Stanley E. Porter - Matthew Brook O’Donnell, «The Greek Verbal Network Viewed from a Probabilistic Standpoint: An Exercise in Hallidayan Linguistics» filologia-neotestamentaria, Vol. 14 (2001) 3-41 page 29

Vol 14 (2001)

Stanley E. Porter - Matthew Brook O’Donnell, «The Greek Verbal Network Viewed from a Probabilistic Standpoint: An Exercise in Hallidayan Linguistics», Vol. 14 (2001) 3-41

This study explores numerical or distributional markedness in the verbal network of the Greek of the New Testament. It extends the systemic analysis of Porter (Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, 1989), making use of the Hallidayan concept of probabilistic grammar, which posits a typology of systems where features are either "equiprobable".both features are equally distributed (0.5/0.5).or "skewed".one feature is marked by its low frequency of occurrence (0.9/0.1). The results confirm that the verbal aspect system of the Greek of the New Testament is essentially independent of other verbal systems, such as voice and mood.

See more by the same author

Page 29/41
«
‹
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
›

The Greek Verbal Network Viewed from a Probabilistic Standpoint 29 (0.64/0.36), consistent with the distribution of system 7. However, choice of +expectational results in a highly skewed distributional ratio toward +finite (0.99/0.01), realized in the future finite form (the so-called future Â«indicativeÂ»), with the future finite form distributionally the unmarked term and the non-finite forms (participle and infinitive) marked. Thus, selection of +expectational apparently affects selection of Â±finite, and the forms that realize these selection statements. This is in keeping with what has already been discussed regarding the limited range of forms of the future, as well as its awkward place within the Greek verbal net- work 93. In any case, the ASPECTUALITY system is unaffected by the FI- NITENESS system, as confirmed by the bottom two rows of the table. 2. FINITENESS (7) and ASPECT1 (2) Realization Statements: +finite +perfective >> Aorist Indicative, Subjunctive, Imperative & Optative â€“finite +perfective >> Aorist Participle & Infinitive +finite â€“perfective >> Present, Imperfect, Perfect, Pluperfect Indicative, Present, Perfect Subjunctive, Imperative & Optative â€“finite â€“perfective >> Present, Perfect Participle & Infinitive +perfective â€“perfective +finite ........................ 8078 0.70 7372 0.60 15450 0.64 â€“finite ........................ 3526 0.30 5011 0.40 8537 0.36 +finite â€“finite +perfective ................. 8078 0.52 3526 0.41 11604 0.48 â€“perfective ................. 7372 0.48 5011 0.59 12383 0.52 The second set of examples concerns the relation of the FINITENESS system and the ASPECT1 system. This set of systemic choices concerns the options of Â±finite and Â±perfective (systems 7 and 2). Choice of Â±finite does not affect the equiprobable distribution of Â±perfective. However, there are some slight variations in the distributional statistics that might be worth noting, in the light of discussion above. One is that the distri- bution changes for that of system 2 (Â±perfective 0.48/0.52) to Â±perfec- tive 0.52/0.48 when +finite is also selected. In other words, there is a slightly larger frequency of +perfective +finite forms realized by aorist indicative forms as opposed to non-aorist finite forms, than there is overall 93 See Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 94-95, 97, 409-10, 417-19.