Maneuvering through the Text: a Text-World Theory Analysis of John 10.1-18

or

What in the (Text)-world is Happening in John 10.1-18?

Elizabeth Hayes

EABS Leipzig, 2013

Cognitive linguistics and cognitive science have given us new approaches for analysing and

describing biblical text: conceptual metaphor and conceptual blending are two such fruitful

approaches.1 However, these models seem to work best for coping with short segments of

text. The question remains: How then do we make our way through longer sections of text

that contain both conceptual metaphor and stretches of sophisticated argumentation, such as

the account of Jesus, the Good Shepherd in John 10.1-18? This paper will demonstrate that a

cognitive stylistics approach, specifically that of text-world theory, has much to offer in this

regard.

Text World Theory [A]

This paper will take a text world theory approach to examine the narrative of the Good

Shepherd in John 10.1-18. According to Jeffries and McIntyre, text world theory offers, ‘a

principled explanation of the way in which we might keep track of narrative information as

we read’.2 By tracking both 'world-builders' and 'function-advancing propositions', the text-

world analysis provides the reader with a rich model for maneuvering through the text and

emerging with a penetrating understanding of the message. To this discussion, Joanna Gavins

adds the concept of ‘double vision’, which has to do with ‘the position that metaphors and

their resultant blends take in the discourse as a whole.’3 Gavin’s take on double vision is

particularly compelling as it allows for a fuller explanation of the function of both literary

and conceptual metaphors that occur within a complex text than has been available to this

point.

In the past few months I have been able to explore some of the aspects of text world

theory with students in two language classes at the Seattle School of Theology and

Psychology. The basic summary of terms, taken from Peter Stockwell's volume ‘Cognitive

Poetics’ and developed for these classes is available on your hand out.4 Bringing text and

cognitive theory together in this environment seems an approprite and effective ‘blend’ all on

its own. The aim is provide the students with tools to identify and describe key features of an

extended text and the ability to identify the impact of these features on the message of the

text.

1 See, for example Jesper Tang Neilson, "The Lamb of God: The Cognitive Structure of a Johannine Metaphor,"

in Imagery in the Gospel of John, ed. J©œrg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmerman(Tubigen: Mohr

Siebeck, 2006). 2 Lesley Jeffries and Dan McIntyre, Stylistics, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics (New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2010), 156. 3 Joanna Gavins, Text World Theory : An Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 152.

4 Peter Stockwell, Cognitive Poetics : An Introduction (London: Routledge, 2002), 134-150.

Genesis 1.1-5: an Example [A]

Let us look quickly at Genesis 1.1-5 to get an idea of how the text world notation conventions

may be used to analyse and describe a section of text: (describe example on the handout)

1. Text World Notation Conventions

A. World-building elements

1) Time: tense and aspect of verb phrases, temporal phrases

2) Location: adverbials and noun phrases specifying place

3) Characters: proper nouns and pronouns

4) Objects: nouns and pronouns

B. Function advancing propositions.

1) Material processes: intentional or event processes, marked with a downward arrow.

2) Relational processes: possessive and circumstantial processes, marked with a horizontal arrow.

3) Mental processes: thinking, seeing, hearing, knowing, believing and so forth.

C. World switch possibilities

1) Deictic world-switch: a shift based upon changes in time and location, i.e. a flash back or projection into

the future. (These involve a shift in point of view)

2) Attitudinal world-switch: a shift based upon expressions of desire, belief, or purpose (in other words,

those that involve deontic modality).

3) Epistemic world-switch: possibility, probability, or hypothetical.

The Top Box [B]

We will start with the top box of the diagram, Genesis 1.1-5 Text World Builders

(cumulative), which contains the world builders found in this text:

Time: The Beginning

Location: Somewhere in the Universe

Characters: God

Objects: heaven and earth; light and darkness; day and night

The Bottom Box [B]

Now, let’s continue with the bottom box of the diagram, Genesis 1.1-5 Function Advancers,

which contains the function advancers found in the text:

1In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,

2the earth was formless void and

darkness covered the face of the deep

a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Explanation: In verses one and two, we see that the predications are relational, hence are

marked with horiozontal arrows. These predications present background information that fills

in our conception of the text world, but they do not move the narative forward.

3Then God said,

and there was light.

Explanation: This changes in verse three, where we see a world switch based upon the

semantics of the verb, ‘and God said’. This opens a subworld of a type that we all are familiar

with: that of reported speech. The contents of the reported speech are as follows:

4And God saw that the light was good

and God separated the light from the darkness

5God called the light Day

and the darkness he called Night

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Explanation: Although vv. 3-5, the contents of the speech world, are not present on your hand

out, each of the wayyiqtol verbal forms in these sentences represent event processes. The

sentences move the narrative forward and they should be marked with downward arrows.5

What we end up with is a sort of ‘discourse analysis light’ that encompasses both

Longacre’s verbal form analysis and cognitive spaces that are based upon sematic domains

(speech and perception verbs in particular) and other grammatical features. 6 As such, it

represents a multifaced, yet principled analysis of the text. Let us now move on to the text at

hand: the narrative of the Good Shepherd in John 10.1-18.

5 The statement in verse four ‘and God saw that the light was good’ could also be considered a world switch,

specifically a number 2) attitudinal world switch, where the new space contains God’s evaluation of the

situation. In future lessons, the students did indeed create such spaces to accommodate further evaluative

comments in Genesis 1.

6 Robert E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, Topics in Language and Linguistics (New York: Plenum,

1983).

“Let there be light”

Double Vision and John 10.1-18 [A]

Although the narrative of the Good Shepherd in John 10.1-18 is written in Greek as opposed

to the Hebrew of Genesis 1.1-5, the text world analysis is undertaken using the same set of

criteria: world builders in the top section and function advancers in the lower section. The

same subdivisions apply with regard to function advancers: relational predications are

represented by horizontal arrows and event predications by downward arrows. As we will

see, similar world switches may occur. Give that the text actually consists of three distinct

sections, the world builders will be explained for each of the sections separately. This does

not disregard the cumulative effect of reading the text as a whole.

To address John 10.1-18 is not to ignore other possible textual divisions. For example

Moloney sees this as part of a larger section, John 9:39-10.21, where he includes John 9:39-

41 and John 10.19-21 as introductory and concluding information.7 We return to Maloney’s

assessment in the second section of the paper, Implications for Interpretation. However, for

now we may observe that Jesus’ statement in verse 10.1, ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ‘Very truly I

tell you’, introduces a world shift to a speech world.

John 10.1-5: Speech World 1 [B]

The newly formed speech world stretches from 10.1 through 10.5 and consists of extended

imagery that includes references to world builders such as sheepfolds, shepherds, thieves and

bandits. Maloney, quite rightly, refers to this as an image field.8 It gives information and

details that provide background information for the discourse to follow, mainly affecting

location (a sheepfold) characters (shepherd, sheep, thieves, bandits), and an object (the

sheepfold) Since no comparisons are being made with elements either inside or outside of the

speech world at this point, no conceptual metaphor is present.

Grammar: The case system offers a challenge when teaching Greek in an English

speaking environment. My Seattle School students were quick to grasp that a noun in the

nominative case is often the grammatical subject of a sentence, while the grammatical object

is often a noun in the accusative case. However, it was not long before we encountered

sentences with forms of the verb εἰμι (to be), such as ‘I am the gate’ in John 10. 8. This is an

example of the predicate nominative construction in which both nouns occur in the

nominative case. In text world terms, the predicate nominative construction is different in

function from a standard ‘subject-verb-object/nominative-verb-accusative’ sentence. The

7 Moloney, 301.

8 Moloney, 303.

former is a relational predication, often describing some aspect of the subject (horizontal

arrow), while the second often describes an event process (downward arrow). Here we note

that verses 10.1 and 10.2 are predicate nominative constructions that provide important

background information for the discourse: one’s mode of ingress into the sheep fold is

indicative of one’s role and intentions. Thieves and bandits do not come in by the gate: this is

the way in for the shepherd. A shift follows at John 1.6, where a narrative aside gives an

assessment of the result of Jesus’ teaching.

John 10.6-7a: The Discourse World [B]

With the narrative aside in John 10.6-7a, the text-world actually switches to the discourse

world ~ the enveloping world that includes the author/narrator and the reader.9 And here, in

the writer’s own words, we discover that literary figures are indeed alive and well, at least for

this gospel writer, who informs his reader that 6 Ταύτην τὴν παροιμίαν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,

ἐκεῖνοι δὲ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τίνα ἦν ἃ ἐλάλει αὐτοῖς. ‘Jesus used this παροιμίαν (figure of speech)

with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.’ While it is possible to

translate the Greek term as parable, in this case the term is best understood as ‘figure of

speech’.10

We will return to the possible genre of the paroimia in John 10.1-5 in the second

section of the paper, Implications for Interpretation.

John 10.7b-18: Speech World 2/Extended Metaphor [B]

Moving on to John 10.7b, Jesus once again states ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ‘Very truly I tell you’,

a phrase that introduces Speech World 2. (This entire panel should actually appear under the

world shift column, but we need the full space to explore this section.) Speech World 2

begins with Jesus’ words ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα τῶν προβάτων ‘I am the gate of the sheep.’ This

predicate nominative introduces a new level of conceptual complexity into the text. Here we

have Jesus the speaker on the reality side of the diagram claiming to be the gate for the sheep

on the ‘image field’ side of the diagram. In addition to its notable predicate nominative

construction, the phrase ‘I am the gate’ introduces the one clear case of an individual

conceptual metaphor in this section. The conceptual metaphor involved follows the pattern

9 Reader response critics often use the terms ‘implied author’ and ‘implied reader’ to describe this

speaker/hearer combination. See Adele Reinhartz, The Word in the World : The Cosmological Tale in the

Fourth Gospel, Monograph Series / Society of Biblical Literature (Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1992). and

Robert Kysar, "Johannine Metaphor Meaning and Function: A Literary Case Study of John 10.1-18," Semeia 53,

(1991). 10

This term appears four times in the NT, three in John and one in 2 Peter. For a full discussion, see Reinhartz.

PEOPLE ARE OBJECTS, which is a clear comparison between a human being and a ‘thing’.

Humans and objects are quite different in terms of animacy and the comparison between the

two activates this conceptual metaphor. Here the concrete object, the gate of the sheep is used

to make clear something about the abstract qualities of Jesus himself. In conceptual metaphor

terms, the gate is the source domain, which participates in the image field of the sheepfold

imagery found in John 10.1-5. The term gate is used to understand something about the

target domain: Jesus. I have borrowed from conceptual metaphor mapping conventions and

have indicated this mapping using a dark arrow with a dot on the end. This arrow lies above

the sentence. The arrow below the sentence indicates that the phrase is considered a relational

predication in Text World terms. Interestingly, the arrows are ‘at odds’ with one another.

As previously mentioned, with the addition of this conceptual metaphor, an

element of conceptual complexity has entered into the text. It is this conceptual

complexity that Gavins describes as double vision when she states:

In order to understand the position that metaphors and their resultant blends

take in the discourse as a whole, it is helpful to think about the processing of a

blended world, whether it relates to micro-metaphor or an extended mega-

metaphor, as a kind of conceptual double-vision. Whenever a metaphor

occurs in a discourse our mental representation of the text in which the

metaphor was generated continues and normally remains the prominent focus

of our attention. This world, plus any further text-worlds created by the

metaphor, feed into the blending process. As a result of that process, a

concurrent blended world comes into being at the same level as the originating

text-worlds. The participants in the discourse-world are able to manage all

these mental representations simultaneously, toggling between the worlds if

necessary.11

To this end, I have included a partition in the diagram to sort out the text-world of Jesus and

his hearers and the image field/metaphoric text-world of sheepfolds, shepherds, thieves and

bandits. But which of these worlds is, as Gavins states ‘the prominent focus of our attention’

as we toggle between the reality world of Jesus as his disciples and that of the metaphoric

text-world? My analysis begins with Jesus presentation of the paroimia to his hearers. As a

result, the image field seems to take precedence at this point but toggle we must, in order to

make sense of the text as a whole.

11

Emphasis mine.

Summation of Text-World Findings [B]

Before moving on to implications for interpretation, let us briefly sum up the findings of the

text-world diagram thus far.

(John 9.39-41)

(1-6)

1) John 10.1-5 is a speech space containing a paroimia that lays out the image field of the

sheepfold, sheep and shepherd. While this term may be translated as parable, here it takes on

the meaning ‘figure of speech’. (short definition)

2) John 10.6 is a narrative aside in which the narrator explains that Jesus hearers did not

understand what he was saying in the paroimia. The identity of the hearers is not yet

established.

(7-13)

3) John 10.7-10 introduces a second speech space. Jesus statement ‘I am the Gate’ is an

example of the PEOPLE ARE THINGS metaphor. The actual identity of ‘all who came before’ is

not clearly stated; however they are assigned the role of thieves and bandits. This induces a

contrast of roles, specifically in the area of leadership. That the sheep disregard their voices,

indicative of v. 8 PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS metaphor, however the focus is still upon the contrast

between Jesus and the thieves, bandits and hireling

4) John 10.11-13 continues the second speech space. Jesus’ statement ‘I am the Good

Shepherd’ again toggles between the image field of the sheepfold and the reality space, but

this time as an explanation of Jesus’ role as opposed to a specific conceptual metaphor. Now

it is the Good Shepherd who is contrasted to the thieves, bandits and finally to a hired hand

(all human roles). One of the actions of a Good Shepherd (as opposed to a bad shepherd/

thief/bandit/hired hand) is to lay down one’s life on behalf of the sheep.

5) John 10.14-18 begins with Jesus second repetition of the claim ‘I am the Good Shepherd’.

The statement again calls upon the sheepfold image field, but now no contrast is involved.

The Good Shepherd and sheep know one another. Here the claim is introduced that Jesus has

other sheep and in the future there will be one flock and one shepherd. The identity of the

other sheep remains opaque.

6) Finally, at John 10.17-18 Jesus states ‘This is why the Father loves me: because I lay down

my life […]’ Here, Jesus openly discusses his relationship with the Father and the fact that he

has the power to both lay down and to pick up his own life.

(John 10.19-21)

Implications for Interpretation [A]

This text-world analysis of John 10.1-18 provides insight into how we conceptualize the text:

in vv. 1-5 Jesus’ words provide a rich image field involving aspects of sheep tending. Verse 6

notes that Jesus point has been missed by some, so he elaborates upon his discussion by

introducing the individual metaphors of the Gate and the Good Shepherd. Thus, certain

elements in the reality world find direct identity connections with elements of the image field:

Jesus as gate and people as animals. Other connections are made by role assignation: Jesus is

the Good Shepherd while the ‘opposition party’ is described as thieves, bandits and even as a

hired hand.

Certain other elements are notably missing: the sheepfold has a gate, but what about

the remainder of the enclosure? Who are those that ‘came before’ and showed such a lack of

care in v. 8? Who is the thief in v.9? Who is the hired hand in vv.12-13? Who is the wolf?

Who are ‘the other sheep’? Clearly not every element in the image field has been included in

the blended space represented by the text. While we can toggle between some specifics,

others are missing altogether.

Proposed Solutions: Traditional Approaches [B]

In her volume The Word in the World, Adele Reinharz notes that traditional exegetes have

utilized two basic options with regard to interpeting the paroimia: allegory and parable.

Allegory, with it’s call for one to one correlates is difficult in this regard, for as noted above,

many features of the paroimia do not have overt connections represented within following

text. Parable is a possibility, but even then it is necessary to identify the relevant features that

occur within the image field. Maloney’s interpretation that identifies ‘those who came before’

with the Pharisees, based upon information found in the near context of (John 9.39-41) and

(John 10.19-21) is one way of handling the historical information in the text: the shepherd is

Jesus, the ‘opposition party’ includes some of the Jews, and the sheep are the believers.

Another similar grouping includes the Christian leaders, the Jewish leaders and the Johannine

community.12

However, there is still a serious lacuna: what are we to make of Jesus claim to

be the gate for the sheep? Stylistically, this introduces an element of surprise into the text.

Why does Jesus not associate himself with the protection that is the sheepfold itself?

12

See Reinharz, p 71.

Proposed Solutions: Cognitive Approaches [B]

From a cognitive perspective, this passage is structured by a double image schema: the

presence of a gate implies (via metonomy) the presence of the remainder of the sheepfold.

The passage acts somewhat like the Cheshire Cat’s smile: the open gate is in some way a

‘non-space’, yet the implied sheepfold (as the implied Cat) is a container of sorts, with an

inside, and outside and boundaries. The second image schema is the path schema: Jesus is

able to enter the fold, to tend to the sheep and to lead them out to good pasture. Jesus comes

from somewhere (point on the path), passes into the fold (another point on the path), then

turns and is followed out to ‘pasture’ by the sheep (another point of the path).

With this in mind, it is possible to see some strong correlates with Reinharz’

conclusions in her volume ‘the Word in the World’. What we actually have, in one sense, is a

‘Word in the World Text-World. (would have made a good title, actually ). Reinharz

observes and carefully documents the interplay between two ‘tales’ in the Johannine gospel.

The first is the historical tale, in which the elements of the pariomia would correlate with

‘real world’ elements and interpretation would commence from there. Such is the work of

Maloney and many others. However, Reinharz also observes that the content of the gospel is

in fact controlled by the cosmological tale that is introduced in the prologue and carried

forward in various parts of the gospel. In doing this, Reinharz engages the ‘double vision’

that is the entire gospel.

When our section is viewed in this way, the historical tale is in fact ‘surrounded’ by

the cosmological tale: 1) Jesus’ pre-existence with the Father and participation in Creation; 2)

Jesus entry into the world only to be accepted or rejected by those around him; 3) Jesus’

departure from the world. Once again, we see the path and containment schema combination.

Reinharz the goes on to associate the Shepherd with the Word (John 1.1); the sheep with

humankind; ‘his own sheep’ with believers; the sheepfold with the world; the thief and

robbers with satan (John 8.40) and the door with Jesus birth and death.13

The ‘text-world’ of

the cosmological tale is of a larger scale and is more abstract than the ‘text-world’ of the

historical tale, yet both tales are similarly structured. Reinharz does a good deal of toggling of

her own, and has developed a comprehensive way of dealing with the text.

13

Reinharz, 93.

Cognitive Poetics and Cognitive Stylistics [A]

The terms cognitive poetics and cognitive stylistics have much in common. Primarily, as

Peter Stockwell notes, both are concerned with ‘…the large question of how the reader’s vast

background knowledge is specified for application in any particular context of reading.’14

In his chapter on text word theory, Stockwell takes on this question from a cognitive poetics

perspective. First, he links text world theory to literary critical concepts such as background

knowledge, gist, interpretation phenomenology, readerliness and theme.15

He then goes on to

explain the difference between objects that exist in the real world and objects that only come

into being by an observing consciousness. In terms of reading text, this is the difference

between the ‘unchanging materiality of the text’ (i.e., the words on a page) and the

knowledge, feelings and emotions that a reader brings to the text’.16

Here, Stockwell relates

the first to complete linguistic analyses that treat the text as object and the second to a

cognitive poetics that seeks to encompass ideas from cognitive science in an effort to

acknowledge the role of the reader (and author?). Finally Stockwell observes that:

[…] to be fully cognitive poetic, however, the analysis of literary works must

push the two focus points together so that engagement of the reader is not an

‘add-on’ feature, but is an inherent part of the analytic theory from the

beginning.

Bibliography

. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor.

14

Stockwell, 134. 15

Ibid. 16

Ibid.

Gavins, Joanna. Text World Theory : An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007.

Jeffries, Lesley, and Dan McIntyre. Stylistics Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Kysar, Robert. "Johannine Metaphor Meaning and Function: A Literary Case Study of John 10.1-18."

Semeia 53, (1991): 81-111.

Longacre, Robert E. The Grammar of Discourse Topics in Language and Linguistics. New York:

Plenum, 1983.

Neilson, Jesper Tang. "The Lamb of God: The Cognitive Structure of a Johannine Metaphor." In

Imagery in the Gospel of John, edited by J©œrg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmerman, 217-256. Tubigen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Reinhartz, Adele. The Word in the World : The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel Monograph

Series / Society of Biblical Literature. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1992.

Stockwell, Peter. Cognitive Poetics : An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2002.