the evil one] ρπάζει τauml acircσπαρmicroένον

acircν τnot καρδίoslash

αIcircτοUuml

[ldquothornsrdquo] σκανδαlίζεται [hearerthe word] γενοmicroένηc θlίψεωc

laquo διωγmicroοUuml δι τaumlν

lόγον εIcircθIgravec

microέριmicroνα τοUuml αEcircAumlνοc

καEgrave πάτη

τοUuml πlούτου συmicroπνίγει τaumlν lόγον

ccedilc καρποφορεOslash

[word on ldquogood soilrdquo] ποιεOslash

ccedil [yields] aacuteκατόν

ccedil [yields] aacuteξήκοντα

ccedil [yields] τριάκοντα

Token Relational ValueProcess

οOtildeτόc acircστιν aring παρ τν aringδaumlν σπαρείc

aring acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη

σπαρείc οOtildeτόc acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave εIcircθIgravec

microετ χαρc lαmicroβάνων αIcircτόν

aring εEcircc τc κάνθαc

σπαρείc οOtildeτόc acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον κούων

aring acircπEgrave τν καlν γumlν

18Identifying relational process clauses are characterized by having TokenValue partici-pants whereas attributive relational process clauses are characterized by CarrierAttributeparticipants see section 132 (Relational Processes) beginning on page 20 and Figure 14(System of Process Types) on page 24

σπαρείc οOtildeτόc acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave συνιείc

[word on rocky soil] οIcircκ ecircχει ucircίζαν acircν aacuteαυτAuml

[word on rocky soil] acircστιν πρόσκαιρόc

[word among thorns] γίνεται καρποc

Matthew gives structure to the whole interpretation with the identifyingprocess clauses After the opening interpretation of the seed falling upon thepath the first of Matthewrsquos identifying process clauses appears οOtildeτόc acircστιν aringπαρ τν aringδaumlν σπαρείc lsquothis is what was sown beside the pathrsquo The Token in thisidentifying process οOtildeτόc lsquothisrsquo has an anaphoric whole text reference that isit does not refer simply to a participant earlier in the text but to the whole textthat immediately precedes it and thus to the processparticipant configurationsthat are represented there The Value in the identifying process aring παρ τν aringδaumlνσπαρείc lsquowhat was sown beside the pathrsquo refers back to the original telling ofthe parable and in this way the identification is made between the interpretiveretelling and the event of the seed being sown on the side of the road in theparable The remaining identifying process clauses follow this pattern in makingwhole text reference links between the parable and the interpretation But theyreverse the direction of the identification by first repeating a phrase that recallsevents from the parable that is processes and participants (aring acircπEgrave τ πετρώδησπαρείc lsquothat which is sown on rocky [ground]rsquo (v 20) aring εEcircc τc κάνθαc σπαρείclsquothe one [that was] sown in the thornsrsquo (v 22) aring acircπEgrave τν καlν γumlν σπαρείc lsquotheone [that was] sown on the good soilrsquo (v 23)) and then identifying those eventswith the interpretation that follows In each of these last three cases the eventsin the parable are identified with those who hear the word (aring τaumlν lόγον κούων)under various circumstances and with varying results

The attributive process clauses draw attention to information that describesthe circumstances in which the material processes in the parable occur In thecase of the first attributive process in Table 310 the attribution of possession(οIcircκ ecircχει ucircίζαν acircν aacuteαυτAuml lsquoit has no root in itselfrsquo) refers directly back to acircumstantial element in the parable (δι τauml micro ecircχειν ucircίζαν lsquobecause it had norootrsquo) To this is added a second attribution mdash not only does the seed sown onrocky soil not take root it is temporary A similar attribution of fruitlessnessis made in the interpretation of the seed sown among the thorns In all of theseattribution clauses the Carrier participant is implicit and the referent of theCarrier must be determined from the surrounding clauses In each case theCarrier corresponds to the seeds from the parable The precise interpretationof seeds however is not straightforward In Markrsquos text as we shall see theseeds are interpreted sometimes as the word and sometimes as the hearers ofthe word In Matthew the two are not always easy to distinguish from oneanother

After always referring to the seeds in the plural in the parable in the in-

terpretation Matthew unlike Mark consistently refers to both the word andthe hearer of the word in the singular The first two of the three attributiverelational process clauses immediately follow the identifying process clause inwhich the events surrounding the sowing of seeds on rocky soil is identified withsomeone who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy The attribu-tive clauses then provide further information The three relational clauses readaring δagrave acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη σπαρείc οOtildeτόc acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave εIcircθIgravec microετ

χαρc lαmicroβάνων αIcircτόν οIcircκ ecircχει δagrave ucircίζαν acircν aacuteαυτAuml ll πρόσκαιρόc acircστιν lsquoButthat which is sown on rocky ground this is the one who hears the word andimmediately receives it with joy but heit has no root in himselfitself but istemporaryrsquo It is usually assumed that the implied subjects of the verbs ecircχειlsquohasrsquo and acircστιν lsquoisrsquo refer to aring τaumlν lόγον κούων lsquothe one who hears the wordrsquoHowever since all participants are realized by singular forms in these clausesit is grammatically possible that the implied subjects refer to τaumlν lόγον lsquothewordrsquo If this is indeed the case it is the word as the seed that does not haveroot in itself but is temporary This reading is not possible in Mark where thehearers and the attributive possessive process are both realized by plural formswhereas the word is realized by a singular form But in Matthew this readingis possible It seems plausible in light of the preceding verse (1319) in whichthe evil one snatches what is sown (the word) from the heart of one who heardbut did not understand and the following verse (1322) in which the cares ofthe age and the deceit of wealth choke the word and it (the word) becomesunfruitful If the word can be snatched out of onersquos heart choked and madeunfruitful perhaps it can also be rootless and temporary

The third attributive process clause is subject to the same interpretationThe interpretation of the sowing on good soil (1323) reads as follows aring δagrave acircπEgraveτν καlν γumlν σπαρείc οOtildeτόc acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave συνιείc ccedilc δ καρπο-

φορεOslash καEgrave ποιεOslash ccedil microagraveν aacuteκατόν ccedil δagrave aacuteξήκοντα ccedil δagrave τριάκοντα lsquoNow the one that wassown on the good soil this is the one who hears the word and understands itwhowhich indeed is fruitful and produces some a hundred-fold some sixty-foldand some thirty-foldrsquo Once again the usual reading takes ccedilc lsquowhichrsquo to refer toaring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave συνιείc lsquothe one who hears the word and understands itrsquobut it could refer to τaumlν lόγον lsquothe wordrsquo instead It makes good sense to saythat the word that was heard and understood indeed bears fruit and producesvarious yields Once again this interpretation is not an option in Mark wherethe plural forms clearly identify those who hear with those who bear fruit Butit is a possible reading in Matthew

If we are to read Matthew as consistently associating the word with theseed then one material process clause must also be reckoned with Each of theenvironments mdash the side of the path the rocky soil the thorns and the goodsoil mdash are interpreted by material process clauses that describe what happensto the seeds once sown The birds that eat the seed sown on the side of thepath in the parable are referred to in the interpretation as the evil one whosnatches away what is sown in the hearts of some of those who hear the wordThe thorns that choke the sprouting seed in the parable are referred to in theinterpretation as the cares of the age and the deceit of wealth that choke the

word that is heard before it bears fruit If we are to read Matthew as consistentlyinterpreting the seed as the word then the word also bears fruit and producesvarious yields When it comes to the rocky soil we have already seen that thereare two attributive process clauses that interpret it and both are ambiguousalthough the usual understanding of them follows the only possible reading inMark Following those relational clauses there is also a material process clausethat interprets the rocky soil γενοmicroένηc δagrave θlίψεωc laquo διωγmicroοUuml δι τaumlν lόγονεIcircθIgravec σκανδαlίζεται lsquoAnd when affliction or persecution comes because of theword heit is instantly tripped uprsquo It is not clear what the subjectGoal ofthe passive verb σκανδαlίζεται lsquois tripped uprsquo is It is not the evil one or thecares of the age The Goal is usually understood to be the one who hears andreceives the word with joy But once again the singular form grammaticallyallows for the word to be the Goal of the offense that which is presented witha barrier when afflictions and persecutions come on account of that word

It is not entirely clear what this reading would mean Yet it presents uswith an interesting question Since Matthew presented the seeds always inthe plural in his version of the parable why did he now put the seed theword and the hearers all in the singular in the interpretation There seemsto be an ambiguity in which the possibility exists of clearing up the kind ofinconsistency that Mark has in sometimes clearly identifying the seed with theword and sometimes clearly identifying it with the hearers Did Matthew seekto elevate the word in his version of the interpretation at the expense of thehearers Assuming that Matthew used Mark as a source not only did he atleast blur the inconsistency of the seedrsquos identity but he also eliminated twomaterial process clauses in which the hearers are Actor The relative clausesin Mk 416 (οEuml iacuteταν κούσωσιν τaumlν lόγον εIcircθIgravec microετ χαρc lαmicroβάνουσιν αIcircτόνlsquothe ones that when they hear the word immediately receive it with joyrsquo) andMk 420 (οNtildeτινεc κούουσιν τaumlν lόγον καEgrave παραδέχονται lsquowho hear the word andreceive itrsquo) are reduced to the substantive participles in Matthewrsquos second andfourth identifying process clauses Both clauses present the hearers as Actorof a process of receiving the word they have heard Has Matthew consistentlyreduced the role of the hearers in his interpretation in favor of the word thatthey hear

As in the parable Matthewrsquos interpretation of the parable is not about thesower It is at least arguable that his interpretation is not about the hearersof the word either Perhaps it is better to say that the word and the hearersof the word are the major participants in the processes presented to us in theinterpretation and that Matthew has given prominence to the word The seedwas the focal participant in the parable with the birds and thorns and fruitappearing also In the interpretation the word that is heard is dominant bothin the relational and material processes The word that is heard is the Carrierof all three attributing processes The word is the Goal of at least two of thematerial processes in which the word is acted upon by the evil one and thecares of the world and possibly of the third process in which affliction andpersecution cause stumbling The Actor of material processes of bearing fruitand being productive is best understood as the word Although the hearers of

the word appear as Value of the last three identifying processes it is neverthelesshearers of the word in each case the word is the Phenomenon of an embeddedmental process in each case This text is in a significant sense about the wordThe field of the discourse of the parable interpretation may be described as theresults of proclaiming the word or what happens to the word when variouspeople hear it

As a cultural activity (ie on the level of genre) we might hypothesize thatthis text follows the pattern of an allegorical interpretation References are madeback to the parable including a one-to-one identification between participantsin the parable and in this text These identifications are made both by overtidentifying process clauses and by material process clauses in which interpretivesubstitutes are made for participants in similar material process clauses fromthe parable

There are subtle but significant differences between Matthew and the parallelaccounts regarding experiential meanings at the clause rank and the field ofdiscourse that they realize In Mark for example five identifying process clausesare used but their structure is quite different than in Matthew (see Table 311)In each case the Token is realized grammatically by a demonstrative pronounstanding by itself and referring cataphorically If these demonstrative pronounswere in the singular we would perhaps read them as whole text references tothe interpretation to follow But since they are in the plural their reference isunclear By itself the clause οOtildeτοι δέ εEcircσιν οEacute παρ τν aringδaumlν lsquothese are the onesbeside the pathrsquo seems to be referring to the seeds that are sown since whatis on the side of the path in the parable is seed But in the parable the seedsown is in the singular Furthermore the very next clause seems to equate the(singular) seed from the parable with the word in saying that σπείρεται aring lόγοclsquothe word is sownrsquo The only referent to the plural demonstrative in the contextis the implied subject of the verb κούσωσιν lsquothey may hearrsquo ie those whohear This information is clear in Matthew but somewhat puzzling in MarkThe situation is equally confusing in each of the identifying processes except thefourth one in which the Value is οEacute τaumlν lόγον κούσαντεc an explicit referenceto those who hear the word a reference that is repeated three times in MatthewThe overall focus in Mark is less clear but seems to be more on the hearers thanon the word that is heard

Table 311 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Mk 413bndash20 (Parable Interpretation)

[disciples amp others] οIcircκ οOgraveδατε τν παραβοlν ταύτην

[disciples amp others] γνώσεσθε πάσαc τc παραβοlc πAumlc

οNtildeτινεc κούουσιν τaumlν lόγον

Actor Material Goal CircumProcess

aring σπείρων σπείρει τaumlν lόγον

aring Σατανc ecircρχεται iacuteταν

κούσωσιν

εIcircθIgravec

[Satan] αOgraveρει τaumlν lόγον τaumlν acircσπαρ-

microένον εEcircc αIcircτούc

οNtilde lαmicroβάνουσιν αIcircτόν iacuteταν

κούσωσιν

τaumlν lόγον

εIcircθIgravec

microετ χαρc

σκανδαlίζονται [ldquorocky soilrdquo hearers] εUacuteταγενοmicroένηc

θlίψεωc laquo

διωγmicroοUuml δι

τaumlν lόγον

εIcircθIgravec

αEacute microέριmicroναι τοUuml

αEcircAumlνοc καEgrave πάτη

τοUuml πlούτου καEgrave αEacute

περEgrave τ lοιπ acircπιθυ-

microίαι εEcircσπορευόmicroεναι συmicroπνίγουσιν τaumlν lόγον

[ldquogood soilrdquo hearers] παραδέχονται[ldquogood soilrdquo hearers] καρποφοροUumlσινatildeν [yields] τριάκοντα

atildeν [yields] aacuteξήκοντα

atildeν [yields] aacuteκατόν

οOtildeτοι εEcircσιν οEacute παρ τν aringδaumlν iacuteπου σπείρεται

aring lόγοc

οOtildeτοί εEcircσιν οEacute acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη σπειρόmicroενοι

llοι εEcircσEgraveν οEacute εEcircc τc κάνθαc σπειρόmicroενοι

οOtildeτοί εEcircσιν οEacute τaumlν lόγον κούσαντεc

acircκεOslashνοί εEcircσιν οEacute acircπEgrave τν γumlν τν καlν

σπαρέντεc

Carrier Relational Attribute CircumProcess

[ldquorocky soilrdquo] οIcircκ ecircχουσιν ucircίζαν acircν aacuteαυτοOslashc

[ldquorocky soilrdquo] εEcircσιν πρόσκαιροί

[ldquoin thornsrdquo] γίνεται καρποc

Summary and Conclusions 99

Table 312 Processes amp Participants by Process Type in Lk 811ndash15 (Parable Interpretation)

αOtildeτη ecircστιν παραβοlή

aring σπόροc acircστEgraveν aring lόγοc τοUuml θεοUuml

οEacute παρ τν aringδόν εEcircσιν οEacute κούσαντεc

οEacute acircπEgrave τumlc πέτραc [are] οEuml iacuteταν κούσωσιν microετ χαρc

δέχονται τaumlν lόγον

τauml εEcircc τc κάνθαc

πεσόν οOtildeτοί εEcircσιν οEacute κούσαντεc

τauml acircν τnot καlnot γnot οOtildeτοί εEcircσιν οNtildeτινεc acircν καρδίoslash καlnot καEgrave γαθnot

οOtildeτοι οIcircκ ecircχουσιν ucircίζαν

aring διάβοlοc ecircρχεται εUacuteτα

[the devil] αOgraveρει τaumlν lόγον πauml τumlc καρδίαc

αIcircτAumlν

[word] micro σωθAumlσιν [hearers] πιστεύσαντεc

[hearers] φίστανται [word] acircν καιρAuml πειρασmicroοUuml

Iacuteπauml microεριmicroνAumlν καEgrave

πlούτου καEgrave

δονAumlν τοUuml βίου συmicroπνίγονται [hearers] πορευόmicroενοι

[hearers] οIcirc τεlεσφοροUumlσιν

[hearers] κατέχουσιν καEgrave

καρποφοροUumlσιν [word] κούσαντεc τaumlν

lόγον

acircν Iacuteποmicroονnot

οEuml πιστεύουσιν [word] πρaumlc καιρaumlν

33 Summary and Conclusions

The nature of the textual divisions based on logical meanings resulted in anexamination of experiential meanings of the narrative frame the parable theparable rationale and the parable interpretation Because of these divisions inthe text the previous section included an analysis of the field of discourse foreach of the three utterances by the character Jesus within the context of the

narrative world of the gospel Before turning to conclusions about the field ofdiscourse of the text as a whole let us review what the analysis of this chapterhas shown us about the field of discourse of the utterances of Jesus within theinstantial situation provided by the narrative

In his first utterance in this text mdash the parable mdash Jesus is engaged in tellinga story about seeds that are sown The terms in which Jesus tells the story arenot highly technical or specialized A taxonomy of things that happen to seedswhen they are sown can be extracted from the text We have no way of know-ing whether this taxonomy reflects a description that speaker and hearer wouldrecognize as being realistic or whether it would contrast with their expectationsthus drawing attention to odd funny or even absurd descriptions of the com-monplace The taxonomy of stages of development of a seed is straightforwardIt falls to the ground springs up develops roots grows up and bears fruitunless of course something interrupts this development How far along thesestages seed gets is dependent on the type of ground on which it falls in the firststage The choices in the text include a path rocky ground thorns and goodsoil The latter is characterized as plentiful and having depth Developmentcan be arrested by birds eating the seed before it springs up the sun scorchingit so it withers before it grows up and thorns choking it before it bears fruit

Jesusrsquo second utterance mdash the explanation mdash is a response to a questionby the disciples (and others in Mark) This utterance takes the form of anexposition rather than a story A taxonomy of perception can be derived fromthe text words of seeing hearing understanding and perceiving are all used todescribe the perception or lack of perception of the mysteries of Godrsquos reignThe utterance as a whole is about the role of the major participants God andthe receivers of the message in perception of these mysteries Those to whomthe mysteries of Godrsquos reign are conveyed either perceive them truly grasp themysteries because of Godrsquos enabling actions or they fail to perceive on accountof their own disabling actions This exposition is delivered to ones who areblessed because they are among those who have grasped the mysteries

Jesusrsquo third utterance mdash the interpretation mdash is an exposition in whichthe story of the first utterance is repeated in order to identify the participantsand events of that story The seed is identified as the word and a taxonomyis developed for reception of the word that parallels the taxonomy of whathappens to sown seed in the story The word proclaimed comes to differentkinds of hearts When it is heard by one who does not perceive or understandit the evil one snatches it away out of that onersquos heart Others receive theword with joy but their reception is only temporary and then the word is goneOthers receive the word only to have it choked out by affliction or persecution mdashthe cares of this world mdash so that the word is unfruitful in them Then there arethose who hear the word and understand and the word bears fruit in them

While the field of discourse can be profitably analyzed for each of theseutterances of Jesus the utterances together contribute to the field of the largertext The utterances together with their co-text can be analyzed for field tellingus something about the context of the gospel itself specifically what is beingtalked about in that context and how knowledge is structured in that context

In the same way the individual utterances contribute to the field of discourse ofMt 131ndash23 as a whole Mt 131ndash23 in turn contributes to the field of discourseof the whole gospel The field of discourse of Mt 131ndash23 can be described asan explanation of why the word proclaimed by Jesus is sometimes understoodand accepted and sometimes not19 Jesus is presented in an authoritative rolein relationship both to the disciples and to the crowds But he does not relateto these two groups in the same way Jesus sat by the lake and taught thepeople as he sat on the mountain and taught in the Sermon on the Mount buthe answered a question in private to explain what he was doing and why to thedisciples This is different from Mark in which the contrast between the disciplesand others is not as clear It is the disciples and others with them in Mark whoask Jesus about the parable and the disciples clearly do not understand anymore than the crowds do they must ask Jesus the meaning of the parable andreceive an interpretation There is a mystery about Jesus in Mark that is asdifficult for the disciples to penetrate as for the crowds In Matthew as in Lukethere is a clear differentiation between the disciples and the crowds Jesus doesnot simply reveal to the disciples what they did not understand he offers anexplanation why people have responded to him as they have

The ldquoexplanationrdquo that Jesus gives in response to the disciplesrsquo questioncontinues to distinguish between two groups of people those who understandthe mysteries of Godrsquos kingdom and those who do not The ldquoexplanationrdquo isnot irrelevant to the parable as it is interpreted in Matthew The parable isabout what happens to seed after it is sown in various environments Someenvironments are resistant to the seed or too harsh for it to grow There area variety of things in a resistant environment that will prevent the seed fromhaving the necessary time to thrive In the same way there is a variety ofpeople who are exposed to the mysteries of the kingdom but ultimately only tworesults some perceive the mysteries and some fail to do so The ldquoexplanationrdquodoes not address the factors in the hostile environment that limit the timethat the mysteries of the kingdom have to take root and grow But it doesaddress the nature of the resistance with which the mysteries are met as wellas the conditions under which perception and understanding are possible Themysteries are of Godrsquos kingdom and if anyone understands them it is becauseGod revealed them Godrsquos enabling is a necessary condition to understandingbut not a sufficient one Many fail to understand not because they have notheard but because of their own resistance

The interpretation of the parable continues the contrast between those whounderstand and those who donrsquot with special focus on the word that is themessage that is given The parable is interpreted in terms of the seed as theword of God that has been spoken to people whose hearts comprise a varietyof environments for that word But the word is not productive in every heartJust as there are environments hostile to seed so there are hearts that areunreceptive to Godrsquos word And just as there are creatures and forces of nature

19So also Daniel J Harrington (1991 199) ldquoWhat especially concerned Matthew was Jesusrsquoreason for speaking in parables and the contrasting reactions to his parablesrdquo

that will devour or otherwise prevent a seed from taking root and growing if ithas not started to do so quickly so there are spiritual beings and forces thatwill remove the opportunity for the word of God to be productive in a humanheart if that heart provides a hostile environment Kingsbury (1969 51 63)correctly saw that the context of Mt 131ndash23 includes a distinction betweenunbelieving Jews and the followers of Jesus But he did not distinguish clearlybetween the activity of Jesus within the narrative of Matthew and Matthewrsquosown activity in the text He read the first part of the parable chapter (131ndash35)as having predominantly an apologetic function aimed at the unbelieving JewsHe also read the explanation and interpretation of the parable (vv 10ndash23) asthough they were addressed to the disciples of Matthewrsquos day not just to Jesusrsquodisciples within the narrative A secondary function of the interpretation inparticular is the paraenetic function of urging sympathetic hearers to make surethat they hear the word aright and both know and do the will of God Thisparaenetic function resembles the implied warning that du Plessis (1987 53)saw ldquobetween the linesrdquo of the text A warning can be derived from this textbut we are perhaps safer to say with du Plessis that it is implied by the textrather than to say that warning is a function of the text in its own context asthe text of Mark is more likely to be As for the dominant function of the textdu Plessis differs from Kingsbury in reading the text as a promise that even thelack of understanding is in accordance with Godrsquos plan and that the success ofthe word is assured in the end On the basis of the field analysis alone it isperhaps more precise simply to say that the text functions in its own contextto explain why the word that Jesus proclaimed was fruitful in the lives of somepeople and not in others

Whether this explanation functioned as an apologetic toward unbelievingJews or as a promise for believers in a hostile environment the field analysis ofthis portion of text does not tell us A field analysis of the entire gospel wouldtell us more about what Matthew was talking about and with regard to whatWe can also expect to learn more about the function of the text with respect toaddresser and addressee from an examination of the contextual variable tenoran analysis of which I will take up in the next chapter

Chapter 4

Interpersonal Meanings andTenor of Discourse

The context in which a text is produced includes more than ldquowhat is going onwith regard to whatrdquo It includes participants A text may or may not explicitlyidentify the participants However something of the relationship between theparticipants is embedded in the text This part of the context having to do withsocial relationships is the tenor of discourse In the first chapter we definedtenor of discourse as the negotiation of social relationships among participantsin social action (who are taking part in the exchange) and the interacting roles ofthose involved in the exchange of which the text is part Tenor can be analyzedin terms of status contact and affect (Poynton 1985)1 Status relevant to tenoris the degree to which the participants in an exchange are equal or unequal inrelation to one another Contact between the participants is also measured ona cline between the extremes of frequent and occasional contact Affect canbe measured on two independent clines high to low and positive to negativeAffect differs from status and contact in that it may be neutral and thus notmarked as either positive or negative (Martin 1992 526 Figure 713) Statuscontact and affect are each realized by interpersonal meanings in a text Ingeneral tenor can be identified as more formal mdash higher status or higher degreeof status differential lower degree of contact andor lower degree of affect mdash orless formal mdash lower status or lower degree of status differential higher degreeof contact andor higher degree of affect

1The specific definitions and descriptions of status contact and affect used here are fromLinda Gerot (1995 66)

104 Interpersonal Meanings and Tenor

41 Interpersonal Meanings Limitations on theAnalysis of Written Texts

There are certain limitations in analyzing the tenor of an ancient text suchas Matthew It was noted in chapter one that information structure tends tobe realized by patterns of tonic prominence In the same way interpersonalmeanings that directly realize aspects of tenor (ie status contact and affect)are themselves realized in part by intonation patterns or ldquotone of voicerdquo As wehave already noted we do not have access to these intonation patterns We arelimited in the kinds of interpersonal meanings of which we can take account

A further limitation is the relative nature of tenor We have just noted thatstatus contact and affect are measured on clines These aspects of tenor arerelative to the particular participants and the particular situation For examplethe status of participants is higher or lower in relation to one another not inrelation to a fixed standard Furthermore just as intonation carries prosodicallyover multiple grammatical constituents so tenor is not realized by any particu-lar constituent but across whole texts As J R Martin (1992 528) puts it ldquoForthe most part it is a pattern of interpersonal choices across a text which is mean-ingful not the individual choices themselves Indeed the notion of reciprocityimplies that a number of choices have to be examined from the perspective ofdifferent participants for tenor to be realised at allrdquo When analyzing an an-cient written text not only do we not have access to intonation but we do nothave access to responses and give-and-take as we do in conversational analysisFor example ldquoequal status among interlocutors is realised by them taking upthe same kinds of choices whereas unequal status is realised by them takingup different onesrdquo (Martin 1992 527) While we can compare the interper-sonal meanings across the text produced by interlocutors within the narrativeof Matthew Matthewrsquos Gospel does not include the responses of interlocutors

Nevertheless profitable analysis of tenor in our texts can be done SuzanneEggins (1994) applied her analysis of tenor to written as well as oral conver-sational texts with a focus on interpersonal meanings at the clause level Shenoted that imperative clauses functioned in a written text that was dominatedby declarative clauses to signal that the declaratives were not just informationbut ldquoadvicerdquo ie goods and services Thus the presence of the imperativesserved as an indicator of the expert status of the writer In the same text el-lipsis created a rhetorical interactive context reducing the distance created bythe status differential (Eggins 1994 314) A text with a low level of modalityindicates that the writer was not getting people to do things but was ratheroffering information andor goods and services (Eggins 1994 315) also indi-cating a low degree of status andor contact Use of verbal modality ratherthan modal adjuncts indicates that the arguability of propositions centers onthe degree of modality (Eggins 1994 316) and thus also a high degree of statusandor contact Furthermore the higher the proportion of Adjuncts in a textthe higher the proportion of meanings made in the text are made as ldquonon-corenon-arguable informationrdquo (Eggins 1994 315) This has to do with strategies of

Status Contact and Affect 105

creating and protecting authority It may be that the information was presentedas non-arguable because it came from personal experience or that ldquothe writeris making it more difficult for readers to dispute his claimsrdquo (Eggins 1994 315)Conclusions such as these from written texts hold out promise that fruitful anal-ysis of tenor in Matthew would be possible within the limitations that we havewith ancient written texts Our starting point is the recognition of interpersonalmeanings realized in the grammar of clauses that tend to signal differences ofstatus degrees of contact and affect

42 Status Contact and Affect GrammaticalRealizations

Although his analysis of tenor focuses on conversation in which the speech ofparticipants can be compared J R Martin offers a helpful list of grammat-ical signals of varying degrees of status contact and affect He distinguishesbetween dominance and deference as the extremes of the cline in exploring therealization of unequal status (Martin 1992 528ndash529) A participant of dominantstatus tends not to use ellipsis whereas a participant of deferential status tendsto use ellipsis in answering to the dominant participant thus not setting theagenda or terms of argumentation Similarly dominance is marked by polarityasserted versus the matched (agreeing) polarity of deference From a position ofdominance modalization tends to be high but low from a deferential positionThe dominant party tends to use modulation of obligation the deferential partymodulation of inclination Another dominant characteristic is manifest expres-sion of attitude whereas concurring attitude is a characteristic of deferenceLikewise the dominant party presents comments whereas the deferential partyinvites comments Use of familiar vocatives is dominant and use of respectfulvocatives is deferential Use of first person is characteristic of dominant use ofsecond person characteristic of deferential The dominant initiates challengesand controls turn-taking The deferential responds tracks and respects turn-taking Eggins (1994 193) expressed the idea of status as a question of whogets to do the talking both in terms of how often and for how long each timeStatus is also reflected in the interpersonal functions at the level of the clausewhat do speakers do when they get to talk Do they give or demand Typi-cally teachers demand information students give it Salespersons offer goodsand services clients demand them Eggins (1994 194) notes that modalizationshows deference to a person of higher status as well as showing politeness inequal status situations or low contact situations

The cline on which contact is measured ranges from involved to uninvolvedPatterns of involved contact vary by social activity mdash family work and recre-ation mdash and by whether the contact is regular or occasional Uninvolved contactincludes phatic contact with neighbors and shopkeepers and one-time contactwith strangers (Martin 1992 530) Involved (informal) versus uninvolved (moreformal) contact is realized in the grammar by use of minor versus major clauses

Mood ellipsis2 versus no ellipsis Mood contraction versus no contraction use ofvocative versus no vocative range of names versus single name and nick-nameversus full name In the discourse semantics involved versus uninvolved contactis characterized by dialogue versus monologue homophoric versus endophoricreference and implicit versus explicit conjunction Modalization can also sig-nal interactantsrsquo recognition of infrequent contact between them as a politenessindicator rather than the speakerrsquos judgments about probability (Eggins 1994195)

Affect unlike status and contact is not always manifest in a text It is morelikely in equal status situations or at the discretion of the dominant party andin involved contact situations (Martin 1992 533) Affect is realized in the gram-mar by iteration of exclamatives comment adjuncts minor expressive clausesintensification repetition prosodic nominal groups diminuatives mental affec-tion and manner degree In discourse semantics attitude is realized by lack ofnegotiation and challenging (Martin 1992 535) Affect distinctions are madebetween satisfaction security and fulfillment (positive) and discord insecurityand frustration (negative) At the same time affect can be distinguished asself-oriented or other-oriented and as predisposition or surge of affect

In this chapter we will examine the grammatical devices that realize inter-personal meanings in our texts focusing on meanings realized at the clauselevel We will begin by examining the interpersonal meanings in the narrativeframe and then in the direct discourse material mdash first the parable then therationale then the interpretation mdash in the same way we examined experientialmeanings in the previous chapter We will draw conclusions about tenor bothin the constructed context within the narrative involving Jesus the disciplesand the crowd as participants and the tenor of discourse that exists betweenMatthew and those to whom he was writing seen primarily in the narrativeframe Unless we assume that Matthew was providing complete transcriptionsof actual oral exchanges between Jesus the disciples and the crowds we musttake into account the limited nature of the direct discourse material We cannotexpect it to provide the full range of interpersonal meanings as in a naturallyoccurring exchange but a denser and more artificial set of meanings controlledby the narrator for his purposes Nevertheless the interpersonal meanings inthe direct discourse material are a significant part of the overall meaning ofthe text The tenor of the discourse between Jesus and other participants inthe gospel is very much a part of the meaning of the overall narration Wewill examine the implications of this for the tenor of the text as a whole in theconclusion to this chapter

The interpersonal elements that realize tenor at the clause rank in the gospeltexts will be displayed throughout this chapter in tables that are derived frominterpersonal analyses of Matthew 131ndash23 and parallels which are shown in

2By Mood is meant the elements of the clause that realize choices from the Mood systemnamely the Subject and finite Predicate These elements are frequently not repeated whena person of equal or lesser status in an exchange is responding and the Subject and finitePredicate are given in the utterance to which the person is responding

the appendices3 Only the structural elements that are directly relevant to theanalysis of tenor will be displayed in the tables of interpersonal elements Re-gardless of the order these elements actually occur in the texts they will bedisplayed Adjuncts first then Predicate Subject and finally Complements Ad-juncts on the whole are not relevant to the analysis of interpersonal meaningsat the clause rank4 Interpersonal Adjuncts however have direct relevance andwill be displayed when they occur in the first column of the tables Interper-sonal meanings are structured in clauses primarily in Predicates and SubjectsThe Subject as defined in chapter one is the structural element in which isvested the success or failure of the assertion of a proposition Complements area part of the argument or assertion being made that could have been Subjectbut are not The appendices from which these interpersonal elements are de-rived also provide lexical and grammatical glosses as well as free translations ofeach clause

421 Status Contact and Affect in the Narrative Frame

On the whole the ldquotonerdquo or tenor of the narrative frame in which the exchangebetween Jesus the crowd and the disciples takes place is rather formal andlacking in interesting interpersonal features We note first from Table 41 thatthere are no interpersonal Adjuncts such as vocatives or indications of polar-ity in Matthewrsquos narrative frame nor are there any in Markrsquos or Lukersquos (seeTable 42 and Table 43) Such a lack can be accounted for by distance betweenwriter and reader by higher status on the part of the writer such as authorityor both There is also a lack of affect ie affect is not indicated

Table 41 Interpersonal Elements in Mt 131ndash3 10 11 (NarrativeFrame)

Predicate5 Subject Complementacircκάθητο aring gtΙησοUumlc

συνήχθησαν icircχlοι ποllοί

εEacuteστήκει πc aring icircχlοc

acirclάlησεν [he]6 αIcircτοOslashc ποll

εUacuteπαν οEacute microαθηταEgrave αIcircτAuml

εUacuteπεν aring ποκριθεEgravec αIcircτοOslashc

3Appendix A beginning on p 177 Appendix B beginning on p 197 and Appendix Cbeginning on p 215

4The amount of information contained in Adjuncts is relevant to tenor indirectly insofaras information contained in Adjuncts is information that might have been put ldquoat riskrdquo inpropositions or proposals but was not The significance of this distribution of information willbe discussed below

5All Predicates in tables throughout this chapter are statements except where noted6Subjects implied by the verb morphology appear in brackets Information in Predicate or

Complements that has been ellipsed will also appear in brackets

Table 42 Interpersonal Elements in Mk 41ndash2 9 10ndash11 13 (Nar-rative Frame)

Predicate Subject Complement(s)centρξατο διδάσκειν [he]συνάγεται icircχlοc πlεOslashστοc

ordfσαν πc aring icircχlοc

acircδίδασκεν [he] αIcircτοIgravec ποllά

ecirclεγεν [he] αIcircτοOslashc

ecirclεγεν [he]ρώτων οEacute περEgrave αIcircτaumlν σIgraveν τοOslashc δώδεκα αIcircτaumlν τσπαραβοlάc

[[acircγένετο [dummy subject] κατ microόναc ]]7

lέγει [he] αIcircτοOslashc

Table 43 Interpersonal Elements in Lk 84 8 9ndash10 (NarrativeFrame)

Predicate Subject ComplementεUacuteπεν [he]acircφώνει [he]acircπηρώτων οEacute microαθηταEgrave αIcircτου αIcircτaumlν

εUacuteπεν aring

The Predicates are also lacking in interesting interpersonal features All ofthe clauses in the narrative frames realize the exchange role of statement Thereare no questions or imperatives There are only straightforward assertions of-ferings of information There is no modality mdash no negation or denial no implicitcommands through modulation and no softening of assertions through modal-ization whether for reasons of uncertainty or of politeness Again these kindsof interpersonal meanings expressed through the Predicate are consistent witha formal tone The exclusive use of statements indicates a giving of informationin an authoritative way The information is asserted in a manner in which it isexpected to be readily accepted as authoritative and not to be negotiated

The Subjects in the narrative frame also indicate a formal tenor Thereare not any first or second person Subjects to indicate close interaction on apersonal level The Subjects are limited to the participants in the exchangeto which the narrative frame gives context namely Jesus the crowd and thedisciples The only potential Subject aside from these three participants is areference to the many things (ποll) that Jesus is about to say to the crowd asreported in the narrative Markrsquos narrative frame gives more prominence to the

7Double brackets surround embedded (non-ranking) clauses the analyses of which followthe clauses in which they are embedded in the appendices

crowd as Subject ie makes more assertions the success or failure of which arevested in the crowd In Lukersquos abbreviated narrative frame (only four majorclauses) the crowd is not Subject at all Assertions are only made concerningJesus and the disciples

Subjects about which propositions are asserted are also limited by placinginformation in Adjuncts8 Table 44 shows the numbers of circumstantial andconjunctive Adjuncts which account for all of the Adjuncts in the narrativeframes Information in circumstantial Adjuncts is information that is potentiallyconveyed through propositions Table 45 shows that a total of six infinitivaland participial phrases are used as Adjuncts (circumstantial Adjuncts) in onlysix ranking clauses in the narrative frame of Matthew These non-finite clausescommunicate information without putting it ldquoat riskrdquo In other words it isnot the case that this information is asserted without expectation that it willbe disputed as it might have been using non-modalized propositions rather itis not asserted in a proposition that can be argued at all but is ldquoprotectedrdquoinformation not open to dispute This further enhances the authority with whichthe information of the narrative is conveyed There is some contrast betweenMark and the other gospels on this point While the narrative is put forwardby straightforward statements much more of it is ldquoput at riskrdquo and much lessconveyed through non-finite clauses in Mark The effect of this is a less formaltone less distance between writer and reader Although the writer still projectsa status of authority in delivering the narrative perhaps the degree of dominantstatus is less than in Matthew and Luke As we will see in the next chapterthe high proportion of circumstantial Adjuncts per ranking clause in Matthewand Luke also contributes to a higher density of information a characteristicof a more ldquowrittenrdquo mode also associated with a more formal tenor Thehigh proportion of Adjuncts in Mark on the other hand is accounted for by ahigh proportion of Conjunctive Adjuncts that do not increase the informationdensity but are associated with higher contact less formal situations and thusalso with a more ldquooralrdquo mode

Table 44 Types of Adjuncts in the Narrative Frame

Type of Adjunct Matthew Mark LukeCircumstantial 9 8 3Conjunctive 5 9 3total Adjuncts 14 17 6total ranking clauses 6 9 4

8Adjuncts other than those that directly express interpersonal meanings (Mood PolarityComment etc) do not appear in Tables displaying interpersonal structural elements of clausesin this chapter See Appendices A B and C for full analysis of Adjuncts

Table 45 Types of Non-major Clauses in Adjuncts in the Narra-tive Frame

Type of Clause in an Adjunct Matthew Mark Lukeinfinitival phrase 2 1 0participial phrase 4 0 2embedded finite clause 0 1 1total ranking clauses 6 9 4

422 Status Contact and Affect in the Parable

As we have seen the narrative frame is a rather small part of the text beforeus Most of the text consists of direct discourse material We saw in the pre-vious chapter that the experiential meanings in the narrative frame indicatea teaching activity This conclusion about the context of situation within thenarrative is strengthened by the interpersonal meanings realized within the dis-course material but it is also modified The teaching activity is understood asone in an expert role offering expert advice to non-experts (ie offering goodsand services not just information) rather than as one demanding informationof another and then critiquing the information offered in return Jesusrsquo higherstatus as ldquoexpertrdquo is realized in part by the fact that he ldquocontrols the floorrdquo inthe exchange that takes place in this text He initiates the exchange and doesnot ask for information Instead he offers information but the demands hemakes on his hearers indicate that the information is in fact advice offered fortheir potential benefit

The structural elements that realize interpersonal meanings at the clauserank in the parable in Matthew Mark and Luke are displayed in Table 46Table 47 and Table 48 respectively These tables show structural elementsfor all finite clauses whether they are ranking clauses or embedded in order toshow all Subjects Predicates and Interpersonal Adjuncts9 From these Tables itbecomes immediately obvious that there are more interpersonal elements in theparable than in the narrative framework in which it is set although there arestill not a large number of such elements As in the narrative frame most clausesare statements (the declarative ranking clauses in Table 49) The Subjects putat risk in these statements are predominantly seeds but also the sower whosows them birds that devour them and thorns that choke them The criticaldifference is the third person imperative κουέτω lsquoone must hearrsquo with whichthe parable ends in all three gospels The fact that this imperative is thirdperson rather than second person indicates a greater distance and formality ofthe parable than it would have if the hearers were addressed directly rather thanvia the third person description aring ecircχων Acircτα lsquothe one having earsrsquo (aring ecircχων Acircτακούειν lsquothe one having ears to hearrsquo in Luke and ccedilc ecircχει Acircτα κούειν lsquowhoeverhas ears to hearrsquo in Mark) Nevertheless the force of the imperative at theend of the parable after all of the statements making up the parable turns the

9See note 16

information into ldquoadvicerdquo (Eggins 1994 314) at the very least and possiblyalso warning

Table 46 Interpersonal Elements in Mt 133ndash9 (Parable)

Adjunct Predicate Subject ComplementEcircδοIgrave acircξumllθεν aring σπείρων

ecircπεσεν

κατέφαγεν τ πετειν αIcircτά

ecircπεσεν llα

[[iacuteπου οIcircκ εUacuteχεν [it] γumlν ποllήν]]

acircξανέτειlεν [it]acircκαυmicroατίσθη [it]acircξηράνθη [it]ecircπεσεν llα

νέβησαν αEacute κανθαι

ecircπνιξαν [they] αIcircτά

acircδίδου [it] καρπόν

[was giving]10 ccedil aacuteκατόν

[was giving] ccedil aacuteξήκοντα

[was giving] ccedil τριάκοντα

κουέτω (command) aring ecircχων Acircτα

Table 47 Interpersonal Elements in Mk 43ndash8 (Parable)

Adjunct Predicate Subject Complementκούετε (command) [you all]

EcircδοIgrave acircξumllθεν aring σπείρων

acircγένετο11 [dummy subject]

ecircπεσεν ccedil

ordflθεν τ πετειν

κατέφαγεν [they] αIcircτό

ecircπεσεν llο

acircξανέτειlεν [it]acircκαυmicroατίσθη [it]

[[ νέτειlεν aring iexcllιοc ]]acircξηράνθη [it]ecircπεσεν llο

συνέπνιξαν αIcircτό

οIcircκ ecircδωκεν [it] καρπaumlν

10Information that has been ellipsed from an elliptical clause appears in brackets

acircδίδου [it] καρπaumlν

ecircφερεν atildeν τριάκοντα

[was bearing] atildeν aacuteξήκοντα

[was bearing] atildeν aacuteκατόν

κουέτω (command) ccedilc ecircχει Acircτα κούειν

Table 48 Interpersonal Elements in Lk 85ndash8 (Parable)

Predicate Subject Complementacircξumllθεν aring σπείρων τοUuml σπεOslashραι

τaumlν σπόρον αIcircτοUuml

κατεπατήθη [it]κατέφαγεν τ πετειν τοUuml οIcircρανοUuml αIcircτό

κατέπεσεν eacuteτερον

acircξηράνθη [it]ecircπεσεν eacuteτερον

πέπνιξαν αEacute κανθαι αIcircτό

ecircπεσεν eacuteτερον

acircποίησεν [it] καρπaumlν acircκατονταπlασίονα

κουέτω (command) aring ecircχων Acircτα κούειν

This advicewarning tone of the parable is strengthened by the use of EcircδοIgravelsquolookrsquo at the beginning of the parable in Matthew and Mark but not in LukeAlthough I have analyzed its function as an interpersonal Adjunct EcircδοIgrave is secondperson imperative in form and carries this force whether understood as an in-terpersonal Adjunct or as an imperative (Geulich 1998 192) Mark additionallyhas a prior second person imperative κούετε lsquohearrsquo to open the parable Thisdoes not have only the effect of enclosing the parable in a framework calling forattentive hearing (Geulich 1998 195) which is also accomplished in Matthewand Luke without the opening imperative Additionally it raises the affect andcontact level of the text by opening the parable not only with a command butwith a second person

Subject indicating that Jesus is demanding something directly from his hear-ers The advicewarning tone of the parable is thus least subtle in Mark andmost subtle in Luke This lower level of affect and contact together with thelack of elliptical statements in Luke (see Table 49) indicate a more formal tenorin Luke than in Matthew or Mark

11There is a ldquoSemitic idiom behind kaEgrave acircgegraveneto with finite verb following temporal clauseto express a past eventrdquo(Geulich 1998 188) The idiom is a type of grammatical metaphorin which a circumstantial element describing the setting for the following text is realized asa separate clause with a dummy subject The clause has been analyzed here literally ratherthan metaphorically

Table 49 Mood in the Parable of the Sower (ranking clauses only)

Mood class Matthew Mark Lukefull declarative 12 16 10elliptical declarative 3 2 0imperative 1 2 1total ranking clauses 16 20 11

The Adjuncts in ranking clauses in the parable shown in Table 410 areagain revealing of the information that is conveyed in the parable but not madesubject to argument by being expressed in propositions There are a largenumber of circumstantial Adjuncts in the parable indicating information thatprovides setting for the narrative of the parable but is not open to disputeThe circumstantials are in the highest proportion to the total number of rank-ing clauses in Luke contributing to a higher lexical density which is consistentwith the generally more formal tone of Lukersquos parable Luke keeps the parablefrom sounding completely written and formal through a high proportion of Con-junctive Adjuncts as well While the proportion of Conjunctive Adjuncts arenot as high in Matthew and Mark the existence of negation a Continuity Ad-junct and the lower number of total Adjuncts (indicating lower lexical density)together indicate a less formal tenor

Table 410 Types of Adjuncts in the Parable of the Sower

Type of Adjunct Matthew Mark LukeCircumstantial 10 11 9Polarity 1 1 0Conjunctive 15 17 10Continuity 1 1 0total Adjuncts 27 30 19total ranking clauses 16 21 11

Table 411 supports the conclusions reached on the basis of interpersonalelements that Luke is the most formal and Mark the least formal in the telling ofthe parable A high proportion of infinitive and participial phrases as Adjuncts(one for every two ranking clauses) in Lukersquos version of the parable indicates alarger amount of information in each proposition Less of the total informationcontained in Lukersquos parable is open to dispute than in Matthew (slightly lessthan one non-finite phrase for every three ranking clauses) and even less thanin Mark (slightly more than one infinitival or participial phrase for every fourranking clauses) Once again the degree of contact andor the higher statusdifferential between participants in the context of situation is greatest in Lukersquostext and least in Markrsquos by comparison

Table 411 Types of Non-major Clauses in Adjuncts in the Parableof the Sower

423 Status Contact and Affect in the Parable Rationale

The pattern of interpersonal meanings shifts somewhat in Matthew with thedisciplesrsquo question to Jesus following the parable The exchange is no longerbetween Jesus and the crowds but between Jesus and his disciples One aspectof tenor that does not change in this shift is that the status between Jesus andthose with whom he is interacting is clearly unequal We can note immediatelythe obvious interpersonal markers of status differential between the interactantsin this part of Matthewrsquos text Most obvious is the sheer volume of directdiscourse attributed to Jesus This part of our text is an exchange betweenthe disciples and Jesus in which their utterance totals one ranking clause andhis totals 33 ranking clauses to say that Jesus ldquocontrols the floorrdquo in thisconversation is an understatement In addition the meanings expressed in thediscourse of both the disciples and Jesus show Jesus to have a higher status thanthe disciples although the degree of contact is also high reducing the overalllevel of formality of the text We note first that the disciplesrsquo only speech isin the form of a question (the first line of Table 412) which Jesus answers atlength They use second person forms referring to him and he uses first personforms referring to himself as well as second person forms referring to themIn this exchange they are oriented toward him and their speech functions todemand information from him In contrast he is not oriented to them to thesame extent but is self-referential in his speech and his speech functions tooffer information Apart from the control of the exchange Jesus exercises byholding the floor then the interpersonal meanings realized by speech functionand person also establish status differential in favor of Jesus

Table 412 Interpersonal Elements in Mt 1311ndash17 (Rationale)

Adj Predicate Subject Compl∆ι τί lαlεOslashc (question) [you] αIcircτοOslashc

[lαlAgrave]12 [I] [αIcircτοOslashc]

δέδοται (answer) γνAgraveναι τ microυστήρια τumlc

βασιlείαc τAgraveν οIcircρανAgraveν IacutemicroOslashν

οIcirc δέδοται (answer) [it] acircκείνοιc

12In this case an entire ranking clause has been ellipsed See the discussion of ellipsis in thistext below

ecircχει iacuteστιc [it]δοθήσεται [it] αIcircτuacute

περισσευθήσεται [it]οIcircκ ecircχει iacuteστιc [it]

ρθήσεται καEgrave ccedil ecircχει π αIcircτοUuml

[[ ecircχει [he] ccedil ]]lαlAgrave (answer) [I] αIcircτοOslashc

οIcirc βlέπουσιν [they]οIcircκ κούουσιν [they]οIcircδagrave συνίουσιν [they]

ναπlηροUumlται προφητεία gtΗσαEgraveου

κούσετε [you all]οIcirc micro συνumlτε (modalized) [you all]

βlέψετε [you all]οIcirc micro Ograveδητε (modalized) [you all]

acircπαχύνθη καρδία τοUuml lαοUuml τούτου

centκουσαν [they]acircκάmicromicroυσαν [they] τοIgravec aeligφθαl-

microοIgravec αIcircτAgraveν

microήποτε Ograveδωσιν (modalized) [they][microήποτε] κούσωσιν (mod) [they][microήποτε] συνAgraveσιν (mod) [they][microήποτε] acircπιστρέψωσιν (mod) [they][microήποτε] Ecircάσοmicroαι (mod) [I] αIcircτούc

[are] IacutemicroAgraveν οEacute aeligφθαlmicroοEgrave microακάριοι

βlέπουσιν [they][are] τ Acircτα IacutemicroAgraveν [microακάριοι]κούουσιν [they]

microν lέγω [I] IacutemicroOslashν

acircπεθύmicroησαν EcircδεOslashν ποllοEgrave προφumlται καEgrave δίκαιοι βlέπετε

[[ βlέπετε [you all] ]]οIcircκ εUacuteδαν [they]

[acircπεθύmicroησαν] EcircδεOslashν [ποllοEgrave προφumlται

καEgrave δίκαιοι] κούετε

[[ κούετε [you all] ]]οIcircκ centκουσαν [they]

The presence of first and second person forms in the direct discourse indicatesdegree of contact as well as status differential Jesusrsquo initial answer to theirquestion contains a second person reference and he refers to them with secondperson references several times in his reply to them especially toward the endof the rationale when he pronounces them blessed The fact that he does makestatements about them using second person forms (especially since the natureof their question was not about themselves) softens the status gap that existsbetween them and indicates a degree of contact higher than is indicated in Jesusrsquo

speech to the crowd in the parable13

The situation is somewhat different in Mark (see Table 413 apart fromthe fact that Jesusrsquo answer is considerably shorter than in Matthew We havealready seen in the previous chapter that the experiential meanings in the nar-rative frame do not as clearly distinguish between Jesusrsquo disciples and the restof the crowd as is done in Matthew Furthermore a conversation as such isnot recorded and the question put to Jesus (by ldquothose around him with thetwelverdquo) as indicated in the narrative frame is not clear What is clear is thatthey asked about the parable What Jesus says in Mk 411ndash12 then does notseem to be to the point of what is asked but the interpretation following doesseem to be to the point Jesus does immediately address those around him inthe second person and distinguishes them from ldquothose on the outsiderdquo to whomthe mysteries of Godrsquos kingdom will not come through this interpretation ofthe parable On the whole the tenor of the situation is not very different inMark than in Matthew The major difference is that the addressees to whomJesus relates in Mark seem to be a subset of those addressed by the parablerather than entirely distinct from them as in Matthew As a result the changeor difference in tone from the parable to the rationale is less in Mark than inMatthew

Table 413 Interpersonal Elements in Mk 411ndash12 (Rationale)

Adjunct Predicate Subject Complementδέδοται τauml microυστήριον

τοUuml θεοUuml IacutemicroOslashν

γίνεται τ πάντα acircκείνοιc τοOslashc ecircξω

βlέπωσιν (modalized)micro Ograveδωσιν (mod) [they]

κούωσιν (mod) [they]micro συνιAgraveσιν (mod) [they]microήποτε

(possibility) acircπιστρέψωσιν (mod) [they]φεθnot (mod) [it] αIcircτοOslashc

The distinction between the parable and the rationale section is strongest inLuke in terms of the relationship between the participants and their speechroles (see Table 414) Like Matthew and unlike Mark Luke clearly distin-guishes the disciples from those to whom the parable was addressed Luke alsomakes clear the nature of the question asked by the disciples However likeMark and unlike Matthew the rationale for speaking in parables does not an-swer the question and is even briefer in Luke than in Mark Thus Jesus comesmore quickly to the point of the question in Luke which is the interpretation

13ldquoThere is a clear line between the disciples of Jesus and the othersrdquo (Harrington 1991195) This line is indicated by the interpersonal meanings in the text

of the parable The speech functions of Jesusrsquo immediate response prior toturning to the interpretation heightens the difference in tone between the for-mal language of the parable addressed to the crowd and the informal languageaddressed to the disciples Because it is clear that the question concerns theparable (not the reason for speaking in parables) the immediate reply is not ananswer supporting the questioner but a disclaimer confronting the questionerConfronting responses indicate a lower degree of formality mdash either more equalstatus between participants higher degree of contact or higher degree of affectIn light of the unequal status indicated by the overall direct discourse text (asin the other gospels the disciples demand and Jesus offers information andJesus controls the floor) it is likely that this disclaimer indicates a high degreeof affect andor a degree of contact between Jesus and the disciples that is notevident between Jesus and the crowd

Table 414 Interpersonal Elements in Lk 810 (Rationale)

pol Predicate Subject ComplementεOgraveη (question modalized) αOtildeτη παραβοlή τίc

δέδοται (disclaimer) γνAgraveναι τ microυστήρια τumlc

βασιlείαc τοUuml θεοUuml IacutemicroOslashν

[has been given] [this] τοOslashc lοιποOslashc

micro βlέπωσιν (modalized) [they]micro συνιAgraveσιν (modalized) [they]

The Subjects at risk in the propositions asserted by Jesus in Matthew referpredominantly to those to whom Jesus spoke the parable (see Table 412) Theinitial propositions in Jesusrsquo answer assert that the Subject γνAgraveναι τ microυστήριατumlc βασιlείαc τAgraveν οIcircρανAgraveν lsquoto know the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavensrsquois given to the disciples but not to those to whom the parable was spokensetting up a contrast between those who possess knowledge of the mysteriesof the kingdom and those who do not Most of the propositions that followmake assertions concerning those who are not given and thus do not possessit including second person references in the citation from Isaiah which alsorefer indirectly to those to whom Jesus addressed the parable While Jesusspeaks directly to and about his disciples then most of what he says is givento making assertions about those to whom the parable was spoken This alsoindicates Jesusrsquo control of the content of the conversation and thus also of hisstatus relative to the disciples The major difference between Matthew and theother accounts on this point is that Matthewrsquos text greatly expands the numberof propositions with Subjects referring to the addressees of the parable and thesepropositions are directly relevant to answering the question asked of Jesus bythe disciples

A further indication of a less formal status is ellipsis present in the text (seeTable 415) In the beginning of Jesusrsquo response to the disciplesrsquo question anentire ranking clause has been ellipsed In a very formal context (especially ina written mode) the question ldquoWhy are you speaking to them in parablesrdquo

might be answered ldquoI am speaking to them in parables because rdquo In nor-mal usually informal conversation the answer begins as it does here withldquoBecause rdquo The Modal Adjunct microήποτε lsquolestrsquo is ellipsed after the first of fiveclauses with modalized verbs The other ellipses are toward the end of Jesusrsquoreply when he is talking about the disciples in the second person once againv 16 καEgrave [microακάριοι] τ Acircτα IacutemicroAgraveν lsquoand [blessed are] your earsrsquo and v 17 καEgrave[acircπεθύmicroησαν] κοUumlσαι κούετε lsquoand [they long] to hear what you hearrsquo Eachinstance of ellipsis with the exception of the string of subjunctive verbs negatedby microήποτε is also in proximity to second person forms (as is the single instanceof ellipsis in Luke) In fact the highest concentration of interpersonal meaningsin the text is in vv 16ndash17 The makarism is addressed to the hearers with secondperson reference14 and includes an ellipsed clause It is immediately followedby the clause microν γρ lέγω IacutemicroOslashν lsquoFor truly I say to yoursquo This clause includesboth a first person and a second person reference and a Mood Adjunct of inten-sification (microν lsquotrulyrsquo) as well This clause projects clauses including anotherellipsed one which favorably compare those addressed with many prophets andrighteous ones who preceded them15 These verses contribute greatly to thelower degree of formality of the text as a whole

Table 415 Mood in the Rationale for the Parables (ranking clausesonly not including initiating question)

Mood class Matthew Mark Lukefull declarative 30 8 3elliptical declarative 316 0 1total ranking clauses 33 8 4

Another major indication of the shift in interpersonal meanings from theparable to the rationale is modality Table 416 shows a high proportion ofmodalization and negation in all three gospels The modalized verbs (sub-junctive mood forms in the finite verbs in this text) realize varying degreesof certainty about the possibility of what is asserted The proportion of to-tal modalization (verbal and in Adjuncts shown in Table 417) is considerablyhigher in Mark and Luke than in Matthew because Matthew has considerablymore propositions in addition to what appears in the others most of which arenot modalized A large number of these additional propositions (compared toMark) are marked for polarity ie they assert what is not rather than whatis It is noteworthy that all of the modalized verbs are also marked for po-

14ldquoMatthewrsquos IacutemAgraven is emphaticrdquo (Davies amp Allison 1991 395)15Verse 16 contains a description of ldquothe blessedness of those who have been granted the

privilege of knowing the mysteries of Godrsquos kingdomrdquo (Harrington 1991 196)16This figure does not include the four clauses dominated by măpote lsquolestrsquo in v 15 that

do not themselves repeat the negative mood adjunct nor does it include major clauses withimplied participants eg implicit subjects

larity17 indicating that impossibility rather than possibility is being assertedThe modalized negatives carry a change in tone from a non-modalized negativeThe tone especially comes through in the use of οIcirc micro in v 14 (οIcirc micro συνumlτεlsquoyou shall by no means perceiversquo and οIcirc micro Ograveδητε lsquoyou shall by no means seersquo)It contrasts with a simple negated indicative (eg οIcirc συνίσουσιν lsquoyou will notperceiversquo) realizing a high degree of affect Use of such Modal Adjuncts as οIcircmicro microήποτε and microν heightens the affect of the whole text greatly

Table 416 Modality and Polarity in the Rationale for the Parables(expressed through Predicator constituents)

Type Matthew Mark Lukemodalization 7 6 2negation 9 2 2total ranking clauses 33 8 4

Table 417 Expressions of Modality in the Rationale for the Para-bles

Matthew Mark Lukemodalization (verbal) 7 6 2Mood Adjunct probability 1 1 0Mood Adjunct intensification 1 0 0total expressions of modality 9 7 2total ranking clauses 33 8 4

The amount of information distributed in Adjuncts shown in Table 418 isof similar proportions to the information in the parable The Mood and Po-larity Adjuncts discussed above are present here in contrast to the parableAside from this the major difference in the distribution of information in Ad-juncts from the parable is the lower proportion of circumstantial Adjuncts in therationale compared to the parable As noted above the higher proportion cor-responds to setting and background information in narrative which is intendedto be information that is simply given and not subject to challenge There isless of such information in the rationale indicating that a higher proportionof information is asserted in propositions and therefore ldquoat riskrdquo or subject toargumentation The contrast is even more evident in regard to information innon-finite clauses In 33 ranking clauses in Matthewrsquos version of the rationalefor the parables only two participial phrases appear as Adjuncts as shown inTable 419

17This includes considering the negating effect of măpote lsquolestrsquo in v 15 over the string of fivesubjunctive verbs from Ntildedwsin lsquothey should seersquo to EcircĹsomai lsquoI should healrsquo

Table 418 Types of Adjuncts in the Rationale for the Parables

Type of Adjunct Matthew Mark LukeCircumstantial 13 3 3Mood 2 1 0Polarity 9 2 2Conjunctive 29 6 3total Adjuncts 53 12 8total ranking clauses 33 8 4

Table 419 Participial Phrases as Adjuncts in the Rationale forthe Parables

Matthew Mark Lukeparticipial phrase 2 2 3total ranking clauses 33 8 4

424 Status Contact and Affect in the Parable Interpre-tation

Having answered the question asked by the disciples in Matthew Jesus turns toexplaining the parable itself As we noted in the previous chapter the interpre-tation seems gratuitous in Matthew arising more from the logic of his answerto the disciplesrsquo question than as an answer to the question itself They askedwhy Jesus was speaking to the people in parables His answer distinguishedbetween those to whom it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom andthose to whom it was not given Since the disciples who asked and to whom theanswer was directed were identified as those to whom it was given the inter-pretation itself addressed also to the disciples illustrates that knowledge andunderstanding is indeed given to them18 As it turns out the interpretationalso illustrates the distinction between those who are given to understand mdash inthem the word bears fruit mdash and those who are not given to understand mdash inthem the word does not bear fruit for a variety of reasons

The nature of interpersonal meanings realizing tenor in the interpretationresembles the parable more than it does the rationale The tone is less intensethan in the rationale but still somewhat less formal than in the parable itselfThis can be accounted for by the fact that the interpretation is addressed to thedisciples whereas the parable was addressed to the crowd The interpretationas a whole puts at risk Subjects that correspond to those of the parable itselfnamely the word which is what is sown and various ldquoenemiesrdquo of the word

18ldquoThe initial IacutemeOslashc lsquoyoursquo [in v 18] is emphatic and reinforces the privilege of the disciplesalone to know lsquothe mysteries of the kingdomrsquordquo (Hagner 1993 379)

that keep it from bearing fruit The disciples are only Subject in the openingimperative (see Table 420) in which the second person reference to them is notput at risk in an assertion but in a proposal the success or failure of which restswith the acceptance or rejection of the proposed behavior We will return to thesignificance of the imperative below From the Subjects alone we note a returnto a higher degree of formality in which assertions are being made about thirdperson Subjects with a lower incidence of first and second person references

Table 420 Interpersonal Elements in Mt 1318ndash23 (Interpretation)

Adj Predicate Subject Complementκούσατε

(offer) IacutemicroεOslashc τν παραβοlν τοUuml σπείραντοc

ecircρχεται aring πονηρaumlc

ρπάζει [he] τauml acircσπαρmicroένον acircν τnot καρδίoslash

αIcircτοUuml

acircστιν οYacuteτόc aring παρ τν aringδaumlν σπαρείc

acircστιν aring acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη

σπαρείc οYacuteτόc aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave εIcircθIgravec

οIcircκ ecircχει [it] ucircίζαν

acircστιν [it] πρόσκαιρόc

σκανδαlίζεται [it]acircστιν aring εEcircc τc κάνθαc

σπαρείc οYacuteτόc aring τaumlν lόγον κούων

συmicroπνίγει microέριmicroνα τοUuml αEcircAgrave-

νοc καEgrave πάτη

τοUuml πlούτου τaumlν lόγον

γίνεται [it] καρποc

acircστιν aring acircπEgrave τν καlν

γumlν σπαρείc οYacuteτόc aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave συνιείc

δ καρποφορεOslash ccedilc

ποιεOslash [it][makes] ccedil aacuteκατόν

[makes] ccedil aacuteξήκοντα

[makes] ccedil τριάκοντα

The use of first and second person references in Markrsquos version of the inter-pretation is similar to that in Matthew (see Table 421) The Subjects at riskin the interpretation correspond to the Subjects at risk in the parable and aconnection is made directly to ldquothose around him with the Twelverdquo by secondperson forms only at the outset of the interpretation In Mark there are twosuch clauses at the beginning and a question is asked of the disciples instead ofa command as in Matthew We will take up the significance of the speech rolesbelow

Table 421 Interpersonal Elements in Mk 413ndash20 (Interpretation)

Adj Predicate Subject ComplementοIcircκ οOgraveδατε [you all] τν παραβοlν ταύτην

πAgravec γνώσεσθε (quest) [you] πάσαc τc παραβοlc

σπείρει aring σπείρων τaumlν lόγον

εEcircσιν οYacuteτοι οEacute παρ τν aringδaumlν iacuteπου

σπείρεται aring lόγοc

[[ σπείρεται aring lόγοc ]]ecircρχεται aring Σατανc

[[iacuteταν κούσωσιν (mod) [they] ]]αOgraveρει [he] τaumlν lόγον τaumlν acircσπαρ-

εEcircσιν οYacuteτοί οEacute acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη

σπειρόmicroενοι

lαmicroβάνουσιν οNtilde αIcircτόν

[[iacuteταν κούσωσιν (mod) [they] τaumlν lόγον ]]οIcircκ ecircχουσιν [they] ucircίζαν

εEcircσιν [they] πρόσκαιροί

σκανδαlίζονται [they]εEcircσEgraveν llοι οEacute εEcircc τc κάνθαc

εEcircσιν οYacuteτοί οEacute τaumlν lόγον

κούσαντεc

συmicroπνίγουσιν αEacute microέριmicroναι τοUuml αEcircAgrave-

microίαι εEcircσπορευόmicroεναι τaumlν lόγον

εEcircσιν acircκεOslashνοί οEacute acircπEgrave τν γumlν τν

καlν σπαρέντεc

κούουσιν οUgraveτινεc τaumlν lόγον

παραδέχονται [they]καρποφοροUumlσιν [they][bears] atildeν τριάκοντα

[bears] atildeν aacuteξήκοντα

[bears] atildeν aacuteκατόν

The more formal tone of the text in Luke continues in the interpretation Thereare no first or second person forms no direct references to speaker or addresseesin Lukersquos version of the interpretation (see Table 422) As in the other gospelsthe Subjects at risk correspond to those of the parable that is interpreted

Table 422 Interpersonal Elements in Lk 811ndash15 (Interpretation)

pol Predicate Subject Complementecircστιν αOtildeτη παραβοlή

acircστEgraveν aring σπόροc aring lόγοc τοUuml θεοUuml

εEcircσιν οEacute παρ τν aringδόν οEacute κούσαντεc

ecircρχεται aring διάβοlοc

αOgraveρει [he] τaumlν lόγον

micro σωθAgraveσιν

(modalized) [they][are] οEacute acircπEgrave τumlc πέτραc οEuml iacuteταν κούσωσιν microετ χαρc

οIcircκ ecircχουσιν οYacuteτοι ucircίζαν

πιστεύουσιν οEuml

φίστανται [they]εEcircσιν τauml εEcircc τc κάνθαc

πεσόν οYacuteτοί οEacute κούσαντεc

συmicroπνίγονται [they] Iacuteπauml microεριmicroνAgraveν καEgrave πlούτου καEgrave

δονAgraveν τοUuml βίου

οIcirc τεlεσφοροUumlσιν [they]εEcircσιν τauml acircν τnot καlnot γnot

οYacuteτοί οUgraveτινεc acircν καρδίoslash καlnot καEgrave

γαθnot

κατέχουσιν καEgrave

καρποφοροUumlσιν [they]

With the imperative in v 18 the text of Matthew appears to return tointerpersonal meanings consistent with the expertteaching role that Jesus hasin relation to the crowd in the parable My analysis suggests however thatthe imperative is not a demand for goods and services (ie a demand thatthe disciples hear what follows) but an offer of information metaphoricallyexpressed as a command Expressing the offer with an imperative instead ofwith future tense in this case realizes a higher degree of speakerrsquos status anddegree of contact between Jesus and the disciples19 The whole interpretationoffers information namely line by line interpretation of the parable It is notas clear in the interpretation as in the parable that advice (goods and services)is being offered The offering of information is just that mdash information Statusis also indicated in that Jesus offers but does not request information of thedisciples

Note the speech roles in Table 423 where it appears that the situation is19In English an offer is congruently expressed as a modalized question (eg ldquoWould you

like some cakerdquo) and is more often made by someone of inferior status to someone of higherstatus In a situation in which the party of equal or higher status is making an offer to someonewith whom there is a high degree of contact the offer is also expressed by an imperative (egldquoHave some cakerdquo)

different in Mark In Mark Jesus begins the interpretation with a question in-stead of a command However the literal question in this case is perhaps bestunderstood as a grammatical metaphor The question does not demand infor-mation so much as it chastises the addressees20 The question (καEgrave πAgravec πάσαcτc παραβοlc γνώσεσθε lsquoand how will you know all the parablesrsquo) follow-ing the negative assertion (οIcircκ οOgraveδατε τν παραβοlν ταύτην lsquoyou do not knowthis parablersquo) might be more congruently expressed as a modalized inferentialstatement (negated possibility mdash ldquoTherefore you cannot know any of the para-blesrdquo mdash or negated probability mdash ldquoTherefore you likely will not know any ofthe parablesrdquo) The ldquoquestionrdquo is actually an assertion of a lack of understand-ing of parables on the part of the disciples The expression of this assertionmetaphorically as a question gives it the tone of chastisement A true questionfrom Jesus would indicate a closing of the status gap between him and his ad-dressees This chastisement does decrease the degree of formality but in thedirection of higher affect andor higher degree of contact rather than more equalstatus Perhaps in this rhetorical question Mark comes closest of the gospels tomaking Jesus the expert more truly Jesus the teacher

Table 423 Mood in the Interpretation of the Parable (rankingclauses only)

Mood class Matthew Mark Lukefull declarative 13 18 15elliptical declarative 3 3 0full interrogative 0 1 0imperative 1 0 0total ranking clauses 17 22 15

Lukersquos version of the interpretation is also less formal than his version of theparable notwithstanding the lack of elliptical declaratives (see Table 423) andthe lack of the second person Subjects that Matthew has in the opening imper-ative and Mark has in the opening rhetorical question Verbal modalization andnegation though sparse is nevertheless present in contrast to the parable andindicates a higher degree of contact In addition to the modalization indicatedin Table 424 Luke also has a modalized verb in a non-ranking (embedded)clause and Mark has two such embedded modalized clauses The modality andpolarity softens the formality of unequal status between master and disciplewith higher contact than exists between teacher and crowds in the parable al-though not to the same degree as when combined with the more ldquooralrdquo featuresof ellipsis and second person Subjects as in Mark

20The demand that the disciples listen realized by the imperative in Matthew is ldquosofterrdquothan the ldquoquestionrdquo posed in Mark ldquoMatthew has toned down the passage it is no longer soharsh on the disciplesrdquo (Davies amp Allison 1991 399)

Table 424 Modality and Polarity in the Interpretation (expressedthrough Predicator constituents)

Type Matthew Mark Lukemodalization (verbal) 0 0 1negation 1 2 3total ranking clauses 17 22 15

Adjuncts (Table 425) also reflect the similarity between the parable and theinterpretation with regard to interpersonal meanings Circumstantial Adjunctsreflect the narrative structure of the text being interpreted often giving theldquosettingrdquo of the allegorically interpreted events For example the Adjunct γε-νοmicroένηc θlίψεωc laquo διωγmicroοUuml δι τaumlν lόγον lsquowhen affliction or persecution comesbecause of the wordrsquo provides the setting in time for the event σκανδαlίζεταιlsquoit is tripped uprsquo (Mt 1321) This maintains the narrative structure of what isbeing interpreted lίου νατείlαντοc lsquowhen the sun came uprsquo (setting in time)acircκαυmicroατίσθη lsquoit was burned uprsquo (narrative event) (Mt 136) The lower numberof circumstantial Adjuncts in ranking clauses of Matthew is due to the fact thatmany of the elements of setting are interpreted in embedded clauses within theranking relational clauses We should also note that in addition to the Moodand Polarity Adjuncts that have already been mentioned in relation to modal-ity the Comment Adjunct in Matthew also realizes an interpersonal meaningThe particle δή (Mt 1323) expresses the attitude of the speaker inserted intothe assertion it (the word heard and understood) indeed bears fruit21

Table 425 Types of Adjuncts in the Interpretation of the Parable

Type of Adjunct Matthew Mark LukeCircumstantial 4 10 10Mood 0 122 0Comment 1 0 0Polarity 1 2 3Conjunctive 13 15 11total Adjuncts 18 27 24total ranking clauses 17 22 15

Although the circumstantial elements which describe settings for processesare about the same in the interpretation as in the parable fewer of those circum-

21Cf Davies amp Allison who understand the referent of the Subject to be the one who hearsand understands rather than the word that is heard and understood ldquoMatthew has inserteddă The usage is classical lsquohe is just the man whorsquordquo (Davies amp Allison 1991 402)

22The Mood Adjunct in a ranking clause in this text part is at the same time a circumstantialAdjunct PAgravec lsquohowrsquo is both an interrogative word (and thus a Mood Adjunct) and an adverbof manner (and thus a circumstantial Adjunct) For this reason the Adjunct total is 27 andnot 28 Note in Table 42 that there are two additional Mood Adjuncts that are at the sametime circumstantial Adjuncts corresponding to the two modalized verbs in embedded clauses

stantial elements are expressed in non-finite clauses (compare Table 426 withTable 411) No infinitival phrases are used in the interpretation and about thesame number of participial phrases Overall less information is included with-out being put at risk in the form of propositions This is consistent with thesomewhat less formal tenor of the interpretation compared to the parable thatis indicated by other interpersonal meanings

Table 426 Types of Non-major Clauses as Adjuncts in the ParableInterpretation

Type of Clause in an Adjunct Matthew Mark Lukeparticipial phrase 3 1 3embedded finite clause 0 2 1total ranking clauses 17 22 15

The analysis of tenor in this chapter has followed divisions of the text accordingto logical meanings established in the previous chapter In so doing it has fol-lowed a pattern of interpersonal meanings as well We began with the narrativeframe which provides the context within which the exchange internal to thenarrative takes place Next we examined the actual discourse beginning withwhat Jesus addressed to the crowds and proceeding to the exchange betweenJesus and his disciples

The narrative frame is quite formal in its tenor The relationship betweenwriter and reader is characterized by the distance between one authorized totell a story and a potentially broad audience for the story mdash high status differ-ential low degree of contact and low affect The information is asserted aboutthird person subjects in declarative clauses and the information density reflectsthe authoritative conveying of information which is expected to be accepted asauthoritative and is not subject to challenge This is not all there is to be saidabout the relationship between the author and readers however We will con-sider below how the tenor of the discourse within the narrative relates to thetenor of the instantial situation in which the gospel was produced

The parable itself can be characterized as teaching but not the sort of in-teractive teaching in which the nature of the exchange is for the teacher todemand information and the students to give it in response Rather it is a sortof teaching in which expert advice (goods and services not simply information)is offered The text is a narrative very much like the narrative frame itselfbut the predominantly third person declarative clauses are supplemented bythe closing imperative resulting in the advice-giving tenor Thus the goods andservices offered in the form of the parable comes to the hearers from a positionof higher status This formal tenor is tempered somewhat in Mark by the useof second person imperative forms The overall effect is more demanding of thehearers realizing a higher degree of contact andor affect By way of contrast

Summary and Conclusion 127

Lukersquos shorter version of the parable realizes the lowest degree of contact andgenerally most formal tenor

The rationale for the parables comes in response to a question by the dis-ciples Beginning with the question then there is a shift from the crowd tothe disciples as participant in the exchange with Jesus There is still a statusdifferential with Jesus holding the higher status The distinction between thecrowd and the disciples is not as strong in Mark where perhaps the disciplesare a subset of the crowd to which the parable was addressed Although there isa difference in tenor between the parable and the rationale in all three gospelsthe difference is less pronounced in Mark but more pronounced in Luke InMatthew the disciples use second person forms and Jesus uses both first andsecond person forms mdash they are talking about each other as well as to each otherThis indicates a higher degree of contact closer interaction than in the parableJesusrsquo higher status is indicated in part by the fact that he controls the floor inthe exchange even giving information that was not demanded Matthew alsoindicates a higher degree of affect by the use of modality Although Luke doesnot have vocatives or second person address the initial disclaimer in responseto the disciplesrsquo question indicates a closer degree of contact than is present inthe parable

The tenor of the interpretation of the parable is more formal than the ratio-nale that precedes it but less formal than the parable A degree of authorityand therefore of higher status of the speaker is evident in the narrative naturethat the interpretation of the parable retains and in the fact that the interpre-tation is offered as expert information The information is offered gratuitouslyin Matthew more like the parable itself than like the rationale which was inanswer to a question The interpretation illustrates the answer to the disciplesrsquoquestion in that it is given to the disciples to understand but is not given tothe others The tenor of the interpretation is less formal than the parable be-cause of the difference in audience The information is conveyed without theslight negative affect (warning) conveyed by the final imperative attached to theparable However whereas the subtle negative affect in the parable heightensthe status differential the imperative expressing an offer of information andthe second person references in the interpretation indicate a higher degree ofcontact and perhaps less status differential but in any case less formal tenor inthe interpretation than in the parable

In conclusion the tenor of the discourse within the narrative can be summedup as a masterdiscipleaudience interaction in Matthew Du Plessis concludedthat the pragmatical force of the discourse was to create a relationship betweenJesus and the disciples in which he was dominant and they were dependent onhim (du Plessis 1987 53) We have seen in this chapter that the interpersonalmeanings in the text realize a status differential in which Jesus holds an author-itative position in relationship to both the crowd and the disciples Howeverthe degree of contact between Jesus and the disciples is much closer than it isbetween Jesus and the crowd and a degree of affect is present in Jesusrsquo inter-action with the disciples that is not present in his interaction with the crowdThe disciples are those who are not only dependent on Jesus for authoritative

information but are in a position to request information from him with theexpectation that he will indeed give them what he has to offer The crowdis an audience that is not in a high-contact relation to the master so as toask questions and receive explanations The relationships between Jesus andthe two groups (the disciples and the crowds) as reflected in the interpersonalmeanings of the text are also reflective of the experiential meanings of the textThe degree of contact is reflected in the fact that the disciples ask Jesus for anexplanation of why he is speaking in parables to the crowd rather than askingfor an explanation of the parable In Mark and Luke the disciples are in thesame position as everyone else both in regard to their lack of understanding ofthe parable and in their need to ask in order to receive an explanation Thegreater degree of contact between Jesus and the disciples in both Mark andLuke might be accounted for by the fact that they asked the question whereasthe question in Matthew and the extensive answer to it indicates a degree ofcontact that already existed between master and disciples that does not holdbetween the master and the assembled audience

Matthewrsquos interpersonal meanings within the narrative frame as we haveseen indicate the tenor of a storyteller who has some authority to relate thisparticular story to an audience in the same way perhaps that a preacher isauthorized to proclaim the word to a congregation The word that Matthew pro-claims to his congregation takes the form of a story about Jesus and those withwhom he interacted An analysis of tenor cannot resolve the issue whether ornot the disciples are ldquotransparentrdquo in Matthew standing in for Matthewrsquos owncommunity (Luz 1995) Nor does Matthew address words of Jesus (or any othercharacter in his story) directly to the reader ie ldquoJesus says to you rdquo23 Wemust determine the nature of the relationship that held between the evangelistand those for whom he wrote as it is realized through interpersonal meaningsprimarily from the narrative frame

However the tenor apparent in the narrative frame leaves us with the con-clusion that the discourse of Jesus within the narrative is conveyed to the readerwith the same degree of authority as the rest of the story and therefore repre-sents who Jesus is according to the evangelist The tenor of Jesusrsquo own discoursepresents him as an authoritative master in relation to all but having close con-tact with those who are his disciples If those to whom Matthew told the storyare to accept the ending to his story that Jesus was raised from the dead andtold his disciples that he was with them always then the tenor of Jesusrsquo dis-course leaves them either in relation to a living Jesus as the crowds were or as thedisciples to the Master In other words the tenor of Jesusrsquo discourse defines hisrelationship to those to whom Matthew is writing It is not so much a matter ofthe disciples being transparent Rather Jesusrsquo relates to all his disciples in thesame way whether they are the ones about whom Matthew is telling his storyor the ones to whom Matthew is telling it Daniel J Harrington (1991 201)wrote that ldquothe lsquoinsiderrsquo status of the Matthean community is strengthened bythe sayings about Jesusrsquo use of parables (1310ndash17)rdquo What we can say on the

23Matthew does not address the reader directly with second person forms at all

basis of the tenor of the discourse is that the insider status of the disciples isstrengthened by what Jesus says To the extent that Matthewrsquos readers (pre-sumably what Harrington means by the ldquoMatthean communityrdquo) identify withthe disciples or identify themselves as Jesusrsquo disciples Harringtonrsquos statementholds true The tenor of the discourse within the narrative becomes a part ofthe experiential meanings of the whole narrative

Chapter 5

Textual Meanings andMode of Discourse

Mode of discourse is related to field and tenor of discourse very much as textualmeanings are related to experiential and interpersonal meanings That is tosay mode enables field and tenor as textual meanings enable experiental andinterpersonal meanings We saw in chapter three how the kind of social activityin which language is playing some part (ie field of discourse) is realized in thetext through experiential meanings We saw in chapter four how the negotiationof social relationships among participants in the social activity in which languageis playing some part (ie tenor of discourse) is realized in the text throughinterpersonal meanings Mode relates to both of these (Martin 1992 509ndash510)As we defined it in the first chapter mode is the part played by language inrealizing social activity In relation to field mode is the role played by languageon a continuum from accompanying to constituting the social activity1 Anexample of language accompanying a social activity is bidding talking aboutwhose turn it is etc while playing cards An example of language constitutinga social activity is writing a work of fiction A newspaper report about an eventor a commentary during a sporting event would fall somewhere in the middle ofthis continuum In relation to tenor mode is the degree of interaction betweenparticipants in the use of language on a continuum from a high degree of auraland visual contact and immediate feedback to no aural and visual contact andno immediate feedback (Eggins 1994 54)2 For example a casual conversationhas a high degree of aural and visual contact and immediate feedback between

1Martin (1992 516) identifies the dimension of mode oriented toward field as the ac-tionreflection dimension Eggins (1994 54) labels this dimension which is represented by acline from action to reflection as experiential distance Linda Gerot (1995 74) refers to it asrole identifying the extremes of the cline as ancillary vs constitutive role

2Martin (1992 510) identifies the dimension of mode oriented toward tenor as the mono-loguedialogue dimension Eggins (1994 53) labels it as spatialinterpersonal distance LindaGerot (1995 74) distinguishes between channel (phonic vs graphic) and medium (spoken vswritten) in describing the dimension of mode related to degree of interaction

132 Textual Meanings and Mode

participants whereas writing a dissertation has a very low degree of aural andvisual contact between writer and reader and the feedback is not immediate

ldquoIf we combine these two dimensions of mode [ie role and interaction]we can characterize the basic contrast between spoken and written situationsof language userdquo (Eggins 1994 55) As we noted in chapter one spoken vswritten mode is not a simple binary contrast but extremes on a cline Somelanguage that is used in a graphic channel (ie literally written language) iscloser to the spoken end of the mode cline eg informal letters or email notesSome language that is used in a phonic channel (ie literally spoken language)is closer to the written end of the mode cline eg formal or academic addressesThe New Testament texts with which we are concerned in this study come to usthrough a graphic channel ie they are ldquowrittenrdquo texts We do not have anyspoken discourse in a phonic channel in Koine Greek with which to contrastthem We are therefore not concerned with channel (phonic vs graphic) inthis chapter as a contrastive category We are however concerned with thedegree of interaction between the participants as well as with the role languageis playing in social activity as these may be realized in the New Testament textsIn combining these two dimensions we will refer to a situation of language useas spoken mode where the role that language plays is an accompanying one andthe degree of interaction is high and a situation as written mode where the rolethat language plays is constituting of a social activity and the social interactionis low In this chapter we will see how mode along both dimensions mdash roleand interaction mdash is realized through textual meanings Our focus will be onthe analysis of Theme and thematic development and what they tell us aboutwhether our texts have a more spoken or more written character

51 Interaction and Role Theme and ThematicDevelopment

Just as experiential meanings predict field and interpersonal meanings predicttenor so textual meanings predict mode because they realize mode In orderto understand the part language is playing in the context of situation of Mt131ndash23 and parallels (ie the mode) we must analyze the textual meaningsin the texts As with experiential and interpersonal meanings in the preced-ing chapters the analysis of textual meanings in this chapter will focus on theclause rank In other words the analysis of textual meanings in this chapter willfocus on Theme In analyzing Theme however it will be necessary to examineextended text above the clause rank not simply isolated clauses both to the ex-tent that dependent clauses can be Theme of a clause complex (an independentclause and all of its dependent clauses)3 and to the extent that the significanceof choices of Themes in individual clauses are better understood in the contextof thematic development of the whole text The ways in which Theme at the

3Ie a dependent clause preceding the independent clause upon which it is dependent canact as Theme for the complex of clauses as a message unit as described in chapter one

Interaction and Role 133

clause rank and thematic development throughout a text realize mode can beviewed from the standpoint of the interpersonal interaction dimension of modeor from the standpoint of the role dimension of mode (Martin 1992 434ndash448)Choices of Theme in clauses and clause complexes throughout a text howeverfrequently realize both dimensions of mode simultaneously

Mode is realized in part by what gets to be Theme or more specificallywhether there are interpersonal and textual Themes (Eggins 1994 300) Whileevery major (non-ellipsed) clause has a topical Theme (ie an experiential el-ement of the clause that is Theme) not every clause has an interpersonal or atextual

Theme (ie interpersonal or textual elements of the clause the precede thetopical Theme) More frequent use of interpersonal Themes indicates a higherdegree of interaction and thus a more spoken mode In a situation characterizedby a higher degree of interpersonal interaction more message units are likely totake interpersonal meanings as the point of departure Thematization of modal-ity (modulation expressing degree of obligation or modalization expressing de-gree of probability or possibility) invites interaction Likewise textual Themesoccur more frequently in texts with a more spoken character Textual adjunctsas Theme indicating hypotaxis (dependent relationships between clauses) areespecially common in spoken discourse When textual adjuncts occur as Themein written text they are more likely to indicate paratactic logical relations be-tween clauses (ie relations between clauses that are not dependent upon oneanother) than hypotactic relations

The choice between paratactic and hypotactic textual Themes frequentlyindicates a choice between greater lexical complexity and greater grammaticalcomplexity as we saw in the Section 132 in the first chapter This choicerealizes both the interaction and role dimensions of mode A higher degree ofinteraction demands greater ease of processibility Information organized in lin-ear strings of hypotactically related messages that are lexically more sparse ismore grammatically complex but easier to follow in a situation of close spatialcontact and immediate feedback than the same information given in a lexicallydense but grammatically simple message4 That is brief lexically sparse mes-sages strung together are relatively easy to process as one hears them and therelationships between them indicated by textual Themes give instructions as tohow to relate each message to the accumulation of information that has pre-ceded it An equivalent amount of information from such a string of messagespacked into a single message unit is more difficult to process but a reader hasthe luxury of dwelling on such a message unit However lexically dense butgrammatically simple messages (ie a large amount of information in a singlemessage unit) make possible the choice of particular kinds of topical Themes(namely lexically dense ones) that realize a constituting role of language useThus mode is not realized only by choices regarding interpersonal and textualThemes but by the nature of topical Themes in particular how lexically dense

4For example the sentence to which this footnote is attached is a simple relational clausewith considerable embedded information thus a high degree of lexical complexity

topical Themes areMode is thus realized by what gets to be a topical Theme When language is

used to constitute a social activity there is not an immediate context in whichthere are concrete persons and objects and events to which the text can refer inan immediate way The context for experiential meanings must be included inthe text This is true whether the language is being used to create a work of fic-tion or an exposition A narrative with a more written character will have moreThemes that are circumstantial elements which may be nominalized processes(including but not limited to participial and infinitival phrases) or prepositionalphrases that contribute higher lexical density to a clause without increasing itsgrammatical complexity Such circumstantial elements often depict setting intime or place providing the point of departure for an event or series of eventsthat take place in that setting and thus also contributing to the method of de-velopment of the narrative A narrative of more spoken character will tend todevelop through thematic references to its characters Written exposition alsotends to use topical Themes which are elements realized either by nominalizedprocesses abstract nominals or circumstantial elements Such lexically denseelements of a clause allow the development of the text to be in terms of wholeprocesses and abstract andor complex concepts Dependent clauses as Themedemonstrate abstraction and a level of planning typical of written languagebut unlike nominalization with hypotaxis and lexical density more typical ofspoken discourse (Eggins 1994 301) The use of dependent clauses as Themesthen is a strategy for using language in a graphic channel without ldquosoundingtoo writtenrdquo helping to realize a mode somewhere in the middle of the clinebetween spoken and written

There is a similarity between role on the one hand and interaction andchannel (graphic vs phonic) on the other with regard to what kinds of thingsget to be referred to by topical Themes For example exophoric references(referring to participants in the extra-textual situational context) as Theme aremore likely in a phonic channel in which the participants in the exchange havea high degree of interaction and are in the presence of the referent Endophoricreferences (referring to participants internal to the text) as Theme are morelikely in a graphic channel in which participants in the exchange are separatedby spatial distance (Eggins 1994 301) Likewise a situation in which languageis playing an accompanying role is more likely to use as Themes references toconcrete persons or objects in a shared context whereas a constituting rolefor language is more likely to use as point of departure for messages abstractreferences or circumstantial elements that depend less on the world external tothe text than on the world constituted by the text

Mode mdash specifically the interaction dimension of mode mdash is also realizedthrough the grammatical category of person assigned to topical Themes thatare participants (Martin 1992 447ndash448) More frequent use of first and sec-ond person referents as Themes indicates a higher degree of interaction a morespoken mode whereas more frequent use of third person referents as Themeindicates a lower degree of interaction First and second person Themes usedconsistently as the method of developing the text indicate an effort by those us-

ing the language to actively engage those with whom they are interacting Thisstrategy is not limited to texts in which language is used in an accompanyingrole Martin gives the example of a form letter sent out by a political figuretrying to actively engage his constituents with first and second person Themeswhile informing them of particular issues before the government

In addition to what gets to be Theme mode is realized by thematic progres-sion or the lack thereof (Eggins 1994 302ndash305) Reiteration of Themes chosenfrom a limited pool and sudden shifts in Theme characterize spoken discourseJust as the use of dependent clauses as Themes demonstrates a level of planningnot easily achieved in an oral situation as noted above so a clear or complexpattern of thematic development demonstrates a level of planning and often ofediting Zig-zag patterns and multiple Theme patterns as described in Sec-tion 132 in chapter one are characteristic of planning and editing of writtentexts Such patterning is often evident in coherent written texts in hierarchicalstructures The topical Themes in each stage of a sequence may be predicted byhyper-Themes (lsquotopic sentencesrsquo of paragraphs) which may in turn be predictedby macro-Themes (lsquointroductory paragraphsrsquo of texts) (Martin 1992 437)

Because thematic development and not just Theme at the level of the mes-sage unit plays an important role in realizing mode the structure of this chapterwill vary from those of preceding chapters The analysis of the direct discoursematerial mdash the parable the rationale and the interpretation mdash will be pre-sented first The narrative frame material will then be presented together witha discussion of the pattern of Themes over the narrative of the whole passageunder consideration not just of the narrative frame by itself As in precedingchapters the text will be displayed in tables according to the analysis containedin the appendices The tables display the Theme and Rheme of each rankingclause in the portion of text presented In all the displays of Theme through-out the chapter textual Themes are marked with italics interpersonal Themeswith sans serif and topical Themes with boldface5 In addition participantswhich are marked topical Themes are underlined and circumstances which aremarked topical Themes are wavy-underlined Participants that are ldquodisplacedrdquomarked Themes (ie participants or circumstances that occur after the initialelement but before the verb and thus would have been marked topical Themehad another element not been thematized) are double underlined

511 Interaction and Role in the Parable

Since the narrative explicitly states that Jesus spoke the parable to the crowdsit is reasonable to expect that some degree of interaction will be evident in thetext Interaction is in fact realized in the interpersonal Theme EcircδοIgrave lsquobeholdrsquo in v3b (see Table 51) but there are no other interpersonal Themes in the parable6

5In some cases a single word or phrase will realize more than one kind of Theme eg therelative pronoun ccedil in Table 51 is marked both bold and italic as both textual and topicalTheme

6In a comment on Mt 316 Donald Hagner (1993) notes that Matthew frequently usesthe word EcircdoIgrave as a device to capture the readerrsquos attention but the word eIcircjegravewc (or eIcircjOcircc)

Of the 17 message units that comprise the parable seven have participants astopical Theme (vv 5a 7a 8a 8c 8d 8e and 9a) but none are second personmaking direct contact with the addressees7 Eleven of the 17 message units havetextual Themes (vv 4a 4b 5b 5c 6b 7b 7c 8b 8c 8d and 8e) While this isa large number it is not extraordinary by comparison with other Greek texts8

Furthermore only four of the 11 textual Themes are hypotactic (vv 5b 8c 8dand 8e) While these interpersonal and textual Themes do realize a degree ofinteraction and characterize the text as spoken it is not a high degree9

Table 51 Theme in the Parable (Mt 133ndash9)

Vs text interpers topic Theme Rheme3b gtIdoIgrave acircxĺljen aring σπείρων τοUuml σπείρειν

4a kaEgraveacircn

speETHrein

aIcirctaumln microagraveν ecircπεσεν παρ τν aringδόν

4b kaEgraveacircljigraventa τ πετειν κατέφαγεν αIcircτά

5a Łlla δagrave ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη

5biacutepou οIcircκ εUacuteχεν γumlν ποllήν

5c kaEgraveeIcircjegravewc acircξανέτειlεν δι τauml micro ecircχειν

βάθοc γumlc

6aŹlETHou δagrave

ĆnateETHlantoc acircκαυmicroατίσθη

6b kaEgravediĂ

ecircqein

ucircETHzan acircξηράνθη

7a Łlla δagrave ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τc κάνθαc

7b kaEgrave Ćnegravebhsan αEacute κανθαι

7c kaEgrave ecircpnixan αIcircτά

8a Łlla δagrave ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τν γumlν τν καlν

8b kaEgrave acircdETHdou καρπόν

8c ccedil microagraveν aacuteκατόν

8d ccedil δagrave aacuteξήκοντα

8e ccedil δagrave τριάκοντα

9a aring ecircqwn Acircta κουέτω

In addition to the lack of second person references in Themes there areno exophoric references in Themes at all between the opening interpersonalTheme and the closing subject of the third person imperative which is anapparent reference to some of the hearers The remaining participant references

lsquoimmediatelyrsquo which Matthew often ignores in the Markan source can also function in thisway Robert Guelich (1998 note on the translation of Mark 19) also notes that eIcircjOcircc issometimes not strictly temporal but ldquoa stylistic function merely to focus onersquos attentionrdquo Itis possible therefore to view eIcircjegravewc in v 5c as an interpersonal Theme as well as topical

7As noted in the previous chapter the third person imperative verb Ćkouegravetw lsquohe musthearrsquo could have been second person and the subject aring ecircqwn Acircta lsquothe one having earsrsquo couldalso have been second person but they are not

8Eg the parable in Mark as displayed in Table 53 has 19 textual Themes in 21 messageunits Philemon 10ndash14 displayed in Table 15 has 6 textual Themes in 8 message units allof them realizing hypotactic relations

9Cf Philemon 10ndash14 displayed in Table 15 with 6 textual Themes in 8 message unitsall of them realizing hypotactic relations a first person finite verb as topical Theme and twosecond person references as parts of topical Themes

as Themes (vv 5a 7a 8a 8c 8d 8e) as well as the Subjects of the four finiteverb Themes (vv 3b 7b 7c and 8b) are all endophoric references indicative of aconstituting role played by the language of the parable While the third-personendophoric references as Theme indicate a more written mode (lower degreeof interaction and more of a constituting role) the references are neverthelessreferences to very concrete beings and objects (the sower seed birds thorns)a characteristic of a more spoken mode that lends itself to easier processibility

A further characteristic of the parable indicating that it is not at eitherextreme of the spoken to written cline is the use of circumstances as ThemesSix circumstantial elements as Theme (vv 4a 4b 5b 5c 6a and 6b) in 17message units indicates a more written mode It is notable however that thereare no finite clauses as Theme but two one-word adverbial circumstances (vv 5band 5c) two participial phrases (vv 4a and 6a) and two infinitival phrases noneof which dramatically increase the lexical density of the text The participlesand infinitives do reduce the number of message units by reducing the processesthat they realize to elements of setting rather than realizing them as separateevents in independent clauses They demonstrate a degree of planning withoutgreatly increasing the difficulty of processing on the part of the hearer

Planning and editing is also evident in the method of development of theparable The basic method of development for the whole parable is a multipleTheme pattern Verse 3b provides a macro-Theme for the parable (gtΙδοIgrave acircξumllθενaring σπείρων τοUuml σπείρειν lsquoLook a sower went out to sowrsquo) The Rheme of v 3b(aring σπείρων τοUuml σπείρειν lsquothe-NOM one sowing the-GEN to-sow) is then repeatedas the Theme of v 4a (acircν τAuml σπείρειν αIcircτaumlν lsquoin the-DAT to-sow him-ACCrsquo) Thismacro-Theme then predicts four Themes lsquosomersquo (displaced Theme of v 4a)llα lsquoothersrsquo (v 5a) llα lsquoothersrsquo (v 7a) and llα lsquoothersrsquo (v 8a) Each ofthese is Theme of a clause that in turn functions as a hyper-Theme for whatfollows it yielding a clear outline structure of the whole parable (macro-Themedouble-underlined hyper-Themes underlined Themes in boldface)

I gtIdoIgrave acircxĺljen aring σπείρων τοUuml σπείρεινkaEgrave acircn tAuml speETHrein aIcirctaumln

A Č microagraveν ecircπεσεν παρ τν aringδόν

1 kaEgrave acircljigraventa tĂ peteinĂ κατέφαγεν αIcircτά

B Łlla δagrave ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη

1 iacutepou οIcircκ εUacuteχεν γumlν ποllήν2 kaEgrave eIcircjegravewc acircξανέτειlεν δι τauml micro ecircχειν βάθοc γumlc3 ŹlETHou δagrave ĆnateETHlantoc acircκαυmicroατίσθη4 kaEgrave diĂ tauml mŸ ecircqein ucircETHzan acircξηράνθη

C Łlla δagrave ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τc κάνθαc

1 kaEgrave Ćnegravebhsan αEacute κανθαι καEgrave ecircπνιξαν αIcircτά

D Łlla δagrave ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τν γumlν τν καlν

1 kaEgrave acircdETHdou καρπόνa ccedil microagraveν aacuteκατόνb ccedil δagrave aacuteξήκονταc ccedil δagrave τριάκοντα

II aring ecircqwn Acircta κουέτω

Each hyper-Theme is of the form microagraveνllα δagrave ecircπεσεν x where x is filled inby a prepositional phrase realizing a circumstance of location In each case theRheme of the hyper-Theme (ecircπεσεν παρ τν aringδόν lsquofell beside the pathrsquo ecircπεσενacircπEgrave τ πετρώδη lsquofell upon the rocky placersquo ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τc κάνθαc lsquofell uponthe thornsrsquo ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τν γumlν τν καlν lsquofell upon the good earthrsquo) providesthe setting and impetus for the events that follow The internal developmentof these events is only evident following the second hyper-Theme in whichthe seeds were sown upon the rocky place Following the fourth hyper-Theme(others sown on good soil) the structure of the whole parable is mimicked inthe multiple-Theme pattern of ccedil microagraveν ccedil δagrave ccedil δagrave describing the yields of variousseeds that fell on good soil and therefore bore fruit

As the Themes themselves show characteristics of both spoken and writ-ten language so does the pattern of Themes that contributes to the methodof development The repetition is characteristic of spoken language especiallylanguage with a higher degree of interaction since it is easier to follow a textwith repetition in an interactive situation The careful structure however ischaracteristic of written language especially when the language plays a consti-tutive role and a structure with depth must be created using linear text

The choice of Themes in Markrsquos version of the parable is significantly dif-ferent from Matthew with respect to the choices of textual and topical Themes(compare Table 52 [ = Table 51 above] with Table 53) There are some rela-tively insignificant differences between Matthew and Mark as well such as theoccurrence of two interpersonal Themes to begin the parable in Mark includingthe initial second-person imperative κούετε lsquohearrsquo that is lacking in MatthewThis points perhaps to a slightly higher degree in interactivity in Markrsquos para-ble Much more significant however are the differences in choices of textualand topical Themes Between the second person imperative with which theparable begins and the third person imperative clause with which the parable isconcluded only the first clause of the parable proper (v 3b) is without a textualTheme Eighteen consecutive clauses (out of 21 in the utterance) have textualThemes and 16 of them are the paratactic conjunction καί lsquoandrsquo This extraor-dinary number of textual Themes indicates a more spoken mode of discourseeven though most realize paratactic relations rather than hypotactic ones Inthis case the paratactic relations are not an indication of higher lexical densitysince the same basic information that is conveyed in Matthewrsquos version of theparable is distributed across a larger number of clauses (21 vs 17 in Matthew)

4a kaEgraveacircn

speETHrein

5c kaEgraveeIcircjegravewc acircξανέτειlεν δι τauml micro ecircχειν βάθοc

γumlc

6aŹlETHou δagrave

6b kaEgravediĂ

ecircqein

Table 53 Theme in the Parable (Mk 43ndash9)

Vs text interp top Theme Rheme3a gtAkoOcircete

3b EcircdoIgrave acircxĺljen aring σπείρων σπεOslashραι

4a kaEgrave acircgegraveneto acircν τAuml σπείρειν

4b ccedil microagraveν ecircπεσεν παρ τν aringδόν

4c kaEgrave łljen τ πετειν

4d kaEgrave kategravefagen αIcircτό

5a kaEgrave Łllo ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τauml πετρAgraveδεc

5c kaEgraveeIcircjIgravec acircξανέτειlεν δι τauml micro ecircχειν βάθοc

γumlc

6a kaEgraveiacutete

Ćnegraveteilen

ąlioc acircκαυmicroατίσθη

6b kaEgravediĂ

ecircqein

7a kaEgrave Łllo ecircπεσεν εEcircc τc κάνθαc

7c kaEgrave sunegravepnixan αIcircτό

7d kaEgrave karpaumln οIcircκ ecircδωκεν

8a kaEgrave Łlla ecircπεσεν εEcircc τν γumlν τν καlήν

8b kaEgrave acircdETHdou καρπaumlν ναβαίνοντα καEgrave

8c kaEgrave ecircferen atildeν τριάκοντα

8d kaEgrave [was bearing] atildeν aacuteξήκοντα

8e kaEgrave [was bearing] atildeν aacuteκατόν

9a COc ecircqei Acircta ĆkoOcircein κουέτω

The second significant difference between Markrsquos parable and Matthewrsquoshelps to explain the larger number of clauses Two non-finite clauses as circum-stantial topical Themes in Matthewrsquos parable (vv 4a and 4b) are independentclauses in Markrsquos parable (vv 4a and 4c) The overall effect of this differ-ence is that where Mark has four message units (vv 4andashd) three of them withunmarked Themes (finite verb initial) Matthew has only two message units(vv 4andashb) both with circumstances as marked topical Themes In all theseminor variations add up to only four of 17 unmarked Themes (finite-verb ini-tial clauses) in Matthew compared to 11 of 21 in Mark Matthewrsquos version issomewhat more compact than Markrsquos but it has a larger number of complexless concrete topical Themes indicating perhaps a higher degree of editing andplanning characteristic of a more written mode

The overall difference of thematic development of the parable between Mat-thew and Mark is not significant The basic development in Mark is the mul-tiple Theme pattern of ccedil lsquosomersquo (v 4b) llο lsquoanotherrsquo (v 5a) llο lsquoanotherrsquo(v 7a) llα lsquoothersrsquo (v 8a) predicted by the macro-Theme EcircδοIgrave acircξumllθεν aringσπείρων σπεOslashραι καEgrave acircγένετο acircν τAuml σπείρειν lsquoLook the sower came to sow andthis happened in the sowingrsquo (vv 3bndash4a) This pattern of thematic develop-ment however is not strengthened by the pattern of textual Themes as it is inMatthew The repetition of καί throughout the narrative flattens the effect ofthe development in contrast to Matthewrsquos use of microagraveν lsquosomersquo llα δagrave lsquoothersrsquollα δagrave lsquoothersrsquo llα δagrave lsquoothersrsquo that helps to set off the hyper-Themes withinthe narrative

Lukersquos version of the parable is much more compact than Matthewrsquos orMarkrsquos containing about half the number of message units (11) as Markrsquos (21)Luke has dispensed entirely with the opening clauses that realize interactionbetween Jesus and his audience with interpersonal Themes (see Table 54) Thecompacting is achieved by careful editing and planning characteristic of writtenmode Of 11 clauses four have circumstances as topical Theme (an infinitiveclause and three participles) In addition five of 11 clauses have participants asTheme three of which carry the same structure of thematic development as inthe other tellings mdash macro-Theme gtΕξumllθεν aring σπείρων τοUuml σπεOslashραι τaumlν σπόροναIcircτοUuml καEgrave acircν τAuml σπείρειν αIcircτaumlν lsquoThe sower went out to sow his seed and in hissowing rsquo (vv 5andashb) predicts the topical Themes ccedil lsquosomersquo (displaced Themein v 5b) eacuteτερον lsquootherrsquo (v 6a) eacuteτερον lsquootherrsquo (v 7a) eacuteτερον lsquootherrsquo (v 8a)Like Mark Luke uses καί lsquoandrsquo as textual Theme in every clause between thefirst and last of the parable The low lexical density of Lukersquos sparse telling andthe pattern of textual Themes counter-balances the high proportion of markedThemes and multiple-Theme pattern in preserving some of the character ofspoken mode in the parable

Table 54 Theme in the Parable (Lk 85ndash8)

Vs text interpers topic Theme Rheme5a gtExĺljen aring σπείρων τοUuml σπεOslashραι τaumlν σπόρον

αIcircτοUuml

5b kaEgraveacircn

speETHrein

aIcirctaumln ccedil microagraveν ecircπεσεν παρ τν aringδόν

5c kaEgrave katepatăjh

5d kaEgrave tĂ peteinĂ toUuml oIcircranoUuml κατέφαγεν αIcircτό

6a kaEgrave eacuteteron κατέπεσεν acircπEgrave τν πέτραν

6b kaEgravefuagraven acircξηράνθη δι τauml micro ecircχειν Ecircκmicroάδα

7a kaEgrave eacuteteron ecircπεσεν acircν microέσuacute τAgraveν κανθAgraveν

7b kaEgravesumfueOslashsai aEacute Łkanjai πέπνιξαν αIcircτό

8a kaEgrave eacuteteron ecircπεσεν εEcircc τν γumlν τν γαθήν

8b kaEgravefuagraven acircποίησεν καρπaumlν

aacuteκατονταπlασίονα

8c ltO ecircqwn Acircta ĆkoOcircein κουέτω

In summary the mode of the parable in all three gospels is characterized by aconstituting role the written-ness of which is softened in favor of a more spokencharacter by a relatively high degree of interaction The constituting role isrealized in the predominance of third person participant references in topicalTheme position by use of complex circumstantial elements as Theme and bythe planned character of marked Themes and of a clear and intentional methodof development The higher degree of interaction is realized by low lexicaldensity even in circumstances as Theme by references to concrete objects andpeople as the marked participant Themes by patterns of textual Themes andby the use of interpersonal Themes to begin the parable in Matthew and MarkOf the three accounts of the parable Luke is most written in character andMark is most spoken But all three are in the middle of the cline

512 Interaction and Role in the Parable Rationale

The rather one-sided conversation that ensues following the parable in Matthewdemonstrates a shift in mode both in its interaction dimension and its roledimension The degree of interaction is significantly increased for exampleby the use of interpersonal Themes Eleven of 34 message units in the directdiscourse of the rationale section have interpersonal Themes (see Table 55)The first of these is the interrogative word τί in the Theme of the question (διτί lsquoon account of whatrsquo) that the disciples asked inviting Jesusrsquo response (v10b) In Jesusrsquo response both modalization (vv 12a 12d 12e and 17a) andpolarity (vv 13d 14c 14e 15d 17c and 17e) are thematized Two instances ofmodalization express strong attitude or emotion mdash καEgrave lsquoevenrsquo (v 12e) and microνlsquotrulyrsquo (v 17a) mdash and three instances of polarity are emphatic accompanyingsubjunctive verbs and expressing strong attitude or emotion mdash οIcirc micro συνumlτε

lsquoyou shall by no means perceiversquo (v 14c) οIcirc micro Ograveδητε lsquoyou shall by no means seersquo(v 14e) and microήποτε Ograveδωσιν lsquolest you should seersquo (v 15d) This high proportion of

interpersonal Themes some of them very strong interpersonal elements invitesa response of some kind from whoever hears or reads the text

Table 55 Theme in the Rationale (Mt 1310ndash17)

Vs text interpers topic Theme Rheme10b

tETH acircν παραβοlαOslashc lαlεOslashc αIcircτοOslashc

11b VOti IacutemOslashn δέδοται γνAgraveναι τ microυστήρια τumlc

βασιlείαc τAgraveν οIcircρανAgraveν

11c acirckeETHnoic δagrave οIcirc δέδοται

12a markedtopiacutestic γρ ecircχει

12b dojăsetai αIcircτuacute

12c kaEgrave perisseujăsetai

12d iacutestic δagrave οIcircκ ecircχει

12e kaEgrave ccedil ecircqei ρθήσεται π αIcircτοUuml

13adiĂ

toUumlto acircν παραβοlαOslashc αIcircτοOslashc lαlAgrave

13b iacutetiblegravepontec οIcirc βlέπουσιν

13c kaEgraveĆkoOcircontec οIcircκ κούουσιν

13d oIcircdagrave sunETHousin

14a kaEgrave ĆnaplhroUumltai αIcircτοOslashc προφητεία gtΗσαEgraveου

lέγουσα

14b gtAkoň κούσετε

14c kaEgrave oIcirc mŸ sunĺte

14d kaEgraveblegravepontec βlέψετε

14e kaEgrave oIcirc mŸ Ogravedhte

15a acircpaqOcircnjh γρ καρδία τοUuml lαοUuml τούτου

15b kaEgrave toOslashc šsEgraven βαρέωc centκουσαν

15c kaEgrave toIgravec aeligfjalmoIgravec aIcirctAgraven acircκάmicromicroυσαν

15d măpote Ogravedwsin τοOslashc aeligφθαlmicroοOslashc

15e kaEgrave toOslashc šsEgraven κούσωσιν

15f kaEgrave tň kardETHoslash συνAgraveσιν

15g kaEgrave acircpistregraveywsin

15h kaEgrave EcircĹsomai αIcircτούc

16a IacutemAgraven δagrave [are] microακάριοι οEacute aeligφθαlmicroοEgrave16b iacuteti

blegravepousin

16c kaEgrave [blessed] [are] τ Acircτα IacutemicroAgraveν16d iacuteti ĆkoOcircousin

17a ĆmŸn γρ legravegw IacutemicroOslashν

17b iacuteti polloEgrave profĺtai

kaEgrave dETHkaioi acircπεθύmicroησαν EcircδεOslashν βlέπετε

17c kaEgrave oIcirck eUacutedan

17d kaEgrave [polloEgrave profĺtai

kaEgrave dETHkaioi] [acircπεθύmicroησαν] κοUumlσαι κούετε

17e kaEgrave oIcirck ćkousan

The pattern of textual Themes does not change from the parable to the

rationale As in the parable about two thirds of the message units (23 of34) have textual Themes and about two thirds of the textual Themes (16 of23) are occurrences of the conjunction καί lsquoandrsquo indicating paratactic relationsbetween clauses As in the parable the relatively high proportion of clauses withparatactic relations is not accompanied by a high lexical density as might be thecase in a more written mode The generous use of the conjunction καί lsquoandrsquo doesnot indicate the degree of grammatical complexity that is often characteristicof spoken language Nevertheless it does indicate language that is closer to thespoken end of the continuum than a text with paratactic relations that are notindicated by textual adjuncts

The low degree of lexical density in the rationale section is evident in scan-ning the topical Themes in Table 55 In the 34 message units 15 topicalThemes are finite verbs Another 12 topical Themes are participant references(indicated by underline in Table 55) 9 of which contain only one lexical item(ie one word not including ldquofunction wordsrdquo such as definite articles) andnone more than three lexical items Of the five circumstances as topical Theme(indicated by double angle brackets in Table 55) three are participles standingalone and two are two-word prepositional phrases The remaining two clauseshave ellipsed topical Themes (vv 16c and 17d) Regardless of whether theyare circumstances participant references or finite verbs the topical Themesthroughout this section are lexically sparse

What gets to be topical Theme also indicates mode apart from what it showsabout lexical density The high proportion of unmarked Themes (15 of 34 topicalThemes are finite verbs) is characteristic of spoken mode In addition the im-plicit subjects of most of those verbs are concrete persons such as the disciplesthe crowds and Jesus himself Explicit participant references as topical Themesare also predominantly references to concrete persons namely the disciples (vv11b 16a and perhaps 12a) the crowds to whom Jesus spoke the parables (vv11c perhaps 12d and their ears eyes and hearts in 15b 15c 15e and 15f) andall the prophets and righteous ones (v 17b) These references are not only toconcrete persons but are additionally predominantly exophoric references Tworeferences implicit in the morphology of finite verbs as Themes are first personreferences (vv 15h and 17a) two are second person references (vv 14c and 14e)and two participant references as Themes are second person references (vv 11band 16a) Concrete references are characteristic of spoken mode especially ex-ophoric references to persons in the immediate environment and first and secondperson references to the participants in the exchange In particular exophoricreferences are characteristic of an accompanying role of language and first andsecond person references are characteristic of high interaction language

The rationale section does not show a clear method of development through-out It is characterized by local development of Themes predicted by the pre-ceding Rheme by repetition of Themes locally and by shifts in Theme but nooverall pattern of thematic development An example of local development isin the initial response to the question of v 10b The final word of the questionRheme αIcircτοOslashc lsquoto themrsquo is picked up in contrastive Themes in the first twoclauses of the answer mdash IacutemicroOslashν lsquoto you-PLrsquo (v 11b) and acircκείνοιc lsquoto thosersquo (v

11c) The contrast is repeated in a less concrete way with the Themes iacuteστιc[ecircχει] lsquowhoever [has]rsquo in v 12a and iacuteστιc [δagrave οIcircκ ecircχει] lsquo[but] whoever [does nothave]rsquo in v 12d The iacuteστιc clause in v 12a is followed by two clauses with finiteverb Themes (δοθήσεται in v 12b and περισσευθήσεται in v 12c) whose impliedSubjects refer to the unstated object of the verb ecircχει in the Rheme of v 12aThe iacuteστιc clause in v 12d is followed by a clause the explicit Subject of whichis Theme and refers to the unstated object of the verb ecircχει in the Rheme ofv 12d The resulting local thematic development pattern is displayed belowThe display shows only the items of Theme and Rheme from Table 55 thatcontribute to the thematic development

Theme Rheme10b αIcircτοOslashc

911b IacutemicroOslashν

(δέδοται)

contrast11c acircκείνοιc

[δagrave οIcirc δέδοται]

12a iacuteστιc

[ecircχει] implied object

912b δοθήσεται implied subject

contrast repeated

12c περισσευθήσεται implied subject

12d iacuteστιc [δagrave οIcircκ ecircχει] implied object

912e καEgrave ccedil ecircχει

The next cluster of clauses with local thematic development are in v 13The Theme of v 13a is δι τοUumlτο lsquoon account of thisrsquo referring to the wholeof vv 11 and 12 The elements of the Rheme in the question of v 10b arerepeated in the Rheme of v 13a (acircν παραβοlαOslashc αIcircτοOslashc lαlAgrave lsquoin parables to themI speakrsquo) The Themes of the remaining three clauses in v 13 are repetitiousprocesses of perception with morphological ties to the ldquothemrdquo to whom theparables are spoken (βlέποντεc (13b) κούοντεc (13c) and συνίουσιν (13d))The Theme in v 14 shifts to ναπlηροUumlται lsquois fulfilledrsquo as the prophecy of Isaiahis introduced in which a repetition of lexical items related to perception asThemes occurs similar to v 13 (κοnot (14b) συνumlτε (14c) βlέποντεc (14d) andOgraveδητε (14e)) A shift occurs again in the middle of the quotation from Isaiah inv 15 with the Theme acircπαχύνθη lsquowas made thickrsquo This shift is followed by astring of repetitious Themes once again most of which this time are organs of

perception rather than processes (τοOslashc sup2σEgraveν (15b) τοIgravec aeligφθαlmicroοIgravec αIcircτAgraveν (15c)Ograveδωσιν (15d the sole process as Theme in the string) τοOslashc sup2σEgraveν (15e) and τnotκαρδίoslash (15f)) The same pattern of frequent shifts in Theme and repetitions ofThemes related to perception (βlέπουσιν (16b) κούουσιν (16d) εUacuteδαν (17c)and centκουσαν (17e)) extends to the end of the rationale section

Although the rationale section in Mark is much smaller than in Matthew(eight clauses compared to 34) the pattern of Theme is not significantly dif-ferent In eight clauses there are two interpersonal Themes and six textualThemes (see Table 56) Two of the textual Themes indicate hypotactic re-lations between clauses (vv 12a and 12e) and the other four are occurrencesof the conjunction καί lsquoandrsquo Four topical Themes are finite verbs (unmarkedThemes) two are participants and two are circumstances but only one topicalTheme (v 11c) has as many as two lexical items One participant reference asTheme is a second person form (IacutemicroOslashν lsquoto you PLrsquo (11b))

Table 56 Theme in the Rationale (Mk 411ndash12)

Vs text interp topic Theme Rheme11b ltUmOslashn τauml microυστήριον δέδοται τumlc βασιlείαc

τοUuml θεοUuml

11c acirckeETHnoic δagrave toOslashc ecircxw acircν παραβοlαOslashc τ πάντα γίνεται

12a Ugravenablegravepontec βlέπωσιν

12b kaEgrave mŸ Ogravedwsin

12c kaEgraveĆkoOcircontec κούωσιν

12d kaEgrave mŸ suniAgravesin

12e măpote acircpistregraveywsin

12f kaEgrave Ćfejň αIcircτοOslashc

As in Mark the rationale for speaking in parables in Luke can scarcely be calleda ldquosectionrdquo as it can in Matthew There is no thematic connection between thequestion in v 9b and the rationale in v 10 (see Table 57) The rationale islimited to four clauses none of which have finite verbs as Theme The firsttwo have contrastive participant references as Themes one of which is a sec-ond person form The last two clauses have textual Themes (one paratacticone hypotactic) and isolated unmodified participles (circumstances) as topicalThemes

Table 57 Theme in the Rationale (Lk 89ndash10)

Vs text interp top Theme Rheme9b tETHc αOtildeτη εOgraveη παραβοlή

10a ltUmOslashn δέδοται γνAgraveναι τ microυστήρια τumlc βασιlείαc

τοUuml θεοUuml

10b toOslashc δagrave loipoOslashc [it is given] acircν παραβοlαOslashc

10c Ugravenablegravepontec micro βlέπωσιν

10d kaEgraveĆkoOcircontec micro συνιAgraveσιν

Since patterns of Themes realize mode it is difficult to draw significant conclu-sions from such short text portions as the rationale sections of Mark and LukeThe rationale section of Matthew however has been very profitably analyzedfor mode This text has many characteristics of a spoken text both in the de-gree of interactivity and in playing an accompanying role The high proportionsof interpersonal Themes and of first and second person references in topicalThemes are characteristic of a high degree of interaction In addition the textcontains mostly lexically simple Themes and a high proportion of finite verbsas topical Themes (ie unmarked Themes) Topical Themes are lexically sim-ple both in the sense of lexical density and in the sense of referring to concretepersons and objects A high proportion of references in topical Themes that arenot only concrete but refer exophorically to persons and objects in the imme-diate environment are characteristic of an accompanying role of the language ofthe text as well as a higher degree of interaction Both the pattern of textualThemes especially the large number of occurrences of καί and the thematicdevelopment or lack of it also give the text the character of a more spokenmode with frequent shifts in Theme and repetition of Themes throughout

513 Interaction and Role in the Parable Interpretation

The pattern of Themes changes toward a less spoken mode in the parable inter-pretation This is apparent first in the near absence of interpersonal Themesthe only one is the ordinary polarity adjunct οIcircκ lsquonotrsquo in v 21a (see Table 58)The proportion of textual Themes also drops slightly to nine of 17 message unitsAlthough five of these textual Themes realize hypotactic relationships three arethe relative pronouns occurring at the very end of the parable interpretation (vv23dndashf) repeating the relative pronouns at the end of the parable itself The fourtextual Themes indicating paratactic relations in the interpretation (all of themthe conjunction καί lsquoandrsquo) is slightly more than half the seven used in the para-ble Furthermore the only reference in a topical Theme (either implied subjectof a finite verb or participant reference as Theme) that is either first or secondperson or exophoric is the pronoun IacutemicroεOslashc lsquoyou-PL-NOMrsquo in the transitional firstclause (v 18a) in which the disciples are offered the interpretation immediatelybefore it is given

Table 58 Theme in the Interpretation (Mt 1318ndash23)

Vs text interp top Theme Rheme18a ltUmeOslashc οTHORNν κούσατε τν παραβοlν τοUuml

σπείραντοc

19apantaumlc

ĆkoOcircontoc

taumln

ligravegon

basileETHac

kaEgrave

suniegraventoc ecircρχεται aring πονηρaumlc

19b kaEgrave ĄrpĹzei τauml acircσπαρmicroένον acircν τnot καρδίoslash αIcircτοUuml

19c oYacutetigravec acircστιν aring παρ τν aringδaumlν σπαρείc

20a aring δagrave acircpEgrave tĂ petryumldh

spareETHc oYacutetigravec acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave εIcircθIgravec

21a oIcirck ecircqei δagrave ucircίζαν acircν aacuteαυτAuml

21b ĆllĂ prigraveskairigravec acircστιν

21cgenomegravenhc δagrave

jlETHyewc

diwgmoUuml

taumln

ligravegon εIcircθIgravec σκανδαlίζεται

22a aring δagrave eEcircc tĂc ĆkĹnjac

spareETHc oYacutetigravec acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον κούων

22b kaEgrave Ź megraverimna toUuml aEcircAgravenoc

kaEgrave Ź ĆpĹth toUuml ploOcirctou συmicroπνίγει τaumlν lόγον

22c kaEgrave Łkarpoc γίνεται

23a aring δagrave acircpEgrave tŸn kalŸn gĺn

spareETHc oYacutetigravec acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave

συνιείc

23b ccedilc δ καρποφορεOslash

23c kaEgrave poieOslash

23d ccedil microagraveν aacuteκατόν

23e ccedil δagrave aacuteξήκοντα

23f ccedil δagrave τριάκοντα

The change in the nature of the topical Themes that is immediately appar-ent in scanning Table 58 is the lexical density The amount of information inthe Rhemes of the interpretation does not appear diminished compared to theparable in a visual comparison of Table 58 to Table 51 yet the amount ofinformation in the Themes is clearly greater There are only two circumstan-tial elements thematized in the interpretation (vv 19a and 21c) but they areboth genitive absolute constructions one having five lexical items (not countingldquofunction wordsrdquo) and the other having four lexical items Of the 12 partic-ipants as Theme three contain embedded participial clauses two having fourlexical items each (vv 20a and 22a) and the other having five lexical items (v23a) An additional lexically dense participant reference as topical Theme isthe compound nominal group microέριmicroνα τοUuml αEcircAgraveνοc καEgrave πάτη τοUuml πlούτουlsquothe care of the age and the deceit of wealthrsquo (v 22b) which has four lexicalitems What is visually apparent in the tables is borne out in an actual countof lexical items The lexical density of the parable is 35 (60 lexical items in17 ranking clauses) compared to 47 in the interpretation (80 lexical items in17 ranking clauses)10 Not only lexical density of the interpretation as a wholebut especially lexically dense Themes indicate a more written mode

The reason so many Themes are lexically dense is that whole processes10Cf the rationale in Matthew with a lexical density of 25 (84 lexical items in 34 ranking

clauses)

rather than concrete persons and objects are chosen as Themes in the inter-pretation In the case of the substantive participles in vv 20a 22a and 23ait is not merely the seeds from the parable that are being referred to but theentire event of the sowing of particular seed in a particular environment com-plete with process and circumstance The two genitive absolute clauses in vv19a and 21c are also thematized events including processes participants andcircumstances Unlike the substantive participles the genitive absolute con-structions depict events in the world of the hearers that interpret events in theparable allegorically rather than merely repeating them The compound nomi-nal group in v 22b also depicts events that interpret the parable allegoricallyThe abstract nouns microέριmicroνα lsquocarersquo and πάτη lsquodeceitrsquo are nominalized processes ofworryingbeing concerned and deceiving accompanied by genitive case nominalgroups that indicate participants of those processes11

These lexically dense topical Themes play an important role in the thematicdevelopment of the interpretation text In the case of the substantive participles(vv 20a 22a and 23a) there is a progression that parallels the structure ofthe parable being interpreted Rather than simply orienting these messagesto the various seeds that are sown Matthewrsquos interpretation orients these keymessages in the structure of the interpretation to the whole event of certain seedbeing sown in a particular environment For example the second section of theparable begins with the hyper-Theme llα δagrave ecircπεσεν acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη lsquobut other[seed] fell on the rocky [place]rsquo (v 5a) This message is oriented to the Themellα its point of departure In contrast the second section of the interpretationbegins with a message in which the entire event of other seed falling on the rockyplace is made Theme to orient a message which interprets that event aring δagrave acircπEgrave τπετρώδη σπαρείc οYacuteτόc acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave εIcircθIgravec microετ χαρc lαmicroβάνων

αIcircτόν lsquobut that which is sown on rocky ground this is the one who hears theword and immediately receives it with joyrsquo (v 20a)

The thematic development is not as straightforward in the interpretation asin the parable however Following the offer to the disciples to hear the parable inv 18a Matthewrsquos interpretation does not begin as might be expected It doesnot begin with an interpretation of what is sown as in Mark (aring σπείρων τaumlνlόγον σπείρει lsquothe sower sows the wordrsquo (Mk 414)) or a more direct statementof interpretation of the seed as in Luke (aring σπόροc acircστEgraveν aring lόγοc τοUuml θεοUuml lsquotheseed is the word of Godrsquo (Lk 811)) Nor does Matthewrsquos interpretation beginwith the identification of the first event to be interpreted after the patterndemonstrated above from v 20a If the pattern followed in the remainder ofthe interpretation had been used the parable would have begun aring παρ τνaringδaumlν σπαρείc οYacuteτόc acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον τumlc βασιlείαc κούων καEgrave micro συνιείc lsquothatwhich is sown beside the path this is the one who hears the word and doesnot understandrsquo Instead the choice is made to thematize the interpretation ofthe event rather than the event being interpreted παντaumlc κούοντοc τaumlν lόγον

11The genitive nominal group toUuml aEcircAgravenoc lsquoageworldrsquo is either an objective genitive describ-ing the Goal of the worrying or a subjective genitive describing the Actor who worries (iethe focus is on the things this age is concerned about) The subjective genitive toUuml ploOcirctoulsquowealthrsquo is the Actor of the deceiving

τumlc βασιlείαc καEgrave micro συνιέντοc ecircρχεται aring πονηρaumlc lsquoall who hear the word of theKingdom and do not understand it the evil one comesrsquo (v 19a) In so doingthematic continuity with the preceding rationale section is maintained Thelexical items κούειν lsquoto hearrsquo and συνιέναι lsquoto understandrsquo are repeated fromthe rationale (κούειν in vv 13c 14b 15b 15e 16d 17d and 17e then in 18ato begin the interpretation συνιέναι in vv 13d 14c and 15f) with the notion ofhearing but not understanding repeated twice in that section (vv 13cndashd and vv14bndashc) The phrase τaumlν lόγον τumlc βασιlείαc lsquothe word of the Kingdomrsquo bringsto mind τ microυστήρια τumlc βασιlείαc τAgraveν οIcircρανAgraveν lsquothe mysteries of the Kingdomof the heavensrsquo knowledge of which Jesus said was given to the disciples butnot to those who hear but do not understand (v 11b)

The interpretation of the parable thus begins in an unusual way but onewhich maintains thematic continuity with the preceding discourse The identi-fication of the event interpreted by this opening genitive absolute is not givenuntil after the event is interpreted When the pattern of identifying an eventfrom the parable as the Theme for its interpretation is established the result isa chiastic structure formed by the Themes of the two opening sections (Themesare in boldface parable elements being interpreted are wavy-underlined geni-tive absolute constructions as Theme are in italics)

A pantaumlc ĆkoOcircontoc taumln ligravegon

tĺc basileETHac kaEgrave mŸ suniegraventoc ecircρχεται aring πονηρaumlc

B kaEgrave ĄrpĹzei τauml acircσπαρmicroένον acircν τnot καρδίoslash αIcircτοUuml

CoYacutetigravec acircστιν aring παρ τν aringδaumlν σπαρείc

Cprimearing

dagrave

acircpEgrave

petryumldh

spareETHc

oYacutetigravec

acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave εIcircθIgravec

BprimeoIcirck ecircqei δagrave ucircίζαν acircν aacuteαυτAuml

ĆllĂ prigraveskairigravec acircστιν

Aprimegenomegravenhc dagrave jlETHyewc ń

diwgmoUuml diĂ taumln ligravegon εIcircθIgravec σκανδαlίζεται

The elements of the parable identified in this section as in need of interpretationconstitute the topical Themes at the center of the chiasm (C and Cprime) B and Bprime

are thematically unmarked messages (finite verb as Theme) having to do withthe fate of the central participants as they are interpreted Bprime is a negativestatement to which is added a positive statement of contrast that unbalancesthe chiasm The chiasm is enclosed by the genitive absolute constructions asThemes (A and Aprime)

The chiastic structure however does not represent the flow of informationThe whole message of C (Theme and Rheme together) is parallel in informationto the Theme of Cprime alone These two elements placed together in the discourserepresent the first two events of the parable that are being interpreted Theinterpretation of the first proceeds from the Theme of A through the Rheme of

B before the element that has been interpreted is named in C The interpretationof the second event follows the naming of that event in the Theme of Cprime butnot in reverse order of how the interpretation of the first event is presentedThe initial allegorical identification of the parable event is presented in theRheme of Cprime parallel to the Theme of A in its interpretive function Theinterpretation then proceeds to consequences of the event in Bprime (including bothcontrastive messages) and Cprime which are parallel in interpretive function to theconsequences presented in the Rheme of A and all of B (both Theme and Rheme)in the interpretation of the first event

In terms of interpretive information then the chiasm should be representedas follows

A1 pantaumlc ĆkoOcircontoc taumln ligravegon tĺc basileETHac kaEgrave mŸ suniegraventoc

A2 ecircρχεται aring πονηρaumlc

A3 kaEgrave ĄrpĹzei τauml acircσπαρmicroένον acircν τnot καρδίoslash αIcircτοUuml

BoYacutetigravec acircστιν aring παρ τν aringδaumlν σπαρείc

Bprimearing

dagrave

acircpEgrave

petryumldh

spareETHc

oYacutetigravec

A1primeacircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave εIcircθIgravec microετ χαρc lαmicroβάνων αIcircτόν

A2primeoIcirck ecircqei δagrave ucircίζαν acircν aacuteαυτAuml ĆllĂ prigraveskairigravec acircστιν

A3primegenomegravenhc dagrave jlETHyewc ń diwgmoUuml diĂ taumln ligravegon εIcircθIgravec

σκανδαlίζεται

The progression of the Themes in the text begins with something of a zig-zagpattern in the first section of the interpretation but the pattern breaks downin the three remaining sections The dominant pattern in the interpretation asa whole is the parallel thematic presentation of parable events that are beinginterpreted The following display of the interpretation text from Matthewshows the patterns with arrows (and lack of patterns where arrows are absent)in the progression of Themes Themes are in boldface the macro-Theme double-underlined and hyper-Themes underlined

I pantaumlc ĆkoOcircontoc taumln ligravegon tĺc basileETHac

kaEgrave mŸ suniegraventoc ecircρχεται aring πονηρaumlc

9kaEgrave ĄrpĹzei τauml acircσπαρmicroένον acircν τnot καρδίoslash αIcircτοUuml

9oYacutetigravec acircστιν aring παρ τν aringδaumlν σπαρείc

zII aring δagrave acircpEgrave tĂ petryumldh spareETHc oYacutetigravec acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον

κούων καEgrave εIcircθIgravec microετ χαρc lαmicroβάνων αIcircτόν

9oIcirck ecircqei δagrave ucircίζαν acircν aacuteαυτAuml

genomegravenhc dagrave jlETHyewc ń diwgmoUuml diĂ taumln ligravegon εIcircθIgravec

aring δagrave eEcircc tĂc ĆkĹnjac spareETHc oYacutetigravec acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον

κούων

kaEgrave Ź megraverimna toUuml aEcircAgravenoc kaEgrave Ź ĆpĹth toUuml ploOcirctou

συmicroπνίγει τaumlν lόγον

kaEgrave Łkarpoc γίνεται

IV aring δagrave acircpEgrave tŸn kalŸn gĺn spareETHc oYacutetigravec εστιν aring τaumlν lόγον

κούων καEgrave συνιείc

ccedilc δ καρποφορεOslash

qkaEgrave poieOslash

zccedil δagrave aacuteξήκοντα

zccedil δagrave τριάκοντα

The macro-Theme which ties the interpretation to the preceding discourse ori-ents the whole interpretation ldquoAll those hearing the word of the Kingdomrdquosummarizes the allegorical assignment of identity to all seeds sown in the para-ble These are referred to in the hyper-Themes (underlined in the display above)with the demonstrative pronoun οYacuteτοc This provides the basic structure of theinterpretation parallel to the overall structure of the parable Within section I

there is a zig-zag progression which is as much a progression of reference as ofTheme The evil one (aring πονηρόc) is referred to in the Rheme of the first messagein section I and then is the referent of the implied Subject of the finite verbin the Theme of the second message The Rheme of that message contains areference to the one who hears but does not understand (αIcircτοUuml lsquohisrsquo in τnot καρδίoslashαIcircτοUuml lsquohis heartrsquo) and then οYacuteτοc lsquothis onersquo referring to the same person isthe Theme of the third message of the section The pattern is thus a zig-zagpattern of movement from reference in the Rheme of one message to referencein the Theme of the next

As noted above the hyper-Theme of section I comes last in the sectionand is immediately contrasted with the hyper-Theme that begins section IIWithin section II the Rheme of the first message unit contains an interpretivereference to the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joyThe ambiguity of the implied Subject referent in the second message was notedin chapter three Whether however the referent is the one who hears andreceives the word with joy or the word that is heard and received (τaumlν lόγοναIcircτόν) the reference of the finite verb morphology in the Theme of the secondmessage unit agrees with a reference in the Rheme of the previous message unitThe same referent is also implied subject of the finite verbs in the other twomessage units that follow in section II The Themes however shift first toπρόσκαιροc lsquotemporaryrsquo in the third message unit then to the genitive absoluteconstruction (γενοmicroένηc δagrave θlίψεωc laquo διωγmicroοUuml δι τaumlν lόγον lsquoand when afflictionor persecution comes on account of the wordrsquo) in the fourth message unit

The Themes shift similarly in section III Following the hyper-Theme of thesection (aring εEcircc τc κάνθαc σπαρείc οYacuteτοc lsquothe one sown in the thorns this onersquo)the Theme shifts to microέριmicroνα τοUuml αEcircAgraveνοc καEgrave πάτη τοUuml πlούτου lsquothe care ofthe age and the deceit of wealthrsquo in the second message unit The word (τaumlνlόγον) referred to in the Rheme of the second message unit is then the impliedSubject of the third message unit but the Theme shifts once again to καρποclsquofruitlessrsquo

The progression of Themes in section IV is similar to section II Followingthe hyper-Theme (aring acircπEgrave τν καlν γumlν σπαρείc οYacuteτοc lsquothe one sown on the goodearth this onersquo) the Theme of the second message unit is the relative pronounccedilc which refers either to the one who hears the word and understands or tothe word which is heard and understood In either case the same referent is theimplied Subject of the third message unit The section and the interpretationends with the string of neuter relative pronouns that are Themes of the finalthree message units

The pattern of thematic progression in Matthewrsquos interpretation does not in-dicate written mode to the degree that the choice of Themes does The seeminginconsistency is resolved in recognizing the different dimensions of mode Thelack of interpersonal Themes together with a lack of first and second personforms and exophoric references in topical Themes indicates a less spoken modespecifically along the dimension of interaction Low interaction is indicatedAt the same time high lexical density endophoric references and abstract ref-erences (especially references to entire events) are indicative of a more written

mode specifically along the dimension of role The language of the interpretationplays a constituting role The overall structure of thematic progression in termsof the four sections corresponding to the sections of the parable is attributableto the constituting role The rearrangement of the opening of the interpreta-tion to accommodate the thematic flow from the preceding discourse as well asthe shifts in Theme without obvious development however are characteristicof language used in an oral channel or written to ldquosoundrdquo that way

Three differences in what is chosen to be Theme show the mode in Markrsquosinterpretation of the parable to be somewhat less written than in MatthewrsquosFirst although the proportion of interpersonal Themes is still low in Mark thereare nevertheless three of them (vv 13b 13c and 17a in Table 58) comparedto one in Matthew The additional interpersonal Themes come in Jesusrsquo tran-sitional remarks to the disciples that introduce the interpretation In additionto the second person reference of the understood subject in v 13b (referringto the disciples who are being addressed) there is also the polarity adjunct inthat clause followed by the question with the interrogative word πAgravec lsquohowrsquoas Theme in v 13c Second there are a significantly higher number of textualThemes in Markrsquos interpretation of the parable especially a higher number ofthe paratactic conjunction καί lsquoandrsquo Both of these relatively minor differencesreflect a somewhat more spoken mode of discourse

Table 58 Theme in the Interpretation (Mk 413ndash20)

Vs text interp topic Theme Rheme13b OIcirck oOgravedate τν παραβοlν ταύτην

13c kaEgravepAgravec πάσαc τc παραβοlc γνώσεσθε

14a aring speETHrwn τaumlν lόγον σπείρει

15a oYacutetoi δέ εEcircσιν οEacute παρ τν aringδaumlν

15biacutepou σπείρεται aring lόγοc

15c kaEgraveiacutetan

ĆkoOcircswsin εIcircθIgravec ecircρχεται aring Σατανc

15d kaEgrave aOgraverei τaumlν lόγον τaumlν acircσπαρmicroένον εEcircc

αIcircτούc

16a kaEgrave oYacutetoETH εEcircσιν οEacute acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη σπειρόmicroενοι

16b oNtilde iacuteταν κούσωσιν τaumlν lόγον εIcircθIgravec

microετ χαρc lαmicroβάνουσιν αIcircτόν

17a kaEgrave oIcirck ecircqousin ucircίζαν acircν aacuteαυτοOslashc

17b ĆllĂ prigraveskairoETH εEcircσιν

17c eUacutetagenomegravenhc

jlETHyewc

diwgmoUuml

taumln

ligravegon εIcircθIgravec σκανδαlίζονται

18a kaEgrave Łlloi εEcircσEgraveν οEacute εEcircc τc κάνθαc σπειρόmicroενοι

18b oYacutetoETH εEcircσιν οEacute τaumlν lόγον κούσαντεc

19a kaEgraveaEacute

megraverimnai

toUuml

aEcircAgravenoc

kaEgrave

ĆpĹth

toUuml

ploOcirctou

kaEgrave

aEacute

perEgrave

loipĂ

acircpijumETHai

eEcircsporeuigravemenai συmicroπνίγουσιν τaumlν lόγον

20a kaEgrave acirckeOslashnoETH εEcircσιν οEacute acircπEgrave τν γumlν τν καlν

σπαρέντεc

20b oUgravetinec κούουσιν τaumlν lόγον

20c kaEgrave paradegraveqontai

20d kaEgrave karpoforoUumlsin

20e [bears fruit] atildeν τριάκοντα

20f kaEgrave [bears fruit] atildeν aacuteξήκοντα

20g kaEgrave [bears fruit] atildeν aacuteκατόν

The third difference in choice of Theme between Matthew and Mark is moresignificant The lexical density of the topical Themes is considerably less inMark than in Matthew The overall lexical density of the interpretation textdoes not differ greatly between the two versions (40 [88 lexical items in 22clauses] in Mark 47 [80 lexical items in 17 clauses] in Matthew) The lexicalcomplexity however is more in the Rhemes of the clauses in Mark than inthe Themes compared to Matthew The choice of topical Themes in Mark hastended much more toward concrete Themes that refer to participants from theparable to be interpreted (οYacuteτοι lsquothesersquo in vv 15a 16a and 18b acircκεOslashνοι lsquothosersquo in20a) rather than whole events as in Matthew In order to make it clear whichparticipants from the parable are being referred to the information must bepresented but it is presented in separate messages rather than as the point ofdeparture (Theme) of the message that interprets a particular participant Forexample Markrsquos interpretation of the seed sown among thorns begins with twoclauses the first identifying the participant from the parable to be interpretedthe second beginning the interpretation

18a kaEgrave Łlloi εEcircσEgraveν οEacute εEcircc τc κάνθαc σπειρόmicroενοι18b oYacutetoETH εEcircσιν οEacute τaumlν lόγον κούσαντεc

Matthewrsquos interpretation at the same point identifies the participant in termsof the event of seed sown among thorns within the Theme of the single rankingclause that begins the interpretation of that event

22a aring dagrave eEcircc tĂc ĆkĹnjac spareETHc oYacutetigravec acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγον κούων

Mark has the following three clauses interpreting the seed sown on good soil

20a kaEgrave acirckeOslashnoETH εEcircσιν οEacute acircπEgrave τν γumlν τν καlν σπαρέντεc

20b oNtildetinec κούουσιν τaumlν lόγον

Matthew has one clause carrying the same interpretive load

23a aring dagrave acircpEgrave tŸn kalŸn gĺn spareETHc oYacutetigravec acircστιν aring τaumlν lόγονκούων καEgrave συνιείc

In several places in the interpretation Matthew has one clause where Mark hasmore than one12 accounting largely for the difference in overall lexical density(ie Mark presents the information with more clauses not fewer lexical items)

In addition to reducing the lexical density of the Themes considerably (andthe density of the whole text slightly) this choice of topical Themes also in-creases the number of times that topical Themes are repeated throughout theinterpretation Like Matthew the interpretation in Mark is characterized byfrequent shifts in topical Theme The primary thematic structure of the inter-pretation is provided by the parable being interpreted but that structure is notas clear as in Matthew Added to the smaller differences in interpersonal andtextual Themes these characteristics demonstrate a higher degree of interactionand less planning and editing than is evident in Matthew

Lukersquos considerably shorter and tighter text is not only shorter in terms ofnumber of clauses but in terms of lexical items as well Thus Lukersquos smallerinterpretation does not differ significantly from Matthewrsquos in lexical density(45 in Luke compared to 47 in Matthew) The strategy for organizing theinterpretation is similar to Matthewrsquos The topical Themes show a greaterlexical density than Markrsquos and the structure is given by Themes correspondingto the four parts of the parable that include not only reference to seed sownbut to the environments in which they are sown as part of the Themes (vv 12a13a 14a and 15a in Table 59) Two of Lukersquos 15 clauses have interpersonalThemes but both are polarity adjuncts (micro in v 12d and οIcirc in v 14c) Thereis no direct address to the disciples by way of transition nor any other first orsecond person forms or exophoric references as Themes In addition to thesecharacteristics of a more written mode Luke also has four circumstances asTheme in only 15 clauses Luke exhibits the least interaction and the highestdegree of planning and editing of the three versions of the interpretation

Table 59 Theme in the Interpretation (Lk 811ndash15)

Vs text interpers topic Theme Rheme11a ^Estin δagrave αOtildeτη παραβοlή

11b ltO spigraveroc acircστEgraveν aring lόγοc τοUuml θεοUuml

12a oEacute δagrave parĂ tŸn aringdigraven εEcircσιν οEacute κούσαντεc

12b eUacuteta ecircrqetai aring διάβοlοc

12c kaEgrave aOgraverei τaumlν lόγον πauml τumlc καρδίαc αIcircτAgraveν

12d Ugravena mŸpisteOcircsantec σωθAgraveσιν

13a oEacute δagrave acircpEgrave tĺc pegravetrac [are] οEuml iacuteταν κούσωσιν microετχαρc δέχονται τaumlν lόγον

13b kaEgrave oYacutetoi ucircίζαν οIcircκ ecircχουσιν

13c oEuml πρaumlc καιρaumlν πιστεύουσιν

13d kaEgraveacircn

kairAuml

peirasmoUuml φίστανται

12In addition to the examples already given above compare vv 15b c and d in Mark(Table 58) with vs 19a and b in Matthew (Table 58) and vv 16a and b in Mark with v20a in Matthew

14a tauml δagrave eEcircc tĂc ĆkĹnjac

pesigraven oYacutetoETH εEcircσιν οEacute κούσαντεc

14b kaEgraveIacutepauml

merimnAgraven

kaEgrave

ploOcirctou

kaEgrave

ŹdonAgraven

toUuml

bETHou

poreuigravemenoi συmicroπνίγονται

14c kaEgrave oIcirc telesforoUumlsin

15a tauml δagrave acircn tň kalň gň oYacutetoETH εEcircσιν οUgraveτινεc acircν καρδίoslash καlnot

καEgrave γαθnot

15bĆkoOcircsantec

taumln

ligravegon κατέχουσιν καEgrave καρποφοροUumlσιν

514 Interaction and Role in the Narrative

Matthew 131ndash23 and its parallels are predominantly discourse material Thenarrative frame of this text is quite limited What can be said about the modeof the narrative of Matthew is quite limited based on this material alone Somelimited observations however can be made based on the choice of Themes in thenarrative frame and especially on the narrative introduction to the discourseIn addition textual meanings in Matthew 131ndash23 as a whole especially Themeand its interaction with reference are significant to the analysis of the wholenarrative including the mode of the whole text

In the limited number of clauses of the narrative frame (see Table 510) sig-nificant patterns in what is chosen as Theme emerge There are for example nointerpersonal Themes in the narrative frame and no first or second person refer-ences or other exophoric references in Themes (or in Rhemes for that matter)There is an absence of features that would indicate a high degree of interactionwithin the text Textual Themes are abundant however including a subordi-nating conjunction indicating a hypotactic relationship and multiple uses of theparatactic conjunction καί lsquoandrsquo which engage the reader with the story morethan with its teller

Table 510 Theme in the Narrative Frame of Matthew 131ndash23

Vs text interp topic Theme Rheme1a

Źmegraveroslash

acirckeETHnugrave acircξεlθdegν aring gtΙησοUumlc τumlc οEcircκίαc

acircκάθητο παρ τν θάlασσαν

2a kaEgrave sunăqjhsan πρaumlc αIcircτaumlν icircχlοι ποllοί

2b źste aIcirctaumln εEcircc πlοOslashον acircmicroβάντα καθumlσθαι

2c kaEgrave pŘc aring icircqloc acircπEgrave τaumlν αEcircγιαlaumlν εEacuteστήκει

3a kaEgrave acirclĹlhsen αIcircτοOslashc ποll acircν παραβοlαOslashc lέγων

10a KaEgraveproseljigraventec οEacute microαθηταEgrave εUacuteπαν αIcircτAuml

11a aring δagrave ĆpokrijeEgravec εUacuteπεν αIcircτοOslashc

The nature of the topical Themes chosen is even more telling than the ab-

sence of characteristics of interpersonal interaction in revealing the written char-acter of the narrative Circumstantial elements defining setting are prominentin thematic positions and contribute much to the overall high degree of lexicaldensity of the text Not only are circumstantial elements prominent as topicalTheme in vv 1a and 10a they are also displaced Themes in vv 2b and 2c anda participle realizing a circumstantial element is embedded in the participantreference that is the topical Theme of v 11a In a more spoken mode (andespecially when the channel is actually oral) such circumstantial elements thatare necessary for the narrative are likely to become clauses (message units) bythemselves reducing the lexical density and increasing the ease of processing ofthe information Apart from the circumstantial Themes however the topicalThemes are concrete more than abstract Together with the pattern of textualThemes this increases the degree of interaction not necessarily with the writerbut with the narrative In these few clauses of the narrative frame then theconstituting role of the language and a degree of interaction more written thanspoken is revealed

The role of Theme in the method of development of the narrative cannot beadequately seen apart from the discourse contained within the narrative Ta-ble 511 displays the Theme analysis of the narrative frame with certain parts ofthe discourse inserted in order to illustrate the role that the discourse materialplays in the development of the narrative itself Thematic development withinthe parable the rationale and the interpretation has been discussed in the pre-vious sections especially as it is relevant to understanding the mode of thatdiscourse material relative to its context within the world of the narrative InTable 511 the development within the discourse material is ignored particularlywithin the parable and its interpretation The focus is on the development ofthe narrative insofar as it can be determined within the limited text of Matthew131ndash23 Themes and Rhemes are separated into different columns but distinc-tions between interpersonal textual and topical Themes are not marked nor areparticipant references circumstantial elements or displaced Themes Insteadreferences to Jesus that are significant to the development of the text (whethernominal references or verb morphology) are in bold references to the crowd areunderlined and references to the disciples are in italics Abstract participantsand phrases that contribute to the method of development are marked like this|

Table 511 Theme and Method of Development in Matthew 131ndash23

Vs Theme Rheme1a gtΕν τnot microέρoslash acircκείνugrave acircξεlθdegν aring gtIhsoUumlc τumlc οEcircκίαc

2a καEgrave συνήχθησαν πρaumlc aIcirctaumln icircχlοι ποllοί

2b sup1στε aIcirctaumln εEcircc πlοOslashον acircmicroβάντα καθumlσθαι

2c καEgrave πc aring icircχlοc acircπEgrave τaumlν αEcircγιαlaumlν εEacuteστήκει

3a καEgrave acirclĹlhsen αIcircτοOslashc ποll acircν παραβοlαOslashc lέγων| 3b gtΙδοIgrave acircξumllθεν aring σπείρων τοUuml σπείρειν

4andash8e 9a aring ecircχων Acircτα κουέτω

10a ΚαEgrave προσεlθόντεc oEacute majhtaEgrave εUacuteπαν aIcirctAuml

10b ∆ι τί acircν παραβοlαOslashc laleOslashc αIcircτοOslashc| 11a aring δagrave ĆpokrijeEgravec εUacuteπεν aIcirctoOslashc

11b VΟτι IacutemOslashn δέδοται γνAgraveναι τ microυστήρια τumlc

11c acircκείνοιc δagrave οIcirc δέδοται

12 13a δι τοUumlτο acircν παραβοlαOslashc αIcircτοOslashc lalAgrave| 13b iacuteτι βlέποντεc οIcirc βlέπουσιν

13c καEgrave κούοντεc οIcircκ κούουσιν

13d οIcircδagrave συνίουσιν

14a καEgrave ναπlηροUumlται αIcircτοOslashc προφητεία gtΗσαEgraveου

lέγουσα

14b gtΑκοnot κούσετε

14c καEgrave οIcirc micro συνumlτε

14dndash15d 15e καEgrave τοOslashc sup2σEgraveν κούσωσιν

15f καEgrave τnot καρδίoslash συνAgraveσιν

15gndash15h 16a IacutemAgraven δagrave [are] microακάριοι οEacute aeligφθαlmicroοEgrave16b iacuteτι blegravepousin

16c καEgrave [blessed] [are] τ Acircτα IacutemAgraven16d iacuteτι ĆkoOcircousin

17a microν γρ legravegw IacutemOslashn

17b iacuteτι ποllοEgrave προφumlται καEgrave δίκαιοι acircπεθύmicroησαν EcircδεOslashν blegravepete

17c καEgrave οIcircκ εUacuteδαν

17d καEgrave [ποllοEgrave προφumlται καEgrave δίκαιοι] [acircπεθύmicroησαν] κοUumlσαι κούετε| 17e καEgrave οIcircκ centκουσαν

18a ltUmeOslashc οTHORNν κούσατε τν παραβοlν| τοUumlσπείραντοc

19a παντaumlc κούοντοc τaumlν lόγον

τumlc βασιlείαc καEgrave micro συνιέντοc ecircρχεται aring πονηρaumlc

19bndash23f

Reference is an important part of the development of the whole text Withinthe beginning narrative frame Jesus is referred to explicitly (aring gtΙησοUumlc) in theopening message (v 1a) in which the circumstantial Theme separates off thewhole parable discourse from what preceded it Jesus is again referred to in theRheme of the second message (αIcircτaumlν lsquohimrsquo v 2a) even as the crowd is introduced(icircχlοι ποllοί lsquomany crowdsrsquo) This Rheme provides the starting point for thenext two messages as first αIcircτaumlν lsquohimrsquo referring to Jesus is Theme of v 2b andthen πc aring icircχlοc lsquoall the crowdrsquo is Theme of v 2c Jesus is then the referentof the implied Subject of the verb in thematic position of v 3a as his speaking

becomes point of reference for a Rheme that sets the stage for the remainder ofthe discourse

The Rheme of v 3a (boxed in Table 511) αIcircτοOslashc ποll acircν παραβοlαOslashc lέγωνlsquoto them many [things] in parables sayingrsquo does more than introduce the para-bles that follow although it does do that too mdash it prepares the readerhearerto understand the discourse immediately following as a parable and with theplural forms ποll acircν παραβοlαOslashc lsquomany things in parablesrsquo to expect moreparables But it also becomes significant as the narrative develops by providinga point of reference for the question that follows the first parable in v 10b TheRheme of that question is repetitious of the one in v 3a acircν παραβοlαOslashc lαlεOslashcαIcircτοOslashc lsquoin parables you speak to themrsquo The crowd referred to by the pronounαIcircτοOslashc lsquothemrsquo in the Rheme of v 10b and the disciples referred to by the pro-noun αIcircτοOslashc lsquothemrsquo in the Rheme of v 11a become the contrastive Themes ofthe first two ranking clauses of Jesusrsquo answer (IacutemicroOslashν lsquoto you-PLrsquo in v 11b andacircκείνοιc lsquoto thosersquo in v 11c) This contrast carries forward throughout the ra-tionale In v 13a the content of the Rheme of v 3a and 10b is again repeated(acircν παραβοlαOslashc αIcircτοOslashc lαlAgrave lsquoin parables to them I speakrsquo) followed by a seriesof references to ldquothoserdquo (ie those to whom the parables are spoken) whichdominate the central part of the rationale (vv 13ndash15 see especially the under-lined references in the boxed text portions in Table 511) The disciples thenreturn by way of contrast in an especially marked Theme in v 16a (the genitiveIacutemicroAgraveν lsquoyour-PLrsquo separated from the nominal group it modifies) References tothe disciples remain prominent through v 18a in which IacutemicroεOslashc lsquoyoursquo referring tothe disciples is an emphatic marked Theme The Rheme of this clause which isthe transition to the interpretation of the parable contains a direct contrast tothe Rhemes of vv 3a 10b and 13a In those Rhemes the crowds are identifiedas those to whom the parables are spoken but throughout the rationale it isclear that they do not really hear In v 18a the disciples are identified as thosewho actually hear the parable (κούσατε τν παραβοlν [τοUuml σπείραντοc] lsquoyouhear the parable [of the sower]rsquo) Through repetition and contrast then thereis a ldquorhematic developmentrdquo throughout Matthew 131ndash23 that accompanies athematic development of referential contrast between the crowds to whom theparables are spoken and the disciples who hear the parable

The contrast in this narrative helps to explain the unusual arrangementof the first part of the parable interpretation in which the genitive absoluteconstruction παντaumlc κούοντοc τaumlν lόγον τumlc βασιlείαc καEgrave micro συνιέντοc lsquoallwho hear the word of the Kingdom and do not understand itrsquo (v 19a) is Themeof the opening message unit as noted in the previous section Within thecentral part of the rationale in which references to the crowd dominate therepetitions of the pairing of hearing (or not hearing) and not understanding aresurrounded by boxes in Table 512 The sequence καEgrave κούοντεc οIcircκ κούουσινοIcircδagrave συνίουσιν lsquoand hearing they do not hear nor perceive (vv 13cndashd) is followedby the two similar sequences from the Isaiah quotation κοnot κούσετε καEgrave οIcirc microσυνumlτε lsquoby what is heard you shall hear and by no means perceiversquo (vv 14bndashc)and καEgrave τοOslashc sup2σEgraveν κούσωσιν καEgrave τnot καρδίoslash συνAgraveσιν lsquoand with [their] ears theyshould hear and with their hearts they should perceiversquo (vv 15endashf dominated

by the negative microήποτε lsquolestrsquo in v 15d) The first of these sequences from theIsaiah quotation seems to be the pattern for the genitive absolute constructionwith which the parable interpretation begins The perceiver is generalized fromldquothoserdquo in v 11c to ldquoallrdquo (παντaumlc) in v 19a but the contrast between peoplewho hear and do not perceive and the disciples who are really hearing is clear Itis already clear that at the end of the parable discourse (v 51) when Jesus asksthe disciples Συνήκατε ταUumlτα πάντα lsquoHave you understood all these thingsrsquothe answer must be Ναί lsquoYesrsquo

As has been the pattern throughout the analysis of Theme in Markrsquos nar-rative frame shows a lower degree of written mode than Matthewrsquos text (seeTable 512) Like Matthew Mark has no interpersonal Themes in the narra-tive frame Except for the sup1στε clause (v 1c) however every clause in Markrsquosnarrative frame begins with καί More significantly topical Themes are not lex-ically dense but are simple and predominantly unmarked finite verbs In termsof thematic development the whole discourse is not set off by a circumstan-tial Theme as Matthewrsquos discourse is The opening clause gives the sense of acontinuation more than a major transition Instead a greater shift is indicatedfollowing the parable with the circumstantial Theme in v 10a Otherwise theopening narrative frames of the two accounts develop similarly The thematicties that begin in the narrative frame and are woven through the discourse ma-terial in Matthew however are missing from Mark To the extent that thereis a thematic tie that will continue throughout the parable discourse it is thebeginning of Jesusrsquo response to the disciplesrsquo actual question ΟIcircκ οOgraveδατε τνπαραβοlν ταύτην καEgrave πAgravec πάσαc τc παραβοlc γνώσεσθε lsquoYou do not knowthis parable and how will you know all the parablesrsquo (vv 13bndashc) Howeverthis statement and question have no particular thematic ties to the openingnarrative frame nor to the other discourse material except to the degree thatthe discourse material consists largely of a parable and its interpretation Thenarrative of Mark 41ndash20 as whole then shows evidence of being less organizedor planned less carefully edited less a written mode This evidence could beconstrued as favoring Markan priority

Table 512 Theme in the Narrative Frame of Mark 41ndash20

Vs text interp topic Theme Rheme1a KaEgrave

pĹlin centρξατο διδάσκειν παρ τν θάlασσαν

1b kaEgrave sunĹgetai πρaumlc αIcircτaumlν icircχlοc πlεOslashστοc

1c źste aIcirctaumln εEcircc πlοOslashον acircmicroβάντα καθumlσθαι acircν τnot

θαlάσσugrave

1d kaEgrave pŘc aring icircqloc πρaumlc τν θάlασσαν acircπEgrave τumlc γumlc ordfσαν

2a kaEgrave acircdETHdasken αIcircτοIgravec acircν παραβοlαOslashc ποllά

2b kaEgrave ecirclegen αIcircτοOslashc acircν τnot διδαχnot αIcircτοUuml

9a kaEgrave ecirclegen

10a KaEgraveiacutete

acircgegraveneto

migravenac ρώτων αIcircτaumlν οEacute περEgrave αIcircτaumlν σIgraveν τοOslashc

δώδεκα τc παραβοlάc

11a kaEgrave ecirclegen αIcircτοOslashc

13a KaEgrave legravegei αIcircτοOslashc

Lukersquos narrative departs much more from Markrsquos than Matthewrsquos doesLukersquos compression of the narrative at this point is also an indication of a muchhigher degree of written-ness than the parallels Not only are there no inter-personal Themes neither are there any textual Themes in the narrative frame(see Table 513) The opening topical Theme is very dense lexically and indi-cates a transition of some kind but the narrative setting is minimal and doesnot introduce an entire discourse of parables as Matthewrsquos opening narrativeframe clearly does There is not a large thematic load to be carried in Lukersquostext since Lukersquos parallel to the parable and its interpretation is simply thata parable and its interpretation It is the most highly structured and clearlyedited but not obviously edited for an overall narrative purpose as Matthewrsquostext is The only narrative purpose of editing that is apparent without lookingbeyond the text of Luke 84ndash15 (ie to the co-text) is to present the telling ofa parable and its interpretation

Table 513 Theme in the Narrative Frame of Luke 84ndash15

Vs text interp top Theme Rheme4a

Suniigraventoc δagrave

icircqlou

polloUuml

kaEgrave

tAgraven

pigravelin

acircpiporeuomegravenwn

praumlc

aIcirctaumln εUacuteπεν δι παραβοlumlc

8ctaUumlta

legravegwn acircφώνει

9a gtEphryumltwn δagrave αIcircτaumlν οEacute microαθηταEgrave αIcircτου

10a aring δagrave εUacuteπεν

In the same way that the register variables field and tenor are aspects of theevangelistrsquos context that are realized in the semantic structure of the text soalso is the mode of the evangelistrsquos text an aspect of context in text At the sametime the evangelist shapes the discourse within the text to realize the contextbeing created by the narrative The context within the narrative includes therole of language and the degree of interaction ie mode The mode of thediscourse within the text is somewhat artificial It is artificial not only becausethe discourse is abbreviated compared to what a real situation might be (eg a

transcription of an actual situation in which a parable is told and interpreted) Itis also somewhat artificial because the discourse including the choice of Themesis shaped by the evangelistrsquos own context including the mode of the gospel asa whole In other words the mode of the gospel text is realized in the way thediscourse material is structured not just in the narrative parts

The mode of the discourse itself in Matthew shifts from parable to rationaleto interpretation There is a degree of interaction in the parable that reflects asituation of face-to-face delivery of the parable to the crowds But the dominantcharacteristic of the parablersquos mode is its constitutive role13 The dramaticincrease in interaction in the rationale reflects not only the change of the teachingsituation from a large crowd to the small group of disciples who followed JesusIt also reflects the change in the role of language to an accompanying role Jesusis interacting with his disciples about the activity of teaching that is going on inthe situational context The level of interaction is higher in the interpretationthan in the parable as Jesus continues to interact with the disciples but therole of language shifts once again It is not purely constitutive or accompanyingbut somewhere between as an interpretation of a constitutive use of languageIn this way it shares something in common with a commentary on a sportingevent or perhaps with an athletersquos explanation of or reflection or commentaryon her performance in an interview following the performance

Although there are variations of degree of written-ness between the gospelsthroughout the discourse material the major difference between Matthew andthe others is the nature and role of the rationale section This relates not only tothe context of the discourse within the narrative world of the gospel but also tothe context of the gospel itself The more spoken mode of the discourse materialin Mark is perhaps indicative of a less carefully edited text or perhaps simply ofless literary skill Markrsquos concern seems to be more simply to present the parableand its interpretation than to shape them for a broader narrative purpose thecontent of the parable and interpretation may lend itself to a Markan notion ofapocalyptic esoteric and messianic secret (Sellin 1983) but the textual meaningsare not organized to communicate this notion in a coherent way in the sameway that Matthewrsquos text presses the contrast between the disciples and theuncomprehending crowd In contrast to Mark Lukersquos discourse material iscarefully edited and is more written in character than either Mark or MatthewYet Lukersquos concern like Markrsquos seems to be more to present the parable and itsinterpretation than to shape them for a broader purpose The mode is such thatthe parable and its interpretation are identifiable as spoken texts but spoken

13Whatever its original nature and whether or not it can be traced back to Jesus in itspresent form the parable of the sower in its canonical form is not an example of languagein an accompanying role ie it does not reflect an ldquooriginalrdquo situation as Jeremias (1972)might say It is more like a creative composition (Via 1967) a bearer of reality (Crossan1973) an aesthetic object that resists contextualization (Scott 1989) In personal commu-nication Michael Gregory pointed out that parables should be expected to exhibit some ofthe organizational and textual features of written language because of their nature as fre-quently repeated stories He identifies them as one kind of the frequently repeated spokenmonologues without written origin found in many oral cultures and labels them as recitingmedium (Gregory 1967 Gregory amp Carroll 1978)

texts that have been reduced to a minimalist written representation Luke doesnot shape this material into a major speech with programmatic significanceLuke does not even include comparable material to Markrsquos introduction to theinterpretation which at least takes advantage of the opportunity to reiterate abroader theme of the narrative concerning the lack of understanding on the partof the disciples even if the whole of Mark 41ndash20 is not shaped well to supportthat purpose The mode as reflected in the thematic structure of the discoursematerial indicates that this particular text portion may be more significantwithin Matthewrsquos larger gospel narrative than the parallel texts are in Markand Luke

The mode of the discourse material within the narrative adds to what thenarrative frame itself tells us of the narrative world constructed by the evange-list This is especially true in the case of Matthew in which the rationale andinterpretation are more clearly structured to advance broader narrative goalsthan the parallel discourse material does in Mark and Luke We have seen inthe final section of this chapter that particular choices of Theme and thematicstructuring are in service to a larger development than is evident from withinthe discourse material itself The narrative frame is structured to set forth acontrast between what Jesus says to the crowd and what he says to the disciplesThis contrast is developed in the much expanded rationale in Matthew (com-pared to Mark and Luke) The whole interpretation then becomes a contrastto the parable in that Jesus spoke the parable to the crowd but the disciplesreally hear the interpretation It is given to them to know the mysteries ofthe kingdom They hear and understand The crowd however hears withoutreally hearing or understanding The interpretation is then structured to takeas its starting point and orientation reference to all who hear the word of thekingdom and do not understand in direct contrast to those who are hearing theinterpretation This thematic structuring is the realization of a written modein which the language is playing a constituting role of constructing a narrativeincluding the embedded discourse that develops particular notions about con-trasts between those to whom the word is spoken and those who really hear andunderstand it

Chapter 6

Conclusions Context in theText of Matthew 131ndash23and Parallels

In the quest to understand biblical texts in context a variety of methods havebeen used to determine clarify or reconstruct context including historical the-ological and cultural context The importance of context for interpreting textsraises the question of how text and context are related and whether some aspectsof context are embedded in the text itself Occasionally texts communicate ex-plicit information about events and how they relate to one another or about theculture in which the text was produced More often we are left to reconstructbased on partial evidence both socio-historical contexts and sequences of eventsthat give plausible accounts of the context in which a text is produced Intro-ductions to New Testament commentaries are filled with such reconstructionswhich vary from one commentator to another and also vary in their degree ofplausibility If some aspects of context are actually embedded in texts whetheraspects of the instantial situation in which the texts are produced or the broadercultural context this would seem to be a very important starting point for un-derstanding context and thus for interpreting the texts

The contention of this study has been that certain limited aspects of contextare indeed embedded in texts and that systemic functional grammar (SFG)provides a model for analyzing texts that makes clear those aspects of contextSFG recognizes both context of culture and context of situation as linguisticallyrelevant The focus of this study has been on the three linguistically relevantvariables of context of situation namely field tenor and mode The usefulness ofSFG for analyzing context in text is not only the provision of these concepts foranalyzing context but in the relationships that the model makes explicit betweenthe contextual variables and semantic functions that realize them Field isrealized by experiential meanings tenor by interpersonal meanings and modeby textual meanings These three kinds of meanings are in turn realized by

166 Conclusions Context in Text

grammatical structures that are mapped onto one another and realized eithergraphically or phonically in linear text By analyzing the structures that realizeprocess types in a text we are able to get at experiential meanings that realizethe field of the text or what is going on in relation to what in the contextof situation By analyzing the structures that realize Mood including Subjectand Predicator structures we are able to get at those interpersonal meaningsthat realize the tenor of the text or the negotiation of social relationships andthe social roles of participants in social action in the context of situation Byanalyzing the structures that realize Theme and flow of information we are ableto get at those textual meanings that realize the mode of the text or the partplayed by language in the social activity in the context of situation The firstchapter of this study included a description of experiential interpersonal andtextual meanings and how these meanings are realized at the clause rank in thegrammar of New Testament Greek This description provided the basis for theanalysis of specific texts to see what contextual features were realized in thesemantic structures of those texts

The textual focus of this study ie the specific text examined in terms of itsfield tenor and mode has been Matthew 131ndash23 and its parallels The thirdchapter contained a brief analysis of logical meanings of the text in order todefine the text parts for analysis of experiential meanings Experiential mean-ings were analyzed in detail in that chapter to show how they realize activityand object focus the categories used to define the field variable of context ofsituation Interpersonal meanings were analyzed in detail in the fourth chapteras realizations of the tenor variable of context Tenor was analyzed generally asformal versus informal in terms of status contact and affect Textual meaningswere analyzed in detail in the fifth chapter as realizations of the mode variableof context Mode which relates to field in terms of the role language plays in asocial activity and to tenor in terms of the interaction between those engaged inthe social activity was characterized as spoken versus written In this chapterthe results of these analyses of the three contextual variables will be summarizedfirst in terms of the register of the discourse within the narrative context of thetext and then in terms of the register of the text in relation to the evangelistrsquoscontext

61 The Context of Situation within Mt 131ndash23and Parallels

The contextual features of the discourse spoken by characters within the nar-rative and revealed in the semantic structures of the text have been analyzedthroughout this study by segments of the discourse namely the parable therationale discourse and the interpretation of the parable In this section theregister (ie field tenor and mode) of the parable rationale and interpretationwill be summarized as well as the register of the discourse material as a whole

The parable in Matthew is a story about what happens to seeds after they

Context of Situation within the Text 167

are sown The story is not a highly technical or specialized account of sowingor of seeds though it does contain sufficient information from which one canderive a taxonomy Nevertheless the taxonomy is not very deep and is on anordinary commonsense level The text does not give enough information todetermine whether the taxonomy that is presented was intended to be contraryto expectation or straightforward In either case the tenor of the story is not oneof simply passing the time with friends or of simple entertainment The degreeof contact between teller and addressees evident in the text is low It has thetenor of an authoritative teacher telling a story as expert advice perhaps evenof warning to a crowd with which the teacher is not in frequent contact Thestory is in a spoken mode exhibiting a relatively high degree of interactivitybut demonstrates features of a highly organized perhaps often repeated storythat itself constitutes a social activity apart from what else is going on in theinstantial situation in which it is told on one occasion The differences in theregister of the parable in the parallels are relatively few Mark differs especiallyin the degree of formality and familiarity The parable shows a higher degree ofcontact between the interactants and of interactivity in the mode of the text inMark reflecting that it is told as much to the disciples who routinely interactwith the teacher as to strangers in the crowd

The rationale in Matthew in response to a question is an exposition aboutthose who hear Jesusrsquo proclamation of the kingdom and either perceive themysteries of the kingdom as they are enabled by the actions of God or fail toperceive the mysteries as they are disabled by their own actions The tenor ofthis exposition retains the status differential of an authoritative teacher to thosebeing taught that was evident in the parable but the degree of contact increasesreflecting the shift in participants from the larger crowd to the smaller groupof disciples The use of first and second person pronouns and verb morphologytextually establishes this part of the discourse as a face to face exchange inwhich Jesus is addressing his disciples The tenor or the role relationshipsbetween the speaker and addressees is predicted by the interpersonal functionof the text as part of an exchange in which the text is offering information inresponse to a request The response asserts particular states of affairs in a clearstraightforward way which indicates the role of an ldquoauthorityrdquo who controls thefloor and gives information to which the askers do not otherwise have access

In all three gospels the degree of interaction and intensity of affect rises fromthe parable to the rationale in proportion to the lessening of the constitutingrole played by the language the rationale is more closely related to what else isgoing on in the context than the parable was The contrast in degree of contactis even greater in Luke than in Matthew indicating a greater contrast betweenthe general crowds and the circle of disciples in Luke but the contrast is muchless in Mark in part because the degree of contact evident in the parable itselfwas already higher in Mark than in the parallels and perhaps also because thedisciples are not as clearly distinguished from the crowds (Mk 410) The lack ofdistinction however also gives the disciples the same lack of understanding thatthe crowds have until Jesus provided the interpretation for them The rhetoricalmode of the rationale as a result is more polemical than explanatory Unlike

Matthew the tenor of Markrsquos rationale discourse is not shaped by a positiveresponse to a request for information but is instead unsolicited information thatexplains why Jesus is about to answer their question

The interpretation of the parable is allegorical In Matthew the variouscomponents of the story are interpreted so as to produce an exposition aboutwhat happens to Jesusrsquo message when various people hear it thus continuingthe exposition of the rationale section in answer to the specific question askedin the instantial situation By way of contrast the interpretation in Mark isitself the answer to the question following a brief unsolicited comment by Jesusand the exposition given in the interpretation is about what happens to variouspeople when they hear the word rather than what happens to the word whenit is heard as it is in Matthew Although the intensity of affect and degree ofcontact remains at the same level as the rationale the interpretation like theparable itself exhibits a degree of formality and thus an interactive distancebetween the participants that is not characteristic of the rationale Althoughthe tenor shows a high degree of contact the mode is low interactivity betweenparticipants The interaction of the interpretation is with the parable itself andthe role language plays is constitutive of the interpretive activity The authorityof the interpretation is communicated through the register of the text

The register of the discourse as a whole which is overwhelmingly dominatedby the words of Jesus can be summarized as follows

field enabling actions of God and self-disabling actions of some hearers thataccount for not all receiving Jesusrsquo message with understanding and ac-ceptance low degree of specialization

tenor master to an audience of close disciples who interact with him and abroader audience of those who have not responded to the invitation todiscipleship and do not interact with him

mode spoken discourse mixture of recitation highly interactive language fo-cussed on the instantial situation and an exposition of the recitative text

The register is thus compatible with Kingsburyrsquos conclusions that the parable ofthe sower and following discussion was a response by Jesus to escalating hostilitywithin the context of Matthewrsquos narrative (Kingsbury 1969) A message is beingproclaimed with a claim to authority from one who is master The message isidentified as ldquothe mysteries of the kingdom of the heavensrdquo Not everyone whohas heard has accepted the message or even understood its claims The text isimplicitly a warning to those who have not accepted the message and is explicitlyan explanation of why they have not for those who have accepted it

62 The Context of Situation of Mt 131ndash23 andParallels

The register of the discourse within the narrative is a part of the meaning of thatnarrative and thus affects the register of the whole narrative In the narrative

Context of Situation of the Text 169

frame itself Jesus is portrayed as an authoritative teacher to the crowds and asource of information to his disciples a portrayal that is solidified by the registerof the discourse within the narrative as summarized in the previous section Theregister of the discourse is thus a part of the field of the narrative of which itis a part For example the authoritative role of a teacher giving informationto which the askers do not otherwise have access a role that is apparent inthe interpersonal meanings of the rationale discourse characterizes not only therelationship between Jesus and the disciples in the narrative but also betweenMatthew and the reader who are not engaged in face to face communication mdashMatthew answers a question for the reader which the reader is not in a positionto ask directly but in which the reader is nevertheless engaged The fieldinsofar as it can be predicted from the ideational meanings is an activity ofexplanation in which the speaker is accounting for differences in the ways twogroups of people respond to the parables The field of discourse of Mt 131ndash23 can be described as an explanation of why the word proclaimed by Jesusis sometimes understood and accepted and sometimes not1 The analysis offield as it is revealed in the experiential meanings of the text does not by itselftell us about transparency of the disciples or of the crowds or the purpose forgiving the explanation about responses to Jesus What it does reveal is anactivity within the context of situation that can be described as an explanationin regard to Jesusrsquo activity of proclamation of the word and the responses to itThe explanation that is given in Matthew clearly distinguishes Jesusrsquo teachingof the crowds from the conversation with the disciples in which the purpose ofteaching in parables is revealed This contrasts with both Mark and Luke inwhich the field is more specifically Jesusrsquo teaching of the disciples and crowdstogether with additional instruction given to the disciples as a smaller segmentof the crowd This need for further teaching to explain the parable itself inMark points to a warning activity in the instantial situation of Markrsquos gospelthat is at best only implicit in Matthew

The tenor of Matthew 131ndash23 is shaped not only by the interpersonal mean-ings of the narrative frame but by the discourse material as well The tenor ofthe narrative frame somewhat parallels the tenor of the discourse There is ahigh degree of status differential consistent with an assertion of authority aboutthe explanation being presented There is no affect in the narrative frameThe formal tone indicates a low degree of contact indicating that the author-itative explanation of response to Jesusrsquo proclamation is given to an audiencethat goes beyond those well-known to the evangelist The tenor is consistentwith a situation in which the audience is being invited to respond either likethe disciples in the narrative or like the crowd but such an invitation is notexplicitly given in this part of the gospel In contrast to Matthew the tenor ofLukersquos text is more formal conveying a lower degree of contact an even greatersocial distance between the evangelist and the intended audience The tenor ofMark on the other hand indicates the least formality and greatest possibility

1This is essentially how Daniel Harrington (1991 199) described what this pericope isabout

of more frequent contact between the evangelist and those for whom the gospelis produced Of the three accounts Markrsquos is most consistent with an invitationto respond to Jesus ie a situation to which the disciples and the crowd aretransparent Lukersquos account is least consistent with a situation to which thisparticular portion of text would be seen as an invitation to respond

The mode of Matthew 131ndash23 is ldquowrittenrdquo as that term has been definedin this study The role that language plays in the instantial situation is moreconstituting of social activity than accompanying it The variations in modebetween the parallel accounts is consistent with the variations in tenor Lukersquosvery compact account (compared to the parallels) tells us less about the role oflanguage but is clearly less interactive and thus more ldquowrittenrdquo than Matthewrsquostext Markrsquos text has a more spoken quality with even more features typicalof interactivity While the language of the text is still used to constitute theactivity of telling a story the story has a less programmatic or reflective natureand instead has features of a story that is reported in a more accompanyingmanner The generally lower degree of formality in Mark and higher degree offormality in Luke may also indicate relative social status of the evangelists

In summary the context of situation of Matthewrsquos text insofar as it can bepredicted from the semantic functions in the text is one in which Matthew isaddressing the reader in an authoritative role Matthew conveys the narrativeabout Jesus as one who has the authority to do so The real authority howeverbelongs to Jesus Matthew tells the story in such a way that Jesus also engagesthe reader as he answers the question from his disciples in which he explainswhy he addresses the people in parables and why they fail to understand themThose who understand (who are also being addressed) do so by the enablingactions of God and those who fail to understand fail because of their own self-disabling actions The register is consistent with that of a written sermon inwhich the proclaimer addresses the reader with the intent that the reader hearJesusrsquo own explanation for responses to him and his word

The analysis of the instantial situation of Matthewrsquos text presented in thisstudy is consistent with Kingsburyrsquos conclusions that the text has a dominantapologetic function in a situation ldquocharacterized by the disappointing results ofthe Christian mission to the Jews and the attendant debate between the Churchand Pharisaic Judaism over which of these two communities was the true peopleof Godrdquo (Kingsbury 1969 51) As Daniel J Harrington (1991 197) puts it ldquoThemajor theme in Matthewrsquos presentation of Jesusrsquo parables is the mystery of therejection and acceptance of Jesusrsquo word of the kingdom Thus he is confrontingwhat was surely a reality both during Jesusrsquo own public ministry and withinMatthewrsquos experience toward the end of the first centuryrdquo However there is nowarrant within this part of Matthewrsquos gospel for Kingsburyrsquos conclusion thatthis apology is aimed at the unbelieving Jews and that a secondary paraeneticfunction is aimed at disciples of Jesus who are Matthewrsquos contemporaries Whilethe parable itself has an implicit tone of warning to the crowds within thenarrative and can thus be read in some sense as exhortation (Hagner 1993380ndash381 Luz 1990) the results of this study favor a reading of the primaryfunction of the text within its instantial situation as explanatory (Davies amp

Meanings and Issues of Interpretation 171

Allison 1991 402) an apology aimed at Jewish believers in Jesus as Romans9ndash11 is an apology aimed at gentile believers The goal of the apology is to offerto those who have responded to him in faith an explanation for why if Jesusis what they confess him to be so many people in Israel have failed to respondpositively to him

The analysis presented here offers an explanation for why Kingsbury (196963) read the interpretation of the parable as an excursus since the rationaleand not the interpretation provided an answer to the question posed to Jesusin Matthew This analysis also suggests however that the interpretation is notan excursus with a predominantly paraenetic function as Kingsbury suggestedbut is used by Matthew to expand upon the explanation given in the rationaleregarding negative responses to Jesus The text only functions as exhortationor warning for the reader of the text insofar as the text implies such exhortationor warning to the reader (du Plessis 1987) but such implication does not seemto apply to the implied reader indicated by the tenor of the text Warning orexhortation aimed at the reader is not explicit in the text and would seem toapply only to those readers for whom it was not directly intended who havehappened upon Matthewrsquos gospel and have not yet made a decision either tobecome a disciple of Jesus or to reject his word of the kingdom The registerof Matthewrsquos text is more consistent with explanation to disciples than withwarning to those who have already rejected Jesus

63 Meanings and Issues of Interpretation in Mt131ndash23 and Parallels

This study has focussed on semantic structures as described by systemic func-tional linguistics in order to get at the register variables realized by those struc-tures However this approach to analyzing the meanings of a text also con-tributes more directly to the interpretation of the text It does so in part byfocussing attention on areas of meaning that are often neglected by interpreterssuch as textual meanings The analysis of textual meanings in Matthew 131ndash23 and parallels reveals meaningful choices regarding the way the texts arestructured that have a bearing on the understanding of the text as purposefulbehavior There is for example a thematic progression throughout the wholesection that indicates that the section has a programmatic significance withinthe gospel of Matthew that the parallel sections do not have in Mark or Lukeas demonstrated in the analysis of theme in chapter five This approach to theanalysis of meanings also contributes to interpretive issues that receive adequateattention by providing explanations of various interpretive possibilities By sys-tematically examining ideational experiential and textual meanings realized atthe various ranks of the grammar we are able to provide linguistic explanationsfor why the text has been read in various ways and sometimes also to provideevidence in favor of one interpretation over another

By examining experiential meanings at the clause rank we were able to

determine that the parable of the sower in Matthew is about the seeds not thesower or the soils in spite of the fact that lexical items are never used to referto seeds directly in the text The parable can be said to be about the sowerinsofar as it is referred to as the ldquoparable of the sowerrdquo in the mouth of Jesusin Matthew 1318 The soil types become candidates for what the parable isabout by virtue of their prominent role in the structure of the parable Howeverthe sower is little more than a prop in the parable story and the soil types arecircumstances of location providing setting but seeds are either Actor or Goalof nearly every material process in the parable A semantic taxonomy aboutseeds and things that happen to them when they are sown can be constructedfrom the parable Furthermore when the parable is interpreted the attributiveprocess clauses are used to interpret the seeds not the soils or the sower

The exact interpretation of those seeds is also an interpretive issue thatbenefits from the analysis of experiential meanings in this study Is the seed ineach case in Matthewrsquos interpretation the word or the ones who hear it Thereis inconsistency in the intepretatation of the seed in Mark The seed is explicitlyinterpreted as the word in Mark 414 but in the case of seed sown on rocky soilamong thorns and in good soil the seed is referred to in the plural and equatedwith the hearers of the word while the word continues to be referred to in thesingular In Matthew the inconsistency is replaced with ambiguity the seedthe word and the hearers of the word are all referred to in Matthewrsquos versionof the interpretation with singular forms If Matthew used Mark as a sourcethis ambiguity was created by Matthew and resolves the inconsistency of theinterpretation discourse in Mark I argued in chapter three that this resolutionis in favor of the seed being consistently interpreted as the word that is heardand not the hearers The parable is thus interpreted in Matthew as being aboutthe word as heard by various people and its often unfruitful reception

Another interpretive issue addressed in this study that also has relevanceto the synoptic problem and the question of the direction of dependence is therole of the rationale and the interpretation in the narrative In Matthew therationale represents the heart of what the whole passage is about and answersthe question posed to Jesus In Mark and Luke the rationale is considerablyshorter and is in each case a digression from the movement of the narrativewhich is from the telling of the parable to its interpretation The interpretationthen does not answer the question posed to Jesus in Matthew but expands onthe major point raised by Jesusrsquo answer in the rationale section I have arguedabove that the interpretation is not an excursus in Matthew even though itis unnecessary in order to provide a complete answer to the question asked ofJesus by the disciples Nevertheless Matthewrsquos inclusion of an interpretationto the parable at all is perhaps easier to understand on the basis of the Markanpriority hypothesis

The explanatory power of systemic functional description of a text is not lim-ited to analysis of experiential meanings The analysis of interpersonal mean-ings also explains the warning tone of the parable that is apparent to somecommentators (eg du Plessis 1987 Luz 1990 Hagner 1993) There is an im-plicit warning in the third person imperative form that concludes the parable

in all three synoptic accounts The warning tone is slightly more pronouncedin Matthew than in Luke because the parable begins with the interpersonaladjunct EcircδοIgrave lsquobeholdrsquo in Matthew The tone of warning is most pronounced inMark in which the parable begins with a second person imperative in the firstclause and EcircδοIgrave lsquobeholdrsquo in the second Again assuming Markan priority thewarning tone has been significantly reduced in Matthew and Luke

Analysis of interpersonal meanings also helps to account for the clear linethat is drawn between the crowd and the disciples in Matthew (Harrington1991) but not in the parallel accounts In addition to the fact that the narra-tive frame communicates that the disciples alone asked the question to whichJesus replied in Matthew rather than the disciples and others with them theinterpersonal meanings of the question itself and Jesusrsquo answer also indicatea distinction between those to whom the parable was addressed and the dis-ciples to whom the rationale discourse and interpretation are addressed Theexpanded rationale section in Matthew begins with the question addressed bythe disciples to Jesus The demand for information using second person forms ofaddress to Jesus and Jesusrsquo use of second person forms referring to the disciplesin his response are among a number of grammatical devices realizing interper-sonal meanings that explain the difference between how Jesus related to thedisciples in the rationale and how he related to the crowd in the parable Theanalysis of interpersonal meanings also explains the harsh chastising tone ofthe interpretation in Mark which is softened in Matthew The interpretation isbegun in Mark with a question that is a grammatical metaphor that chastisesthe disciples by asserting metaphorically their lack of understanding of the para-bles Matthewrsquos account of the interpretation instead opens with an imperativeform that was analyzed in chapter four as a familiar offer of information

One advantage of using a functional linguistic theory account for the range ofmeanings that are simultaneously realized in language is that it provides a sys-tematic way to bring to the interpreterrsquos attention and make explicit aspects ofmeaning that are known implicitly by everyday users of the language but mightbe overlooked by an interpreter at a distance or only intuitively grasped In theprocess of examining experiential interpersonal and textual meanings in theparable of the sower and following context in order to get at the register of thetext a variety of interpretive issues have been addressed Most of them are notnovel areas of meaning that have gone unnoticed But in many cases evidence isprovided for interpretive hypotheses or criteria for deciding between competinghypotheses Experienced interpreters sometimes offer statements based on ex-perience and scholarly intuition about how texts function sometimes about theoverall point of a text For example Davies and Allison (1991 389) wrote ldquoIntheir preoccupation with wondering how God can justly give knowledge to onlya select group some commentators have failed to see that the emphasis of thetext lies not on privation but on Godrsquos giftrdquo The current study has providedevidence from the semantic structure of the text by which such a statementcan be evaluated The emphasis of the text is indeed on the assertion thatGod enables understanding of the mysteries of the kingdom and that failureto understand and respond can be explained by the disabling actions of human

beings who do not choose to embrace Godrsquos gracious gift present in Jesus Theexplanation of this state of affairs was the burden of this portion of Matthewrsquosgospel

64 Areas for Further Research

The primary goal of this study has been to explore how features of the context ofa particular text are embedded in a text and how analysis of the text can revealthose contextual features To accomplish this goal I adopted a linguistic theorythat is particularly well-suited to analysis of various kinds of meanings and tomaking explicit the relationships between meanings and contextual featuresThe text chosen for analysis was from Matthewrsquos gospel with parallels in Markand Luke for purposes of comparison To limit the scope of the project Ifocussed on features of the context of situation and gave only passing attentionto questions of context of culture and limited the analysis of meanings to theclause rank These choices suggest several areas in which the research of thisproject could be fruitfully extended

A comprehensive grammar of New Testament Greek using a functional modelsuch as SFG has yet to be done The first chapter of this study contained theoutline of a partial grammar limited by the goals of the present work to focuson analysis of meanings realized at the grammatical rank of the clause Workcould be fruitfully carried out at the level of the whole discourse mdash analysiscommonly referred to as text linguistics or discourse analysis mdash focussing oncohesion in New Testament Greek Work is also needed below the clause rankat the rank of word groups and phrases and in the morphology An example ofthe latter is the experiential meanings related to aspect and time realized in theverb morphology Such study integrated into a comprehensive grammar wouldcontribute greatly to the study of the meanings of a text

A comprehensive description of New Testament Greek using a semanticallybased model such as SFG would also have implications for translation especiallyinto languages such as English in which significant systemic functional grammarshave been produced SFG is a model that facilitates the analysis of the full rangeof meanings of a text including ideational experiential and textual whetherthose meanings are realized lexically morphologically at the rank of the wordgroup phrase or clause or above the clause An analysis of the resources of bothNew Testament Greek and a target language to make meanings would facilitatea systematic approach both to translating texts and to evaluating translations

A significant methodological limitation of the present study is its focus on apart of a larger text As we saw in chapter two Gerhard Sellin (1983) pointedout that the context for a text part is the whole text of which it is a part andthe context for the whole text is external to the text The kind of analysis thatthe present study represents would be profitably carried out on a whole textshowing the relationship of the whole text (eg the entire gospel of Matthew)to context rather than the limited analysis of one part of the text Clearly thelength of texts such as the gospels would make such a study a major undertaking

Areas for Further Research 175

Not only the length of the text however but the typegenre of the textis significant This approach not only to the analysis of meanings in a textbut especially of contextual features realized by those meanings would be veryprofitably applied to texts in which the interaction is of a higher degree suchas letters In the absence of actual New Testament era Greek texts in whichthe channel is phonic letters provide possibly the highest degree of interactionavailable to us and the highest concentration of interpersonal meanings Theanalysis of shorter texts to make possible analysis of whole texts which arealso letters (eg Philemon) especially letters about which we might have someindependent knowledge of context would be very instructive to the developmentof the analysis of contextual features that are embedded in the texts themselvesIn addition such letters may also lend themselves to comparative analysis oftexts which would facilitate the study of genre in the SFG sense mdash stagedculturally recognized social behavior By focussing on shorter texts with a widerrange of texts to which they can be compared and in which are represented awider range of interpersonal and textual meanings than are found in the gospeltexts the application of a model such as SFG to the analysis of context in textcould be expected to yield very fruitful results

Appendix A

Clause Level Analysis ofExperiential Interpersonaland Textual Meanings inMt 131ndash23

The following is a clause-by-clause analysis of experiential interpersonal andtextual meanings at the clause level in Mt 131ndash23 Each clause is dividedinto its experiential meaning constituents with an English gloss for each con-stituent immediately below it On the first line below the English gloss are tagsidentifying the experiential function of each constituent (Process Participantand Circumstance) on the second line tags identifying the interpersonal con-stituents (Subject Predicate Complement and Adjunct) and on the third linetags identifying the textual constituents (Theme and Rheme) (see key to tagsbelow) Clauses that are embedded in other clauses are also analyzed separatelyimmediately following the clause in which they are embedded The displays ofembedded clauses are indented in relation to the other displays The glosses andtags for constituents that are situated within another constituent are placed inbrackets rather than given a box of their own in the display in order to maintainthe constituent order of the text for ease of reading Postpositive conjunctionsare typical of these ldquoinfixedrdquo constituents although v 1 contains an exampleof an Actor occurring in the midst of a circumstantial participial phrase Verbswithout an explicit subject in which the participant of the process is inferredfrom the verb morphology are labeled with both a process type and the partic-ipant label of the implicit subject but the implicit subject of a verb is not solabeled when an explicit subject is present in the clause

Key to Experiential GlossesProcesses ParticipantsPrmaterial = material Actor Goal Range BeneficiaryPrmental = mental Senser PhenomenonPrverbal = verbal Sayer Receiver VerbiagePrbehavioral = behavioral Behaver PhenomenonPrexistential = existential Existent

Relational Processes amp ParticipantsPridentifying = intensive Token ValuePrattributive = intensive Carrier AttributePrattributivecirc = circumstantial Attributecirc = circumstancePrattributiveposs = possessive Attributeposs = possessed

AdjunctsAdjaccomp = CircumstanceAccompanimentAdjcomp = CircumstanceMannercomparisonAdjconj = Conjunction AdjunctAdjdistance = CircumstanceExtentdistance (spatial)Adjduration = CircumstanceExtentduration (temporal)Adjmanner = CircumstanceMannerAdjmatter = CircumstanceMatterAdjmeans = CircumstanceMannermeansAdjplace = CircumstanceLocationplace (spatial)Adjpurpose = CircumstanceCausepurposeAdjquality = CircumstanceMannerqualityAdjreason = CircumstanceCausereasonAdjrole = CircumstanceRoleAdjtime = CircumstanceLocationtime (temporal)

Key to Interpersonal GlossesPredicates AdjunctsPredansw = answer Adjcirc = experiential circumstancePredcomm = command Adjcomment = interpersonal commentPredposs = possibility Adjconj = textual conjunctionPredprob = probability Adjinterr = interpersonal interrogativePredques = question Adjpol = modal polarityPredstat = statement Adjposs = modal possibility

Adjprob = modal probabilityCompl = Complement Adjtextual = textual (non-conjunction)

Key to Textual Glossesint = interpersonal Themetext = textual Themetop = topical Theme

131 gtΕν τnot microέρoslash acircκείνugrave acircξεlθdegν aring gtΙησοUumlc τumlc οEcircκίαc acircκάθητοin the day that coming-out Jesus of-the house he-sat

Adjtime Adjtime Actor PrmaterialAdjcirc Adjcirc Subject Predstattop Theme Rheme

beside the sea

AdjplaceAdjcirc

That same day Jesus left the house and was sitting beside the sea

coming-out Jesus of-the house

Prmaterial Actor AdjplacePredstat Subject AdjcircTheme Rheme

Jesus leaving the house

132 καEgrave συνήχθησαν πρaumlc αIcircτaumlν icircχlοι ποllοί

and were-gathered to him crowds many

Adjconj Prmaterial Adjplace ActorAdjconj Predstat Adjcirc Subjecttext top Theme Rheme

and large crowds were gathered around him

so he in boat embarking to-sit

Adjconj Actor Adjtime PrmaterialAdjconj Compl Adjcirc Predstattext top Theme Rheme

so that he got into a boat and sat down

αIcircτaumlν εEcircc πlοOslashον acircmicroβάντα

he in boat embarking

Actor Adjplace PrmaterialCompl Adjcirc Predstattop Theme Rheme

he got into a boat

and all the crowd on the shore stood

Adjconj Actor Adjplace PrmaterialAdjconj Subject Adjcirc Predstattext top Theme Rheme

while the whole crowd stood on the shore

133 καEgrave acirclάlησεν αIcircτοOslashc ποll acircν παραβοlαOslashc

and he-spoke to-them many in parables

Adjconj PrverbalSayer Recipient Verbiage AdjmeansAdjconj PredstatSubj Compl Compl Adjcirctext top Theme Rheme

lέγων

saying

AdjmannerAdjcirc(Rheme)

He said many things to them in parables he said

gtΙδοIgrave acircξumllθεν aring σπείρων τοUuml σπείρειν

behold went-out the sower to sow

Prmaterial ActorAdjtextual Predstat Subjecttext top Theme Rheme

A sower went out to sow

σπείρειν

to-sow

PrmaterialPredstatTheme

to sow

134 καEgrave acircν τAuml σπείρειν αIcircτaumlν microagraveν ecircπεσεν

and in the to-sow him some on-the-one-hand fell

Adjconj Adjtime Actor Adjconj PrmaterialAdjconj Adjcirc Subj Adjconj Predstattext top Theme Rheme

beside the path

AdjplaceAdjcirc(Rheme)

As he sowed some seed fell beside the path

σπείρειν αIcircτaumlν

to-sow him

Prmaterial ActorPredstat SubjectTheme Rheme

he sowed

and coming the birds devoured it

Adjconj Adjtime Actor Prmaterial GoalAdjconj Adjcirc Subject Predstat Compltext top Theme Rheme

ldquo and the birds came and devoured it

acirclθόντα τ πετειν

coming the birds

the birds came

others but fell upon the rocky

Actor Adjconj Prmaterial AdjplaceSubject Adjconj Predstat Adjcirctop Theme Rheme

But other seed fell on the rocky place

where not it-had earth much

Adjplace PrrelationalCarrier AttributeAdjcirc Adjpol PredstatSubject Compltexttop Theme Rheme

where it didnrsquot have much soil

καEgrave εIcircθέωc acircξανέτειlεν

and immediately it-sprang-up

Adjconj Adjtime PrmaterialActorAdjconj Adjcirc PredstatSubjecttext top Theme Rheme

on-account-of the not to-have depth of-earth

AdjreasonAdjcirc(Rheme)

It sprang up quickly because the soil was shallow

micro ecircχειν βάθοc γumlc

not to-have depth of-earth

Prrelational AttributeAdjpol Predstat ComplTheme Rheme

the soil was shallow

136 lίου δagrave νατείlαντοc acircκαυmicroατίσθηsun and rising it-was-burned-up

Adjconj Adjtime PrmaterialGoalAdjconj Adjcirc PredstatSubjecttop Theme Rheme

But the sun came up and it burned up

lίου νατείlαντοc

sun rising

Actor PrmaterialSubject PredstatTheme Rheme

the sun came up

and on-account-of the not to-have root it-dried-up

Adjconj Adjreason PrmaterialActorAdjconj Adjcirc PredstatSubjecttext top Theme Rheme

and because it had no root it dried up

micro ecircχειν ucircίζαν

not to-have root

Prattributive AttributeAdjpol Predstat ComplTheme Rheme

it had no root

others but fell upon the thorns

Other seeds fell among the thorns

and went-up the thorns

Adjconj Prmaterial ActorAdjconj Predstat Subjecttext top Theme Rheme

and the thorns came up

and choked them

Adjconj PrmaterialActor GoalAdjconj PredstatSubject Compltext top Theme Rheme

and choked them

others but fell upon the earth the good

Others however fell on good soil

and it-was-giving fruit

and produced fruit

some on-the-one-hand a-hundred

Actor Adjconj GoalSubject Adjconj Compltexttop Theme Rheme

some a hundred-fold

some but sixty

some sixty-fold

some but thirty

and some thirty-fold

the one-having ears must-hear

Senser PrmentalSubject Predcommtop Theme Rheme

Whoever has ears must hear

ecircχων Acircτα

having ears

Prattributive ValuePredstat ComplTheme Rheme

Whoever has ears

1310 ΚαEgrave προσεlθόντεc οEacute microαθηταEgrave εUacuteπαν αIcircτAuml

and approaching the disciples said to-him

Adjconj Adjtime Sayer Prverbal ReceiverAdjconj Adjcirc Subject Predstat Compltext top Theme Rheme

The disciples came and said to him

προσεlθόντεc οEacute microαθηταEgrave

approaching the disciples

The disciples came

∆ι τί acircν παραβοlαOslashc lαlεOslashc αIcircτοOslashc

on-account-of what in parables you-speak to them

Adjpurpose Adjmeans PrverbalSayer ReceiverAdjcirc Adjmeans PredquesSubject Compltopint Theme Rheme

ldquoWhy do you speak to them in parablesrdquo

1311 aring δagrave ποκριθεEgravec εUacuteπεν αIcircτοOslashc

the-one and answering said to them

Adjconj Sayer Prverbal ReceiverAdjconj Subject Predstat Compltop Theme Rheme

He answered them

ποκριθεEgravec

answering

PrverbalPredstatTheme

He answered

VΟτι IacutemicroOslashν δέδοται

because to-you has-been-given

Adjconj Beneficiary PrmaterialAdjconj Compl Predanswtext top Theme Rheme

γνAgraveναι τ microυστήρια τumlc βασιlείαc τAgraveν οIcircρανAgraveν

to-know the mysteries of-the kingdom of-the heavens

GoalSubject(Rheme)

ldquoBecause to you has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom ofheaven rdquo

Prmental PhenomenonPredstat ComplTheme Rheme

ldquo to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven rdquo

those but not it-has-been-given

Beneficiary Adjconj PrmaterialGoalCompl Adjconj Adjpol PredanswSubjecttop Theme Rheme

ldquo but to them it has not been givenrdquo

whoever for has

Carrier Adjconj PrrelationalSubject Adjconj Predstattopint Theme Rheme

ldquoFor whoever hasrdquo

δοθήσεται αIcircτAuml

it-shall-be-give to-him

PrmaterialGoal BeneficiaryPredstatSubject Compltop Theme Rheme

ldquo it shall be given to him rdquo

and it-shall-abound

Adjconj PrattributiveCarrierAdjconj PredstatSubjecttext top Theme

ldquo and will be more than enoughrdquo

whoever but not has

Carrier Adjconj PrattributiveSubject Adjconj Adjpol Predstattopint Theme Rheme

ldquobut whoever does not haverdquo

καEgrave ccedil ecircχει ρθήσεται π αIcircτοUuml

even what he-has shall-be-taken-up from him

Goal Prmaterial AdjplaceSubject Predstat Adjcirctop Theme Rheme

ldquo even what he has will be taken away from himrdquo

ccedil ecircχει

what he-has

Attribute PrattributiveCarrierCompl PredstatSubjecttexttop Theme Rheme

ldquo what he has rdquo

1313 δι τοUumlτο acircν παραβοlαOslashc αIcircτοOslashc lαlAgrave

on-account-of this in parables to-them I speak

Adjpurpose Adjmanner Recipient PrverbalSayerAdjcirc Adjcirc Compl PredanswSubjecttop Theme Rheme

ldquoFor this reason I speak to them in parablesrdquo

iacuteτι βlέποντεc οIcirc βlέπουσιν

because seeing not they-see

Adjconj Adjtime PrmentalSenserAdjconj Adjcirc Adjpol PredstatSubjecttext top Theme Rheme

ldquo because seeing they do not see rdquo

καEgrave κούοντεc οIcircκ κούουσιν

and hearing not they-hear

ldquo and hearing they do not hear rdquo

οIcircδagrave συνίουσιν

and-not they-perceive

Adjconj PrmentalSenserAdjconjpol PredstatSubjecttextint top Theme

ldquo nor do they perceiverdquo

1314 καEgrave ναπlηροUumlται αIcircτοOslashc

and is-fulfilled to-them

Adjconj Prmaterial AdjmatterAdjconj Predstat Adjcirctext top Theme Rheme

προφητεία gtΗσαEgraveου lέγουσα

the prophecy of-Isaiah the-one saying

ActorSubject(Rheme)

ldquo and in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled which saysrdquo

gtΑκοnot κούσετε

by-what-is-heard you-shall-hear

Adjmeans PrmentalSenserAdjcirc PredstatSubjecttopint Theme Rheme

ldquolsquoBy what is heard you will hear rsquordquo

καEgrave οIcirc micro συνumlτε

and not not you-should-perceive

Adjconj PrmentalSenserAdjconj Adjpol PredstatSubjecttext int top Theme

ldquolsquo and shall by no means perceiversquordquo

καEgrave βlέποντεc βlέψετε

and seeing you-will-see

Adjconj Adjtime PrmentalSenserAdjconj Adjcirc PredstatSubjecttext top Theme Rheme

ldquolsquo and seeing you will see rsquordquo

καEgrave οIcirc micro Ograveδητε

and not not you-should-see

ldquolsquo and you shall by no means seersquordquo

1315 acircπαχύνθη γρ καρδία τοUuml lαοUuml τούτου

was-made-thick for the heart of-the people this

Prmaterial Adjconj GoalPredstat Adjconj Subjecttop text Theme Rheme

ldquolsquoFor this peoplersquos heart has become dullrsquordquo

καEgrave τοOslashc sup2σEgraveν βαρέωc centκουσαν

and with-the ears heavily they-hear

Adjconj Adjmeans Adjquality PrmentalSenserAdjconj Adjcirc Adjcirc PredstatSubjecttext top Theme Rheme

ldquolsquo and they hardly hear with their ears rsquordquo

καEgrave τοIgravec aeligφθαlmicroοIgravec αIcircτAgraveν acircκάmicromicroυσαν

and the eyes of-them they-shut

Adjconj Goal PrmaterialActorAdjconj Compl PredstatSubjecttext top Theme Rheme

ldquolsquo and they have shut their eyesrsquordquo

microήποτε Ograveδωσιν τοOslashc aeligφθαlmicroοOslashc

lest they-should-see with-the eyes

PrmentalSenser AdjmeansAdjmodalpossibility PredstatpossSubject Adjcirctextint top Theme Rheme

ldquolsquo lest they should see with their eyes rsquordquo

καEgrave τοOslashc sup2σEgraveν κούσωσιν

and with-the ears they-should-hear

Adjconj Adjmeans PrmentalSenserAdjconj Adjcirc PredstatpossSubjecttext top Theme Rheme

ldquolsquo and hear with their ears rsquordquo

καEgrave τnot καρδίoslash συνAgraveσιν

and with-the heart they-should-perceive

ldquolsquo and they should perceive with their heart rsquordquo

καEgrave acircπιστρέψωσιν

and they-should-turn

Adjconj PrmaterialActorAdjconj PredstatpossSubjecttext top Theme

ldquolsquo and they should turn rsquordquo

καEgrave Ecircάσοmicroαι αIcircτούc

and I-should-heal them

Adjconj PrmaterialActor GoalAdjconj PredstatpossSubject Compltext top Theme Rheme

ldquolsquo and I should heal themrsquordquo

1316 IacutemicroAgraveν δagrave microακάριοι οEacute aeligφθαlmicroοEgrave

your but blessed the eyes

Carrier Adjconj Attribute CarrierSubject Adjconj Compl Subjecttop text Theme Rheme

ldquoBut blessed are your eyes rdquo

iacuteτι βlέπουσιν

because they-see

Adjconj PrmentalSenserAdjconj PredstatSubjecttext top Theme

ldquo because they see rdquo

καEgrave τ Acircτα IacutemicroAgraveν

and the ears of-you

Adjconj CarrierAdjconj Subjecttext Theme Rheme

ldquo and your ears rdquo

iacuteτι κούουσιν

because they-hear

ldquo because they hearrdquo

1317 microν γρ lέγω IacutemicroOslashν

truly for I-say to-you

Adjconj PrverbalSayer RecipientAdjintensification Adjconj PredstatSubject Complint top Theme Rheme

ldquoFor truly I say to you rdquo

iacuteτι ποllοEgrave προφumlται καEgrave δίκαιοι acircπεθύmicroησαν EcircδεOslashν βlέπετε

that many prophets and just-ones have-desired to-see what you-see

Adjconj Senser Prmental PhenomenonAdjconj Subject Predstat Compltext top Theme Rheme

ldquo that many prophets and righteous people have longed to see what yousee rdquo

βlέπετε

what you-see

Phenomenon PrmentalSenserCompl PredstatSubjecttexttop Theme Rheme

ldquo what you see rdquo

καEgrave οIcircκ εUacuteδαν

and not they-saw

ldquo and have not seen itrdquo

καEgrave (ποllοEgrave προφumlται καEgrave δίκαιοι) (acircπεθύmicroησαν) κοUumlσαι

and to-hear

Adjconj PrmentalAdjconj Predstattext (top) Theme Rheme

κούετε

what you-hear

PhenomenonCompl(Rheme)

ldquo and to hear what you hear rdquo

κούετε

what you-hear

Phenomenon Prmental SenserCompl Predstat Subjecttexttop Theme Rheme

ldquo what you hear rdquo

καEgrave οIcircκ centκουσαν

and not they-heard

ldquo and have not heard itrdquo

1318 ltΥmicroεOslashc οTHORNν κούσατε τν παραβοlν τοUuml σπείραντοc

you therefore hear the parable of-the sower

Senser Adjconj Prmental PhenomenonSubject Adjconj Predoffer Compltop Theme Rheme

ldquoYou therefore hear the parable of the sowerrdquo

1319 παντaumlc κούοντοc τaumlν lόγον τumlc βασιlείαc καEgrave micro συνιέντοc

all ones-hearing the word of-the kingdom and not perceiving

AdjmatterAdjcirctop Theme

comes the evil-one

Prmaterial ActorPredstat SubjectRheme

ldquoAll who hear the word of the Kingdom and do not understand it theevil one comes rdquo

παντaumlc κούοντοc τaumlν lόγον τumlc βασιlείαc

all hearing the word of-the kingdom

Senser Prmental PhenomenonSubject Predstat Compltop Theme Rheme

ldquoEveryone who hears the word of the Kingdom rdquo

and not perceiving

Adjconj PrmentalAdjconj Adjpol Predstattext int top Theme

ldquo and does not understand it rdquo

καEgrave ρπάζει τauml acircσπαρmicroένον acircν τnot καρδίoslash αIcircτοUuml

and snatches the (seed) sown in the heart of-him

ldquo and snatches what is sown in his heartrdquo

acircσπαρmicroένον acircν τnot καρδίoslash αIcircτοUuml

sown in the heart of-him

Prmaterial AdjplacePredstat AdjcircTheme Rheme

ldquo what is sown in his heartrdquo

οYacuteτόc acircστιν aring παρ τν aringδaumlν σπαρείc

this is the beside the path sown

Token Pridentifying ValueSubject Predstat Compltop Theme Rheme

ldquoThis is what was sown beside the pathrdquo

παρ τν aringδaumlν σπαρείc

beside the path sown

Adjplace PrmaterialAdjcirc PredstatTheme Rheme

ldquowhat was sown beside the pathrdquo

1320 aring δagrave acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη σπαρείc οYacuteτόc acircστινthe but upon the rocky (soil) sown this is

Adjconj Token PridentifyingAdjconj Subject Predstattop Theme Rheme

aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave εIcircθIgravec microετ χαρc lαmicroβάνων αIcircτόν

the-one the word hearing and immediately with joy receiving it

ValueCompl(Rheme)

ldquoBut that which is sown on rocky ground this is the one who hears theword and immediately receives it with joyrdquo

acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη σπαρείc

upon the rocky (soil) sown

ldquo the (seed) sown on rocky ground rdquo

τaumlν lόγον κούων

the word hearing

Phenomenon PrmentalCompl PredstatTheme Rheme

ldquo the one who hears the word rdquo

καEgrave εIcircθIgravec microετ χαρc lαmicroβάνων αIcircτόν

and immediately with joy receiving it

Adjconj Adjtime Adjquality Prmaterial GoalAdjconj Adjcirc Adjcirc Predstat Compltext top Theme Rheme

ldquo and immediately receives it with joyrdquo

1321 οIcircκ ecircχει δagrave ucircίζαν

not it-has but root

PrattributiveCarrier Adjconj AttributeAdjpol PredstatSubject Adjconj Complint top Theme Rheme

acircν aacuteαυτAuml

in itself

ldquo but it has no root in itselfrdquo

ll πρόσκαιρόc acircστιν

but temporary is

Adjconj Attribute PrattributiveCarrierAdjconj Compl PredstatSubjecttext top Theme Rheme

ldquo but is temporaryrdquo

γενοmicroένηc δagrave θlίψεωc laquo διωγmicroοUuml δι τaumlν lόγον εIcircθIgravec

coming and affliction or persecution on-account-of the word immediately

Adjconj Adjtime AdjtimeAdjconj Adjcirc Adjcirctop Theme Rheme

it-is-made-to-stumble

PrmaterialGoalPredstatSubject(Rheme)

ldquoand when affliction or persecution comes because of the word it is in-stantly tripped uprdquo

1322 aring δagrave εEcircc τc κάνθαc σπαρείc οYacuteτόc acircστινthe and in the thorns sown this-one is

aring τaumlν lόγον κούων

the-one the word hearing

ValueCompl(Rheme)

ldquoNow the one that was sown in the thorns this one is one who heard thewordrdquo

εEcircc τc κάνθαc σπαρείc

in the thorns sown

ldquo (seed that) was sown in the thorns rdquo

the word hearing

ldquo the one who heard the wordrdquo

καEgrave microέριmicroνα τοUuml αEcircAgraveνοc καEgrave πάτη τοUuml πlούτου

and the care of-the age and the deceit of-the wealth

Adjconj ActorAdjconj Subjecttext top Theme

chokes the word

Prmaterial GoalPredstat ComplRheme

ldquo and the cares of the age and the deceit of wealth chokes the word rdquo

καEgrave καρποc γίνεται

and fruitless it-becomes

ldquo and it becomes barrenrdquo

1323 aring δagrave acircπEgrave τν καlν γumlν σπαρείc οYacuteτόc acircστινthe and upon the good earth sown this-one is

aring τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave συνιείc

the-one the word hearing and perceiving

ValueCompl(Rheme)

ldquoNow the one that was sown on the good soil is one who hears the wordand understands itrdquo

acircπEgrave τν καlν γumlν σπαρείc

upon the good earth sown

ldquo the one sown on the good soil rdquo

τaumlν lόγον κούων καEgrave συνιείc

the word hearing and perceiving

ldquo one hearing the word and understanding itrdquo

which indeed bears-fruit

Actor PrmaterialSubject Adjcomment Predstattexttop Theme Rheme

ldquo which word indeed is fruitful rdquo

καEgrave ποιεOslash

and makes

Adjconj PrmaterialActorAdjconj PredstatSubjecttext top Theme

ldquo and produces rdquo

Actor Adjconj GoalSubject Adjconj Compltop Theme Rheme

ldquo some a hundred-fold rdquo

some but sixty

ldquo some sixty-fold rdquo

some but thirty

ldquo some thirty-foldrdquo

Appendix B

Clause Level Analysis ofExperiential Interpersonaland Textual Meanings inMk 41ndash20

The following is a clause-by-clause analysis of experiential interpersonal andtextual meanings at the clause level in Mk 41ndash20 See the description at thebeginning of Appendix A for a key to reading the displays in this appendix

41 ΚαEgrave πάlιν centρξατο διδάσκειν παρ τν θάlασσαν

and again he-began to-teach beside the sea

Adjconj Adjduration PrmatActor AdjplaceAdjconj Adjcirc PredstatSubj Adjcirctext top Theme Rheme

Again he began to teach by the lake

καEgrave συνάγεται πρaumlc αIcircτaumlν icircχlοc πlεOslashστοc

and gathered to him crowd large

A large crowd gathered about him

sup1στε αIcircτaumlν εEcircc πlοOslashον acircmicroβάντα καθumlσθαι acircν τnot θαlάσσugrave

so-that him into boat embarking to-sit in the sea

Adjconj Actor Adjtime Prmater AdjplaceAdjconj Compl Adjcirc Predstat Adjcirctext top Theme Rheme

so he got into a boat to sit on the lake

him into boat embarking

he getting into a boat

καEgrave πc aring icircχlοc πρaumlc τν θάlασσαν acircπEgrave τumlc γumlc ordfσαν

and all the crowd by the sea upon the earth were

Adjconj Carrier Attributecirc PrattrcircAdjconj Subject Adjcirc Predstattext top Theme Rheme

The whole crowd was on the shore by the lake

42 καEgrave acircδίδασκεν αIcircτοIgravec acircν παραβοlαOslashc ποllά

and he-was-teaching them in parables many [things]

Adjconj PrmatActor Benefic Adjmeans GoalAdjconj PredstatSubj Compl Adjcirc Compltext top Theme Rheme

And he was teaching them many things with parables

καEgrave ecirclεγεν αIcircτοOslashc acircν τnot διδαχnot αIcircτοUuml

and he-was-saying to-them in the teaching of-him

Adjconj PrverbalSayer Recipient AdjmeansAdjconj PredstatSubject Compl Adjcirctext top Theme Rheme

In his teaching he was saying to them

43 gtΑκούετε

PrbehaviorBehaverPredcommSubjecttopint Theme

ldquoHear thisrdquo

EcircδοIgrave acircξumllθεν aring σπείρων σπεOslashραι

behold went-out the sower to-sow

Prmaterial Actor AdjpurposeAdjtextual Predstat Subject Adjcircint top Theme Rheme

ldquoLook the sower went out to sowrdquo

σπείρων

sowing

ldquo [one] sowing rdquo

σπεOslashραι

to-sow

ldquo to sowrdquo

44 καEgrave acircγένετο acircν τAuml σπείρειν

and it-happened in the to-sow

Adjconj PrexistentialExistent AdjtimeAdjconj PredstatSubject Adjcirctext top Theme Rheme

ldquoIt happened when he was sowing rdquo

σπείρειν

to-sow

ldquo to sow rdquo

ccedil microagraveν ecircπεσεν παρ τν aringδόν

some on-the-one-hand fell beside-the-path

ldquo some fell beside the pathrdquo

καEgrave ordflθεν τ πετειν

and came the birds

ldquo and the birds came rdquo

καEgrave κατέφαγεν αIcircτό

and they-devoured it

ldquo and devoured itrdquo

45 καEgrave llο ecircπεσεν

and another fell

Adjconj Actor PrmaterialAdjconj Subject Predstattext top Theme Rheme

acircπEgrave τauml πετρAgraveδεc iacuteπου οIcircκ εUacuteχεν γumlν ποllήν

on the rocky-place where not it-has earth much

ldquoAnother fell on a rocky place where it did not have much soilrdquo

where not it-has earth much

Adjconj PrattribCarrier AttributeAdjconj Adjpol PredstatSubject Complementtexttop Theme Rheme

ldquo where it did not have much soilrdquo

καEgrave εIcircθIgravec acircξανέτειlεν

ldquoIt sprang up quickly because the soil was shallowrdquo

Prattributive AttributeAdjpol Predstat Complementint top Theme Rheme

ldquo [the soil] was shallowrdquo

46 καEgrave iacuteτε νέτειlεν aring iexcllιοc acircκαυmicroατίσθη

and when rose the sun it-was-burned-up

ldquoWhen the sun came up it burned uprdquo

iacuteτε νέτειlεν aring iexcllιοc

when rose the sun

ldquoWhen the sun came up rdquo

ldquoBecause it had no root it dried uprdquo

not to-have root

ldquo [it] had no root rdquo

47 καEgrave llο ecircπεσεν εEcircc τc κάνθαc

and another fell into the thorns

Adjconj Actor Prmaterial AdjplaceAdjconj Subject Predstat Adjcirctext top Theme Rheme

ldquoAnother see fell into the thornsrdquo

ldquoThe thorns came up rdquo

καEgrave συνέπνιξαν αIcircτό

and choked it

ldquo and choked it rdquo

καEgrave καρπaumlν οIcircκ ecircδωκεν

and fruit not it-gave

Adjconj Goal PrmaterialActorAdjconj Compl Adjpol PredstatSubjecttext top Theme Rheme

ldquo so it produced no fruitrdquo

48 καEgrave llα ecircπεσεν εEcircc τν γumlν τν καlήν

and others fell upon the earth the good

ldquoOthers fell on good soil rdquo

καEgrave acircδίδου καρπaumlν ναβαίνοντα καEgrave αIcircξανόmicroενα

and it-was-giving fruit rising and growing

Adjconj PrmaterialActor Goal AdjtimeAdjconj PredstatSubject Compl Adjcirctext top Theme Rheme

ldquo and produced fruit as it came up and grewrdquo

καEgrave ecircφερεν atildeν τριάκοντα

and it-was-bearing one thirty

Adjconj Prmaterial Actor GoalAdjconj Predstat Subject Compltext top Theme Rheme

ldquoOne yielded thirty-fold rdquo

καEgrave atildeν aacuteξήκοντα

and one sixty

Adjconj Actor GoalAdjconj Subject Compltext Theme Rheme

ldquo one sixty-fold rdquo

καEgrave atildeν aacuteκατόν

and one a-hundred

ldquo and one a hundred-foldrdquo

49 καEgrave ecirclεγεν

and he-was saying

Adjconj PrverbalSayerAdjconj PredstatSubjecttext top Theme

Then he said

CΟc ecircχει Acircτα κούειν κουέτω

whoever has ears to-hear must-hear

Senser MentalSubject Predcommtexttop Theme Rheme

ldquoWhoever has ears to hear must hearrdquo

CΟc ecircχει Acircτα κούειν

whoever has ears to-hear

Carrier Prattributive AttributeSubject Predstat Compltexttop Theme Rheme

ldquoWhoever has ears to hear rdquo

κούειν

to-hear

ldquo to hear rdquo

410 ΚαEgrave iacuteτε acircγένετο κατ microόναc ρώτων

and when it-happened at-(the-time-when) alone

Adjconj Adjtime PrverbalAdjconj Adjcirc Predstattext top Theme Rheme

αIcircτaumlν οEacute περEgrave αIcircτaumlν σIgraveν τοOslashc δώδεκα τc παραβοlάc

him the-ones around him with the twelve the parables

Recipient Sayer VerbiageCompl Subject Compl(Rheme)

And when they were alone those around him with the twelve asked himabout the parables

iacuteτε acircγένετο κατ microόναc

when it-happened at-(the-time-when) alone

Adjconj Prexistential ExistentAdjconj Predstat Compltext top Theme Rheme

when they were alone

411 καEgrave ecirclεγεν αIcircτοOslashc

and he-was-saying to-them

Adjconj PrverbalSayer RecipientAdjconj PredstatSubject Compltext top Theme Rheme

He said to them

ltΥmicroOslashν τauml microυστήριον δέδοται τumlc βασιlείαc τοUuml θεοUuml

to-you the mystery is-given of-the kingdom of-the God

Beneficiary Goal Prmaterial GoalCompl Subject Predstat Subjecttop Theme Rheme

ldquoTo you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of Godrdquo

acircκείνοιc δagrave τοOslashc ecircξω acircν παραβοlαOslashc τ πάντα

for-those but the-ones outside in parables the all-things

Adjconj Attributeposs Adjmeans CarrierAdjconj Compl Adjcirc Subjecttop Theme Rheme

γίνεται

PrattributivepossPredstat(Rheme)

ldquoBut for those outside everything is in parables rdquo

412 Ugraveνα βlέποντεc βlέπωσιν

in-order-that seeing they-may-see

ldquo so that while they see they may see rdquo

βlέποντεc

seeing

PrmentalPredstatTheme

ldquo while they see rdquo

καEgrave micro Ograveδωσιν

and not see

ldquo yet not really seerdquo

καEgrave κούοντεc κούωσιν

and hearing they-may-hear

ldquo and while they hear they may hear rdquo

κούοντεc

hearing

ldquo while they hear rdquo

καEgrave micro συνιAgraveσιν

and not hear

ldquo yet not really understandrdquo

microήποτε acircπιστρέψωσιν

lest they-should-turn

PrmaterialActorAdjprob PredstatSubjecttextint top Theme

ldquo lest they should turn rdquo

καEgrave φεθnot αIcircτοOslashc

and it-should-be-forgiven them

Adjconj PrmaterialGoal BeneficiaryAdjconj PredstatSubject Compltext top Theme Rheme

ldquo and it should be forgiven themrdquo

413 ΚαEgrave lέγει αIcircτοOslashc

and he-says to-them

Adjconj PrverbalSayer ReceiverAdjconj PredstatSubject Complementtext top Theme Rheme

And he said to them

ΟIcircκ οOgraveδατε τν παραβοlν ταύτην

not you-know the parable this

PrmentalSenser PhenomenonAdjpol PredstatSubject Complint top Theme Rheme

ldquoYou do not know this parablerdquo

καEgrave πAgravec πάσαc τc παραβοlc γνώσεσθε

and how all the parables you-will-know

Adjconj Adjmeans Phenomenon PrmentalSnsrAdjconj Adjcircinterr Complement PredquesSubjtext top Theme Rheme

ldquo so how will you know all the parablesrdquo

414 aring σπείρων τaumlν lόγον σπείρει

the sower the word sows

Actor Goal PrmaterialSubject Compl Predstattop Theme Rheme

ldquoThe sower sows the wordrdquo

σπείρων

sowing

and not hear

and he-says to-them

And he said to them

καEgrave πAgravec πάσαc τc παραβοlc

and how all the parables

Adjconj Adjmeans PhenomenonAdjconj Adjcircinterr Complementtext top Theme Rheme

γνώσεσθε

you-will-know

PrmentalSenserPredquesSubject(Rheme)

σπείρων

sowing

415 οYacuteτοι δέ εEcircσιν οEacute παρ τν aringδaumlν

these but are the-ones beside the path

Token Adjconj Pridentifying ValueSubject Adjconj Predstat Compltop Theme Rheme

ldquoThese are the ones beside the path rdquo

iacuteπου σπείρεται aring lόγοc

where is-sown the word

Adjconjcirc Prmaterial GoalAdjconjcirc Predstat Subjecttexttop Theme Rheme

ldquo where the word is sownrdquo

καEgrave iacuteταν κούσωσιν εIcircθIgravec ecircρχεται

and whenever they-should-hear immediately comes

Adjconj Adjtime Adjtime PrmaterialAdjconj Adjcirc Adjcirc Predstattext top Theme Rheme

aring Σατανc

the Satan

ActorSubject(Rheme)

ldquoWhenever they hear immediately Satan comes rdquo

iacuteταν κούσωσιν

whenever they-should-hear

Adjconj PrmentalSenserAdjconjmodal PredstatSubjecttextint Theme Rheme

ldquoWhenever they hear rdquo

καEgrave αOgraveρει τaumlν lόγον τaumlν acircσπαρmicroένον εEcircc αIcircτούc

and takes-up the word the-one being-sown in them

ldquo and snatches the word that is sown in themrdquo

acircσπαρmicroένον εEcircc αIcircτούc

being-sown in them

Prmaterial AdjplacePredstat Adjcirctop Theme Rheme

ldquo is sown in themrdquo

416 καEgrave οYacuteτοί εEcircσιν

and these are

Adjconj Token PridentifyingAdjconj Subject Predstattext top Theme Rheme

acircπEgrave τ πετρώδη σπειρόmicroενοι

the-ones upon the rocky-place being-sown

ValueComplement(Rheme)

ldquoAnd these are the ones that are sown in a rocky placerdquo

upon the rocky-place being-sown

ldquo are sown in a rocky placerdquo

οEuml iacuteταν κούσωσιν τaumlν lόγον εIcircθIgravec

which whenever they-may-hear the word immediately

Actor Adjtime AdjtimeSubject Adjcirc Adjcirctexttop Theme Rheme

with joy they-receive it

Adjaccomp Prmaterial GoalAdjcirc Predstat Compl(Rheme)

ldquo the ones that when they hear the word immediately receive it withjoyrdquo

iacuteταν κούσωσιν τaumlν lόγον

whenever they-may-hear the word

Adjconj PrmentalSenser PhenomenonAdjconjprob PredstatprobSubject Compltextint top Theme Rheme

ldquo when they hear the word rdquo

417 καEgrave οIcircκ ecircχουσιν ucircίζαν

and not they-have root

Adjconj PrattributiveCarrier AttributeAdjconj Adjpol PredstatSubject Complementtext int top Theme Rheme

acircν aacuteαυτοOslashc

in themselves

ldquoThey have no root rdquo

ll πρόσκαιροί εEcircσιν

but temporary they-are

ldquo but are temporaryrdquo

εUacuteτα γενοmicroένηc θlίψεωc laquo διωγmicroοUuml δι τaumlν lόγον

then coming affliction or persecution on-account-of the word

Adjtime AdjtimeAdjcirc Adjcirctext top Theme

εIcircθIgravec σκανδαlίζονται

immediately they-are-made-to-stumble

Adjtime PrmaterialGoalAdjcirc PredstatSubjectRheme

ldquoThen when affliction or persecution comes because of the word they areinstantly tripped uprdquo

γενοmicroένηc θlίψεωc laquo διωγmicroοUuml δι τaumlν lόγον

coming affliction or persecution on-account-of the word

Prexistential Existent AdjreasonPredstat Compl AdjcircTheme Rheme

ldquo when affliction or persecution comes because of the word rdquo

418 καEgrave llοι εEcircσEgraveν οEacute εEcircc τc κάνθαc σπειρόmicroενοι

and others are the-ones into the thorns being-sown

Adjconj Carrier Prattributive AttributeAdjconj Subject Predstat Compltext top Theme Rheme

ldquoOther [seeds] are sown among the thornsrdquo

εEcircc τc κάνθαc σπειρόmicroενοι

into the thorns being-sown

ldquo are sown among the thornsrdquo

οYacuteτοί εEcircσιν οEacute τaumlν lόγον κούσαντεc

these are the-ones the word hearing

ldquoThese are people who hear the wordrdquo

τaumlν lόγον κούσαντεc

the-ones the word hearing

ldquo [ones] hearing the wordrdquo

419 καEgrave αEacute microέριmicroναι τοUuml αEcircAgraveνοc καEgrave πάτη τοUuml πlούτου καEgrave

and the cares of-the age and the deceit of-the wealth and

Adjconj ActorAdjtimeAdjconj SubjectAdjcirctext top Theme

αEacute περEgrave τ lοιπ acircπιθυmicroίαι εEcircσπορευόmicroεναι συmicroπνίγουσιν τaumlν lόγον

the concerning the rest desires coming-in choke the word

ldquo and the cares of the world the deceit of wealth and desires for otherthings comes in and chokes the word rdquo

αEacute microέριmicroναι τοUuml αEcircAgraveνοc καEgrave πάτη τοUuml πlούτου καEgrave αEacute περEgrave

the cares of-the age and the deceit of-the wealth and the concerning

ActorSubjectTheme

τ lοιπ acircπιθυmicroίαι εEcircσπορευόmicroεναι

the rest desires coming-in

PrmaterialPredstatRheme

ldquo comes in rdquo

420 καEgrave acircκεOslashνοί εEcircσιν

and those are

οEacute acircπEgrave τν γumlν τν καlν σπαρέντεc

the-ones upon the earth the good having-been-sown

ValueCompl(Rheme)

ldquoThere are those who were sown in good soilrdquo

acircπEgrave τν γumlν τν καlν σπαρέντεc

upon the earth the good having-been-sown

ldquo were sown in good soilrdquo

which hear the word

Senser Prmental PhenomenonSubject Predstat Compltexttop Theme Rheme

ldquoThey hear the word rdquo

καEgrave παραδέχονται

and they-receive

ldquo and receive it rdquo

καEgrave καρποφοροUumlσιν

and they-bear-fruit

ldquo and bear fruitrdquo

atildeν τριάκοντα

one thirty

Actor GoalSubject ComplRheme

ldquo one thirty-foldrdquo

and one sixty

and one a-hundred

Appendix C

Clause Level Analysis ofExperiential Interpersonaland Textual Meanings in Lk84ndash15

The following is a clause-by-clause analysis of experiential interpersonal andtextual meanings at the clause level in Lk 84ndash15 See the description at thebeginning of Appendix A for a key to reading the displays in this appendix

84 Συνιόντοc δagrave icircχlου ποllοUuml καEgrave τAgraveν κατ πόlιν acircπιπορευοmicroένωνgathering and crowd much and the according-to city coming-to

Adjconj AdjtimeAdjconj Adjcirctop Theme

πρaumlc αIcircτaumlν εUacuteπεν δι παραβοlumlc

to him he-said through parable

PrverbalSayer AdjmeansPredstatSubject AdjcircRheme

Now when a large crowd gathered and people were coming to him fromtheir respective cities he said to them through a parable

Συνιόντοc icircχlου ποllοUuml καEgrave τAgraveν κατ πόlιν acircπιπορευοmicroένων πρaumlc αIcircτaumlν

gathering crowd much and the according-to city coming-to to him

Prmat ActorPredst SubjectTheme Rheme

Now when a large crowd gathered and people were coming to him fromtheir respective cities

κατ πόlιν acircπιπορευοmicroένωνπρaumlc αIcircτaumlν

according-to city coming-to to him

Adjcomp Prmaterial AdjplaceAdjcirc Predstat AdjcircTheme Rheme

[people] were coming to him from their respective cities

85 gtΕξumllθεν aring σπείρων τοUuml σπεOslashραι τaumlν σπόρον αIcircτοUuml

went-out the sower of-the to-sow the seed of-him

Prmaterial ActorPredstat Subjecttop Theme Rheme

ldquoA sower went out to sowrdquo

σπεOslashραι τaumlν σπόρον αIcircτοUuml

to-sow the seed of-him

Prmaterial GoalPredstat ComplTheme Rheme

ldquo to sow his seedrdquo

καEgrave acircν τAuml σπείρειν αIcircτaumlν ccedil microagraveν

and in the to-sow him some on-the-one-hand

Adjconj Adjtime Actor AdjconjAdjconj Adjcirc Subject Adjconjtext top Theme Rheme

ecircπεσεν παρ τν aringδόν

fell along the path

Prmaterial AdjplacePredstat Adjcirc(Rheme)

ldquoWhile he was sowing some [seed] fell along the path rdquo

to-sow him

ldquo he was sowing rdquo

καEgrave κατεπατήθη

and was-trampled-on

Adjconj PrmaterialGoalAdjconj PredstatSubjecttext top Theme

ldquo and was trampled uponrdquo

καEgrave τ πετειν τοUuml οIcircρανοUuml κατέφαγεν αIcircτό

and the birds of-the heaven devoured it

Adjconj Actor Prmaterial GoalAdjconj Subject Predstat Compltext top Theme Rheme

ldquo and the birds from the sky devoured itrdquo

86 καEgrave eacuteτερον κατέπεσεν acircπEgrave τν πέτραν

and other fell-down upon the rock

ldquoOther [seed] fell down on rockrdquo

καEgrave φυagraveν acircξηράνθη

and growing-up it-withered

on-account-of the not to-have moisture

ldquoWhen it sprouted it withered because it had no moisturerdquo

φυagraveν

growing-up

ldquo[When it] sprouted rdquo

micro ecircχειν Ecircκmicroάδα

not to-have moisture

ldquo [it] had no moisturerdquo

87 καEgrave eacuteτερον ecircπεσεν acircν microέσuacute τAgraveν κανθAgraveν

and other fell in midst of-the thorns

ldquoYet other [seed] fell in the middle of the thornsrdquo

καEgrave συmicroφυεOslashσαι αEacute κανθαι πέπνιξαν αIcircτό

and growing-up-together the thorns choked it

ldquo and the thorns growing up with the seed choked itrdquo

συmicroφυεOslashσαι [αEacute κανθαι]

growing-up-together [the thorns]

Prmaterial [Actor]Predstat [Subject]Theme [Rheme]

ldquo the thorns growing up [with the seed] rdquo

88 καEgrave eacuteτερον ecircπεσεν εEcircc τν γumlν τν γαθήν

and other fell in the earth the good

ldquoYet other [seed] fell in the good soilrdquo

καEgrave φυagraveν acircποίησεν

and growing-up it-made

καρπaumlν aacuteκατονταπlασίονα

fruit a-hundred-fold

GoalCompl(Rheme)

ldquoWhen it grew up it produced a hundred-fold yieldrdquo

φυagraveν

growing-up

ldquo[When it] grew up rdquo

ταUumlτα lέγων acircφώνει

these-things saying he-was-calling-out

Adjtime PrverbalSayerAdjcirc PredstatSubjecttop Theme Rheme

When he said these things he was calling out

ταUumlτα lέγων

these-things saying

Verbiage PrverbalCompl PredstatTheme Rheme

When he said these things

ltΟ ecircχων Acircτα κούειν κουέτω

the-one having ears to-hear must-hear

ecircχων Acircτα κούειν

having ears to-hear

Prattributive AttributePredstat ComplTheme Rheme

ldquo[the one] having ears to hear rdquo

κούειν

to-hear

ldquo to hear rdquo

89 gtΕπηρώτων δagrave αIcircτaumlν οEacute microαθηταEgrave αIcircτου

asked and him the disciples of-him

Prverbal Adjconj Recipient SayerPredstat Adjconj Compl Subjecttop Theme Rheme

Then his disciples asked him

τίc αOtildeτη εOgraveη παραβοlή

what this might-be the parable

Attribute Carrier Prattributive CarrierComplinterr Subject Predques Subjecttopint Theme Rheme

ldquoWhat might this parable meanrdquo

810 aring δagrave εUacuteπεν

he and said

Sayer Adjconj PrverbalSubject Adjconj Predstattop Theme Rheme

And he said

ltΥmicroOslashν δέδοται

to-you has-been-given

Beneficiary PrmaterialCompl Preddiscltop Theme Rheme

γνAgraveναι τ microυστήρια τumlc βασιlείαc τοUuml θεοUuml

to-know the mysteries of-the kingdom of-the God

GoalSubject(Rheme)

ldquoThe mysteries of the kingdom of God have been given for you to know rdquo

ldquo to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God rdquo

τοOslashc δagrave lοιποOslashc acircν παραβοlαOslashc

to-the but rest in parables

Adjconj Beneficiary AdjmeansAdjconj Compl Adjcirctop Theme Rheme

ldquo but to the rest [they are given] in parablesrdquo

Ugraveνα βlέποντεc micro βlέπωσιν

in-order-thatseeing not they-should-see

ldquo so that while they see they may not see rdquo

βlέποντεc

seeing

ldquo [while they] see rdquo

καEgrave κούοντεc micro συνιAgraveσιν

and hearing not they-may-perceive

ldquo and while they hear they may not perceiverdquo

κούοντεc

hearing

ldquo [while they] hear rdquo

811 ^Εστιν δagrave αOtildeτη παραβοlή

is but this the parable

Pridentifying Adjconj Token ValuePredstat Adjconj Subject Compltop Theme Rheme

ldquoBut this is the parablerdquo

ltΟ σπόροc acircστEgraveν aring lόγοc τοUuml θεοUuml

the seed is the word of-the God

ldquoThe seed is the word of Godrdquo

812 οEacute δagrave παρ τν aringδόν εEcircσιν οEacute κούσαντεc

the-ones and along the path are the-ones hearing

Adjconj Token Pridentifying ValueAdjconj Subject Predstat Compltop Theme Rheme

ldquoNow the ones along the path are those who hearrdquo

κούσαντεc

hearing

ldquo [those who] hear rdquo

εUacuteτα ecircρχεται aring διάβοlοc

then comes the devil

Adjtime Prmaterial ActorAdjcirc Predstat Subjecttext top Theme Rheme

ldquo then the devil comes rdquo

καEgrave αOgraveρει τaumlν lόγον πauml τumlc καρδίαc αIcircτAgraveν

and takes-up the word from the heart of-them

Adjconj PrmaterialActor Goal AdjplaceAdjconj PredstatSubject Compl Adjcirctext top Theme Rheme

ldquo and takes away the word from their heartrdquo

Ugraveνα micro πιστεύσαντεc σωθAgraveσιν

Lest believing they should be saved

Adjconj Adjtime PrmaterialGoalAdjconjAdjpol Adjcirc PredstatSubjecttextint top Theme Rheme

ldquo so that they should not be saved when they believerdquo

πιστεύσαντεc

believing

ldquo [when they] believe rdquo

813 οEacute δagrave acircπEgrave τumlc πέτραcthe-ones but upon the rock (are)

οEuml iacuteταν κούσωσιν microετ χαρc δέχονται τaumlν lόγον

which whenever they-should-hear with joy they-receive the word

ValueCompl(Rheme)

ldquoBut the ones on the rock are those which whenever they hear it receivethe word with joyrdquo

οEuml iacuteταν κούσωσιν microετ χαρc

which whenever they-should-hear with joy

Carrier Adjtime AdjqualitySubject Adjcirc Adjcirctoptext Theme Rheme

they-receive the word

Prattributive AttributepossPredstat Compl(Rheme)

ldquo which whenever they hear it receive the word with joyrdquo

Adjconj PrmentalSenserAdjconjprob PredstatSubjecttopint Theme Rheme

ldquo whenever they hear it rdquo

καEgrave οYacuteτοι ucircίζαν οIcircκ ecircχουσιν

and these root not they-have

Adjconj Token Value PridentifyingAdjconj Subject Compl Adjpol Predstattext top Theme Rheme

ldquo these have no rootrdquo

οEuml πρaumlc καιρaumlν πιστεύουσιν

which for time they-believe

Senser Adjtime PrmentalSubject Adjcirc Predstattexttop Theme Rheme

ldquo who believe for a time rdquo

καEgrave acircν καιρAuml πειρασmicroοUuml φίστανται

and in time of-testing they-desert

ldquo and fall away when trials comerdquo

814 τauml δagrave εEcircc τc κάνθαc πεσόν οYacuteτοί εEcircσινthe-ones but in the thorns falling these are

οEacute κούσαντεc

the-ones hearing

ValueCompl(Rheme)

ldquoBut the ones that fell in the thorns these are people who hearrdquo

κούσαντεc

hearing

ldquo [people who] hear rdquo

καEgrave Iacuteπauml microεριmicroνAgraveν καEgrave πlούτου καEgrave δονAgraveν τοUuml βίου πορευόmicroενοι

and by cares and wealth and pleasures of-the life living

Adjconj AdjtimeAdjconj Adjcirctext top Theme

συmicroπνίγονται

they-are-choked

PrmaterialGoalPredstatSubjectRheme

ldquo and as they live by cares and wealth and pleasures of life they arechoked rdquo

Iacuteπauml microεριmicroνAgraveν καEgrave πlούτου καEgrave δονAgraveν τοUuml βίου πορευόmicroενοι

by cares and wealth and pleasures of-the life living

Adjaccomp PrmaterialAdjcirc PredstatTheme Rheme

ldquo [as they] live by cares and wealth and pleasures of life rdquo

καEgrave οIcirc τεlεσφοροUumlσιν

and not they-produce-ripe-fruit

Adjconj PrmaterialActorAdjconj Adjpol PredstatSubjecttext int top Theme

ldquo and they do not produce ripe fruitrdquo

815 τauml δagrave acircν τnot καlnot γnot οYacuteτοί εEcircσινthe-one but in the good earth these are

οUgraveτινεc acircν καρδίoslash καlnot καEgrave γαθnot

which in heart good and fertile

ValueCompl(Rheme)

ldquoBut the one in the good soil these are people with a good and fertileheart rdquo

κούσαντεc τaumlν lόγον κατέχουσιν καEgrave καρποφοροUumlσιν

hearing the word they-hold-fast and bear-fruit

Adjtime PrmaterialActorAdjcirc PredstatSubjecttop Theme Rheme

in patient-endurance

AdjqualityAdjcirc(Rheme)

ldquo who when they hear the word hold on to it and bear fruit in patientendurancerdquo

κούσαντεc τaumlν lόγον

hearing the word

ldquo [when they] hear the word rdquo

Bibliography

Arens Edmund 1982 Kommunikative Handlungen Die paradigmatische Be-deutung der Gleichnisse Jesu fur eine Handlungstheorie Dusseldorf Patmos

Aune David E 1987 The New Testament in its literary environment Libraryof Early Christianity vol 8 Philadelphia Westminster

Aurelio Tullio 1977 Disclosures in den Gleichnissen Jesu Eine Anwendungder disclosure-Theorie von I T Ramsey der modernen Metaphorik und derSprechakte auf die Gleichnisse Jesu Regensburger Studien zur Theologievol 8 Frankfurt am Main Lang

Austin John 1962 How to do things with words London Oxford UniversityPress

Bacon Benjamin W 1930 Studies in Matthew New York Henry Holt andCompany

Balch David L 1991 Social history of the Matthean community Cross-disciplinary approaches Minneapolis Fortress Press

Barthes Roland 1968 Elements of semiology New York Hill and WangTranslated by Annett Lavers and Colin Smith

Bernstein Basil (ed) 1973 Class codes and control 2 Applied studies towardsa sociology of language London Routledge amp Kegan Paul

Blount Brian K 1995 Cultural interpretation Reorienting New Testamentcriticism Minneapolis Fortress Press

Boucher Madeleine 1977 The mysterious parable A literary study TheCatholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series vol 6 Washington DC TheCatholic Biblical Association of America

Brooks James A amp Winbery Carlton L 1979 Syntax of New TestamentGreek Lanham MD University Press of America

Brooks Stephenson H 1987 Matthewrsquos Community The evidence of his specialsayings material JSNT Supplement Series vol 41 Sheffield JSOT PressEdited by David Hill and David E Orton

Buth Randall 1992 ΟTHORNν ∆έ Καί and asyndeton in Johnrsquos Gospel Pages 144ndash161 of Black David Alan Barnwell Katharine amp Levinsohn Stephen H(eds) Linguistics and New Testament interpretation Essays on discourseanalysis Nashville Broadman Press

Butler Christopher S 1985 Systemic linguistics Theory and applicationsLondon Batsford Academic and Educational

Chafe Wallace amp Danielewicz Jane 1987 Properties of spoken and writtenlanguage Pages 83ndash113 of Horowitz Rosalind amp Samuels S Jay (eds)Comprehending oral and written language San Diego Academic Press

Cook John G 1995 The structure and persuasive power of Mark A linguisticapproach The Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies Atlanta ScholarsPress edited by Vincent L Wimbush

Crossan John Dominic 1973 In parables The challenge of the historical JesusEagle Books New York and San Francisco Harper amp Row

Crossan John Dominic 1988 The dark interval Towards a theology of storySonoma CA Polebridge Press

Culler Jonathan 1975 Structuralist poetics Structuralism linguistics and thestudy of literature Ithaca Cornell University Press

Danes Frantisek 1974 Functional sentence perspective and the organisationof the text Pages 106ndash128 of Danes Frantisek (ed) Papers on functionalsentence perspective The Hague Mouton

Davies Martin 1994 lsquoirsquom sorry irsquoll read that againrsquo Information structure inwriting Pages 75ndash89 of Sticha Frantisek amp Cmejrkova Svetla (eds) Thesyntax of semantics and text A festschrift for Frantisek Danes TubingenGunter Narr Verlag

Davies Martin 1996 Theme and information until Shakespeare In But-ler Christopher Berry Margaret Fawcett Robin amp Huang Guowen (eds)Meaning and form Systemic functional interpretations Norwood NJ Ablex

Davies W D amp Allison Jr Dale C 1991 A critical and exegetical commentaryon the Gospel according to St Matthew International Critical Commentariesvol 2 Edinburgh T amp T Clark

Davison M E 1989 New Testament Greek word order Literary and linguisticcomputing 4 19ndash28

de Beaugrande Robert amp Dressler Wolfgang U 1981 An introduction totextlinguistics Longman Linguistics Library vol 26 London and New YorkLongman

de Saussure Ferdinand 1916 Cours de linguistique generale Paris Payot

Derrida Jacques 1976 Of grammatology Baltimore Johns Hopkins UniversityPress Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Dibelius Martin 1961 Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums Fourth ednTubingen J C B Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Edited by Gunther Bornkamm

Dik Helma 1995 Word order in ancient Greek A pragmatic account of wordorder variation in Herodotus Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology vol5 Amsterdam J C Gieben

Dik Simon C 1980 Studies in functional grammar London and New YorkAcademic Press

Dik Simon C 1989 The theory of functional grammar Part I The structureof the clause Dordrecht Foris

Dodd C H 1961 The parables of the kingdom Revised edn Yale UniversitySchaffer Lectures New York Scribner

Dover Kenneth J 1960 Greek word order Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress

du Plessis J G 1987 Pragmatic meaning in Matthew 131ndash23 Neotestamen-tica 21 33ndash56

Durkheim Emile 1982 The rules of sociological method and selected texts onsociology and its method London Macmillan

Eggins Suzanne 1994 An introduction to systemic functional linguistics Lon-don and New York Pinter

Fanning Buist M 1990 Verbal aspect in New Testament Greek Oxford Claren-don Press

Fawcett Robin P 1974 Some proposals for systemic syntax part 1 Malsjournal 1(1) 1ndash15

Fawcett Robin P 1980 Cognitive linguistics and social interaction Heidelbergand Exeter Julius Groos and University of Exeter

Firbas Jan 1992 Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken com-munication Studies in English Language Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress

Firth J R 1957 Papers in linguistics 1934ndash1951 London Oxford UniversityPress

Fleming Ilah 1988 Communication analysis A stratificational approach Dal-las Summer Institute of Linguistics

Friberg Timothy 1982 New Testament Greek word order in light of discourseconsiderations PhD thesis University of Minnesota Minneapolis

Fries Peter H 1993 Information flow in written advertising Pages 336ndash352 ofAlatis James E (ed) Language communication and social meaning George-town University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1992 Washing-ton DC Georgetown University Press

Fries Peter H 1995a Patterns of information in initial position in EnglishPages 47ndash67 of Fries Peter H amp Gregory Michael (eds) Discourse insociety Functional perspectives Norwood NJ Ablex

Fries Peter H 1995b A personal view of Theme Pages 1ndash19 of GhadessyMohsen (ed) Thematic development in English texts London Pinter

Fries Peter H 1995c Themes methods of development and texts Pages 317ndash359 of Hasan Ruqaiya amp Fries Peter H (eds) On Subject and Theme Adiscourse functional perspective Amsterdam Benjamins

Frisk Hjalmar 1933 Studien zur griechischen Wortstellung Goteborgs Hogsko-las Arsskrift vol 39 Goteborg Wettergren amp Kerbers

Fuchs Ernst 1964 Studies of the historical Jesus Studies in Biblical Theologyvol 42 London SCM Press Translated by A Scobie

Funk Robert W 1966 Language hermeneutic and Word of God The problemof language in the New Testament and contemporary theology New YorkHarper amp Row

Funk Robert W 1982 Parables and presence Forms of the New Testamenttradition Philadelphia Fortress Press

Gernsbacher Morton Ann 1990 Language comprehension as structure buildingHillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Gerot Linda 1995 Making sense of text Making Sense of Language GoldCoast Queensland Gerd Stabler AEE

Geulich Robert A 1998 Mark 1ndash826 Word Biblical Commentary vol 34aDallas TX Word Books

Greenberg Joseph H 1963 Some universals of grammar with particular ref-erence to the order of meaningful elements Pages 73ndash113 of GreenbergJoseph H (ed) Universals of language Cambridge MA MIT Press

Gregory Michael 1967 Aspects of varieties differentiation Journal of linguis-tics 3 177ndash198

Gregory Michael amp Carroll Susanne 1978 Language and situation Languagevarieties and their social contexts London Routledge and Kegan Paul

Greimas Algirdas Julien 1966 Semantique structurale recherche de methodeParis Larousse

Grice H Paul 1975 Logic and conversation Pages 41ndash58 of Cole Peteramp Morgan Jerry L (eds) Syntax and semantics 3 Speech acts New YorkAcademic

Gulich Elisabeth Heger Klaus amp Raible Wolfgang 1979 Linguistische Tex-tanalyse Uberlegen zur Gliederung von Texten Papiere zur Textlinguistikvol 8 Hamburg Buske

Gundry Robert H 1982 Matthew A commentary on his literary and theologicalart First edn Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Gundry Robert H 1994 Matthew A commentary on his handbook for a mixedchurch under persecution Second edn Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Guthrie G H 1994 The structure of Hebrews A text-linguistic analysisNovum Testamentum Supplement Series vol 73 Leiden Brill

Hagner Donald A 1993 Matthew 1ndash13 Word Biblical Commentary vol 33aDallas TX Word Books

Halliday M A K 1967a Notes on transitivity and theme in English mdash part1 Journal of linguistics 3(1) 37ndash81

Halliday M A K 1967b Notes on transitivity and theme in English mdash part2 Journal of linguistics 3(2) 199ndash244

Halliday M A K 1968 Notes on transitivity and theme in English mdash part 3Journal of linguistics 4(2) 179ndash215

Halliday M A K 1971 Linguistic function and literary style An inquiry intothe language of William Goldingrsquos The Inheritorsrsquo In Chatman Seymour(ed) Literary style A symposium New York Oxford University Press

Halliday M A K 1973 Explorations in the functions of language Explorationsin Language Study London Edward Arnold

Halliday M A K 1978 Language as social semiotic London and BaltimoreEdward Arnold

Halliday M A K 1987 Spoken and written modes of meaning Pages 55ndash82of Horowitz Rosalind amp Samuels S Jay (eds) Comprehending oral andwritten language San Diego Academic Press

Halliday M A K 1994 An introduction to functional grammar Second ednLondon Edward Arnold

Halliday M A K amp Hasan Ruqaiya 1976 Cohesion in english EnglishLanguage Series vol 9 London Longman

Halliday M A K amp Hasan Ruqaiya 1989 Language context and textAspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective Second edn LanguageEducation Oxford Oxford University Press

Harrington Daniel J 1991 The Gospel of Matthew Sacra Pagina Series vol1 Collegeville MN The Liturgical Press

Hellholm David 1980 Das Visionenbuch des Hermas als Apokalypse For-mgeschichtliche und texttheoretische Studien zu einer literarischen GattungConiectanea Biblica New Testament Series vol 131 Lund Gleerup

Hjelmslev Louis 1970 Language An introduction English edn Madison WIUniversity of Wisconsin Press

Jeremias Joachim 1972 The parables of Jesus Second edn New York Scrib-ner Translated by S H Hooke

Jones G V 1964 The art and truth of the parables A study in their literaryform and modern interpretation London SPCK

Julicher Adolf 1899 Die Gleichnisreden Jesu Freiburg J C B Mohr (PaulSiebeck)

Kilpatrick G D 1946 The origins of the Gospel according to Matthew OxfordClarendon Press

Kingsbury Jack Dean 1969 The parables of Jesus in Matthew 13 A study inredaction-criticism Richmond John Knox Press

Kingsbury Jack Dean 1975 Matthew Structure Christology kingdom Min-neapolis Fortress Press

Kingsbury Jack Dean 1988 Matthew as story Second revised and enlargededn Philadelphia Fortress Press

Kissinger Warren S 1979 The parables of Jesus A history of interpretation andbibliography ATLA Bibliography Series vol 4 Metuchen NJ and LondonThe Scarecrow Press and the American Theological Library Association

Lamb Sydney M 1966 Outline of stratificational grammar Washington DCGeorgetown University Press

Larsen Iver 1991 Word order and relative prominence in New TestamentGreek Notes on translation 5 29ndash34

Leech Geoffrey N 1983 Principles of pragmatics Longman Linguistics Libraryvol 30 London Longman

Levi-Strauss Claude 1966 The savage mind Chicago University of ChicagoPress

Levine Amy-Jill 1988 The social and ethnic dimensions of Matthean salvationhistory Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity vol 14 Lewiston NYMellen Press

Levinsohn Stephen H 1987 Textual connections in acts Society of BiblicalLiterature Monograph Series vol 31 Atlanta Scholars Press

Levinsohn Stephen H 1992 Participant reference in Koine Greek narrativePages 31ndash44 of Black David Alan Barnwell Katharine amp LevinsohnStephen H (eds) Linguistics and New Testament interpretation Essays ondiscourse analysis Nashville Broadman Press

Loepfe Alfred 1940 Die Wortstellung im griechischen Sprechsatz (erklart anStucken aus Platon und Menander) PhD thesis Freiburg Freiburg Switzer-land

Luz Ulrich 1990 Das Evangelium nach matthaus Mt 8ndash17 Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar Zum Neuen Testament vol I2 Benziger VerlagNeukirchener Verlag

Luz Ulrich 1995 The disciples in the Gospel according to Matthew Secondedn Studies in New Testament Interpretation Edinburgh T amp T ClarkEdited by Graham N Stanton First published in Zeitschrift fur die neutes-tamentliche Wissenschaft 62 (1971) 141ndash71

Malina Bruce J amp Neyrey Jerome H 1988 Calling Jesus names The socialvalue of labels in Matthew Foundations amp Facets Social Facets SonomaCA Polebridge Press

Malinowski Bronislaw 1923 The problem of meaning in primitive languagesIn Ogden C K amp Richard I A (eds) The meaning of meaning LondonRoutledge and Kegan Paul

Martin J R 1992 English text System and structure Philadelphia andAmsterdam John Benjamins

Mathesius Vilem 1964 On the potentiality of the phenomena of languagePages 1ndash32 of Vachek Josef (ed) A Prague School reader in linguisticsBloomington Indiana University Press

McKay K L 1994 A new syntax of the verb in New Testament Greek Anaspectual approach New York Peter Lang

Newman Barclay M 1983 To teach or not to teach (a comment on Matthew131ndash3) The bible translator 34 139ndash143

Olsen Mari Broman 1994 A semantic and pragmatic model of lexical andgrammatical aspect PhD thesis Northwestern University Evanston IL

Olsen Mari Broman 1997 A semantic and pragmatic model of lexical andgrammatical aspect New York Garland Press

Overman J Andrew 1990 Matthewrsquos Gospel and formative Judaism the socialworld of the Matthean community Minneapolis Fortress Press

Perrin Norman 1976 Jesus and the language of the kingdom Symbol andmetaphor in New Testament interpretation Philadelphia Fortress Press

Philippaki-Warburton Irene 1985 Word order in Modern Greek Transactionsof the philological society 2 113ndash143

Philippaki-Warburton Irene 1987 The theory of empty categories and thepro-drop parameter in Modern Greek Journal of linguistics 23 289ndash318

Pike Kenneth L 1971 Language in relation to a unified theory of the structureof human behavior Second edn Janua Linguarum Series Maior vol 24 TheHague Mouton

Pike Kenneth L 1981 Tagmemics discourse and verbal art Michigan Studiesin the Humanites vol 3 Ann Arbor MI University of Michigan Press

Porter Stanley E 1989 Verbal aspect in the Greek of the New Testament withreference to tense and mood Studies in Biblical Greek vol 1 New YorkPeter Lang

Porter Stanley E 1993 Word order and clause structure in New TestamentGreek An unexplored area of Greek linguistics using Philippians as a testcase Philologia neotestamentaria 6(November) 177ndash206

Poynton Cate 1985 Language and gender Making the difference GeelongVictoria Deakin University Press

Propp Vladimir 1968 The morphology of the folktale Austin University ofTexas Press

Reed Jeffrey T 1992 Cohesive ties in 1 Timothy In defense of the epistlersquosunity Neotestamentica 26 131ndash147

Reed Jeffrey T 1995a Identifying theme in the New Testament Insights fromdiscourse analysis Pages 75ndash101 of Porter Stanley E amp Carson D A(eds) Discourse analysis and other topics in biblical Greek Journal for theStudy of the New Testament Supplement Series vol 113 Sheffield SheffieldAcademic Press

Reed Jeffrey T 1995b To Timothy or not a discourse analysis of 1 timo-thy Pages 90ndash118 of Porter Stanley E amp Carson D A (eds) Discourseanalysis and other topics in biblical Greek Journal for the Study of the NewTestament Supplement Series vol 113 Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press

Reed Jeffrey T 1997 A discourse analysis of Philippians Method and rhetoricin the debate over literary integrity Journal for the Study of the New Testa-ment Supplement Series vol 136 Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press

Rose David forthcoming Some variations in Theme across languages Func-tions of language

Saldarini Anthony J 1994 Matthewrsquos Christian-Jewish community ChicagoStudies in the History of Judaism Chicago and London The University ofChicago Press

Sampson Geoffrey 1980 Schools of linguistics Stanford Stanford UniversityPress

Schmid W 1973 Der Textaufbau in der Erzahlungen Dostoevskijs PoeticaBeiheften vol 10 Munchen Fink

Schweitzer Albert 1968 The quest of the historical Jesus A critical study ofits progress from Reimarus to Wrede New York Collier Books MacmillanPublishing Company Translated by W Montgomery

Scott Bernard Brandon 1989 Hear then the parable A commentary on theparables of Jesus Minneapolis Fortress Press

Searle John 1969 Speech acts London Cambridge University Press

Sellin Gerhard 1983 Textlinguistische und semiotische Erwagungen zu mk41ndash34 New testament studies 29 508ndash530

Smyth Herbert Weir amp Messing Gordon M 1984 Greek grammar Revisededn Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Stanton Graham N 1993 A gospel for a new people Studies in Matthew Firstenglish edn Louisville KY WestminsterJohn Knox Press

Stendahl Krister 1954 The school of St Matthew and its use of theOld Testament Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis vol XXLundCopenhagen GleerupMunksgaard

Thiselton Anthony C 1970 The parables as language-event Some commentson Fuchsrsquos hermeneutics in the light of linguistic philosophy Scottish journalof theology 23 437ndash468

Tolbert Mary Ann 1979 Perspectives on the parables An approach to multipleinterpretations Philadelphia Fortress Press

Via Jr Dan Otto 1967 The parables Their literary and existential dimensionPhiladelphia Fortress Press

Voelz J W 1993 Present and aorist verbal aspect A new proposal Neotes-tamentica 27 153ndash164

Wilder Amos N 1964 The language of the gospel Early Christian rhetoricNew York and Evanston Harper amp Row

Yngve Victor H 1986 Linguistics as a science Bloomington and IndianapolisIndiana University Press

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Systemic Functional Grammar and New Testament Interpretation

Context and Interpretation

The Background to Systemic Functional Grammar

Meaning and Context in Systemic Functional Grammar

Context Genre and Register

Text Semantic Components of Language

The Relationship between Semantics and Register

Overview of the Study

The Interpretation of Matthew 131--23 and Parallels

Kingsbury and Redaction-Criticism

Sellin and Text-linguistics

Du Plessis and Pragmatics

Ideational Meanings and Field of Discourse

Logical Meanings Relations Between Clauses

Activity and Object Focus Processes Participants and Circumstances

Activity and Object Focus of the Narrative Frame

Activity and Object Focus of the Parable

Activity and Object Focus of the Parable Rationale

Activity and Object Focus of the Parable Interpretation

Summary and Conclusions

Interpersonal Meanings and Tenor of Discourse

Interpersonal Meanings Limitations on the Analysis of Written Texts

Status Contact and Affect Grammatical Realizations

Status Contact and Affect in the Narrative Frame

Status Contact and Affect in the Parable

Status Contact and Affect in the Parable Rationale

Status Contact and Affect in the Parable Interpretation


Textual Meanings and Mode of Discourse

Interaction and Role Theme and Thematic Development

Interaction and Role in the Parable

Interaction and Role in the Parable Rationale

Interaction and Role in the Parable Interpretation

Interaction and Role in the Narrative


Conclusions Context in the Text of Matthew 131--23 and Parallels

The Context of Situation within Mt 131--23 and Parallels

The Context of Situation of Mt 131--23 and Parallels

Meanings and Issues of Interpretation in Mt 131--23 and Parallels

Areas for Further Research

Clause Level Analysis of Experiential Interpersonal and Textual Meanings in Mt 131--23

Clause Level Analysis of Experiential Interpersonal and Textual Meanings in Mk 41--20

Clause Level Analysis of Experiential Interpersonal and Textual Meanings in Lk 84--15

ccopy2001 by Philip L GraberAll rights reserved

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Contents

Abstract iii

Acknowledgements v

List of Figures

List of Tables

Interpretation) 99

tation 126

Chapter 1

1994 237ndash239)

circumstance -

Extent -

Accompaniment

Location -

Matter

Manner -

Cause -

duration (temporal)

distance (spatial)

time (temporal)

place (spatial)

qualitycomparison

reasonpurpose

behalf

Circextent

aacutewc Łrti

until now

Circextent

Processmaterial

KaEgrave

Circlocationtime

ecircsth

he-stood

Prmaterial (Actor)

Circlocplace

acirclaETHuacute

with-oil

Circmannermeans

tăn kefalăn mou

the head of-me

Prmaterial (Actor)

poreOcircou

Prmaterial (Actor)

Go in peace

ŹmeOslashc

ĆgorĹswmen

should buy

Prmaterial

Circcausebehalf

KaEgrave

eEcircsĺljen

he-entered

Prmaterial (Actor)

with them

Circaccomp

Circlocation

Circumstancematter

ecircrqetai

Prmaterial

poETHhsigraven

Prmaterial (Actor)

Circumstancerole

tĹ prigravebata

the sheep

Behaver

his voice

Phenomenon

Processbehavior

kaEgrave

Ćnefyumlnhsen

she-exclaimed

Prverbal (Sayer)

Circmanner

Circcause

ecircgrayen

he wrote

Prverbal (Sayer)

IacutemOslashn

to you

Recipient

this command

Verbiage

and he-says to him

kaEgrave

Łkarpoc

fruitless

Attribute

gtEgyuml

eEcircmi

Printenstive

and behold

Ź dokaumlc

the log

Carrier

meETHzwn toOcirctwn

greater than these

Łllh acircntolă

another command

Prcircumstantial

relational -

attributive

identifying

Valuepossessor

acircstEgraven

isbelongs

Prpossessive

Tokenpossessed

silver and gold

Carrierpossessed

do not existbelong

Prpossessive

moi (Acts 36)to me

Attributepossessor

ecircstin

[there] is

Prexistential

Existent

gETHnetai

Prexistential

Existent

Circlocation

Circcause

(Lk 1510)

clause

relational -

ωc φόβωc

kaEgrave

Adjconj

Subject

oIcirc mŸ

not not

Polarity

ĆpojĹnugrave

shall-die

Predicator

into the age

Adjcirc

pisteOcirceic

you-believe

toUumlto

Complement

Adjpolarity

kOcircrie

Adjvocative

acircgř

Subject

pepETHsteuka

Predicator

iacuteti

Adjconj

sIgrave

eUacute

Complement

(Complement)

41Cf John 414 851 852 1028 138 and 1 Cor 813

^Ontwc

Adjconj

the man this

dETHkaioc

Complement

PAgravec

Adjcircinterr

Adjconj

Adjmodal

dunaETHmhn

I might be able

Pred (Subj)

acircĂn mă

unless

someone

Subject

aeligdhgăsei

will guide

Predicator

Subjinterr

ĆpokulETHsei

will roll away

Predicator

ŹmOslashn

for-us

taumln lETHjon

the stone

Adjunctcircum

KOcircrie kOcircrie

Lord lord

Adjvocative

oIcirc

Polarity

in your name

Complement

we prophesied

OIcircdegravepote

Adjmodal

ecircgnwn

I-knew

IacutemŘc

Complement

I never knew you

ŁkoloOcircjei

follow

Complement

Follow me

kaEgrave

Adjconj

ĆnastĂc

rising up

Adjcircum

ŽkoloOcircjhsen

he followed

aIcirctAuml

Complement

Subject

metadigravetw

Predicator

with not one-having

Complement

as you-believed

Adjcircum

genhjătw

be-[it]

to-you

Complement

Adjpol

jhsaurETHzete

store-up

Pred (Subj)

IacutemOslashn

for yourselves

jhsauroIgravec

stores

on the earth

Adjcircum

Adjpol

Pred (Subj)

among yourselves

Adjcircplace

Complinterr

poiăswmen

should-do

Predicator

kaEgrave

Adjconj

ŹmeOslashc

Subject

kalegraveseic

you-will-call

Pred (Subject)

the name of-him

Complement

ecircdei

was-necessary

Predicator

ltHruacutedhc

Subject

jegravelei

Predicator

se ĆpokteOslashnai

you to-kill

Complement

kaEgrave

Adjconj

all the crowd

Subject

acirczătoun

were-seeking

Predicator

to-touch him

Complement

acircστιν

Ćdelfegrave

brother

interp

acircgyuml

top Theme

τAuml

Φιlίππuacute

περEgrave

τumlc

βασιlείαc

τοUuml

θεοUuml

καEgrave

τοUuml

gtΙησοUuml

ΧριστοUuml

γυναOslashκεc

13cθεωρAgraveν

σηmicroεOslashα

καEgrave

δυνάmicroειc

microεγάlαc

acircξίστατο

he-was-amazed

οEacute

acircν

πόστοlοι

iacuteτι

δέδεκται

Σαmicroάρεια

τaumlν

lόγον

τοUuml

θεοUuml

αIcircτοIgravec

icircνοmicroα

nominal group

σπlάγχνα

free will (RSV)

Chapter 2

Introduction 61

Presented world

AbstractAuthor

narrative

Fictivereader

ImpliedReader

Vacant inMatthew

The idealreader

larrrecipient

Chapter 3

Logical Meanings 77

θάlασσαν

(continued)

kaEgrave poieOslash

Logical Meanings 79

lέγων

παρ τν

θάlασσαν

icircχlοc

θαlάσσugrave

αIcircτοUuml

κατ microόναc

parable]

αIcircτοUuml

τούτου

αIcircτAumlν

βαρέωc

προφumlται

acircκείνοιc

microυστήρια

τοUuml θεοUuml

τaumlν lόγον

αIcircτοUuml

καEgrave πάτη

κούσωσιν

εIcircθIgravec

κούσωσιν

τaumlν lόγον

εIcircθIgravec

microετ χαρc

θlίψεωc laquo

τaumlν lόγον

εIcircθIgravec

aring lόγοc

σπαρέντεc

αIcircτAumlν

lόγον

Chapter 4

9See note 16

ecircπεσεν

αIcircτοUuml

κούσαντεc

γαθnot

Chapter 5

4a kaEgraveacircn

speETHrein

βάθοc γumlc

6aŹlETHou δagrave

6b kaEgravediĂ

ecircqein

4a kaEgraveacircn

speETHrein

γumlc

6aŹlETHou δagrave

6b kaEgravediĂ

ecircqein

γumlc

6a kaEgraveiacutete

Ćnegraveteilen

6b kaEgravediĂ

ecircqein

αIcircτοUuml

5b kaEgraveacircn

speETHrein

13adiĂ

lέγουσα

blegravepousin

(δέδοται)

12a iacuteστιc

contrast repeated

τοUuml θεοUuml

σπείραντοc

19apantaumlc

ĆkoOcircontoc

taumln

ligravegon

basileETHac

kaEgrave

jlETHyewc

diwgmoUuml

taumln

συνιείc

clauses)

Cprimearing

dagrave

acircpEgrave

petryumldh

spareETHc

oYacutetigravec

Bprimearing

dagrave

acircpEgrave

petryumldh

spareETHc

oYacutetigravec

κούων

αIcircτούc

jlETHyewc

diwgmoUuml

taumln

19a kaEgraveaEacute

megraverimnai

toUuml

aEcircAgravenoc

kaEgrave

ĆpĹth

toUuml

ploOcirctou

kaEgrave

aEacute

perEgrave

loipĂ

acircpijumETHai

σπαρέντεc

13d kaEgraveacircn

kairAuml

merimnAgraven

kaEgrave

ploOcirctou

kaEgrave

ŹdonAgraven

toUuml

bETHou

15bĆkoOcircsantec

taumln

Źmegraveroslash

lέγουσα

19bndash23f

θαlάσσugrave

acircgegraveneto

icircqlou

polloUuml

kaEgrave

tAgraven

pigravelin

praumlc

8ctaUumlta

Chapter 6

Appendix A

beside the sea

AdjplaceAdjcirc

he got into a boat

lέγων

saying

σπείρειν

to-sow

to sow

beside the path

to-sow him

he sowed

coming the birds

the birds came

sun rising

the sun came up

not to-have root

it had no root

and choked them

and produced fruit

some a hundred-fold

some but sixty

some sixty-fold

some but thirty

having ears

Whoever has ears

The disciples came

He answered them

answering

He answered

GoalSubject(Rheme)

whoever for has

and it-shall-abound

whoever but not has

ccedil ecircχει

what he-has

ActorSubject(Rheme)

because they-see

and the ears of-you

because they-hear

βlέπετε

what you-see

and not they-saw

and to-hear

κούετε

what you-hear

κούετε

what you-hear

and not they-heard

comes the evil-one

and not perceiving

ValueCompl(Rheme)

the word hearing

not it-has but root

in itself

but temporary is

ValueCompl(Rheme)

in the thorns sown

the word hearing

chokes the word

ValueCompl(Rheme)

and makes

some but sixty

some but thirty

Appendix B

43 gtΑκούετε

ldquoHear thisrdquo

σπείρων

sowing

σπεOslashραι

to-sow

ldquo to sowrdquo

σπείρειν

to-sow

ldquo to sow rdquo

and came the birds

and another fell

when rose the sun

not to-have root

and choked it

and one sixty

and one a-hundred

and he-was saying

Then he said

κούειν

to-hear

ldquo to hear rdquo

He said to them

γίνεται

βlέποντεc

seeing

and not see

κούοντεc

hearing

and not hear

and he-says to-them

And he said to them

σπείρων

sowing

and not hear

and he-says to-them

And he said to them

γνώσεσθε

you-will-know

σπείρων

sowing

aring Σατανc

the Satan

ActorSubject(Rheme)

being-sown in them

and these are

in themselves

ActorSubjectTheme

and those are

ValueCompl(Rheme)

which hear the word

and they-receive

and they-bear-fruit

one thirty

and one sixty

and one a-hundred

Appendix C

fell along the path

to-sow him

and was-trampled-on

φυagraveν

growing-up

GoalCompl(Rheme)

φυagraveν

growing-up

these-things saying

having ears to-hear

κούειν

to-hear

ldquo to hear rdquo

he and said

And he said

GoalSubject(Rheme)

βlέποντεc

seeing

κούοντεc

hearing

κούσαντεc

hearing

believing

ValueCompl(Rheme)

the-ones hearing

ValueCompl(Rheme)

κούσαντεc

hearing

they-are-choked

ValueCompl(Rheme)

hearing the word

Bibliography

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Contents

Abstract iii

Acknowledgements v

List of Figures

List of Tables

Interpretation) 99

tation 126

Chapter 1

1994 237ndash239)

circumstance -

Extent -

Accompaniment

Location -

Matter

Manner -

Cause -

duration (temporal)

distance (spatial)

time (temporal)

place (spatial)

qualitycomparison

reasonpurpose

behalf

Circextent

aacutewc Łrti

until now

Circextent

Processmaterial

KaEgrave

Circlocationtime

ecircsth

he-stood

Prmaterial (Actor)

Circlocplace

acirclaETHuacute

with-oil

Circmannermeans

tăn kefalăn mou

the head of-me

Prmaterial (Actor)

poreOcircou

Prmaterial (Actor)

Go in peace

ŹmeOslashc

ĆgorĹswmen

should buy

Prmaterial

Circcausebehalf

KaEgrave

eEcircsĺljen

he-entered

Prmaterial (Actor)

with them

Circaccomp

Circlocation

Circumstancematter

ecircrqetai

Prmaterial

poETHhsigraven

Prmaterial (Actor)

Circumstancerole

tĹ prigravebata

the sheep

Behaver

his voice

Phenomenon

Processbehavior

kaEgrave

Ćnefyumlnhsen

she-exclaimed

Prverbal (Sayer)

Circmanner

Circcause

ecircgrayen

he wrote

Prverbal (Sayer)

IacutemOslashn

to you

Recipient

this command

Verbiage

and he-says to him

kaEgrave

Łkarpoc

fruitless

Attribute

gtEgyuml

eEcircmi

Printenstive

and behold

Ź dokaumlc

the log

Carrier

meETHzwn toOcirctwn

greater than these

Łllh acircntolă

another command

Prcircumstantial

relational -

attributive

identifying

Valuepossessor

acircstEgraven

isbelongs

Prpossessive

Tokenpossessed

silver and gold

Carrierpossessed

do not existbelong

Prpossessive

moi (Acts 36)to me

Attributepossessor

ecircstin

[there] is

Prexistential

Existent

gETHnetai

Prexistential

Existent

Circlocation

Circcause

(Lk 1510)

clause

relational -

ωc φόβωc

kaEgrave

Adjconj

Subject

oIcirc mŸ

not not

Polarity

ĆpojĹnugrave

shall-die

Predicator

into the age

Adjcirc

pisteOcirceic

you-believe

toUumlto

Complement

Adjpolarity

kOcircrie

Adjvocative

acircgř

Subject

pepETHsteuka

Predicator

iacuteti

Adjconj

sIgrave

eUacute

Complement

(Complement)

41Cf John 414 851 852 1028 138 and 1 Cor 813

^Ontwc

Adjconj

the man this

dETHkaioc

Complement

PAgravec

Adjcircinterr

Adjconj

Adjmodal

dunaETHmhn

I might be able

Pred (Subj)

acircĂn mă

unless

someone

Subject

aeligdhgăsei

will guide

Predicator

Subjinterr

ĆpokulETHsei

will roll away

Predicator

ŹmOslashn

for-us

taumln lETHjon

the stone

Adjunctcircum

KOcircrie kOcircrie

Lord lord

Adjvocative

oIcirc

Polarity

in your name

Complement

we prophesied

OIcircdegravepote

Adjmodal

ecircgnwn

I-knew

IacutemŘc

Complement

I never knew you

ŁkoloOcircjei

follow

Complement

Follow me

kaEgrave

Adjconj

ĆnastĂc

rising up

Adjcircum

ŽkoloOcircjhsen

he followed

aIcirctAuml

Complement

Subject

metadigravetw

Predicator

with not one-having

Complement

as you-believed

Adjcircum

genhjătw

be-[it]

to-you

Complement

Adjpol

jhsaurETHzete

store-up

Pred (Subj)

IacutemOslashn

for yourselves

jhsauroIgravec

stores

on the earth

Adjcircum

Adjpol

Pred (Subj)

among yourselves

Adjcircplace

Complinterr

poiăswmen

should-do

Predicator

kaEgrave

Adjconj

ŹmeOslashc

Subject

kalegraveseic

you-will-call

Pred (Subject)

the name of-him

Complement

ecircdei

was-necessary

Predicator

ltHruacutedhc

Subject

jegravelei

Predicator

se ĆpokteOslashnai

you to-kill

Complement

kaEgrave

Adjconj

all the crowd

Subject

acirczătoun

were-seeking

Predicator

to-touch him

Complement

acircστιν

Ćdelfegrave

brother

interp

acircgyuml

top Theme

τAuml

Φιlίππuacute

περEgrave

τumlc

βασιlείαc

τοUuml

θεοUuml

καEgrave

τοUuml

gtΙησοUuml

ΧριστοUuml

γυναOslashκεc

13cθεωρAgraveν

σηmicroεOslashα

καEgrave

δυνάmicroειc

microεγάlαc

acircξίστατο

he-was-amazed

οEacute

acircν

πόστοlοι

iacuteτι

δέδεκται

Σαmicroάρεια

τaumlν

lόγον

τοUuml

θεοUuml

αIcircτοIgravec

icircνοmicroα

nominal group

σπlάγχνα

free will (RSV)

Chapter 2

Introduction 61

Presented world

AbstractAuthor

narrative

Fictivereader

ImpliedReader

Vacant inMatthew

The idealreader

larrrecipient

Chapter 3

Logical Meanings 77

θάlασσαν

(continued)

kaEgrave poieOslash

Logical Meanings 79

lέγων

παρ τν

θάlασσαν

icircχlοc

θαlάσσugrave

αIcircτοUuml

κατ microόναc

parable]

αIcircτοUuml

τούτου

αIcircτAumlν

βαρέωc

προφumlται

acircκείνοιc

microυστήρια

τοUuml θεοUuml

τaumlν lόγον

αIcircτοUuml

καEgrave πάτη

κούσωσιν

εIcircθIgravec

κούσωσιν

τaumlν lόγον

εIcircθIgravec

microετ χαρc

θlίψεωc laquo

τaumlν lόγον

εIcircθIgravec

aring lόγοc

σπαρέντεc

αIcircτAumlν

lόγον

Chapter 4

9See note 16

ecircπεσεν

αIcircτοUuml

κούσαντεc

γαθnot

Chapter 5

4a kaEgraveacircn

speETHrein

βάθοc γumlc

6aŹlETHou δagrave

6b kaEgravediĂ

ecircqein

4a kaEgraveacircn

speETHrein

γumlc

6aŹlETHou δagrave

6b kaEgravediĂ

ecircqein

γumlc

6a kaEgraveiacutete

Ćnegraveteilen

6b kaEgravediĂ

ecircqein

αIcircτοUuml

5b kaEgraveacircn

speETHrein

13adiĂ

lέγουσα

blegravepousin

(δέδοται)

12a iacuteστιc

contrast repeated

τοUuml θεοUuml

σπείραντοc

19apantaumlc

ĆkoOcircontoc

taumln

ligravegon

basileETHac

kaEgrave

jlETHyewc

diwgmoUuml

taumln

συνιείc

clauses)

Cprimearing

dagrave

acircpEgrave

petryumldh

spareETHc

oYacutetigravec

Bprimearing

dagrave

acircpEgrave

petryumldh

spareETHc

oYacutetigravec

κούων

αIcircτούc

jlETHyewc

diwgmoUuml

taumln

19a kaEgraveaEacute

megraverimnai

toUuml

aEcircAgravenoc

kaEgrave

ĆpĹth

toUuml

ploOcirctou

kaEgrave

aEacute

perEgrave

loipĂ

acircpijumETHai

σπαρέντεc

13d kaEgraveacircn

kairAuml

merimnAgraven

kaEgrave

ploOcirctou

kaEgrave

ŹdonAgraven

toUuml

bETHou

15bĆkoOcircsantec

taumln

Źmegraveroslash

lέγουσα

19bndash23f

θαlάσσugrave

acircgegraveneto

icircqlou

polloUuml

kaEgrave

tAgraven

pigravelin

praumlc

8ctaUumlta

Chapter 6

Appendix A

beside the sea

AdjplaceAdjcirc

he got into a boat

lέγων

saying

σπείρειν

to-sow

to sow

beside the path

to-sow him

he sowed

coming the birds

the birds came

sun rising

the sun came up

not to-have root

it had no root

and choked them

and produced fruit

some a hundred-fold

some but sixty

some sixty-fold

some but thirty

having ears

Whoever has ears

The disciples came

He answered them

answering

He answered

GoalSubject(Rheme)

whoever for has

and it-shall-abound

whoever but not has

ccedil ecircχει

what he-has

ActorSubject(Rheme)

because they-see

and the ears of-you

because they-hear

βlέπετε

what you-see

and not they-saw

and to-hear

κούετε

what you-hear

κούετε

what you-hear

and not they-heard

comes the evil-one

and not perceiving

ValueCompl(Rheme)

the word hearing

not it-has but root

in itself

but temporary is

ValueCompl(Rheme)

in the thorns sown

the word hearing

chokes the word

ValueCompl(Rheme)

and makes

some but sixty

some but thirty

Appendix B

43 gtΑκούετε

ldquoHear thisrdquo

σπείρων

sowing

σπεOslashραι

to-sow

ldquo to sowrdquo

σπείρειν

to-sow

ldquo to sow rdquo

and came the birds

and another fell

when rose the sun

not to-have root

and choked it

and one sixty

and one a-hundred

and he-was saying

Then he said

κούειν

to-hear

ldquo to hear rdquo

He said to them

γίνεται

βlέποντεc

seeing

and not see

κούοντεc

hearing

and not hear

and he-says to-them

And he said to them

σπείρων

sowing

and not hear

and he-says to-them

And he said to them

γνώσεσθε

you-will-know

σπείρων

sowing

aring Σατανc

the Satan

ActorSubject(Rheme)

being-sown in them

and these are

in themselves

ActorSubjectTheme

and those are

ValueCompl(Rheme)

which hear the word

and they-receive

and they-bear-fruit

one thirty

and one sixty

and one a-hundred

Appendix C

fell along the path

to-sow him

and was-trampled-on

φυagraveν

growing-up

GoalCompl(Rheme)

φυagraveν

growing-up

these-things saying

having ears to-hear

κούειν

to-hear

ldquo to hear rdquo

he and said

And he said

GoalSubject(Rheme)

βlέποντεc

seeing

κούοντεc

hearing

κούσαντεc

hearing

believing

ValueCompl(Rheme)

the-ones hearing

ValueCompl(Rheme)

κούσαντεc

hearing

they-are-choked

ValueCompl(Rheme)

hearing the word

Bibliography

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Contents

Abstract iii

Acknowledgements v

List of Figures

List of Tables

Interpretation) 99

tation 126

Chapter 1

1994 237ndash239)

circumstance -

Extent -

Accompaniment

Location -

Matter

Manner -

Cause -

duration (temporal)

distance (spatial)

time (temporal)

place (spatial)

qualitycomparison

reasonpurpose

behalf

Circextent

aacutewc Łrti

until now

Circextent

Processmaterial

KaEgrave

Circlocationtime

ecircsth

he-stood

Prmaterial (Actor)

Circlocplace

acirclaETHuacute

with-oil

Circmannermeans

tăn kefalăn mou

the head of-me

Prmaterial (Actor)

poreOcircou

Prmaterial (Actor)

Go in peace

ŹmeOslashc

ĆgorĹswmen

should buy

Prmaterial

Circcausebehalf

KaEgrave

eEcircsĺljen

he-entered

Prmaterial (Actor)

with them

Circaccomp

Circlocation

Circumstancematter

ecircrqetai

Prmaterial

poETHhsigraven

Prmaterial (Actor)

Circumstancerole

tĹ prigravebata

the sheep

Behaver

his voice

Phenomenon

Processbehavior

kaEgrave

Ćnefyumlnhsen

she-exclaimed

Prverbal (Sayer)

Circmanner

Circcause

ecircgrayen

he wrote

Prverbal (Sayer)

IacutemOslashn

to you

Recipient

this command

Verbiage

and he-says to him

kaEgrave

Łkarpoc

fruitless

Attribute

gtEgyuml

eEcircmi

Printenstive

and behold

Ź dokaumlc

the log

Carrier

meETHzwn toOcirctwn

greater than these

Łllh acircntolă

another command

Prcircumstantial

relational -

attributive

identifying

Valuepossessor

acircstEgraven

isbelongs

Prpossessive

Tokenpossessed

silver and gold

Carrierpossessed

do not existbelong

Prpossessive

moi (Acts 36)to me

Attributepossessor

ecircstin

[there] is

Prexistential

Existent

gETHnetai

Prexistential

Existent

Circlocation

Circcause

(Lk 1510)

clause

relational -

ωc φόβωc

kaEgrave

Adjconj

Subject

oIcirc mŸ

not not

Polarity

ĆpojĹnugrave

shall-die

Predicator

into the age

Adjcirc

pisteOcirceic

you-believe

toUumlto

Complement

Adjpolarity

kOcircrie

Adjvocative

acircgř

Subject

pepETHsteuka

Predicator

iacuteti

Adjconj

sIgrave

eUacute

Complement

(Complement)

41Cf John 414 851 852 1028 138 and 1 Cor 813

^Ontwc

Adjconj

the man this

dETHkaioc

Complement

PAgravec

Adjcircinterr

Adjconj

Adjmodal

dunaETHmhn

I might be able

Pred (Subj)

acircĂn mă

unless

someone

Subject

aeligdhgăsei

will guide

Predicator

Subjinterr

ĆpokulETHsei

will roll away

Predicator

ŹmOslashn

for-us

taumln lETHjon

the stone

Adjunctcircum

KOcircrie kOcircrie

Lord lord

Adjvocative

oIcirc

Polarity

in your name

Complement

we prophesied

OIcircdegravepote

Adjmodal

ecircgnwn

I-knew

IacutemŘc

Complement

I never knew you

ŁkoloOcircjei

follow

Complement

Follow me

kaEgrave

Adjconj

ĆnastĂc

rising up

Adjcircum

ŽkoloOcircjhsen

he followed

aIcirctAuml

Complement

Subject

metadigravetw

Predicator

with not one-having

Complement

as you-believed

Adjcircum

genhjătw

be-[it]

to-you

Complement

Adjpol

jhsaurETHzete

store-up

Pred (Subj)

IacutemOslashn

for yourselves

jhsauroIgravec

stores

on the earth

Adjcircum

Adjpol

Pred (Subj)

among yourselves

Adjcircplace

Complinterr

poiăswmen

should-do

Predicator

kaEgrave

Adjconj

ŹmeOslashc

Subject

kalegraveseic

you-will-call

Pred (Subject)

the name of-him

Complement

ecircdei

was-necessary

Predicator

ltHruacutedhc

Subject

jegravelei

Predicator

se ĆpokteOslashnai

you to-kill

Complement

kaEgrave

Adjconj

all the crowd

Subject

acirczătoun

were-seeking

Predicator

to-touch him

Complement

acircστιν

Ćdelfegrave

brother

interp

acircgyuml

top Theme

τAuml

Φιlίππuacute

περEgrave

τumlc

βασιlείαc

τοUuml

θεοUuml

καEgrave

τοUuml

gtΙησοUuml

ΧριστοUuml

γυναOslashκεc

13cθεωρAgraveν

σηmicroεOslashα

καEgrave

δυνάmicroειc

microεγάlαc

acircξίστατο

he-was-amazed

οEacute

acircν

πόστοlοι

iacuteτι

δέδεκται

Σαmicroάρεια

τaumlν

lόγον

τοUuml

θεοUuml

αIcircτοIgravec

icircνοmicroα

nominal group

σπlάγχνα

free will (RSV)

Chapter 2

Introduction 61

Presented world

AbstractAuthor

narrative

Fictivereader

ImpliedReader

Vacant inMatthew

The idealreader

larrrecipient

Chapter 3

Logical Meanings 77

θάlασσαν

(continued)

kaEgrave poieOslash

Logical Meanings 79

lέγων

παρ τν

θάlασσαν

icircχlοc

θαlάσσugrave

αIcircτοUuml

κατ microόναc

parable]

αIcircτοUuml

τούτου

αIcircτAumlν

βαρέωc

προφumlται

acircκείνοιc

microυστήρια

τοUuml θεοUuml

τaumlν lόγον

αIcircτοUuml

καEgrave πάτη

κούσωσιν

εIcircθIgravec

κούσωσιν

τaumlν lόγον

εIcircθIgravec

microετ χαρc

θlίψεωc laquo

τaumlν lόγον

εIcircθIgravec

aring lόγοc

σπαρέντεc

αIcircτAumlν

lόγον

Chapter 4

9See note 16

ecircπεσεν

αIcircτοUuml

κούσαντεc

γαθnot

Chapter 5

4a kaEgraveacircn

speETHrein

βάθοc γumlc

6aŹlETHou δagrave

6b kaEgravediĂ

ecircqein

4a kaEgraveacircn

speETHrein

γumlc

6aŹlETHou δagrave

6b kaEgravediĂ

ecircqein

γumlc

6a kaEgraveiacutete

Ćnegraveteilen

6b kaEgravediĂ

ecircqein

αIcircτοUuml

5b kaEgraveacircn

speETHrein

13adiĂ

lέγουσα

blegravepousin

(δέδοται)

12a iacuteστιc

contrast repeated

τοUuml θεοUuml

σπείραντοc

19apantaumlc

ĆkoOcircontoc

taumln

ligravegon

basileETHac

kaEgrave

jlETHyewc

diwgmoUuml

taumln

συνιείc

clauses)

Cprimearing

dagrave

acircpEgrave

petryumldh

spareETHc

oYacutetigravec

Bprimearing

dagrave

acircpEgrave

petryumldh

spareETHc

oYacutetigravec

κούων

αIcircτούc

jlETHyewc

diwgmoUuml

taumln

19a kaEgraveaEacute

megraverimnai

toUuml

aEcircAgravenoc

kaEgrave

ĆpĹth

toUuml

ploOcirctou

kaEgrave

aEacute

perEgrave

loipĂ

acircpijumETHai

σπαρέντεc

13d kaEgraveacircn

kairAuml

merimnAgraven

kaEgrave

ploOcirctou

kaEgrave

ŹdonAgraven

toUuml

bETHou

15bĆkoOcircsantec

taumln

Źmegraveroslash

lέγουσα

19bndash23f

θαlάσσugrave

acircgegraveneto

icircqlou

polloUuml

kaEgrave

tAgraven

pigravelin

praumlc

8ctaUumlta

Chapter 6

Appendix A

beside the sea

AdjplaceAdjcirc

he got into a boat

lέγων

saying

σπείρειν

to-sow

to sow

beside the path

to-sow him

he sowed

coming the birds

the birds came

sun rising

the sun came up

not to-have root

it had no root

and choked them

and produced fruit

some a hundred-fold

some but sixty

some sixty-fold

some but thirty

having ears

Whoever has ears

The disciples came

He answered them

answering

He answered

GoalSubject(Rheme)

whoever for has

and it-shall-abound

whoever but not has

ccedil ecircχει

what he-has

ActorSubject(Rheme)

because they-see

and the ears of-you

because they-hear

βlέπετε

what you-see

and not they-saw

and to-hear

κούετε

what you-hear

κούετε

what you-hear

and not they-heard

comes the evil-one

and not perceiving

ValueCompl(Rheme)

the word hearing

not it-has but root

in itself

but temporary is

ValueCompl(Rheme)

in the thorns sown

the word hearing

chokes the word

ValueCompl(Rheme)

and makes

some but sixty

some but thirty

Appendix B

43 gtΑκούετε

ldquoHear thisrdquo

σπείρων

sowing

σπεOslashραι

to-sow

ldquo to sowrdquo

σπείρειν

to-sow

ldquo to sow rdquo

and came the birds

and another fell

when rose the sun

not to-have root

and choked it

and one sixty

and one a-hundred

and he-was saying

Then he said

κούειν

to-hear

ldquo to hear rdquo

He said to them

γίνεται

βlέποντεc

seeing

and not see

κούοντεc

hearing

and not hear

and he-says to-them

And he said to them

σπείρων

sowing

and not hear

and he-says to-them

And he said to them

γνώσεσθε

you-will-know

σπείρων

sowing

aring Σατανc

the Satan

ActorSubject(Rheme)

being-sown in them

and these are

in themselves

ActorSubjectTheme

and those are

ValueCompl(Rheme)

which hear the word

and they-receive

and they-bear-fruit

one thirty

and one sixty

and one a-hundred

Appendix C

fell along the path

to-sow him

and was-trampled-on

φυagraveν

growing-up

GoalCompl(Rheme)

φυagraveν

growing-up

these-things saying

having ears to-hear

κούειν

to-hear

ldquo to hear rdquo

he and said

And he said

GoalSubject(Rheme)

βlέποντεc

seeing

κούοντεc

hearing

κούσαντεc

hearing

believing

ValueCompl(Rheme)

the-ones hearing

ValueCompl(Rheme)

κούσαντεc

hearing

they-are-choked

ValueCompl(Rheme)

hearing the word

Bibliography

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Documents

Context in Text - ISFLA