18 Jody A. Barnard unimportant details are also grammaticalized in this aspect (e.g. 5,1-2.17; 8,29). It would seem, therefore, that there are at least some examples that are not explainable on the basis of Porter’s theory. Reed seems to anticipate such “exceptions” and attempts to account for them thus, “in the event that the aspectual function conflicts with its value of prominence, verbal aspect takes precedence”54. So, according to Reed et al., the reason that the aforementioned climactic events are grammaticalized in the aorist tense form is because the verbal aspect (i.e. perfective) has eclipsed its prominence value. Although this may explain why the choice of verbal aspect might conflict with the supposed prominence value, Reed offers no reason for ascribing prominence to verbal aspect in the first place. If it is possible for verbal aspect to be void of prominence, what are the criteria for establishing that verbal aspect is being appropriated to indicate prominence? If verbal aspect takes precedence in the event that it conflicts with the supposed prominence value, perhaps verbal aspect takes precedence when it does not conflict with the supposed prominence value? Reed’s explanation seems a little too convenient; since it removes all possibility of testing whether or not verbal aspect is a prominence indicator. It is tantamount to saying that prominence is a factor when the verbal aspect coheres with Porter’s hypothesis but it is not a factor when it does not. Such a position, however, is unscientific and therefore contrary to the principles of modern linguistics; it cannot be tested and so remains unproven. Rather, in view of Luke’s miracle stories, one must question Porter’s theory of aspectual prominence. In fact, the findings so far seem to support Fanning’s position on two counts. Firstly, the above analysis is entirely coherent with Fanning’s understanding of the narrative discourse function of the perfective and imperfective aspects. He maintains that when these two aspects are wo- ven together, the aorist is the foreground tense, which narrates the main events, while the imperfect and present tenses give body to the story by providing supplementary background details55. Secondly, Fanning states that “aspect has nothing inherently to do with ... prominence in discour- se”56. So, although he believes that verbal aspect might be a means of distinguishing background from foreground, he wisely avoids the mistake of making prominence a part of the semantics of verbal aspect. It still may be the case, however, that the category has been misplaced and that Reed, ‘Theme’, 85; cf. Reed & Reese, ‘Aspect’, 191. 54 Fanning, Aspect, 191, 248-49. 55 Fanning, Aspect, 85. 56