Discourse Prominence in Matthew 20,1-16 49 the imperfective aspect indicates that the author chooses to draw more attention to the conversation as central to the meaning of the parable. In the dialogue between the landowner and laborers in vv. 6-7 the author employs four present tense verbs (λέγει in v. 6b; λέγουσιν in v. 7a; λέγει and ὑπάγετε in v. 7b) bringing the conversation to the foreground of the narrative. The use of the imperfective aspect serves to highlight the exchange between the landowner and the group of laborers hired last. Nolland notices the shift to present tense verbs, specifically from εἶπεν in v. 1 to λέγει in v. 6b, and identifies them as “historic presents” asserting that their use marks “an emphasized centre of the parable” which signi- fies that the laborers hired last are essential to the rest of the narrative26. Although Nolland does not explicitly define his position concerning the historic present, there is no indication in his text that he understands it to function in any other way than the traditional view which assumes a temporal quality27. While Nolland assumes a temporal use of the present in the dialogue, his claim that the author’s use of the present tense should draw the reader’s attention is supported linguistically by the theory of verbal aspect and discourse prominence. The repeated use of present tense verbs functionally gives this conversation a sustained higher pro- minence against the aorist background tense. Through the use of verbal aspect to indicate discourse prominence, the author intends for this con- versation to standout in the parable while indicating the importance of main characters which include the landowner and the group of laborers who are hired last. The landowner’s speech is again highlighted in v. 8 through the use of the present tense verb λέγει. The author chooses to draw attention to the direction the landowner gives to the manager. Nolland contends that the author employs variation by using the present tense as opposed to the aorist tense to convey the importance of the episode that contains the present tense verbs28. Thus, Nolland acknowledges that the author’s choice to introduce the landowner’s instructions to his manager with a present tense indicates the importance of the subsequent developments that come in vv. 9-1529. From an aspectual perspective the switch to the 26 Ibid. 27 Contra Porter who sees the present tense as nontemporal, functioning to portray vividness (for Porter’s view of the past-referring present, or “historic” present, see Porter, Verbal Aspect, 189-98). Both Fanning (Verbal Aspect, 228) and Wallace (Greek Gram- mar Beyond the Basics, 527) understand the historic present not as how the occurrence is viewed but that it is viewed as rhetorically taking place in present time. Fanning also states that the “temporal meaning [of the historic present] predominates and neutralizes the aspectual force” (228). 28 Nolland, Matthew, 808. 29 Ibid, 809.