Freethought & Rationalism Archive

LegionOnomaMoi · 06-18-2012, 06:08 PM

The Origins: Why this thread?

In a recent thread I addressed what I see as a few important problems in Earl Doherty's thesis. However, it didn't take long for one particular issue to become the only area of focus: the reference in our manuscripts of Josephus' Antiquities to James, the brother of Jesus. The main issue I wish to address here is a particular claim Spin made but failed (or refused) to expand on: markedness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And so you are supposed to be justifying the marked word order in Josephus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You've droned on and on saying nothing. You flee from the simple notion of markedness which is used in linguistic discussions, in utter ignorance, because the notion gets used under different names. Yet you know that your example of Nicolaos was a blunder, already clear before you opened your trap: he was a famous writer who was one of Josephus's named sources and one would expect marked syntax in his confront. It fit known behavior, as did the other example you dredged up re: John & Jesus. That was markedness for obvious reasons. You are still left without any obvious justification for the marked syntax in AJ 20.200.

Before I get to what little analysis Spin did finally do, I need to explain what markedness/marked means within linguistics. This especially important because there is no really clear use of the term without a reference to a particular theory, which Spin never gave (instead, he linked to a google scholar search in which the term was used in multiple different ways).

What is Markedness?

The terms "marked" and "markedness" have meant many things at different times:

"The concept of markedness, as developed in both Jakobsonian and Chomskyan schools of linguistic thought, has its origins in the analysis of binary oppositions between abstract classificatory features and has been extended in each framework to the questions of language acquisition and decay and to linguistic universals. Yet it has developed in very different ways in each of these traditions. Moreover, the meaning of markedness has not remained constant even within a single intellectual framework"

The above quote is taken from the first chapter of Battistella's The Logic of Markedness (Oxford University Press, 1996). However, he does not end his description of the problems with the term there (despite the fact that his work is a defense of the applicability of the concept). He continues shortly after the quote above with:

"The term markedness then presents a special sort of problem-one in which a concept is reflected in a multiplicity of technical notions within a field and within different traditions in a field. The problem has not gone unnoticed, of course, and many have commented pessimistically on the diversity of definitions and approaches to markedness."

Of particular concern, according to Battistella, has been a "chicken and egg" problem: "Put another way, the problem is this: does markedness explain other linguistic properties, or do other linguistic properties explain markedness? If the latter is the case, one must ask whether there is any need for the term markedness at all."

Perhaps most of the work on markedness has absolutely no relation with "word order" or anything related to Spin's analysis of Josephus, but is a method of determining such things as classification of parts of speech in a given language. For example, although "explosion" is a noun, it is prototypically a verb because in order to become a noun, it needs to be "marked" relative to the base word ("explode") by a suffix. The same holds true when it becomes an adjective (or participle), i.e., "exploding". Once again, it is "marked" relative to "explode", and we can therefore determine that "explode" is a verb because to make it something else it needs to be "marked".

Spin, Word Order, and Markedness

This use of markedness, although central to perhaps most work on the subject, has nothing to do (at least directly) with Spin's argument:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

For those people wondering what is going on in most of this thread, I have put forward a rather clear claim, which is that the word order of AJ 20.200 is not normal in the context. The word order is as follows:

τον αδελφον Ιησου λεγομενου χριστου Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω
the brother of Jesus called christ by the name of James

Note that the relationship ("brother of...") explaining which James comes first, rather than the topic, James. The simple word order would be:

Ιακωβον τον αδελφον Ιησου λεγομενου χριστου
James the brother of Jesus called christ

The person who is the topic of the phrase is normally placed first, in this case James and Jesus is there only to define which James.

I have argued in this thread that Josephus introduces people using this simple word order with two exceptions:

that the person who is used to define the topic person has already been mentioned, to use LegionOnomaMoi's own example:

In AJ 11.7.1 (29[8]), we also find a certain Jesus introduced by his brother John: ἀδελφὸς ἦν τῷ Ἰωάννῃ Ἰησοῦς/"brother was to John Jesus." with the name of the person introduced again found last.
Not surprisingly John had just been mentioned. Or
that the person who is used to define the topic person is clearly famous in his own right, as in another example that LegionOnomaMoi himself provided:

In both BJ and AJ a certain Ptolemy is twice identified by his brother, and both times his name appears last: ton adelphon Nikolaou Ptolemaion and adelphon ton Nikolaou Ptolemaion.
Nicolaos of Damascus was a famous writer known for his close relationship with Herod the king and was also a major source for Josephus's history.

In both these cases we should expect a marked word order, ie a word order that doesn't reflect the simple, usual word order.

It is clear from this that Spin is taking "marked" to refer to word order, but unfortunately his use of the term isn't consistent with linguistic research. It reflects, rather, a simplistic version of a much more complex theory. This is not the first time Spin has demonstrated a decificiency when it comes to linguistics, nor even to word order:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The Greek as I've already indicated is:

Τιτον τον αδελφον μου

However, as I said, the μου is a pronoun replacing του Ραυλου, yielding

Τιτον τον αδελφον του Ραυλου

which, as I said, is structurally no different from

Ιακοβον τον αδελφον του κυριου

Simplistic transformation analysis like is appropriate for a intro course on linguistics, as it was the beginning of modern linguistics and chomsky's early model (he's been through several). It is completely inadequate here. The work on frames/roles/cases/etc. and idioms came together in the late 1980s early 1990s, and has since dominated linguistic models of grammar. The idea that one can simply "replace" του Ραυλου with μου simply isn't accurate, and the reason transformational linguistics was abandoned (and even generative linguists use roles & constructions) was because outside of textbook examples, such analyses failed when it came to actual language. I cannot replace "bucket" in "He's about to kick the bucket" with "soccer ball" without fundamentally changing the meaning. I can replace crazy in "He's driving me crazy" with "mad/insane/up the wall/out of my mind/etc.," but not with "home" or "there" or "up the hill".

I quote the above because just as Spin uses a simplistic application of (outdated) transformational linguistics there, so too is his application of markedness not only simplistic, but also hard to fit into any current linguistic theories.

Markedness in actual linguistics: The Early Years

So how do actual linguists use the term with respect to something approaching what Spin was talking about?

Transformation Generative Grammar was concerned mainly with uncovering "rules" to generate grammatically correct sentences, and was heavily influenced by formalism/symbolic logic. It was, therefore, almost mathematical: a combinatorial approach to language in which words were units and syntax was the possible permutations.

Unfortunately, linguists quickly realized that moving words according to rules barely captured almost any features of a given language of language (such that they could then "generate" grammatical sentences) without making up such an enormous list of rules that the whole exercise was a waste. So other mechanisms were proposed, most of which were more "general" rules framed in a different way than traditional syntactical rules.

Several approaches involved the application of simplicity or "optimality" (or similar titles) as a general way of both accounting for observed phenomena in (spoken and/or written) languages and as components of grammatical models of language. It is important to note that a major assumption in most generative or formal approaches to language assume that there are certain "universal" rules which apply to all languages (usually called "Universal Grammar"). This is important, as much work on markedness came from a desire to develop universal "rules" for language.

The basic idea behind the adoption of markedness (or whatever it was called at various times) was that the type of rules which failed to work for early Transformationalists could be more or less "saved" by re-casting these rules in terms of "principles" (the univeral "core" rules language in general) and "parameters" (rules particular to particular languages) and how these "parameters" allowed for various "constraints" to be propose. The constraints, in general, limited the way the rules could be violated. Markedness was (in general, at least within many theories) a "universal" of all languages in that in any given language, certain syntactic structures would be preferred ("unmarked") while others would be more often avoided ("marked"). Thus the "universal grammar" hypothesized to exist could be maintained, while differences between languages could (it was hoped) be explained. That is, it didn't matter if in one language and adjective typically came before a noun, while in a nother it followed, because these were the "parameters" specific to languages, and the universal rule still held (the rules differed, but the preference for a specific one, e.g., adjective-noun or noun-adjective, was universal).

Markedness All Grow'd Up. Or Dead: Why Spin's analysis use is so problematic

However, just as TGG and the combinatorial approach to language failed, so to did the next evolution (or evolutions) of generative theory fail to enable linguists to generate grammatically correct structures given their models. "Optimality theory" and other approaches to language which use markedness persist, but have become far more nuanced, much less restrictive, and far more "general".

For example, in Typology and Universals (Cambridge University Press, 2003), Croft spends some time reviewing how markedness is used within various theories, almost none of it applicable here. However, one section does address word order and markedness:
"none of the typological patterns associated with typological markedness are found in word order." (p. 117).

This does not mean, of course, that languages show no preference for certain structures. However, even within a language like English, which relies heavily on word order, deviations from "unmarked" structures are so great that most linguistis have adopted models of grammar which abandon the divide between the lexicon (words) and syntax. Instead of the simplistic treatment of words in both of Spin's analyses, modern theories of syntax are based on rules which work not only (or, sometimes, at all) on the language as a whole, but are also (or solely) specific to individual words or groups of words. Sometimes these rules are very specific (e.g., in phrasal idioms like "birds of a feather flock together", in which not even tense can change such that we'd have "birds of a feather flocked together), and other times they are very general (e.g., when two clauses both have a comparative adjective: the higher you climb, the harder you fall; the more you practive, the better you'll be; etc).

But common to all of these approaches to syntax, even those which retain some form of markedness, are the following:
1) Word order is not determined by the words and syntax alone (without even considering pragmatics, discourse, speech vs. writing, etc.) but by the constructions in which they occur
2) Deviations from "unmarked" structures are quite common, and it is difficult with some languages (like Greek) to determine whether a structure is "marked" or "unmarked".

For example, J. A. Hawkins published a recent monograph on this subject (how things like preferred structures influence language use): Effeciency and Complexity in Grammars (Oxford University Press; 2004).

This work (along with those like it) is relevant here for several reasons. As Hawkins shows:

1) Markedness applies to languages, and is a generally preferred morphosyntactic, phonetic, or simlilar structure within a language (or language families, or language period). It is NOT something determined by looking at a particular author.
2) Markedness is a general approach mostly to words or smaller parts of language (allomorphs, clitics, etc.). Rarely do grammarians relate markedness to clause structure at all, and when they do it is about generalities which we can used to predict clausal structures within a language, not an author.
3) Greek is among those languages in which word order analyses are particularly difficult, because of it's flexibility. Hawkins, for example, doesn't refer to it at all when he discusses structures larger than a word other than a simple note that it works opposite to Persian when it comes to "fillers" and relative pronouns/relative clauses. Comrie, in Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, notes that the word order for the older Indo-European languages like Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Hittite, etc., are so flexible that linguists have argued completely opposite underlying word orders as "typical" (or "unmarked"). For more on the flexibility of Greek in general, see my post here.

And back to Josephus

I noted, in the other thread, numerous reasons why there is no good reason to suspect the word order in AJ 20.200, but rather than repeat them all I'll simply quote some of my last summary:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

For those people wondering what is going on in most of this thread, I have put forward a rather clear claim, which is that the word order of AJ 20.200 is not normal in the context. The word order is as follows:

τον αδελφον Ιησου λεγομενου χριστου Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω
the brother of Jesus called christ by the name of James

Note that the relationship ("brother of...") explaining which James comes first, rather than the topic, James. The simple word order would be:

Ιακωβον τον αδελφον Ιησου λεγομενου χριστου
James the brother of Jesus called christ

The person who is the topic of the phrase is normally placed first

Yet, while this is generally true when Josephus relies patronymics or similar methods, it is not true when he uses the phrase "by name X" or "whose name was X". In such situations, e.g., Doris in BJ 1.432, Eurycles in BJ 1.513, Judas in 2.118 (who, as Cohen notes on p.111 where he discusses Josephus' tendency to introduce people as if he hadn't already, is "introduced twice"), Castor in BJ 5.317, the examples Spin gives, and many others.

Of particular interest are the rare times when Josephus combines a kin identifier with "by name X" or "whose name was X". For example, in BJ 6.387, Josephus identifies a certain Jesus son of Thebuthus. He begins "in those days" (or, less literally, "in that time"), and continues "[there] was one of the priests, boy of Thebuthus, Jesus by name" (in Greek, τις Θεβουθεῖ παῖς Ἰησοῦς ὄνομα). Here (as in AJ 20.200), the relationship to Thebuthus comes first, followed by the "by name" formula (although without the dative). Also of note is that this Thebuthus, who comes first, is not named before or again in BJ or elsewhere, yet his name comes first.

We find much the same in BJ 5.474 with a certain Chagiras, who is introduced with the preposed reference modifier Ἀδιαβηνός τις υἱὸς Ναβαταίου τοὔνομα κληθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς τύχης Kεἀγίρας (lit. "from Adiabene a certain son of Nabateus the name, being designated from his fortune, Chagiras"). Here, both the place the identified individual is from and his kinship relation precede the name of the identified individual. And here again, this "Nabateus" is not named elsewhere.

In these two examples, we lack the "fame" Spin speak's of when a kin is placed first, along with the "already introduced" hypothesis he's so adamently claimed is accurate.

Now, as Spin notes, in AJ 20.200, we find both the "by name" type of intro for James, as well as his relation:

Quote:

With possible exceptions, Josephus frequently introduces people whose familial connections he doesn't seem to know by giving what the person is and adding X his name. I carried out an informal search and found

Talking of prisoners in AJ 20.4 he mentions "one of them, named Annibas".
In 20.34 he mentions "a certain Jewish merchant named Ananias".
In 20.43, "a certain other Jew that came from Galilee named Eleazar".
In 20.97, "a certain man named Theudas".
In 20.130, "a leader of the Jews named Doetus".
In 20.163, "a native of Jerusalem named Doras".

These six examples are all within the same book as, and before, our passage of interest, showing that Josephus does use this means of referring to people whose family connection he does not supply. However, Josephus supposedly supplied the familial connection in 20.200.

It is true that most of the references to individuals identified by onoma or some phrase containing some form of onoma and the individual's name do not also have familial references. However, using this as an argument for corruption/interpolation in AJ 20.200 is flawed for several reasons:

1) There are indeed times in Josephus' works where he does use "by name X" or something like this AND a familial connection (see above). Moreover, in the two times my "informal search" uncovered, the familial connection was given BEFORE the name (like other reference modifiers Josephus uses when he identifies someone using the "by name X" method)
2) As I noted in some detail in my last post, when it comes to names, Josephus' methods are often sloppy, irregular, unexpected, etc. So even if AJ 20.200 were the only time that we found a preposed reference modifier in a "by name"-type identification which included a kinship relation, such an irregularity is to be expected given Josephus' problematic methods of referring to individuals.
3) Quite apart from the specific issues with Josephus' methods of referring to individuals, there are the oddities of his Greek and the novelties of his Greek, as detailed in my last posts. Why should we expect regularity, especially if Richards is correct about the Josephan hand of book 20?

<snipped a great amount of detail for brevity>

Quote:

LegionOnomaMoi has insisted that "that the variation in Josephus when it comes to introductions/identifications is vast", which I don't disagree with. However, we have strong consistent evidence that, when Josephus had a familial connection--a father or a brother--, he did, with noted exceptions, introduce figures placing that familial connection after the topic person, ie not "the brother of Jesus James by name" but "James the brother of Jesus".

And there's your problem. You state "father or brother" but in reality your "simple, usual word order" only applies to "father" because it is the word order typical of a patronymic. When an introduction doesn't use a patronymic, we loose your "simple, usual word order". In fact, when we find the "by name X"-type of identification, it's similar to what we find in AJ 20.200.

To these and other points against Spin's analysis I can now add his improper and inaccurate use of markedness. It's not simply that word order in Greek is flexible, or that we find similar structures (both semantically and syntactically) in Josephus to the one in AJ 20.200, or that (as I went into some detail in that thread) Josephus is particularly irregular when it comes to referring to people. Rather, the argument that markedness in anyway applies here betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of linguistic theory:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And so you are supposed to be justifying the marked word order in Josephus....

If you want to deal with the issue of word order in Josephus, you need to look at, ummm,... Josephus. Good luck there, LegionOnomaMoi.

This is simply not true. Markedness, whether in typology, optimality theory, principles and parameters, or any other linguistic thoery/model/framework, is NOT about dealing with a particular author. Certainly, there are literary theories, textual theories, and so forth which deal with what terms, phrases, etc., an author uses. However, this has NOTHING to do with "marked" or "unmarked" word order.

Luckily, though, Spin's contributions to the thread were not completely without value. For those who wish to amuse themselves, feel free to read the various "hits" Spin's google scholar search that he linked to (quoted above) revealed, and compare them with his use of the term.

spin · 06-18-2012, 06:34 PM

In his previous text wall effort LegionOnomaMoi vainly tried to show that the word order in AJ 20.200, which reflects no similar form in the works of Josephus, was somehow not well out of the ordinary. Having failed to win any sympathy, LegionOnomaMoi has decided to try his luck at another such fishing expedition. I predict an extended whine over his previous lack of success which will stimulate about as much interest as a limpet on R & R or a paper on chlamydia pecorum, so let's hope it will be worth the effort!

stephan huller · 06-18-2012, 06:43 PM

Wow I thought I developed inane, long winded posts about things of no consequence. What's the point of this again?

thief of fire · 06-18-2012, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Wow I thought I developed inane, long winded posts about things of no consequence.

No comment.

Quote:

What's the point of this again?

To explain further. Legion is explaining the problems with Spin's ideas. I find it helpful.

thief of fire · 06-18-2012, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In his previous text wall effort LegionOnomaMoi vainly tried to show that the word order in AJ 20.200, which reflects no similar form in the works of Josephus, was somehow not well out of the ordinary.

Legion was more, pointing out that your case was not a very good one.

Quote:

Having failed to win any sympathy, LegionOnomaMoi has decided to try his luck at another such fishing expedition.

As you were unable or unwilling to deal with his response, it is in fact helpful to have Legion explain further.

Iskander · 06-18-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Wow I thought I developed inane, long winded posts about things of no consequence. What's the point of this again?

“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” you are expecting too much for your ‘meek’ post.

We like your posts, no need to be humble. Legion is offering you the opportunity to participate.

Toto · 06-18-2012, 07:34 PM

Thief of Fire - if you find this helpful, could you explain why in your own words?

It looks to me like spin has shown that the word order is not what one would expect from Josephus, and Legion has tried to explain why we should not draw that conclusion, because usage is too variable in Koine Greek. Is there more to "markedness" than that?

I think there are other reasons to see this phrase as an interpolation of some sort - in particular the use of "Christ."

LegionOnomaMoi · 06-18-2012, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Thief of Fire - if you find this helpful, could you explain why in your own words?

It looks to me like spin has shown that the word order is not what one would expect from Josephus, and Legion has tried to explain why we should not draw that conclusion, because usage is too variable in Koine Greek. Is there more to "markedness" than that?

Markedness has nothing to do with any of that. That's the point of this thread: what markedness really is, and how Spin misused the term.

Both variability in Greek and what we should expect in Josepus are peripheral to this thread. That's why I began a new one. Spin's claims about word in Josephus were addressed adequately in the other thread in my last post by
1) Demonstrating other examples in Josephus of the type of word order we find in AJ 20.200
2) Pointing out that Spin's word order "rules" are about patronymics, in that here we find at the very least word order in which the person identified's name is typically first. This doesn't hold true outside of patronymics, and especially not when we find Josephus using the word onoma (as in AJ 20.200). When we find Josephus using onoma to refer to, name, identify, and/or introduce people, the name typically comes at the end. This includes the few times that he uses onoma AND a familial relation.
3) The fact that Josephus is particularly irregular when it comes to his methods of referring to people

However, throughout that thread, Spin continued to use the word "marked" (and, to show that it is "real, honest-to-god linguistics" linked to a google scholar search he made), but never (despite repeated requests) specified his basis for using this technical term.

That is, he used a term which has various definitions in linguistics, and many of them don't have much of anything to do with word order. More importantly, when the term is used to describe word order, it has nothing to do with Spin's usage.

That was the point of this thread. As Spin could never explain his basis for using the term, which I'm quite familiar with (hence my repeated requests), I decided to explain in detail what the term means and where it comes from, as well as how completely inapplicable it is to any argument about word order in AJ 20.200.

I didn't, of course, expect Spin to actually defend his usage (how could he?) any more than I expected a response to the counter-examples I gave in the last thread (not to mention the other arguments).

But as that thread was supposed to be about Doherty's work, and as I intended to go into some detail about markedness, I needed a new thread.

Toto · 06-18-2012, 08:09 PM

So is your complaint that spin has misused a technical bit of linguistic jargon? Should he have used another word?

Readers can judge for themselves any pattern of usage in Josephus, if they care.

BTW - Thanks for using paragraph breaks in the OP.

outhouse · 06-18-2012, 08:12 PM

hasnt this arguement been played out time and time again, with this coming down to those educated on the subject and those that think they are???

I dont think there's a handful of real scholars that argue this as not a "familial relation"

only those that dont like the implication of a historical charactor fight it.

06-18-2012, 06:34 PM	#2
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	LegionOnomaMoi: smokescreens, pedantry and text walls In his previous text wall effort LegionOnomaMoi vainly tried to show that the word order in AJ 20.200, which reflects no similar form in the works of Josephus, was somehow not well out of the ordinary. Having failed to win any sympathy, LegionOnomaMoi has decided to try his luck at another such fishing expedition. I predict an extended whine over his previous lack of success which will stimulate about as much interest as a limpet on R & R or a paper on chlamydia pecorum, so let's hope it will be worth the effort!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-18-2012, 06:43 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Wow I thought I developed inane, long winded posts about things of no consequence. What's the point of this again?

06-18-2012, 07:34 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Thief of Fire - if you find this helpful, could you explain why in your own words? It looks to me like spin has shown that the word order is not what one would expect from Josephus, and Legion has tried to explain why we should not draw that conclusion, because usage is too variable in Koine Greek. Is there more to "markedness" than that? I think there are other reasons to see this phrase as an interpolation of some sort - in particular the use of "Christ."

06-18-2012, 08:09 PM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	So is your complaint that spin has misused a technical bit of linguistic jargon? Should he have used another word? Readers can judge for themselves any pattern of usage in Josephus, if they care. BTW - Thanks for using paragraph breaks in the OP.

06-18-2012, 08:12 PM	#10
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	hasnt this arguement been played out time and time again, with this coming down to those educated on the subject and those that think they are??? I dont think there's a handful of real scholars that argue this as not a "familial relation" only those that dont like the implication of a historical charactor fight it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.