New Testament Verbs of Communication: A Case Frame and Exegetical Study, by Paul L. Danove, LNTS (Bloomsbury, 2015), 245pp.
I was excited to see Danove publish this work. I read an article by him from, I believe, the ’90s, and he was writing about the possibility of such a project. I was excited because he was using linguistic methodologies that I have used while working for a computational linguistics company, and I thought the methods had potential for exciting application in biblical studies. My impression of this work is mixed, but let me explain first what he does in the book.
Danove uses case-frame analysis, which looks at verbs and the types of arguments and adjuncts they can take. Arguments complete the meaning of a verb, while adjuncts provide a specification of meaning beyond what is required of a verb (p. 1). Danove lays this out visually in Valence Descriptions, which “resembles a matrix with varying numbers of columns and three rows of information that appear beneath the predictor” (p. 3).
The way this works can be illustrated with λεγω, which needs an agent (the person speaking), content (what is spoken), and an experiencer (the person hearing; otherwise in linguistics called a ‘patient’). Most of the verbs of communication have this ACE (agent, content, experiencer) pattern. Sometimes one of these arguments may be omitted or implied. The verbs can also take adjuncts, e.g., temporal (when the agent said it), manner (the way the agent said it), etc., but these adjuncts are not required.
Thus far, simple, right? But it gets much more complicated. Danove creates a vast array of symbols for various features. Parentheses around any of the arguments means it is emphasized. The verbs are labeled for their possible voices and transitiveness. The arguments are labeled for their possible cases (e.g., the content might be labeled as N+acc, which means a noun in the accusative case). By the end of all these various notations, which are explained throughout the monograph, a verb can be labeled as such:
ομολογεω, 1. (Cmm. act. ditr.) (a) 1/Agt–[2/Con] (3/Exp): declare, confess–(N+acc) to (N+dat), –(N+acc) (DNC), –(N+acc) (INC), –that (V+i) (INC), –that(V-il) to (N+dat), –that (V-il) (DNC),–(V+οτι [+quo]) to (p. 222).
The entire lexicon at the back is laid out like this. Verbs are laid out with their necessary arguments, their possible adjuncts, and a host of other information encoded in Danove’s shorthand.
I have mixed emotions about this for three reasons. First, I am impressed by the detail with which Danove has formed this case-frame lexicon for NT verbs of communication. He is clearly attuned to the finest of details. Second, however, I did not find in this linguistic tool anything approaching what I have done in my own work with semantic parsing. That, of course, does not reflect poorly on Danove at all, but perhaps it leaves a little space for me to pursue a project someday.
Third, and the biggest issue, is that I’m left a bit unclear why this study would be useful to New Testament students or scholars. (Note: one might reply that learning the language is a good goal unto itself, but this volume is published in the Library of New Testament Studies, and not too many will desire to learn about verbs of communication in Greek unless it’s going to have at least some payoff.) The examples that are discussed are discussed quite briefly, and only to explain the various ways that the verbs take arguments and adjuncts. This seems backwards. The examples should illuminate how understanding the verbs from a case-frame analysis helps us better understand what is going on in the passages in which the verbs occur.
Moreover, I’m unclear about how standard Danove’s notations are. He says throughout “I mark so and so by this symbol,” but does not say whether this is standard. So are we to learn an entire system of symbols, akin to the Masorete accents, just to read Danove’s lexicon? Without an entire chapter (or more!) on the payoff of such an approach, I can’t suggest to others they should spend their time learning this. I may simply be misreading Danove or I might have missed some crucial paragraphs somewhere, but as far as I can tell, there is no clear statement of the payoff of this analysis. Thus, while I’m impressed by his abilities exhibited here, I did not find much useful for my own analysis of the NT.
Preview the work here.
