Translation theory

The action of the main clause is the focus of attention. The comparative frame presents the manner in which the main action should be done by establishing it as the basis for the clause that follows. We probably would accomplish this kind of task most naturally in English by using a rhetorical question: “You know how you judge other people? That is the way you will be judged. You know the measure that you use for others? That is what will be used for you.” Thus there is a bit of a mismatch between Greek and English here in terms of preference, but it can be easily bridged in exposition through using comparable constructions like rhetorical questions. Both frames and rhetorical questions can accomplish the task of activating a specific state of affairs in our mental representations of the discourse. The task accomplished is what matters, not the specific device used in one language versus another.—Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page 234

John 1 (again)

The next clause [of John 1:1] places θεός in position P2 for the sake of emphasis. The omission of the article serves to disambiguate whether θεός is the subject or direct object [sic]. Since both λόγος and θεός are established and known, the article is omitted to identify it as the predicate nominative and not the subject, since it is fronted. Including the article would have created ambiguity as to whether ὁ θεός was in a topical frame or being emphasized.[note] Since λόγος is the topic of v. 1c, the switch in v. 2 to a pronoun (the near demonstrative) is possible. The anarthrous reference to θεός indicates that it is part of the predicate, not a topic of this pericope.—Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page 211

[Note: Mistaking a definite ὁ θεός as the subject would have been very likely, since the object of one clause often becomes the subject of the following clause—for example, vv. 4–5 switch from life > light > darkness in succession. Furthermore, since both θεός and λόγος are established, the omission of the definite article serves to portray θεός as though it were new information. The choice to emphasize θεός virtually precludes the possibility of including a definite article with this noun. To do so would introduce all kinds of problems from a discourse point of view as to the identification of the topic.]

See the preceding post for the explanation of P2.

<idle musing>
Yet another reason the Arian/Jehovah's Witness reading of John 1 is wrong...to beat a dead horse—again.
</idle musing>

Eclectic Linguistics

No single linguistic theory is robust enough on its own to adequately account for every aspect of language. It is too diverse and complex to make this a realistic expectation. Each different linguistic framework was developed to tackle different problems, typically ones left unaddressed by other existing frameworks. Viewed in this way, Dik’s FG, Lambrecht’s cognitive-functional approach, and RT are in fact complementary, based on the unity of their presuppositions. In light of this complexity, a complete theoretical framework will also of necessity be somewhat eclectic.—Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page 204

Natural information flow

They default expectation of natural information flow is that focal information will be placed as close to the end of the clause as the typology of the language allows. Placing focal information in the P2 position represents the choice to take what was already the most important part of the clause (i.e., newly asserted, focal information) and to attract even more attention to it by moving it from its default position to a marked one. Linguists refer to this as marked focus.—Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page 190

<idle musing>
Position P2 is from Simon Dik's book, The Theory of Functional Grammar: Part I: The Structure of the Clause (FGS 9; Dordrecht; Providence, R.I.: Foris, 1989), a 400+ page book that I've got to read...so little time, so many books : )

Here's what it looks like graphically, so you get an idea of what he's talking about. X is the normal spit for stuff that isn't "marked":

(P1) (P2) VERB X, where
::Position P1: may contain one or more established clause component;
::Position P2: may contain a nonestablished clause component,
::X represents the other nonverbal components of the clause.
Note: The parentheses around P1 and P2 means that they are optional.

Makes sense, doesn't it, especially for VSO languages such as Greek and Hebrew.
</idle musing>

Why use a participle?

In other words, the net result of choosing a participle over a finite verb is to have the main verbal action of the clause receive primary attention. Had two finite verbs been used, attention would have been equally split between the two. In this case, judgments about the importance of one action relative to the other would have been based on content and context.—Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page 248.

<idle musing>
In case you hadn't noticed, I reading Steve Runge's book again. I started rereading it a while back, but then got sidetracked on reading a whole bushel of linguistics books. I'm still reading some—right now Analyzing Grammar, but decided to return to Steve's book again. Good stuff. Highly recommended. Food for thought on every page.
</idle musing>

Love that participle

The participle is used much more widely and diversely in Greek than in English. It is the workhorse of the Greek verbal system, with participles being used for more actions than would be acceptable in English. This mismatch in usage has significantly impacted the participle’s grammatical description. Remember, our goal is to understand the Greek usage first, and only then should we worry about translation. The participle is one of those areas where it is imperative to think about Greek as Greek.—Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page 243 (emphasis original)

But I want a monolithic answer!

No single linguistic theory is robust enough on its own to adequately account for every aspect of language. It is too diverse and complex to make this a realistic expectation. Each different linguistic framework was developed to tackle different problems, typically ones left unaddressed by other existing frameworks.—Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010), 204.

How we communicate

The key thing to remember is that each clause will contain a mix of established and newly asserted information. The goal of the communication is to convey the newly asserted information; it is the focus of the utterance. The presupposed information provides the framework for processing and understanding the focal information. As new information is asserted, the body of presupposed information will grow. Thus, differentiating what is presupposed from what is focal is entirely context-dependent. As the context changes, so will the determinations about the status of information.—Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010), 189.