Biblical Hebrew Forum

["C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>]

Peter Kirk wrote:

> The rather similarproject on which I have been working (see
> http://www.ktbh-team.org/) has had a lot of input from cognitive linguists
> who are also experts on RT. From my own perspective, this input has been
> hard to assimilate; in principle it should make for a very good product but
> in practice the effort required to get there looks unrealistic.

Peter,

I read the relevant portions of your paper "Holy Communicative" and it
sounds like Ernst-August Gutt has raised some very good questions about DE
translation methodology. While I applaud his efforts, that issue is somewhat
outside of my current focus which is semantics defined in a broad sense
(spilling into pragmatics somewhat).

My goal is to develop a working model for defining cognitive frames.
Relevance Theory looks like it might significantly contribute to the
theoretical structure for a project of this nature, so I am taking a look at
it. As a test case the verb CWR (Ex. 32:4) provides a problem challenging
enough to smoke out weakness in the theoretical model.

My intent wasn't to be negative about RT. I asked pointed questions just to
get people talking and the responses so far have been very helpful.


Thanks,
Clay Bartholomew