Paul Danove, «Verbs of Transference and Their Derivatives of Motion and State in the New Testament: a Study of Focus and Perspective.», Vol. 19 (2006) 53-71
This article identifies 102 New Testament verbs that designate
transference and describes alternative usages of these verbs as derivates of
motion and state. The discussion first considers the manner in which verbs
grammaticalize the event of transference by assuming a particular focus
and perspective on its elements and by indicating the degree of affectedness
of the subject. The study then develops the usages of motion and state in
terms of the exclusion of elements of the event of transference and changes
in focus and perspective. A concluding discussion summarizes the results of
the investigation.
55
Verbs of Transference and their Derivatives of Motion and State...
In usages of transference, the verbs’ three required arguments receive
lexical realization as their three required syntactic complements. Koine
grammar, however, provides three mechanisms that permit the omission
of one or more of these complements in specific circumstances. First,
Anaphora permits the omission of one, two, or all three syntactic
complements when the context specifies their definite semantic content.
Such “definite null†complements are bracketed in the concluding clause
of the following example2:
Go into the town opposite you, and immediately on entering into it you will
find tied a colt on which no human being ever sat: untie it and [you] bring [the
colt] [to me / Jesus] (Mark 11,2)
῾Υπάγετε εἰς τὴν κώμην κατέναντι ὑμῶν, καὶ εá½Î¸á½ºÏ‚ εἰσποÏευόμενοι εἰς
αá½Ï„ὴν εὑÏήσετε πῶλον δεδεμένον á¼Ï†â€™ ὃν οá½Î´Îµá½¶Ï‚ οὔπω ἀνθÏώπων á¼Îºá½±Î¸Î¹ÏƒÎµÎ½Î‡
λύσατε αá½Ï„ὸν καὶ φέÏετε.
Second, Passivization permits the omission of the Agent complement
even when its definite semantic content cannot be retrieved from the
context3. Such omissions, however, introduce the possibility of polysemy
or multiple interpretations. This receives further consideration below.
Third, Generalization permits the omission of a Theme complement
whose definite semantic content is not specified in the context and
assigns to such “indefinite null†Theme complements the general but
circumscribed interpretation, “whichever entities that appropriately may
be transferred in the manner designated by the verbâ€4:
And I will give to each of you [what is appropriate] according to your works
(Rev 2,23)
καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ Ï„á½° á¼”Ïγα ὑμῶν.
Discussions of definite (and indefinite) null complements appear in C.J. Fillmore,
2
“Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphoraâ€, Berkeley Linguistics Society 12 (1986) 95-
107. Definite null complements also are developed under the designations, “definite object
deletion†in A. Mittwoch, “Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletionâ€, Linguistic
Inquiry 2 (1971) 255-59, “latent object†in P. Matthews, Syntax (Cambridge 1981) 125-26,
and “contextual deletion†in D.J. Alletron, Valency and the English Verb (New York 1982)
34, 68-70.
The Passivization Construct receives explanation in C.J. Fillmore and P. Kay,
3
Construction Grammar (Stanford 1999) 8:20, 30.
Indefinite null complements also receive development under the designations,
4
“unspecified noun phrase deletion†in B. Fraser and J.R. Ross, “Idioms and Unspecified
N[oun] P[hrase] Deletionâ€, Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1970) 264-65, and “pragmatically
controlled model-interpretive null anaphora†in I. Sag and J. Hankamer, “Toward a Theory
of Anaphoric Processingâ€, Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984) 325-45.
FOLLOW US