Upload
nguyentruc
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Predicative Participles in the New Testament
Dag T T Haug
University of Oslo
May 13 2009
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 1 41
Outline
1 Participles and Information Structure
2 Semantics of participles
3 Syntax of participlesCorrelations between position and functionGreek word order
4 Conclusion
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 2 41
Participles and Information Structure
Whatrsquos with participles and information structure
The prototypical sentence
Frame ndash Topic ndash Rheme(Opt adverbial) (Subject) (Verb + other arguments)
(1) Matthew 1624
Τότε
Thenὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusεἶπεν
said-AOR3Sτοῖς
ARTμαθηταῖς
disciples-DATPLαὐτοῦ
his-GEN
lsquoAnd then Jesus told his disciplesrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 3 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions richer rhemes
(2) Mark 15
(John the Baptist appears in the desert People arrive from Jerusalem andthe whole of Judea)
ἐβαπτίζοντο
be baptized-IMPF3Pὑπrsquo
byαὐτοῦ
himἐν
inτῷ
ART᾿Ιορδάνῃ
Jordanποταμῷ
river
ἐξομολογούμενοι
confessing-PPTCPτὰς
ARTἁμαρτίας
sinsαὐτῶν
their
lsquoThey were baptized by him in the river Jordan confessing their sinsrsquo
We often want lsquoricherrsquo (more elaborate) rhemes than available inlexical predicates
There is no single verb for lsquobeing baptized and confessing sinsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 4 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions richer rhemes
(3) Mark 15
(John the Baptist appears in the desert People arrive from Jerusalem andthe whole of Judea)
ἐβαπτίζοντο
be baptized-IMPF3Pὑπrsquo
byαὐτοῦ
himἐν
inτῷ
ART᾿Ιορδάνῃ
Jordanποταμῷ
river
ἐξομολογούμενοι
confessing-PPTCPτὰς
ARTἁμαρτίας
sinsαὐτῶν
their
lsquoThey were baptized by him in the river Jordan confessing their sinsrsquo
We often want lsquoricherrsquo (more elaborate) rhemes than available inlexical predicates
There is no single verb for lsquobeing baptized and confessing sinsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 4 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(4) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(5) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(6) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(7) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(8) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(9) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(10) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(11) Mark 25 - narrative sequence
(Four people try to bring a paralytic to Jesus Unable to get through thecrowd they dig a whole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus)
καὶ
andἰδὼν
seeing-APTCPὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusτὴν
ARTπίστιν
faithαὐτῶν
theirλέγει
says-PRS3Sτῷ
ART
παραλυτικῷmiddot
paralytic-DAT
rsquoAnd when he saw their faith Jesus said to the paralyticrsquo
In narratives can typically be preceding events or events lsquolinkingrsquo topreceding events (movement perception)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 7 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Outline
1 Participles and Information Structure
2 Semantics of participles
3 Syntax of participlesCorrelations between position and functionGreek word order
4 Conclusion
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 2 41
Participles and Information Structure
Whatrsquos with participles and information structure
The prototypical sentence
Frame ndash Topic ndash Rheme(Opt adverbial) (Subject) (Verb + other arguments)
(1) Matthew 1624
Τότε
Thenὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusεἶπεν
said-AOR3Sτοῖς
ARTμαθηταῖς
disciples-DATPLαὐτοῦ
his-GEN
lsquoAnd then Jesus told his disciplesrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 3 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions richer rhemes
(2) Mark 15
(John the Baptist appears in the desert People arrive from Jerusalem andthe whole of Judea)
ἐβαπτίζοντο
be baptized-IMPF3Pὑπrsquo
byαὐτοῦ
himἐν
inτῷ
ART᾿Ιορδάνῃ
Jordanποταμῷ
river
ἐξομολογούμενοι
confessing-PPTCPτὰς
ARTἁμαρτίας
sinsαὐτῶν
their
lsquoThey were baptized by him in the river Jordan confessing their sinsrsquo
We often want lsquoricherrsquo (more elaborate) rhemes than available inlexical predicates
There is no single verb for lsquobeing baptized and confessing sinsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 4 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions richer rhemes
(3) Mark 15
(John the Baptist appears in the desert People arrive from Jerusalem andthe whole of Judea)
ἐβαπτίζοντο
be baptized-IMPF3Pὑπrsquo
byαὐτοῦ
himἐν
inτῷ
ART᾿Ιορδάνῃ
Jordanποταμῷ
river
ἐξομολογούμενοι
confessing-PPTCPτὰς
ARTἁμαρτίας
sinsαὐτῶν
their
lsquoThey were baptized by him in the river Jordan confessing their sinsrsquo
We often want lsquoricherrsquo (more elaborate) rhemes than available inlexical predicates
There is no single verb for lsquobeing baptized and confessing sinsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 4 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(4) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(5) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(6) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(7) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(8) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(9) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(10) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(11) Mark 25 - narrative sequence
(Four people try to bring a paralytic to Jesus Unable to get through thecrowd they dig a whole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus)
καὶ
andἰδὼν
seeing-APTCPὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusτὴν
ARTπίστιν
faithαὐτῶν
theirλέγει
says-PRS3Sτῷ
ART
παραλυτικῷmiddot
paralytic-DAT
rsquoAnd when he saw their faith Jesus said to the paralyticrsquo
In narratives can typically be preceding events or events lsquolinkingrsquo topreceding events (movement perception)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 7 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Whatrsquos with participles and information structure
The prototypical sentence
Frame ndash Topic ndash Rheme(Opt adverbial) (Subject) (Verb + other arguments)
(1) Matthew 1624
Τότε
Thenὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusεἶπεν
said-AOR3Sτοῖς
ARTμαθηταῖς
disciples-DATPLαὐτοῦ
his-GEN
lsquoAnd then Jesus told his disciplesrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 3 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions richer rhemes
(2) Mark 15
(John the Baptist appears in the desert People arrive from Jerusalem andthe whole of Judea)
ἐβαπτίζοντο
be baptized-IMPF3Pὑπrsquo
byαὐτοῦ
himἐν
inτῷ
ART᾿Ιορδάνῃ
Jordanποταμῷ
river
ἐξομολογούμενοι
confessing-PPTCPτὰς
ARTἁμαρτίας
sinsαὐτῶν
their
lsquoThey were baptized by him in the river Jordan confessing their sinsrsquo
We often want lsquoricherrsquo (more elaborate) rhemes than available inlexical predicates
There is no single verb for lsquobeing baptized and confessing sinsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 4 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions richer rhemes
(3) Mark 15
(John the Baptist appears in the desert People arrive from Jerusalem andthe whole of Judea)
ἐβαπτίζοντο
be baptized-IMPF3Pὑπrsquo
byαὐτοῦ
himἐν
inτῷ
ART᾿Ιορδάνῃ
Jordanποταμῷ
river
ἐξομολογούμενοι
confessing-PPTCPτὰς
ARTἁμαρτίας
sinsαὐτῶν
their
lsquoThey were baptized by him in the river Jordan confessing their sinsrsquo
We often want lsquoricherrsquo (more elaborate) rhemes than available inlexical predicates
There is no single verb for lsquobeing baptized and confessing sinsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 4 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(4) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(5) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(6) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(7) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(8) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(9) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(10) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(11) Mark 25 - narrative sequence
(Four people try to bring a paralytic to Jesus Unable to get through thecrowd they dig a whole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus)
καὶ
andἰδὼν
seeing-APTCPὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusτὴν
ARTπίστιν
faithαὐτῶν
theirλέγει
says-PRS3Sτῷ
ART
παραλυτικῷmiddot
paralytic-DAT
rsquoAnd when he saw their faith Jesus said to the paralyticrsquo
In narratives can typically be preceding events or events lsquolinkingrsquo topreceding events (movement perception)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 7 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions richer rhemes
(2) Mark 15
(John the Baptist appears in the desert People arrive from Jerusalem andthe whole of Judea)
ἐβαπτίζοντο
be baptized-IMPF3Pὑπrsquo
byαὐτοῦ
himἐν
inτῷ
ART᾿Ιορδάνῃ
Jordanποταμῷ
river
ἐξομολογούμενοι
confessing-PPTCPτὰς
ARTἁμαρτίας
sinsαὐτῶν
their
lsquoThey were baptized by him in the river Jordan confessing their sinsrsquo
We often want lsquoricherrsquo (more elaborate) rhemes than available inlexical predicates
There is no single verb for lsquobeing baptized and confessing sinsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 4 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions richer rhemes
(3) Mark 15
(John the Baptist appears in the desert People arrive from Jerusalem andthe whole of Judea)
ἐβαπτίζοντο
be baptized-IMPF3Pὑπrsquo
byαὐτοῦ
himἐν
inτῷ
ART᾿Ιορδάνῃ
Jordanποταμῷ
river
ἐξομολογούμενοι
confessing-PPTCPτὰς
ARTἁμαρτίας
sinsαὐτῶν
their
lsquoThey were baptized by him in the river Jordan confessing their sinsrsquo
We often want lsquoricherrsquo (more elaborate) rhemes than available inlexical predicates
There is no single verb for lsquobeing baptized and confessing sinsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 4 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(4) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(5) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(6) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(7) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(8) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(9) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(10) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(11) Mark 25 - narrative sequence
(Four people try to bring a paralytic to Jesus Unable to get through thecrowd they dig a whole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus)
καὶ
andἰδὼν
seeing-APTCPὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusτὴν
ARTπίστιν
faithαὐτῶν
theirλέγει
says-PRS3Sτῷ
ART
παραλυτικῷmiddot
paralytic-DAT
rsquoAnd when he saw their faith Jesus said to the paralyticrsquo
In narratives can typically be preceding events or events lsquolinkingrsquo topreceding events (movement perception)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 7 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions richer rhemes
(3) Mark 15
(John the Baptist appears in the desert People arrive from Jerusalem andthe whole of Judea)
ἐβαπτίζοντο
be baptized-IMPF3Pὑπrsquo
byαὐτοῦ
himἐν
inτῷ
ART᾿Ιορδάνῃ
Jordanποταμῷ
river
ἐξομολογούμενοι
confessing-PPTCPτὰς
ARTἁμαρτίας
sinsαὐτῶν
their
lsquoThey were baptized by him in the river Jordan confessing their sinsrsquo
We often want lsquoricherrsquo (more elaborate) rhemes than available inlexical predicates
There is no single verb for lsquobeing baptized and confessing sinsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 4 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(4) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(5) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(6) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(7) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(8) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(9) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(10) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(11) Mark 25 - narrative sequence
(Four people try to bring a paralytic to Jesus Unable to get through thecrowd they dig a whole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus)
καὶ
andἰδὼν
seeing-APTCPὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusτὴν
ARTπίστιν
faithαὐτῶν
theirλέγει
says-PRS3Sτῷ
ART
παραλυτικῷmiddot
paralytic-DAT
rsquoAnd when he saw their faith Jesus said to the paralyticrsquo
In narratives can typically be preceding events or events lsquolinkingrsquo topreceding events (movement perception)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 7 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(4) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(5) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(6) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(7) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(8) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(9) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(10) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(11) Mark 25 - narrative sequence
(Four people try to bring a paralytic to Jesus Unable to get through thecrowd they dig a whole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus)
καὶ
andἰδὼν
seeing-APTCPὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusτὴν
ARTπίστιν
faithαὐτῶν
theirλέγει
says-PRS3Sτῷ
ART
παραλυτικῷmiddot
paralytic-DAT
rsquoAnd when he saw their faith Jesus said to the paralyticrsquo
In narratives can typically be preceding events or events lsquolinkingrsquo topreceding events (movement perception)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 7 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(5) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(6) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(7) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(8) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(9) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(10) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(11) Mark 25 - narrative sequence
(Four people try to bring a paralytic to Jesus Unable to get through thecrowd they dig a whole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus)
καὶ
andἰδὼν
seeing-APTCPὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusτὴν
ARTπίστιν
faithαὐτῶν
theirλέγει
says-PRS3Sτῷ
ART
παραλυτικῷmiddot
paralytic-DAT
rsquoAnd when he saw their faith Jesus said to the paralyticrsquo
In narratives can typically be preceding events or events lsquolinkingrsquo topreceding events (movement perception)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 7 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(6) Matthew 67
(Jesus gives instructions to his followers)
Προσευχόμενοι
prayingδὲ
butμὴ
notβατταλογήσητε
babbleὥσπερ
likeοἱ
theἐθνικοί
Gentiles
lsquoWhen you pray do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles dorsquo
We might want lsquoanchorrsquo events to other known or familiar events
These events are outside the scope of negation
Typically they have temporal or conditional readings
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 5 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(7) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(8) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(9) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(10) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(11) Mark 25 - narrative sequence
(Four people try to bring a paralytic to Jesus Unable to get through thecrowd they dig a whole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus)
καὶ
andἰδὼν
seeing-APTCPὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusτὴν
ARTπίστιν
faithαὐτῶν
theirλέγει
says-PRS3Sτῷ
ART
παραλυτικῷmiddot
paralytic-DAT
rsquoAnd when he saw their faith Jesus said to the paralyticrsquo
In narratives can typically be preceding events or events lsquolinkingrsquo topreceding events (movement perception)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 7 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(7) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(8) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(9) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(10) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(11) Mark 25 - narrative sequence
(Four people try to bring a paralytic to Jesus Unable to get through thecrowd they dig a whole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus)
καὶ
andἰδὼν
seeing-APTCPὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusτὴν
ARTπίστιν
faithαὐτῶν
theirλέγει
says-PRS3Sτῷ
ART
παραλυτικῷmiddot
paralytic-DAT
rsquoAnd when he saw their faith Jesus said to the paralyticrsquo
In narratives can typically be preceding events or events lsquolinkingrsquo topreceding events (movement perception)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 7 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Frames and modality
(9) Luke 122
(They were wondering at Zachariarsquos delay in the temple)
ἐξελθὼν
come outAPTCPδὲ
butοὐκ
notἐδύνατο
canIMPF3Sλαλῆσαι
speak-AINFαὐτοῖς
them-DAT
lsquoWhen he came out he could not speak to themrsquo
(10) Acts 2712
(Most of them thought they should sail away claiming that)
δύναιντο
canPRSOPT3PLκαταντήσαντες
reachAPTCPεἰς
toΦοίνικα
Phoenix-ACC
παραχειμάσαι
spend the winter-AINF
lsquothey could reach Phoenix and spend the winter therersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 6 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(11) Mark 25 - narrative sequence
(Four people try to bring a paralytic to Jesus Unable to get through thecrowd they dig a whole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus)
καὶ
andἰδὼν
seeing-APTCPὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusτὴν
ARTπίστιν
faithαὐτῶν
theirλέγει
says-PRS3Sτῷ
ART
παραλυτικῷmiddot
paralytic-DAT
rsquoAnd when he saw their faith Jesus said to the paralyticrsquo
In narratives can typically be preceding events or events lsquolinkingrsquo topreceding events (movement perception)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 7 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Expansions events as frames
(11) Mark 25 - narrative sequence
(Four people try to bring a paralytic to Jesus Unable to get through thecrowd they dig a whole in the roof and lower him down to Jesus)
καὶ
andἰδὼν
seeing-APTCPὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusτὴν
ARTπίστιν
faithαὐτῶν
theirλέγει
says-PRS3Sτῷ
ART
παραλυτικῷmiddot
paralytic-DAT
rsquoAnd when he saw their faith Jesus said to the paralyticrsquo
In narratives can typically be preceding events or events lsquolinkingrsquo topreceding events (movement perception)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 7 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Temporal effects
Adverbials as frames and event modifiers
At ten he had leftHe had left at ten
The semantic difference between frames and (parts of the) rheme canbe rather notable
Frames set the topic time of the whole sentence
Rheme elaborations normally relate to the event time of the mainpredicate in the rheme
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 8 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(12) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(13) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatics of frames
(14) Matt 99
(Jesus heals a paralytic in front of the crowd)
Καὶ
andπαράγων
goingὁ
ART᾿Ιησοῦς
Jesusἐκεῖθεν
from thereεἶδεν
see-AOR3Sἄνθρωπον
man-ACC
καθήμενον
sitting-PPTCPἐπὶ
inτὸ
ARTτελώνιον
tax office
lsquoAs Jesus went on from there he saw a man sitting in the tax collectorrsquosboothrsquo
Frames are not explicitly asserted and hence must refer to times oreventss which are somehow accessible or accomodatable in thecontext
Constraints on this accommodation can be weak but they arenevertheless real
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 9 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(15) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly asserted
No English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Pragmatic infelicity
(16) Mark 617
(Herodes hears about Jesus and thinks that John the Baptist must haverisen again)
Αὐτὸς
himself-NOMγὰρ
forὁ
ART῾Ηρώδης
Herodes-NOMἀποστείλας
send out-APTCPἐκράτησεν
seize-A3Sτὸν
ART
᾿Ιωάννην
John-ACC
For when Herod himself had sent out (men) he had arrested John
For Herod himself had sent out (men) and arrested John
The fact that Herod had sent out men is completely new in thecontext and needs to be explicitly assertedNo English translation can do this with a subordinate clause but aparticiple is OK in Greek
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 10 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(17) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(18) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
And Jerome
(19) Mark 617
ipseself
enimfor
HerodesHerodes
misitsend-AOR3S
acand
tenuitseize-AOR3S
IohannemJohn
Jerome chose a main clause to translate the participle
And this is not an isolated phenomenon nor the translation of avariant reading
But because of the narrative mode of discourse the temporal relationis the same as if we had a frame (eg postquam misit)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 11 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(20) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(21) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verb
Mostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
A third function independent rhemes
(22) John 544
(Jesus asks the crowd)
πῶς
howδύνασθε
can-PRS2Pὑμεῖς
you-NOMπιστεῦσαιbelieve-PINF
δόξαν
faith-ACCπαρὰ
from
ἀλλήλων
each other-GENPLλαμβάνοντεςtake-PPTCP
καὶ
andτὴν
ARTδόξαν
faithτὴν
ARTπαρὰ
fromτοῦ
ART
μόνου
sole-GENθεοῦ
god-GENοὐ
notζητεῖτε
seek-PRS2P
lsquoHow can you believe You get your faith from each other and do not seekthe faith of the sole Godrsquo
Such participles are close to sentences (cf the coordination) and areindependent rhemes predicated of a theme shared with the finite verbMostly directly preverbal or sentence-final (marked off by punctuationby modern editors)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 12 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Information structural status of participles
Participles can be
frames (aka stage topics themes etc)rheme (aka comment focus etc) elaborationsindependent rhemes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 13 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb instead
assertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Participles and Information Structure
Making the distinction
It can be hard to make the distinction but we have some testsinvolving
temporal effects frames set the topic time and independent rhemesrelate to this topic time whereas rheme elaborations relate to the timeof the matrix verb insteadassertion vs presupposition frames must be presupposed or somehowaccomodatable events whereas independent rhemes and rhemeelaborations are assertions
Easier to spot in dead languages than IS effects on nominal elements
Might enable us to get at the syntactic realization of IS
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 14 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
The Standard Grammars
SchwyzerDebrunner
Expression of a verbal content (state activity action) which prepared oraccompanied that of the governing finite verb
Preparedaccompanied = aoristpresent or framerheme
lsquoStandard rulersquo present participle has a co-temporal reading aoristparticiple a lsquopreceding eventrsquo reading
Catalogue of (adverbial) relations that participles can bear to theirhosts time cause manner means purpose
But there is typically no attempt to relate the types of readings toinformation structure andor position in the clause
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 15 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
A caveat Semiticisms
There are a number of strange things going on with verbs of saying
ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπενλέγει
These are plausible semiticisms
Being extremely frequent they could skew statistics
In this paper I simply ignore verbs of saying since they deserve aspecial treatment
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 16 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Frame aorist participle = preceding event
(23) Mark 34
(The Phariseans are in the temple watching Jesus doing wonders on theSabbath)
καὶ
andἐξελθόντες
come out-APTCPοἱ
ARTΦαρισαῖοι
Pharisaean-NOMPLεὐθὺς
right awayμετὰ
withτῶν
ART
῾Ηρῳδιανῶν
Herodiansσυμβούλιον
plotACCἐποίησαν
make-AOR3PLκατrsquo
againstαὐτοῦ
him-ACC
lsquoAnd when they came out the Phariseans right away make a plot againsthim together with the Herodiansrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 17 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Independent rheme aorist participle = preceding event
(24) Luke 52
(Jesus is speaking to the crowd by the lake of Gennesarett There are twoships by the shore)
οἱ
ARTδὲ
butἁλεεῖς
fishermenἀπrsquo
fromαὐτῶν
themἀποβάντες
walk off-APTCPἔπλυναν
cleanse-APTCPτὰ
ART
δίκτυα
net-ACCPL
lsquoThe fishermen left the them and cleansed their netsrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 18 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Present participle = simulteaneity
(25) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 19 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
The more complex cases
In the preceding cases present participles were interpreted assimultaneous events and aorist participles as preceding events
The notion of simultaneity in traditional grammars hides a distinctionbetween strict cotemporality and cases where one event lsquoenglobesrsquo theother
Not all aorist participles denote preceding events
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 20 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t sub t
(26) Matthew 2732
(They led away Jesus to the crucify him)
᾿Εξερχόμενοι
walk out-PPTCPδὲ
butεὗρον
meet-AOR3PLἄνθρωπον
man-ACCΚυρηναῖονCyrenaean-ACC
ὀνόματι
name-INSTΣίμωναmiddot
Simon-ACC
lsquoAs they were walking out there they met a Cyrenaean Simon by namersquo
walking out
meet U-time
︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 21 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Two kinds of simultaneity t = t
(27) Mark 66
(Jesus is in Nazareth but cannot work wonders in his home town)
Καὶ
andπεριῆγεν
walk around-IMPF3Sτὰς
ARTκώμας
town-ACCPLκύκλῳ
aroundδιδάσκων
teaching-PPTCP
lsquoHe walked around in the neighbouring towns teachingrsquo
walk around
teachU-time︸ ︷︷ ︸︷ ︸︸ ︷
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 22 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(28) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(29) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneity with aoristic main verb
(30) Acts 98
(On his way to Damascus Saul falls to the ground blinded)
χειραγωγοῦντες
lead by hand-PPTCPδὲ
butαὐτὸν
him-ACCεἰσήγαγον
bring-AOR3PLεἰς
toΔαμασκόν
Damascus-ACC
lsquoThey brought him to Damascus leading him by the handrsquo
χειραγωγοῦντες is not accomodatable in the context and not usableas a frame so it is part of the rheme
We cannot imagine it as frame spanning over multiple sentences itstime is directly related to that of the matrix event
The same holds for διδάσκων on the preceding slide but not for᾿Εξερχόμενοι
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 23 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(31) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(32) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Simultaneous aorists
(33) Matt 274
(Judas sees that Jesus is condemned to death and approaches the priestssaying)
ἥμαρτον
sin-AOR1Sπαραδοὺς
betray-AORPTCPαἷμα
blood-ACCἀθῷον
innocent-ACC
lsquoI sinned by betraying innocent bloodrsquo
The participle is not a frame nor an independent rheme
It elaborates on the rheme and gets its temporal reference from thematrix verb
The aorist means lsquocomplete during the run time of the matrix eventrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 24 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Another example
(34) Acts 925
(Saul is in Damascus but the authorities want to arrest him and they guardthe gates day and night in order to catch him)
λαβόντες
take-AaPTCPδὲ
butοἱ
ARTμαθηταὶ
disciplesαὐτοῦ
hisνυκτὸς
night-GENδιὰ
throughτοῦ
ART
τείχους
wall-GENκαθῆκαν
let freeαὐτὸν
himχαλάσαντες
lower-APTCPἐν
inσπυρίδι
basket
lsquoBut his disciples took him and let him past the city wall at night loweringhim down in a basketrsquo
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 25 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrative
Aorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Semantics of participles
Sketch semantic analysis
Two types of intervals are involved
the topic time which is the period the sentence lsquois aboutrsquo one for thewhole sentencethe event time the lsquorun timersquo of the event(s) described one for each ofthem
Participles which are rheme parts are temporally anchored to the main(lsquohostrsquo) event
This explains the simulaneity effects on aorist participles but also thenon-extendability of present participles which are parts of the rheme
Participles which are frames set the topic time for the rest of thesentence
Such frames can be carried over to the next sentence so the eventdescribed by a present participle can lsquoenglobersquo many events in thefollowing narrativeAorist participles invariably () get an lsquoafterrsquo-reading when used asframes
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 26 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates to
They are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nouns
Objects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Syntax and semantics
Frames semantically outscope the rest of the sentence
They set the topic time which the main verb relates toThey are outside the scope of sentence negation and modality
The question is now how semantic scope relates to syntacticrealization
We know that the reationship between semantics and constituency isat best indirect in Greek
Adjectives can be separated from their nounsObjects can be separated from their verbs
But must frames scope over their sentences And should this scopebe defined linearly or structurally
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 27 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
The distribution of participles in the clause
Not directly preverbal
First 306Second 99Third 18Fourth 1
Total 424
Directly preverbal
First 524Second 283Third 83Fourth 12
Total 903
Post-verbal
Verb + 1 42Verb + 2 50Verb + 3 15Verb + 4 3Sentence-final 550
Total 661
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 28 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that
1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames
2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes
3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles
Basic positions
Participles can have the following basic positions1 Sentence-initial (sometimes after an ADV)2 Pre-verbal3 Post-verbal (overwhelmingly sentence-final)
I will examine the hypothesis that1 Sentence-initial participles are frames2 Pre-verbal participles are independent rhemes3 Post-verbal participles parts of the rheme
Notice that there is a consistent ambiguity between 1 and 2 inV2-sentences
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 29 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Expected properties of frames
More likely to be aorists than rheme parts especially because of thenarrative nature of the text
Likely to be more predictable ie we expect less lexical variation
Less likely to be translated as main clauses than independent rhemes(but more likely than rheme parts which depend on their host)
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 30 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Correlation aspect amp position
Present Aorist
Initial 131 (52) 869 (344)Initial pre-verbal 150 (75) 850 (425)Internal pre-verbal 155 (51) 845 (279)Post-verbal 804 (411) 196 (100)
In a narrative frames are likely to be perfective (after he had donethis )
The same goes for rhematic participles (he did this and that)
But backgrounded participles are clearly different since they pick upon the matrix event time
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 31 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
There are large differences in how much variation there is in thelexical fillers of the different positions
One way of measuring this is to look at how many of the examplesbelong to the 10 most frequent lemmata
Examples Most frequent l Percentage
Initial 306 154 503Initial preverbal 524 163 311Internal preverbal 379 114 301Postverbal 551 87 158
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 32 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Lexical variation
The ten most frequent lemmata of initial participles are ὁράω rsquolookseersquo (39) ἀκούω rsquohearrsquo (29) προσέρχομαι rsquoarriversquo (20) ἔρχομαι rsquogorsquo(17) ἀνίστημι rsquorise uprsquo (13) ἐξέρχομαι rsquogo outrsquo (10) λαμβάνω rsquotakersquo(10) ἵστημι rsquostandrsquo (6) ἐπιγινώσκω rsquounderstandrsquo (5) εὑρίσκω lsquofindrsquo(5) ie basically verbs of perception and movementposition
In last position there is much more variation but many of the mostfrequent verbs are statives (εἰμί rsquoknowrsquo ἔχω rsquohaversquo οἶδα rsquoknowrsquo)which are suitable extra characterizations of situations but are almostabsent from the first position
Preverbal participles are in between with less variation than in finalposition but more than in the initial position
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 33 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Evidence from Jerome
Latin is the only language in our corpus to frequently use other formsthan participles to translate the Greek participles
This is partly for morphological reasons partly because Latin was awell-established literary language
Here are data from aorist active participles which do not exist inLatin
Absolute Main clause Participle Subclause
Initial 117 86 503 259Preverbal initial 139 119 553 169Preverbal internal 106 216 508 116Postverbal 115 39 635 39
Total 125 136 528 168
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 34 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distribution
Large lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal position
Almost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participles
Post-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Correlations between position and function
Functions of the participle
The data clearly supports a difference in function between post-verbalparticiples and the others
Reversal of aoristpresent distributionLarge lexical variation in the postverbal positionAlmost no rendering as main clause of postverbal participlesPost-verbal participial phrases are much longer than preverbal ones
The distinction between the various pre-verbal positions is less clear
Still there is a clear difference in lexical variation
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 35 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
The pragmatic approach (Dik Matic)
S
Topic Focus Verb Background
The verb partitions the Greek sentence into foreground andbackground
The order of topic and focus can be reversed
Topics can be post-verbal in some cases
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 36 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Combining syntax and pragmatics
CP
XPuarr GF = TOPIC
Crsquo
C S
Topic Focus Verb Background
Explains some constraints in a generally free system
At most one constituent in front of a subjunction or an interrogativepronoun
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 37 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(35) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 1
(36) Luke 1923
(A king question a servant who was supposed to look after some moneywhile he was away rsquoWhy didnrsquot you put my money in mortage )
κἀγὼ
and Iἐλθὼν
come-APTCPσὺν
withτόκῳ
interest-DATἂν
PTCLαὐτὸ
it-ACCἔπραξα
collect-AOR3SG
rsquoAnd when I came back I could have collected it with interestrsquo
This would seem to suggest that participles can form constituentswith their subjects
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 38 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(37) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(38) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(39) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Syntax of participles Greek word order
Constituency 2
(40) Acts 1316
(Paul is in the synagogue of Antioch The officials ask him to speak)
ἀναστὰς
rsquorise up-APTCPδὲ
butΠαῦλος
Paul-NOMκαὶ
andκατασείσας
shake-APTCPτῇ
ARTχειρὶ
hand-DATS
εἶπενmiddot
say-AOR3Srsquo
rsquoPaul rose up shook his hand and saidrsquo
There are 26 attestations of this construction in our corpus (asindependent rhemes)
Though hyperbaton is possible they would tend to support the viewthat participle + subject is a constituent
If so every participial frame heads the initial constituent in its clausethough not every initial constituent headed by a participle is a frame
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 39 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Conclusion
Conclusions
Participles in NT Greek can have three functions as rhemeelaborations independent rhemes (sharing the theme with otherrhemes in the sentence) and frame setters
The function has bearings on how the aspectual morphology on theparticiple is interpreted
Participles can form constituents with their subjects
The functional difference is encoded in word order frame setters areinitial independent rhemes are pre-verbal and rheme elaborations arepost-verbal (unless narrowly focussed)
At least for frames this difference should be analysed in terms ofconstituency not simply linear order
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 40 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41
Conclusion
Slides available athttpwwwhfuionoifikkproiel
Data from the PROIEL corpushttpfoniuiono3000
Dag T T Haug (UiO) Participles in the NT May 13 2009 41 41