Is Verbal Aspect A Prominence Indicator
Is Verbal Aspect A Prominence Indicator
Is Verbal Aspect A Prominence Indicator
IS VERBAL ASPECT
A PROMINENCE INDICATOR?
AN EVALUATION OF STANLEY PORTERS
PROPOSAL WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE
TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
JODY A. BARNARD
The purpose of this article is to evaluate Stanley Porters theory of
aspectual prominence. According to Porter the three verbal aspects of the
Greek language (perfective, imperfective and stative) operate at a discourse
level to indicate prominence (background, foreground and frontground). This
theory will be tested against the points of emphasis and climactic junctures
evident in a selection of Lukes miracle and pronouncement stories.
1. Introduction
The application of modern linguistics to the Greek of the New Testament has led to a major re-evaluation of traditional categories for understanding the Greek verb. One of the most controversial contributors to
this process is Stanley Porter and his aspectual approach. His suggestion
that the Greek verbal system does not express absolute temporal distinctions even in the indicative mood has received considerable attention.
But his proposal concerning the discourse function of verbal aspect as a
prominence indicator has been relatively neglected. Therefore, this study
will attempt to engage with this particular aspect of Porters theory and
evaluate the possibility that prominence is a factor in the appropriation
of verbal aspect in Lukes Gospel.
1.1. Prominence
Prominence, by definition, is the state of being prominent, conspicuous or contextually climactic. Every narrative leads to a climax or peak
and since the identification of the peak is vital to the appreciation of the
narrative; it is not surprising, therefore, to find that the peak of a narrative is often explicitly marked1. Prominence may also operate at the level
1
P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove,
Illinois 1989) 244-5; cf. S.H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek
(Dallas 2000) 197.
Jody A. Barnard
of the word or clause and, like the discourse peak, may be signalled by
any device whatever which gives certain events, participants, or objects
more significance than others in the same context2. As Callow explains,
the devices by which prominence is signalled are legion3, but is verbal
aspect one of them?
1.2. Verbal Aspect
Not so long ago a definition of verbal aspect would have been considerably difficult due to the fact that it meant different things to different
people. But, as Carson celebrates4, the definition of verbal aspect is now
beginning to experience a consensus. Porter defines verbal aspect as
a semantic (meaning) category by which a speaker or writer grammaticalizes
(i.e. represents a meaning by choice of a word form) a [subjective] perspective on an action by the selection of a particular tense-form in the verbal
system5.
He then identifies the following three aspects in the Greek verbal system6.
1. Perfective (or external) aspect, grammaticalized by the aorist tense,
conveys action in summary, as a complete occurrence, without
regard for its internal unfolding.
2. Imperfective (or internal) aspect, grammaticalized by the present
and imperfect tenses7, conveys action in progress, the internal
structure of the action is in view and conveyed as a process in
ongoing development.
2
K. Callow, Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God (Grand Rapids
1974) 50.
3
Callow, Discourse, 51.
4
D.A. Carson, An Introduction to the Porter / Fanning Debate, in S.E. Porter and
D.A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research
(Sheffield 1993) 21-22.
5
S.E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield 1992) 21; cf. B.M. Fanning,
Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford 1990) 84-85.
6
Porter, Idioms, 20-25; cf. D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand
Rapids 1996) 499-501; Fanning, Aspect, 86-120; K.L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in
New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach (New York 1994) 7-8, 27-34.
7
Porter distinguishes between the present and the imperfect with the concept of
remoteness; the imperfect, he says, is best understood as the less heavily marked
imperfective form, grammaticalizing [+remoteness], i.e. it is used in contexts where the
3. Stative aspect, grammaticalized by the perfect and pluperfect tenses8, conveys the action as a state of affairs, stipulating the condition
of the grammatical subject.
Thus, when a writer of Hellenistic Greek conceived of an action they
had the choice of presenting it in one of three ways: perfective, imperfective or stative. It should not be assumed, of course, that this three-way
choice was available for every verb since many verbs are not conjugated
in every tense form necessary for the grammatical expression of all three
aspects. Porter describes such verbs as aspectually vague and lists
(I am), (I go), (I lie), (I say), (I sit) and (I
go) in this category9. Therefore, these verbs shall be excluded from the
present study.
1.3. Porters Proposal
In essence Porter proposes that verbal aspects are a means by which
the points of emphasis or peaks of a discourse may be indicated10. In his
Idioms of the Greek New Testament, Porter draws attention to the work
of discourse analysts who distinguish between three planes of discourse:
background, foreground and frontground. He then asserts that:
The aorist is the background tense, which forms the basis for the discourse11;
the present is the foreground tense, which introduces significant characters
or makes appropriate climactic references to concrete situationsl2; and the
perfect is the frontground tense, which introduces elements in an even more
discrete, defined, contoured and complex way13.
action is seen as more remote than the action described by the (non-remote) present
(Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood
[New York 1989] 207).
8
Porter also employs the concept of remoteness to distinguish between the perfect and
pluperfect, cf. Aspect, 289.
9
Porter, Aspect, 442-47.
10
Porter, Idioms, 302.
11
Porter suggests that the aorist is the predominant narrative tense of Greek, in the
sense that it is the tense which is relied upon to carry a narrative along when no attention
is being drawn to the events being spoken of (Idioms, 35).
12
Concerning the imperfect Porter writes it is the narrative form used when an action
is selected to dwell upon . . . [it] is similar in function to the historic use of the present.
Although they share the same verbal aspect, the present is used to draw even more attention
to an action (Idioms, 34; cf. Aspect, 198-208).
13
Porter, Idioms, 23; cf. Aspect, 92-93 and his In Defence of Verbal Aspect, in Porter
and Carson (eds.), Greek Language and Linguistics, 35.
Jody A. Barnard
He then proceeds to give an example from Acts 16,1-5, which has been
assimilated into a recent commentary on Acts14. But is such an apparently uncritical acceptance of Porters view legitimate? Almost the exact
opposite to Porters proposal is advocated by Fanning who states that
as a means of showing prominence, the aorist can be used to narrate
the main or foreground events, while the imperfect or present is used to
record subsidiary or background ones15.
Both Porter and Fanning articulate their views with regard to Stephen
Wallaces essay on Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories in which he argues that:
If a language has a contrast between a perfective (completive, non-durative, punctual) aspect and other aspects, then part of the meaning of the
perfective aspect, at least in narration, is to specify major, sequential, foregrounded events, while the meaning of the contrasting non-perfective aspects,
particularly an imperfective, is to give supportive background information16.
It would seem that scholarship was driving the discourse prominence value of verbal aspect in a particular direction, whereas Porter has
applied the brakes and proposed a U-turn. Porter charges Wallace with
mistreating individual languages out of a desire for a universal grammar, meaning that Wallaces conclusion is not applicable to the Greek
of the New Testament17 whereas Fanning fully endorses the conclusions
of Wallace as applicable to the Greek of the New Testament18. So who is
correct? Is verbal aspect a prominence indicator, and if so, how?
14
M.M. Culy and M.C. Parsons, Acts: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco 2003)
305-06, xv-xvi. See also J.T. Reed, Identifying Theme in the New Testament, in Porter
and Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (Sheffield 1995)
84-85; J.T. Reed and R.A. Reese, Verbal Aspect, Discourse Prominence and the Letter of
Jude, Filoga Neotestamentaria 9 (1996) 186-90; and more cautiously T. Klutz, Naked
and Wounded: Foregrounding, Relevance and Situation in Acts 19.13-20, in Porter and
Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament (Sheffield 1999) 263-67, though his
caution seems to have disappeared in The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic
Reading (Cambridge 2004) 49-50, 107-09, 172-73.
15
Fanning, Aspect, 191. See also Levinsohn, Discourse, 173-5; Mckay, Syntax, 42.
16
S. Wallace, Figure and Ground: The interrelationships of Linguistic Categories, in
P.J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics (Amsterdam 1982)
209.
17
Porter, Aspect, 92.
18
Fanning, Aspect, 75.
2. Method
If Luke could be interviewed, these questions could be settled with
relative ease. But in his absence an evaluation of Porters proposal must
take a more scientific form. This is easier said than done, however, since
the data is fossilized and therefore cannot be repeated or exposed to the
appropriate stimuli.
Some have contested this, however, and have argued that the conventions of Modern Greek are not so different from Hellenistic Greek. Chrys
Caragounis, for example, states that the Greek of today is not a different
language from ancient Greek ... Thus, on the basis of the unity of the
Greek language ... later Greek (that is, from NT times to the present) is
of relevance in interpreting the NT19. Concerning the prominence value
of verbal aspect he states ... nor is his [Porters] assertion (p.92) that the
aorist backgrounds an action, while the present and imperfect foreground
it, generally true20. Thus, if there is continuity between Hellenistic and
Modern Greek in this respect, then there is an evident discontinuity
between Porters proposal and the way in which the Greek language is
appropriated by its users.
Porter et al., however, would want to maintain a more profound distinction between the Hellenistic and Modern phase than Caragounis and
in preference of synchronic analysis Porter will be given the benefit of
any doubt21. So, we are left with the problem of how to test such a global
theory on the basis of the data in an ancient text.
Rodney Decker encountered the same problem in his attempt to
evaluate Porters non-temporal view of the verb and his comments are
helpful.
Direct proof for such a proposal is not possible due to the nature of the
theory. ...The theory can only be examined empirically for internal consistency and (especially) for conformity to the data available ... A negative approach
19
65.
C.C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament (Tbingen 2004)
Jody A. Barnard
might also be considered: can the theory be falsified? Are there examples
that are not explainable on the basis of the theory? Which contradict the
theory?22
22
R.J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference
to Verbal Aspect (New York 2001) 61.
23
D.L. Bock, Form Criticism, in D.A. Black and D.S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament
Criticism and Interpretation (Grand Rapids 1991) 182-83.
24
S.H. Travis, Form Criticism, in Marshall (ed.), Interpretation, 156; cf. R. Bultmann,
History of the Synoptic Tradition, Translated by John Marsh (Oxford 1963) 368.
act of Jesus to be the main point of the miracle stories. But this probably has more to do with the fact that they demonstrate the fulfilment of
Isaianic soteriological texts, which, in Luke, become a kind of Messianic
manifesto (see 4,17-21; 7,21-22).
The discipline of discourse analysis offers additional support for equating the miraculous act of Jesus with the climax of the discourse. One
of the key considerations for discourse analysis is the identification of
the climactic resolution to the complicating action25. That is, Jesus
miraculous act typically resolves some previously mentioned problem.
Therefore, as we shall see, the structure of the plot suggests that the miraculous act of Jesus and the climax of the discourse are one.
A Synagogue exorcism (4,31-37)
Verses 31-32 describe the initial situation and add to the significance
of the exorcism by noting the important detail that it was the Sabbath
day. Verses 33-34 could be classified as the complicating action, which
identify the problem to be resolved. Thus, unsurprisingly, the climax of
the miracle story is the miracle itself (v. 35). Assuming Mark is Lukes
main source for this story, it would seem that he further heightens the
exorcism by adding the detail that (cf. Mk 1,26).
However, apart from the stereotypical , the entire climactic
episode is reported in the aorist tense, which, according to Porter, is the
background tense, the tense which is relied upon to carry a narrative
along when no attention is being drawn to the events being spoken of26.
But, in view of the storys form and the unfolding of the plot, it is highly
unlikely that no attention is being drawn to the miraculous and climactic
resolution.
Healing Simons mother-in-law (4,38-39)
Again, the point of this episode is that Jesus has the power to heal and,
like the previous pericope, it takes place on the Sabbath. Mark 1,30 simply reports that she was laid out with a fever ( ),
whereas Luke seems to intensify the description with his
(4,38). In view of the preceding and subsequent aorists,
the imperfective aspect of the periphrastic construction could be viewed
as contributing to this sense of prominence. But the meaning of
and the presence of could also, or even exclusively, be responsible
for this effect. Either way, this intensification of the complication increases the importance of the resolution.
25
26
See R.A. Dooley and S.H. Levinsohn, Analyzing Discourse (Dallas 2001) 104-05.
Porter, Idioms, 23, 35.
Jody A. Barnard
10
11
Jody A. Barnard
12
13
tense has been chosen to mark it as such or was it just the most natural
tense to use for this kind of generalizing utterance?
The use of the genitive absolute construction (v. 23) in this passage is
also intriguing. According to Levinsohn the employment of the G[enitive]
A[bsolute] with the same subject as the previous clause ... gives natural
prominence to the event described in the following nuclear clause41. In v.
23, however, the genitive absolute employs a present tense, Porters foreground tense, whereas the following nuclear clause employs an aorist (cf.
9,57; 13,17; 17,12). Porters theory of aspectual prominence, therefore,
clashes with Levinsohns observation; they cannot both be correct.
Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac (8,26-39)
This account not only displays all the typical features of an exorcism42
but also deliberately dwells upon the mans plight by including more detail than is characteristic for Luke. Although the whole of vv. 26-29 could
be classified as introductory, it would be a loss to conclude that this is all
it is. Verse 26 assumes the same participants as those who survived the
storm in 8,22-25, i.e. Jesus and the disciples, and identifies a new location
for the following story.
Verse 27 introduces one of the main participants and provides a fairly
detailed description of him, which also anticipates the problem to be
resolved. The detailed description and the plural serve to intensify the gravity of the problem and so the story is infused with tension
from the outset. Verse 28 selects one of those whose presence is assumed
by explicitly naming him () and then proceeds to document the
initial meeting of the two main participants. Thus, the stage is set; the
two main participants have been introduced and brought together.
Verse 29, however, interrupts the chronological sequence, by providing
an explanatory flashback. This background information not only explains
the conflict reported in v. 28, but also further elucidates the gravity of the
problem thereby increasing the importance of the solution. It is unlikely
that the discovery of the demons name (v. 30) had anything to do with
the belief that knowing the demons name unlocked the power to perform
the exorcism43. Rather, it further intensifies the severity of the problem
since a Legion denoted a military unit of approximately six thousand
soldiers. Luke has presented this mans condition as virtually impossible
Jody A. Barnard
14
to cure. The gravity of his condition and the quantity and power of the
demons makes Jesus ability to expel them all the more important.
There can be no doubt, therefore, that we have reached the high point
and climax when the demons came out of the man and entered the pigs,
which rushed down the hillside into the lake and drowned (v. 33). Jesus
transforms the situation by allowing the demons entry into the herd of
pigs and his power is climactically demonstrated by the effortless resolution of a particularly profound case of demonic possession.
This entire climactic incident, however, is exclusively reported in the
aorist tense ( ... ... ... ... ).
It is highly unlikely that Luke is drawing no attention to Jesus climactic victory over such a powerful enemy. Despite his agreement that the
severity of the demoniacs condition serves to elevate the importance of
the exorcism, Klutz continues to maintain the validity of Porters proposal in this passage44. Although many of the aorists could be classified
as background, his uncritical acceptance of Porters hypothesis seems to
have blinded him to the appropriation of the aorist at the most significant
juncture in the story.
Assuming Mark was Lukes source for this story it is very intriguing
that in place of Marks imperfect (cf. Mk 5,13) Luke has substituted an aorist but, as we have seen, it is unlikely that Luke
was reducing the prominence. It is more likely that he wanted to stress
the completeness of the action, hence the perfective aspect.
The use of the stative aspect in this passage is also intriguing. According to Porter, the stative aspect reports frontground narration and
carries the highest degree of prominence. The first and last use of this aspect, however, occurs during an episodic flashback (v. 29.38), and such an
interruption to the chronological time line typically reports background
narration45. It might be significant that these two verbs are conjugated
in the pluperfect tense (, ), which concurs with
Levinsohns observation that this tense always reports background narration46. Contrary to Levinsohns beliefs about aspectual prominence,
however, these flashbacks also include aorist tense forms.
Of the remaining uses of the stative aspect, (v. 35) comes
closest to illustrating Porters view of the discourse function of this aspect. Klutz is probably correct to understand the use of the stative aspect
in this instance as underscoring the change from nakedness (8,27) to
15
16
Jody A. Barnard
17
18
Jody A. Barnard
19
57
C.L. Blomberg, Form Criticism in J.B. Green, S. McKnight and I.H. Marshall (eds.),
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, Illinois 1992) 244.
58
Bultmann, History, 61; cf. Bock, Form Criticism, 181-82.
59
Nolland, Luke, 1:319.
60
Bultmann, History, 38-9; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:649; Bock, Luke, 1:633; Nolland, Luke,
1:314, 318.
61
J. Duff considers this an emphatic position (Elements of New Testament Greek
[Cambridge 2005] 61).
62
Porter, Idioms, 23, 35.
20
Jody A. Barnard
21
repeats the words of v. 47 in the form of a direct address to the woman (v.
48) and then reflects on the words in v. 49 suggests that
represents the climactic pronouncement in the Lukan discourse67. Indeed, the whole episode revolves around the scandalous display
of gratitude (vv. 37-39), which is implicitly explained by the parable (vv.
40-43) and then, having reminded Simon of the womans deeds (vv. 4446), it is openly declared to him (v. 47) and climactically pronounced
to the woman (v. 48). Significantly, the story is told with the perfective
and imperfective aspects until v. 47 at which point there is a shift into
the stative aspect grammaticalized by the perfect tense . Thus,
Porters hypothesis offers a possible explanation for the use of the perfect
tense in this story since it is only when the story reaches its climax that
the stative aspect is appropriated.
It should perhaps be noted, however, that the stative aspect was a particularly appropriate aspect to employ at this point. The stative aspect
conveys an existing state, a state that is usually the result of some previous action. This womans premeditated act of thankfulness is interpreted
as evidence that she has been forgiven a great debt. Thus, she is in a
forgiven state, hence the perfect tense. It may also be relevant that Luke
characteristically conjugates in the perfect tense when its object
is your sins (cf. 5,20.23). So, it is also possible that the perfect tense
owes more to a pattern of usage than to an alleged desire to indicate
prominence.
Jesus teaches Martha (10,38-42)
Widely recognised as a pronouncement in form68, Fitzmyer describes
the most memorable part as the pronouncement about Marys portion69. The most significant comment in this pronouncement, however,
seems to be the short phrase (v. 42) since the following
subordinate clause explains and reinforces it and the preceding statement
prepares for it. Thus, this striking contrast and implicit rebuke naturally
suggests itself as the most salient feature. Although the verb is present
tense, it cannot be taken as illustrative of Porters hypothesis since is
aspectually vague i.e. it is not conjugated in every tense form necessary
for the grammatical expression of all three aspects70.
22
Jody A. Barnard
23
the focus of the story to v. 12. Bock recognises elements of both forms75
and Marshall describes it as a healing story which ... culminates in a
pronouncement76. The problem of identification is complicated by the
fact that the categories of form criticism (pronouncement, miracle, etc.)
are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Luke did not confine himself to
one form at a time but apparently felt free to combine and rework the
traditions he received in accordance with his own purposes.
For Luke the climactic point of this discourse seems to be the pronouncement in vv. 15-16. Although there is evidence of a miracle tradition
behind this story, the miracles in Lukes journey narrative (9,51 - 19,44)
tend to be incidental rather than central. Bock has astutely observed that
each miracle emphasizes not the healing but the teaching that followsby.
In view of this, the healing of the crippled woman is probably to be taken
as setting the scene for the subsequent pronouncement in vv. 15-16. Longacre has observed that rhetorical questions may be used with effect at
the peak of a story78, which certainly seems to be the case in this instance. It is fitting that Jesus last appearance at a Synagogue is epitomized
by scandalous rhetoric that puts his opponents to shame.
Although this climactic pronouncement contains several present tense
forms, it also contains several aorist tense forms. This is not dissimilar
from the introductory details except that there we also find Porters
frontground tense (), but in a background context (v. 12).
Furthermore, within the pronouncement, it is the practice of loosing
() oxen and donkeys and giving them a drink () that supports
Jesus release () of the woman from her sickness (vv. 15-16).
Thus, although this discourse provides some present tense verbs precisely
where Porters proposal would anticipate, it also presents some examples
that are not explainable on the basis of his hypothesis.
Jesus destiny (13,31-33)
Although Taylor considered the main point to be the narrative incident
rather than the pronouncement79, given the significance of the journey to
Jerusalem in this part of Lukes gospel, the emphasis is more likely to
lie with the pronouncement80. This is confirmed by the presence of the
24
Jody A. Barnard
25
26
Jody A. Barnard
27
28
Jody A. Barnard
29
In contrast to Fanning et al. S.J.J. Hwang has disputed the widely accepted belief
that the imperfective aspect signals background information. He has observed that it is
often employed simply to convey simultaneous action with another foregrounded event
(see Foreground Information in Narrative, Southwest Journal of Linguistics 9.2 [1990]
78-82).
111