The need for more precise labeling of word order. Many have stated that word order is “emphasized.” Of like meaning are the words, “special”, “unusual,” “significant,” and “marked.” The common feature about all these terms is that they all beg the question, “What about the word is emphasized?” In other words, to call something emphasized, or many of the other words, is to say, we need to further investigate this word order to find the meaning in context.
Unfortunately, many who use words such as “emphasized” fail to investigate further. I suggest that the only two discourse level labels are needed for word order are focus and space forming. Both these words are theory internal concepts of mental space theory (see Gilles Fauconnier 1994 and others.) In fact, if I want to stay within my theories, these are perhaps the only two discourse uses of word order allowed. In an effort to test my theory of word order, I thought it useful to write this short article on word order in John 1. The linguistic theories used to identify word order In my 2001 dissertation, and in subsequent work, I have developed a syntactic theory which I would categorize as a revised minimalism program.
This syntactic theory is autonomous and interfaces with an autonomous semantic theory I would call exemplar inferential semantics, and an autonomous discourse theory called mental space theory. Autonomous means the theories are separate from the other theories largely because they cover separate parts of language. Syntax deals with how words fit together in sentences. Semantics deals with how words mean; and Discourse deals with how sentences fit together into paragraphs and larger units. The above paragraph deserves several books developing each autonomous component and how they interface. (The writing of such books is something I am hoping to, planning to, and actually have started working on.) As for today’s writing, I will assume the above three theories and further suggest that these three interfacing theories approach being psychologically real. Psychologically real means the theories are how the human mind/brain really uses language.
Part of language use is constructing meaning and inferring meaning from others. Inferring meaning includes levels of accuracy in the receiver’s model of meaning compared to the producer’s model of meaning. My syntax theory identifies the following Biblical Greek word orders as syntactically significant: Abbreviations are as follows: V = verb; S = subject; O = object; G = genitive; N = noun; A = adjective. PP = Prepositional Phrases. Significant sentence structures: OSV—Object significant; VOS—Subject significant; OVS—Object significant. Default sentence structures: SVO, SOV, VSO and all two word sentences. A PP can count as an object. Usually subjects and objects are nouns or noun phrases. Significant noun phrases: NA—Adjective significant; and GN—genitive significant.
Default noun phrases: AN and NG By calling something a “default syntax structure,” one is saying the author choose that structure for no other reason than to meet the requirements of the language to produced well-formed syntax. For example, for the sentence “Jane likes Bob”, one can ask, “Why is there a SVO structure in the English sentence?” The answer is that the mechanics of syntax require a subject to the left which must agree with a verb phrase to the right, and the verb to the left governs an object to the right. Those mechanics are the details of the syntactic theory that is only referred to today. Today I want to discuss the discourse use of significant word order. Before we can do that, however, one must have a syntax theory that is able to differentiate between default word order and syntactically significant word order. I suggest many of my colleagues do not have such a theory.
The above list is the consequence of my theory, and my theory predicts that this is all the syntactically significant word order SSWO and none of the not syntactically significant word order NSSWO. After finding such word orders, then we can ask, “Why did the author choose syntactically significant word order?” The discourse use of significant word order I finally arrived at what I want to talk about today. Having used my syntactic theory to identify syntactically significant word order (SSWO), I will now ask the question about why the author choose syntactically significant word order. John 1.1a starts out: ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος. The prepositional phrase translated as “In the beginning” is syntactically significance because it is an OVS order, with the PP working as the object. We then ask “Why did the author choose to use syntactically significant word order (henceforth SSWO)? I suggest the answer here is that the author builds a mental space.
The subsequent ideas presented by the author all take place “in the beginning.” I start assuming the writer is John, the disciple of Jesus, and the original readers are mostly Gentile but some Jewish Christians in about AD 68-69. These readers have been Christians in some of those churches listed by John in Revelation 2-3, and therefore have known about Christ since the ministry of Paul in about AD 40. Thus, these original readers had read the LXX and heard sermons on the LXX for perhaps three decades. They would infer that this “beginning” spoken of by John is that same beginning described in Genesis 1:1. The SSWO is the author saying, “Hey, this is where I am starting my story, in the beginning of creation.” The rest of this paragraph (John 1:1-5) tells us more about the Word which existed in the beginning. John1:1b is SVO, ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. There are no SSWO here. The author choose this word order because to say anything one must conform to the mechanics of the language. Using NSSWO, the author populates the mental space “In the beginning” with the activities of the eternal Word John 1:1c is OVS, Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, “The Word was God.” SSWO (OVS) making the object Θεὸς significant. We ask here, “What did the author want to communicate to his readers by choosing SSWO?”
My discourse theory directs me to conclude the answer lies in the realm of focus. Of all the elements in any and all mental spaces constructed thus far, the author wanted the readers to focus on Θεὸς, “God.” Great, but we still have some questions, such as why did the author want us to focus on Θεὸς. I conclude as follows—of all the things so far discussed, the deity of the Word is the climax. Furthermore, by placing this fact at the beginning of his story, the author is stating not only is the deity of the Word the climax of this paragraph, but also the center message of the entire story. John 1:2, οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. NSSWO (SVO) stating the reality of the divine Word coexisting with God. John 1:3a, πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. NSSWO (SOV) stating more facts about the divine Word—He made everything. John 1:3b, χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ. NSSWO (OV) restating from the opposite that the divine Word made everything. John 1:4a, ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν. NSSWO (OV) stating that the divine Word had light in him. John 1:4b, ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· NSSWO (SVO and NG) gives more information about the light, that the light of the divine Word is the light of men. John 1:5a: τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει NSSWO (SOV) stating what the light does, it shines in the darkness. John 1:5b: ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν NSSWO (SOV) stating the reaction of the darkness to the divine light.
At this point, there is a paragraph break. Thus John 1:1-John 1:5 is seen as a cohesive unit. Other paragraphs in John 1 include: John 1:6-8 discussing the ministry of John in witnessing about the divine Word; John 1:9-13 discussing the response to the divine Word by the world; John 1:14-18 discussing about the divine Word becoming flesh and showing everyone that the divine Word is the Christ who shows everyone what God is like; John 1:19-23 discussing John’s witness that the Christ is the prophesized coming Lord; John 1:24-28 comparing the ministry of John to the forthcoming ministry of Christ; John 1:29-34 is when John identifies the forthcoming Christ as Jesus; 1:35-42 that transfer from the ministry of John to the ministry of Jesus; John 1:43-51 describes the expansion of Jesus ministry by the calling of disciples. Continuing, I will just cover the SSWO, and not include the NSSWO. John 1:9, Ην τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν SSWO (NA) here is an adjective “true” that describes the noun “light.” The word order places discourse focus on the “true” nature of the light. Thus, one can conclude that there are many lights, but that the author is discussing the unique light which is not a deception. Thus, we might conclude that the author wants us to contrast the Light of the divine Word with all the other lights shining in this World. If I’m correct, this is the only SSWO in the paragraph from John 1:9-13. The SSWO of ἀληθινόν “true” highlights the message of the whole paragraph, which is that most in the world rejected the only true divine Word. John 1:16, ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος The PP ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ, “out of his fullness” is in an SSWO position (OSV). My present analysis is that this is a space forming mechanism such as in John 1:1. This PP essentially sets up the context into which all of Christ’s revelatory activities fall—the context being that all revelation is for the purpose of revealing God’s fullness. By my analysis, this PP is the only SSWO in the paragraph running from John 1:14-18.
The meaning of the paragraph on the whole is that Jesus Christ is the fullness of God revealed to this world. Thus, the SSWO in 1:16 is the topic of the entire paragraph. John 1:21f states ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ; SSWO (OVS) indicates this sentence is a question. Greek, like English, has mechanically different word order for questions. There is no focus or mental space generation involved. There is no discourse motivation for this word order other than to indicate this sentence is a question. The syntax mechanics demand this word order. John 1:27 αὐτοῦ τὸν ἱμάντα τοῦ ὑποδήματος SSWO (GN) indicates that the owner of the feet of whom John is not worthy to untie is the most important person who ever existed in this world. This SSWO of the pronoun matches the message of the entire paragraph. Also, John 1:27 is the only SSWO in the paragraph running from 1:24-28. John 1:29 Τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν SSWO (OVS) for the purpose of forming a new mental space for the activities of a new day.
There is nothing in particular in focus here. John 1:33 ἐν Πνεύματι ῾Αγίῳ My theory leads me to see this as SSWO (NA). Thus we conclude that the author (whom I understand as the disciple named John) wanted the readers to focus on the holy character of the Spirit. Perhaps one can conclude the author wanted to contrast Jesus’ future ministry of baptizing with the Holy Spirit with John’s method of using water. Perhaps John wanted to focus in on the Spirit baptism as the climax of the future ministry of Christ. I originally thought that this might be some formula always used by the biblical writers. It turns out that John refers to the Holy Spirit three other times, John 7:39, 14:26, and 20:22, each time with the NA word order.
The idea of contrast actually fits each of these contexts—that the disciples will receive the Holy Spirit in contrast to what those not believing in Christ will receive. Also, in 1 John 5:7 John uses the AN word order, thus indicating that his use of the NA word order in the Gospel is intentional. Thus, my working hypothesis is that John did not have a set method to refer to the Holy Spirit, and that he intentionally choose the NA word order in John 1:33 which is SSWO for the discourse purpose of showing contrast and/or climax. Thus John wants his readers to focus on the holy nature of the Spirit as the ultimate proof that Jesus is the Christ with a future ministry of baptizing those who believe in Him with the Spirit of Holiness. This idea fits the context of John 1:29-34. John 1:35 Τῇ ἐπαύριον πάλιν εἱστήκει ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης SSWO (OVS) for the purpose of forming a new mental space for the activities of a new day. There is nothing in particular in focus here. John 1:43 Τῇ ἐπαύριον ἡθέλησεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς SSWO (OVS) for the purpose of forming a new mental space for the activities of a new day.
There is nothing in particular in focus here. John 1:48 λέγει αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ· and similarly in John 1:49 SSWO (VOS) indicates the focus of the reader should turn to Nathanael and what he is saying about Jesus. What Nathanael says, “σὺ εἶ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ.” Translated as, “You are the son of God, You are the King of Israel” is another version of what that the author states with SSWO in John 1 “The Word was God.” The idea of this SSWO fits that of the paragraph running from John 1:42-51—The disciples of John transfer to be the disciples of Jesus who is the Christ. Conclusion, The two concepts of focus and forming mental spaces were applied to John 1. The concept of focus is similar to the barrage of other general terms used (emphasis, special, significant) and begs the question, “Why did the author put this item in focus?” The term “focus” is different from the above barrage of terms, however, because it has a technically defined definition within a theory AND I never claim “focus” is the final word. The answer to the focus question lead us to the traditional categories of discourse analysis, and include: climax, topic, comparison/contrast, and others.
The following sums up the sentences that included SSWO (other than mental space building SSWO): John 1:1c, Jesus is God John 1:9, Jesus is Truth John 1:16, Jesus is the fullness of God John 1:27, Jesus is of far more worth than a great prophet John 1:33, Jesus will baptize with the HOLY Spirit John 1:49 Jesus’ followers confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and that Jesus is the King of Israel. In summary, the SSWO indicates that John 1 is all about the preeminence of Jesus! What did I do in this article? I tested my linguistics theories on John 1. I used my syntax theory to differentiate between SSWO and NSSWO. My impression is that most of my colleagues are not able to recognize the SSWO consistently, and therefore they miss SSWO or include vast numbers of NSSWO in their analysis. Missing SSWO or not being able to exclude NSSWO means that my colleagues will miss the pattern of Christ’s preeminence as my research revealed. I used my discourse theory to explain why the author choose SSWO. I linked up these observations with observations from discourse analysis—how the meaning SSWO contribute to the meaning of paragraphs. I believe an analysis of the commentaries and linguistics books on discourse analysis will show that my interpretations from my theoretical perspective encompass the correct observations made by many, even when those observations are made from diverse theoretical perspectives. An analysis of these same commentaries will show that my theoretical perspective allowed me to catch details missed by most others—one important detail being SSWO. My prediction and claim: My theoretical constructs of interfacing syntax, semantics and discourse theories are able to explain the behavior of word order in Biblical Greek as well as other phenomena in Greek as well as any of the 7,106 languages of the world. I suggest that using alternate theories, my colleagues are not even able to describe, much less explain, word order in any language.
For those who would want to develop their own theory of word order, I see the following elements are essential: 1) With a consistent psychologically real theory, predict all those syntactic structures that are significant. 2) With a consistent psychologically real theory, predict why the author choose those syntactic structures. 3) Show these theories are valid by consistently applying them to an extended stretch of Biblical text. Happy exegeting!
Views: 86