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