Context in Text a Systemic Functional Analysis of the Parable of the Sower
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Context in Text A Systemic Functional Analysis of the Parable of the Sower Philip L. Graber A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Emory University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of New Testament Graduate Division of Religion 2001 c 2001 by Philip L. Graber All rights reserved. Abstract The relationship between text and context is a fundamental issue in the inter- pretation of the text of Matthew. The contention of this study is that certain limited aspects of context are embedded in texts. Systemic functional grammar (SFG) is a linguistic theory oriented toward describing how language functions in context. This study applies SFG to the Parable of the Sower, the explanation for Jesus’ speaking in parables and the interpretation of the parable in Matthew 13:1–23 in order to clarify how language functions in these texts and how the texts predict limited but important aspects of their own context as a contri- bution to a better understanding of them. Analysis of the synoptic parallels in Mark and Luke is included to test how differences in context is reflected in differences between parallel texts. SFG makes explicit the relationships between three linguistically relevant variables of context of situation — field, tenor and mode — and the semantic functions that realize them — experiential, inter- personal, and textual meanings. These kinds of meanings are in turn realized by grammatical structures that are mapped onto one another in linear text. The analysis of the portion of Matthew’s narrative points to context in which the evangelist addresses readers to convey the story of Jesus’ words and deeds with authority, from a social position of higher status relative to those being addressed and a relatively low degree of social contact. The language of the text plays a constituting role in the social activity in which the evangelist is engaged, rather than an accompanying role relative to a social activity, with a degree of formality corresponding to the authoritative status of the writer. The social activity in the instantial situation is an explanation in which the evangelist, through Jesus’ own authoritative words, accounts for differences in the ways in which two groups of people respond to him. Those who understand (who are also being addressed) do so by the enabling actions of God and those who fail to understand fail because of their own self-disabling actions. iii iv Acknowledgements I am grateful to the New Testament faculty of Emory University for not only al- lowing but encouraging me to pursue my interest in a linguistic theory that is not well represented in the United States. This pursuit has been made much easier for me in this project by the careful reading and helpful comments of Michael Gregory, Professor Emeritus at York University in Toronto, an institution in which systemic linguistics is well represented. I owe special thanks for the en- couragement and friendship given me by Hendrikus Boers, my adviser, and the enthusiasm with which he helped me to shape an interdisciplinary project that attempts to be thoroughly linguistic while not ceasing to be a New Testament dissertation. In addition, I owe special thanks to all the members of my committee for their support in the difficult final stages of the process of graduation. In extraor- dinary circumstances, the faculty and administrators of the Graduate Division of Religion gave me extraordinary support and help. I am indebted to the Session and congregation of the Ronceverte Presbyte- rian Church for their support and encouragement and for generously allowing their pastor the necessary time and resources to write. I am also grateful to Kathy and Bill Shirk, Mary Anna and Tom Brooks, and Judy and Mark Flynn for providing me with quiet places to stay and write on those occasions. I could not have completed this project, or even begun it, without the sup- port of my wife, Ann. she encouraged me each step of the way and helped me to maintain perspective, seeing her support for me as a part of her own calling. Finally, I give thanks to God, by whose grace I live. My desire to hear God’s word and my calling to proclaim that word for others has been and continues to be my motivation for studying the Bible. Thanks be to the One who speaks the word of the kingdom and opens hearts to hear and understand it. v vi Contents Abstract iii Acknowledgements v 1 Systemic Functional Grammar and New Testament Interpreta- tion 1 1.1 Context and Interpretation . 1 1.2 The Background to Systemic Functional Grammar . 4 1.3 Meaning and Context in Systemic Functional Grammar . 9 1.3.1 Context: Genre and Register . 9 1.3.2 Text: Semantic Components of Language . 13 1.3.3 The Relationship between Semantics and Register . 55 1.3.4 Overview of the Study . 56 2 The Interpretation of Matthew 13:1–23 and Parallels 59 2.1 Kingsbury and Redaction-Criticism . 62 2.2 Sellin and Text-linguistics . 64 2.3 Du Plessis and Pragmatics . 67 3 Ideational Meanings and Field of Discourse 75 3.1 Logical Meanings: Relations Between Clauses . 76 3.2 Activity and Object Focus: Processes, Participants, and Circum- stances . 80 3.2.1 Activity and Object Focus of the Narrative Frame . 80 3.2.2 Activity and Object Focus of the Parable . 84 3.2.3 Activity and Object Focus of the Parable Rationale . 88 3.2.4 Activity and Object Focus of the Parable Interpretation . 92 3.3 Summary and Conclusions . 99 vii viii 4 Interpersonal Meanings and Tenor of Discourse 103 4.1 Interpersonal Meanings: Limitations on the Analysis of Written Texts . 104 4.2 Status, Contact and Affect: Grammatical Realizations . 105 4.2.1 Status, Contact and Affect in the Narrative Frame . 107 4.2.2 Status, Contact and Affect in the Parable . 110 4.2.3 Status, Contact and Affect in the Parable Rationale . 114 4.2.4 Status, Contact and Affect in the Parable Interpretation . 120 4.3 Summary and Conclusions . 126 5 Textual Meanings and Mode of Discourse 131 5.1 Interaction and Role: Theme and Thematic Development . 132 5.1.1 Interaction and Role in the Parable . 135 5.1.2 Interaction and Role in the Parable Rationale . 141 5.1.3 Interaction and Role in the Parable Interpretation . 146 5.1.4 Interaction and Role in the Narrative . 156 5.2 Summary and Conclusions . 161 6 Conclusions: Context in the Text of Matthew 13:1–23 and Par- allels 165 6.1 The Context of Situation within Mt 13:1–23 and Parallels . 166 6.2 The Context of Situation of Mt 13:1–23 and Parallels . 168 6.3 Meanings and Issues of Interpretation in Mt 13:1–23 and Parallels 171 6.4 Areas for Further Research . 174 A Clause Level Analysis of Experiential, Interpersonal and Tex- tual Meanings in Mt 13:1–23 177 B Clause Level Analysis of Experiential, Interpersonal and Tex- tual Meanings in Mk 4:1–20 197 C Clause Level Analysis of Experiential, Interpersonal and Tex- tual Meanings in Lk 8:4–15 215 List of Figures 1.1 Simple model of language as a communication conduit . 7 1.2 System of Circumstances . 16 1.3 Relational Processes System . 22 1.4 System of Process Types . 24 2.1 Narrative Frames in Mt 13:1–23 . 69 ix x List of Tables 1.1 Speech Function Pairs (Initiations and Responses) . 26 1.2 Modal Adjuncts . 28 1.3 Theme-Rheme Analysis of Acts 8:9–14 . 47 1.4 A Grammatically Simple, Lexically Complex Clause (Hebrews 1:3–4) . 52 1.5 Theme in Philemon 10–14 . 53 3.1 Processes & Participants by Process Type in Mt 13:1–3a, 10a, 11a (Narrative Frame) . 81 3.2 Processes & Participants by Process Type in Mk 4:1–2, 9a, 10– 11a, 13a (Narrative Frame) . 82 3.3 Processes (Verbal) in Luke 8:4, 8c, 9a, 10a (Narrative Frame) . 83 3.4 Processes & Participants by Process Type in Mt 13:3b–9 (Parable) 84 3.5 Processes & Participants by Process Type in Mk 4:3–8, 9b (Parable) 86 3.6 Processes & Participants by Process Type in Lk 8:5–8b, 8d (Para- ble) .................................. 87 3.7 Processes & Participants by Process Type in Mt 13:10b, 11b–17 (Rationale) . 89 3.8 Processes & Participants by Process Type in Mk 4:11b–12 (Ra- tionale) . 90 3.9 Processes & Participants by Process Type in Lk 8:9b, 10b (Ra- tionale) . 91 3.10 Processes & Participants by Process Type in Mt 13:18–23 (Para- ble Interpretation) . 93 3.11 Processes & Participants by Process Type in Mk 4:13b–20 (Para- ble Interpretation) . 97 3.12 Processes & Participants by Process Type in Lk 8:11–15 (Parable Interpretation) . 99 4.1 Interpersonal Elements in Mt 13:1–3, 10, 11 (Narrative Frame) . 107 4.2 Interpersonal Elements in Mk 4:1–2, 9, 10–11, 13 (Narrative Frame)108 4.3 Interpersonal Elements in Lk 8:4, 8, 9–10 (Narrative Frame) . 108 4.4 Types of Adjuncts in the Narrative Frame . 109 4.5 Types of Non-major Clauses in Adjuncts in the Narrative Frame 110 4.6 Interpersonal Elements in Mt 13:3–9 (Parable) . 111 xi xii 4.7 Interpersonal Elements in Mk 4:3–8 (Parable) . 111 4.8 Interpersonal Elements in Lk 8:5–8 (Parable) . 112 4.9 Mood in the Parable of the Sower (ranking clauses only) . 113 4.10 Types of Adjuncts in the Parable of the Sower .