[B-Greek] referential complexity: frames & scenarios and Galatians 6:18

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sat Apr 24 12:17:00 EDT 2010

On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Dr. Don Wilkins wrote:

>  every element of  
> language or communication has its place in a frame, and the  
> shortcoming of Smyth et al. is the failure to associate grammatical  
> constructions with a given frame or frames. The frames are in turn  
> associated with a given scenario or scenarios. Yancy's example of the  
> spirit, I take it, presumes that without the prayer scenario, the  
> reader might be justified in thinking that "your spirit" is "your own  
> piece of the Holy Spirit." So once a particular word or phrase  
> activates a known scenario, the reader is tipped off as to what to  
> expect, signaling a new frame with its own set of vocabulary, syntax,  
> and (possibly) sub-frames. Furthermore, exceptions to expected terms  
> and constructions naturally stand out, drawing attention to  
> themselves. They can be conscious or even subconscious attempts by  
> the writer to engage the reader's attention in some way. Hope I'm  
> doing ok so far.

Once again, we are not beating up on Smyth, his book is extremely valuable and we wouldn't expect him to be doing this sort of linguistics which hadn't been invented yet. 

I have been trying to figure out to what extent Yancy and I are speaking the same language. I think we are close but there is a perspective difference. Yancy is preoccupied with social cultural religious context. I am preoccupied with semantic analysis of the sort that goes into computer based lexicons. 

Scenario and Frame can be used interchangeably but in my thinking there is a difference in focus between them. Scenario focuses on social cultural religious context. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about formal semantic structural representation. On the other hand, Frame is a semantic structural notion, a formal method for encoding information about Scenarios. 

Picture a linguist sitting in front of her laptop at a table in Starbucks in Istanbul. She is refining an entry for QEOS in a frame based semantic network. She is using wifi web access to gather information which will help her deal with the issue of distinguishing NT/LXX QEOS from Allah in a Turkic language. She already has a well defined entry for QEOS in her network of frames, however she is trying to figure out what cultural (target language) associations are attached to an Allah frame which make it unsuitable as gloss for QEOS in the NT Gospels. In other words, her primary task is to build a small subset of a target language culture frame network where Allah is one frame title so it can be compared to QEOS in the NT lexicon. 

I suspect this will lead to further questions. Once again, Hoyle is much better at explaining this than I am. Study the first chapter on his methodology. 

Elizabeth Kline

More information about the B-Greek mailing list