What's the difference? (Lexham Discourse...)
Can someone tell me whether there's a difference between to following two products (Other than the newer one not containing the "High Definition" resources)?
https://www.logos.com/product/6786/lexham-discourse-hebrew-bible-bundle
https://www.logos.com/product/131520/lexham-discourse-greek-new-testament-datasets
Comments
-
Reuben Helmuth said:
Can someone tell me whether there's a difference between to following two products (Other than the newer one not containing the "High Definition" resources)?
https://www.logos.com/product/6786/lexham-discourse-hebrew-bible-bundle
https://www.logos.com/product/131520/lexham-discourse-greek-new-testament-datasets
Other than the fact that one is a Hebrew resource bundle, and the other is a Greek resource bundle, there is no apparent difference between them. Both are concerned with discourse method, rather than Lexical method. One deals with discourse method for the Hebrew bible; the other deals with discourse method for the Greek bible.
If you are unsure what the difference is between discourse and Lexical methods, please let me know, and I'll try to explain.
Dr David Staveley Professor of New Testament. Specializing in the Pauline Epistles, Apocalyptic Judaism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
0 -
And if you are interested in obtaining the Hebrew and Greek discourse datasets, please know these are also included in the Logos 7 Essential Upgrade (L) where you’ll certainly get more bang for your buck! [Y]
Logos Series X Pastor’s Library | Logos 3 Leader’s Library | 4 Portfolio | 5 Platinum | 6 Feature Crossgrade | 7 Essential | 8 M & W Platinum and Academic Professional | 9 Academic Professional and Messianic Jewish Diamond
0 -
Sorry, I happened to grab the wrong link. Here’s the one I was referring to... https://www.logos.com/product/131521/lexham-discourse-hebrew-old-testament-datasets
Why does the six volume page say “For the most up to date collection of discourse on the Hebrew of the Old Testament, check out the Lexham Discourse Hebrew Old Testament Datasets.“? (Emphasis mine)
0 -
By the way, I own the 6 volume bundle and the 3 volume bundle is only show a few bucks off for my ”dynamic price” which has me confused.
0 -
David Staveley said:
If you are unsure what the difference is between discourse and Lexical methods
I actually had the privilege to study discourse analysis under Steven Levinsohn and am familiar with the field, but thanks!
0 -
David Staveley said:
f you are unsure what the difference is between discourse and Lexical methods, please let me know, and I'll try to explain.
I would love to hear your explanation.
0 -
Marshall Harrison said:David Staveley said:
f you are unsure what the difference is between discourse and Lexical methods, please let me know, and I'll try to explain.
I would love to hear your explanation.
ditto.
0 -
I was too shy to ask, but having good company, I'd like to know too.
0 -
I'll let David chime in as well, but one way to think of it is in terms of "broadness"...
Morphology is concerned with the form of individual words
Syntax is concerned with how these words form clauses
Discourse Analysis is concerned with how the "supra-clausal" features operate. Some things it looks at is how clauses relate to each other, how a language signals that the following info is new vs established, how it shows what is in focus, etc, etc.
Without discourse analysis it's possible to create entire "stories" in a new language where every sentence in syntactically correct and comprehensible to the mother tongue speakers, but the story fails to connect or perhaps even to make any sense!
0 -
Marshall Harrison said:David Staveley said:
f you are unsure what the difference is between discourse and Lexical methods, please let me know, and I'll try to explain.
I would love to hear your explanation.
Okay, I'll give it a shot.
I think we all know about the Lexical meaning of words. This is the dictionary meaning that a word might have. As words normally never mean just one thing, we speak of words as having a semantic field. This is the range of possible meanings that a word can have. And it is this semantic field which defines a word's Lexical sense. Linguists tell us we should never confuse the Lexical sense of a word with concepts that a word might help to define or form within any specific context.
In the 1920's, particularly under the influence of Michel Foucault, a method of analysing word meanings was developed called discourse analysis. This sought to show that words can have their (Lexical) sense altered slightly by the words which surround them (that is, within the context of a particular text), without actually altering the primary Lexical meaning of a word. It is like the word takes on a new meaning, not always related to the semantic field the word might have. I'll give an example to clarify this from Cotterell and Turner's Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation:
[quote]A speaker may keep referring to his Uncle's bike, but (having formally introduced it earlier, as it were) now speaks of it as 'the bike'. Because the expression 'the bike' now still refers to Uncle George's old red one, this is all included in the concept denoted by the expression 'the bike' in the speaker's discourse, even though it is not properly part of the sense of 'the bike' as such. We need to distinguish here between what we might call the Lexical concepts (i.e. the sense of the respective lexical units) and discourse concepts - the latter being used to denote not only the lexical sense of the expressions involved, but also germane elements of meaning contributed by the context. Oldness, redness, and to-Uncle-George-belongingness would not be part of the lexical concept "bike", but would belong to the discourse concept 'the bike' in this particular situation
What is the significance of this? Using this method, we can analyse the text of the bible and see the satellite words orbiting a primary word in a text, and note how those satellite words are altering the Lexical sense of the primary word. Words are no longer simply tied down to their primary Lexical sense, but can take on new, hitherto unseen, meanings not strictly denoted by their semantic fields.
Dr David Staveley Professor of New Testament. Specializing in the Pauline Epistles, Apocalyptic Judaism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
0 -
What he said.
Discourse analysis is a broad discipline, with different approaches. It's kind of hard to explain what the different approaches are. You may find certain approaches useful or not very useful.
Best thing to do is to try it free for 30 days (i.e. return it within 30 days if it doesn't work for you)
0 -
My question, concerning the difference in products, remains. Could someone from FaithLife respond?
0 -
Thanks for the explanation. I haven't hear it expressed in the definitive terms before. But its seems to be the same as letting context modify or define the word rather than going by a strict dictionary definition.
0 -
Marshall Harrison said:
Thanks for the explanation. I haven't hear it expressed in the definitive terms before. But its seems to be the same as letting context modify or define the word rather than going by a strict dictionary definition.
That's just one facet of inquiry.
0 -
Marshall Harrison said:
Thanks for the explanation. I haven't hear it expressed in the definitive terms before. But its seems to be the same as letting context modify or define the word rather than going by a strict dictionary definition.
Yes, that is exactly what it is. Discourse analysis is the fancy way of explaining how contexts modify a word rather than sticking to their strict dictionary sense. Didn't you know that all of the Biblical Sciences are just fancy ways of explaining how to read the bible? [;)]
Dr David Staveley Professor of New Testament. Specializing in the Pauline Epistles, Apocalyptic Judaism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
0 -
Marshall Harrison said:
its seems to be the same as letting context modify or define the word rather than going by a strict dictionary definition
For some people, Discourse Analysis may be that. However, as Levinsohn (who has influenced Runge, the author of the Logos discourse products) teaches it, it is so much more than this.
By the way, a synonymous term is Text Linguistics, which you'll see in the titles of some Logos resources.
0 -
If you're lucky to have or had a two year old, vocabulary is first (lexical). Then discourse (word stress, and loudly). Then grammar (sort of). Finally syntax (much later).
In 1940s movies, the same sequence was applied for native americans by movie writers. As also when you visit a foreign land, hastily searching your dictionary.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
David Staveley said:
Okay, I'll give it a shot.
Thanks David.
A lot of light bulbs started flashing as various things came together and my wife & I had a fruitful discussion over the lunch table about your post.
0 -
JohnB said:David Staveley said:
Okay, I'll give it a shot.
Thanks David.
A lot of light bulbs started flashing as various things came together and my wife & I had a fruitful discussion over the lunch table about your post.
I'm glad to have helped. [:D]
Dr David Staveley Professor of New Testament. Specializing in the Pauline Epistles, Apocalyptic Judaism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
0 -
Reuben Helmuth said:Marshall Harrison said:
its seems to be the same as letting context modify or define the word rather than going by a strict dictionary definition
For some people, Discourse Analysis may be that. However, as Levinsohn (who has influenced Runge, the author of the Logos discourse products) teaches it, it is so much more than this.
By the way, a synonymous term is Text Linguistics, which you'll see in the titles of some Logos resources.
Absolutely. DA is not primarily about adding senses or additional nuances to individual words. There's so much more going on.
Although many scholars may have heard the term discourse analysis, few know its methods or employ them in their research. In some ways it is surprising that this area of research has been so slow in arriving in New Testament studies, because there have been a few noteworthy scholars who have employed its methods. Perhaps the best known of these is Louw, who already wrote an insightful article introducing the topic in 1973. He has been instrumental both in the development of a form of discourse analysis and in applying it to numerous texts. But his article, and many subsequent publications, appeared in work related to Bible translation, an arena where many who employ discourse analysis work, and they are, to a large extent because of their own choice, not part of mainstream biblical scholarship. How to account for this widespread disregard, when the discipline of New Testament studies is (or at least is supposed to be) so text-oriented and so given to drawing upon various models from literary and social-scientific disciplines, is difficult to ascertain.
…
Although discourse analysis is in many ways still in its primary development, to aid in getting a feel for its state of play and to help in understanding the essays that follow, it may be wise to survey the four major schools of thought that have come to be used in New Testament studies. Before doing that, however, several caveats must be registered. First of all, this analysis is strictly preliminary. In the light of what has been said above, it must be seen that this differentiation is a rough and ready one designed to give some guidance in reading a particular author. The lines being drawn are along broad boundaries and are not meant as prescriptive of any given scholar or the school of thought. Secondly, several of the major figures can be identified with several of the schools of thought, since they have worked or their work is utilized in various places. Perhaps this illustrates that there is more commonality in methods than has been realized, or at least that there is a fluidity to boundaries indicating some commonly held presuppositions. Thirdly, there is not much theoretical literature that has actually emerged from New Testament scholars themselves on discourse analysis. Most of the work that has appeared has been interpretative in nature, applying a model to the text of the New Testament, making what is perceived to be necessary modifications in the light of the exigencies of dealing with an epigraphic language. Fourthly, not all of these schools of thought have been equally productive in the study of the New Testament as they have been in non-biblical discourse analysis, so that the numbers associated with each do not necessarily represent their popularity in the larger arena of the entire field of discourse analysis.0 -
Sounds like some of the issues I had to deal with when doing speech recognition systems. For example how to you interpret this sentence when you hear it: "Write Mr. Wright with the right directions".
All three words are pronounced the same (leaving out regional accents) but have vastly different meanings.
Then there is reed and read which are pronounced the same but spelled differently. And when used in the past tense there is read again though now its spelled the same as its present tense form but pronounced differently as red.
There are many other examples leaving me to wonder how we can ever communicate.
Even our grammar rules have exceptions' For example "I before E except after C or when pronounced as A as in neighbor or weigh. But then we have the word "their" which breaks that rule.
There are many other examples leaving me to wonder how we can ever communicate.
Rather than being confused by all of this I think I'll just take a nap...or is knap?
0 -
Reuben Helmuth said:Marshall Harrison said:
its seems to be the same as letting context modify or define the word rather than going by a strict dictionary definition
For some people, Discourse Analysis may be that. However, as Levinsohn (who has influenced Runge, the author of the Logos discourse products) teaches it, it is so much more than this.
By the way, a synonymous term is Text Linguistics, which you'll see in the titles of some Logos resources.
I totally agree with you that discourse analysis is so much more than the alteration of word meanings. But I tried to keep my description of what discourse analysis is as simple as possible, without invoking in any way the problems encountered with the use of discourse analysis and its encounter with the text of the bible. Those problems are a hot-bed of controversy within scholarship. Some scholars simply don't believe discourse analysis has a legitimate place within biblical scholarship.
So, my intention in what I wrote was as an entrée to the subject, something to wet the appetite so to speak, in order to try to encourage people to give discourse analysis a try themselves.
Dr David Staveley Professor of New Testament. Specializing in the Pauline Epistles, Apocalyptic Judaism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
0 -
David Staveley said:
So, my intention in what I wrote was as an entrée to the subject, something to wet the appetite so to speak, in order to try to encourage people to give discourse analysis a try themselves.
You were correct. OTOH contrarians were also trying to help. The notion that DA helps to nuance meanings of individual words is not quite Runge's approach. If the buyer buys the Discourse Bundle with this in mind, he might be surprised. Runge's approach runs into entire clauses and inter-sentential relationships. He also makes extensive use of what he calls the "markedness theory." I can't even begin to explain it in a few words.
That is why my advice was simply: buy and try. Logos has a money-back guarantee!0
