The definite article with proper names for referring to people in the Greek of Acts

From the introduction: I now consider the presence versus absence of the article with proper names, for people in the book of Acts, using the following four categories of description: -- the unmarked patterns involving the first mention of a participant and further references to the participant in the same incident (Sect. 1); -- the reintroduction of participants after an absence (Sec. 2); -- further references to a participant in the same incident which are anarthrous, instead of arhrous (Sect. 3); -- the use of the article with names in reported speeches (Sect. 4). By dividing my discussion into four parts, I do not mean to imply that I am illustrating different principles. Rather, in different contexts, they illustrate a single principle: ANARTHROUS REFERENCES TO PARTICULAR, KNOWN PARTICIPANTS EITHER MARK THE PARTICIPANT AS LOCALLY SALIENT, OR HIGHLIGHT THE SPEECH WHICH S/HE UTTERS

Unmarked and marked instances of topicalization in Hebrew

From the introduction: My aims in this paper are twofold: first, to spell out the normal or UNMARKED function of topicalization (as defined below) in narrative discourse; and second, to consider what Sperber & Wilson call the additional contextual effects (1986:196) that MARKED or apparently redundant instances of topicalization are intended to achieve in Hebrew. In sect. 2, I argue in favour of Beneš 1962 characterization of topicalization as bidirectional. It not only serves as point of departure for the communication , but also provides the basis for linking the communication to its context. I then review my 1987 work on the relation between topicalization and what Givón (1983:8) calls discontinuities (cf. also Lambdin 1971:62): discontinuities in the flow of the story, in the spatio-temporal setting or in the cast of participants (sect. 3). in sect. 4, I consider why topicalization is often associated with backgrounding, but argue that Longacre (1989) is wrong in treating ALL topicalized sentences in Hebrew as backgrounded. Finally, in sect. 5 I examine examples of marked topicalization, i.e. passages in which there is no evidence of a discontinuity in the story yet topicalization occurs, and claim that the intended effect of marked topicalization is to highlight a key event which is to follow

Οτι recitativum in John’s gospel: A stylistic or a pragmatic device?

This paper distinguishes three ways in which speech is reported in the Greek of John\u27s Gospel: directly (without the complementizer hoti), indirectly (with hoti and appropriate changes to first and second person references), and in \u27hoti-direct\u27 form (i.e., with hoti but without changes to first and second person references). The default way of reporting speech in Koine Greek is directly. Typically, when using direct speech, the reporter purports to reproduce the original speech verbatim. When in indirect form, the speech is not reported verbatim and/or is backgrounded with respect to what follows. The hoti-direct form is used to signal that the speech culminates some unit. When a reported speech is embedded in another reported speech, however, the use of hoti may be influenced also by the presence of hoti in the immediate context. When hoti follows the formula amen amen legô soi / humin \u27truly truly I say to you\u27 it signals that the assertion concerned makes explicit some previous point

Also, too and moreover in a novel by Dorothy L. Sayers

When Dorothy Sayers uses also in her novel The Documents in the Case, this indicates that the material that is added is at least as important as that to which it is added. She uses moreover, as Blakemore (1987) has observed, to indicate that the material that is added provides further evidence for a recently stated conclusion. Too is the \u27elsewhere\u27 additive. Sayers uses it when the information that is added confirms or contradicts a previous utterance or assumption. She also uses it when the material concerned is of lesser or greater importance than that to which it is added

Preposed and postposed adverbials in English

From the introduction: Does it make any difference whether an adverbial clause like when the wolf arrived precedes the main verb ore follows it? For example, do (1a) and (1b) (which allude to the tale of The Three Little Pigs ) mean the same? And what about the same sentence with the subordination reversed, as in (1c,d)? (1) a. When the wolf arrived, he was picking apples. b. He was picking apples when the wolf arrived. c. When/While he was picking apples, the wolf arrived. d. The wolf arrived when/while he was picking apples. The great British linguist J. R. Firth always maintained that when there is choice, there is meaning. The purpose of this paper is to explain some of the differences that are made to the meaning of a passage by preposing versus postposing adverbial expressions such as those which appear in (1)

NP references to active participants and story development in ancient Hebrew

Ancient Hebrew is compared with two languages that use a conjunction or pre-verbal particle to signal new developments in a narrative. This comparison shows that Hebrew makes a significantly greater number of full NP references to active participants than the other languages. Typically, languages refer to active participants with NPs when the subject remains the same in two contexts: to mark the beginning of a narrative unit and to highlight a speech or action. Such references are found in Hebrew not only in these contexts, but also in connection with new developments