For the Figurative Language tags in Bibles, is there any way to find the source of the categorization of a particular instance? Some of these I don't see as an example of what this tag says it is. It would be helpful to see an explanation.
For example, in Ephesians 6:19, how are "mouth" and "gospel" examples of metonymy?I understand what a metonymy is, but I don't get it in this (and other) tagged instances.
I could search for the verse in all of the sources that are listed in the Process section of Lexham Figurative Language of the New Testament Dataset documentation, but it would be tedious to look through every source.
If the source were documented in each instance it would save so much time and make this Guide a much clearer tool. Other sections of the Guide have links to sources.
The Lexham Figurative Language of the New Testament Dataset documentation says that resource annotation is not yet completed. Does this mean tagging individual words or linking to the source of the category?
Also, it appears that the category is not listed if you view the Figurative Language in the Passage Guide under Type, Target or Source. It would be very helpful if the category were visible in all views or at least if you hover over a highlighted instance in the Guide.
7 bump
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
I've asked the team who works on the data to respond.
How to Enable and Submit Log Files
Hi Harry:
Are you able to post a screen capture of what you're seeing, so I can be sure I'm looking at the same thing?
For example, in the case of "mouth" in this verse it is not that word that is annotated as a metonymy, but rather the phrase "opening my mouth." I didn't annotate for this dataset, but my interpretation of that annotation would be that "opening the mouth" is part of "speaking" and is here used to refer to the whole act of speaking.
The examples from Ephesians 6:19We tag the phrase ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός as a metonymy since it is the more concrete action that accompanies producing speech standing in for the more abstract concept of speaking.
We tag εὐαγγελίου as a metonymy because it is concept that stands in for the larger concept and more complicated concept. Paul is not giving generic good news, but very specific good news with very specific content.
The search features of this dataset are complicated because of the detailed nature of the annotation. Every source and target is searchable, but there may not be very many of each one. The source and target for each annotation should be available through the context menu. Though it is crammed together.
We have noted that the annotation is not complete because figurative language is a complex cascaded hierarchy. We have annotated the entire New Testament, but there are instances that are very complex which have not been completely analyzed in all their inner workings. As well as some generic figurative language that we thought would overload the user without more explanation. I really like this data, but there is more work that could be done with it to make it more useful to users.
Hi Jimmy,
Thanks for your feedback. I really like these tags and the ability to search on them. But I don't always get the classification in some instances.
I understand what you are saying about ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός. For me, it is only "of my mouth" that is highlighted in a search for metonymy. Bullinger says metonymy is only for nouns, so I guess it makes sense to only highlight the noun. It seems this could be understood as the instrument for the thing effected by it (mouth = instrument; speech is the thing effected). An I getting it right?
I am still not sure that I see how εὐαγγελίου is a metonymy. Are you saying it is a general term used for specific type of thing? (Maybe that sounds more like synecdoché.)
I appreciate the opportunity to interact with your about these classifications. It reinforces to me that documenting the sources (or explaining the sense) would be helpful to display in the Figurative Language guide.
Maybe this isn't spelled out clearly enough in the documentation, but the classification used in the Figurative Language data set is not derived from literary/poetic theory. It is based on linguistics, and the cognitive mechanisms that are a part of language. Here is the definition for Metonymy from the Lexham Figurative Language of the Bible Glossary: "
Metonymy — The use of one entity to refer to a related entity within the same conceptual domain.
English Example: “The ham sandwich at table two is waiting for his drink.”
The use of ham sandwich is used to refer to the person who ordered the ham sandwich (i.e., HAM SANDWICH as PERSON)
Biblical Example: “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name.” (Luke 10:17)
The name of Jesus is used to refer to his authority and power (i.e., NAME as AUTHORITY)."
In Eph 6:19, the whole noun phrase ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός is the metonymic representation, opening of the mouth is the description of the SOURCE {Section <FigurativeLanguageTerm = To Open Mouth>}, though mouth on its own can also be used metonymically.The noun εὐαγγελίου is metonymy in the cognitive linguistic categorization. There is no differentiation for synecdoché. When an entity represents another entity, it is the same cognitive mechanism. But yes, it is a general term used to represent a specific entity. In this case it is a generic term used to represent specific information.
Jimmy Parks:It is based on linguistics, and the cognitive mechanisms that are a part of language.
Allow me to carry this a bit further ... "It is based on a contemporary theory of linguistics and the posited cognitive mechanisms that are part of language." One of the things I like best about Logos is it's willingness to apply contemporary theories of linguistics to the Biblical text. One of the things I detest about Logos is it's willingness to apply contemporary theories of linguistics to the Biblical text. Why both? First, it allows one to avoid actually studying the meaning of scripture and allowing it to mold oneself. Second, it encourages the uncritical acceptance of a particular theory and the abuse of the data by those unfamiliar with the theory. My point: I wish the software had a better way of distinguishing "traditional" linguistic classifications from "academic" linguistic classification.
Jimmy,
I appreciate the explanation.
Are you saying that synecdoché is not labeled as a separate type of figure of speech, but call instances of synecdoché would be classified as metonymy? It is helpful to know this.
I would like to make a feature request for the Figurative Language Guide. In the Type view, the type of figure of speech is not listed. For example, in Ephesians 6:19, it has "Gospel as Message That Jesus is the Christ", but it does not say it is a metonymy. The same problem exists in Target and Source views. Even when you hover over a highlighted word, it does not identify the figure of speech. The only way to see the label for the figure of speech is to change to the Category view. But when you do that you don't see the helpful description of what the metonymy is doing (e.g. "Gospel as Message That Jesus is the Christ").
MJ. Smith:it allows one to avoid actually studying the meaning of scripture and allowing it to mold oneself.
We are studying the scriptures and applying a particular theoretical framework to them, so that our users can utilize that framework to understand scripture.
MJ. Smith:it encourages the uncritical acceptance of a particular theory and the abuse of the data by those unfamiliar with the theory. I don't see how our application of a theoretical framework to the data of the bible is any different to someone writing a book where they apply a particular framework to the bible. Any content can be misunderstood or misapplied. Is it the fault of the content for that misapplication? MJ. Smith:I wish the software had a better way of distinguishing "traditional" linguistic classifications from "academic" linguistic classification. What do you see as the difference between "traditional" and "academic"? I see traditional knowledge as being an older academic classification which could have stood the test of time, or could be out of date with current human knowledge about a subject. The academic classification is one that is reaching for the most current understanding of a topic based on human knowledge. It too will become older and may be surpassed. Or it could stand the test.
MJ. Smith:it encourages the uncritical acceptance of a particular theory and the abuse of the data by those unfamiliar with the theory.
MJ. Smith:I wish the software had a better way of distinguishing "traditional" linguistic classifications from "academic" linguistic classification.
Harry Hahne: Are you saying that synecdoché is not labeled as a separate type of figure of speech, but call instances of synecdoché would be classified as metonymy?
Yes.
Harry Hahne: I would like to make a feature request for the Figurative Language Guide. In the Type view, the type of figure of speech is not listed.
There is a lot of information involved with this annotation. There is a SOURCE, TARGET, TYPE, and CATEGORY. All four types of information are searchable. And I agree that it would be good to see all the information associated with the annotation. I'll ask about ways to better display this complex annotation.
the documentation shows the syntax for searching for the 4 annotation categories:
{Label Figurative Language WHERE Category ~ <FigurativeLanguageCategory Metaphor, Ontological, Entity>
AND Source ~ <FigurativeLanguageTerm Shepherd>
AND Target ~ <FigurativeLanguageTerm Jesus>
AND Type ~ <FigurativeLanguageType Shepherd as Jesus>}