Dear RT List,
I am a post graduate at the University of Sheffield in Biblical studies.
However, I have formal linguistic training (but not in RT). And have used RT
extensively in a (soon to be submitted) PhD thesis (in New Testament) on the
imperative mood (at another school).
I have been wrestling with the relational word "lord" in ancient literature
and would like to get some feedback from the list on what I have been
considering. I have kept my comments brief (though still probably too long)
but I hope this is sufficient to make my point. I will be happy to clarify
anything.
Finally, if anyone as any suggestions (including bibliography) that will be
helpful, I would be very appreciative. Also, though I have used and read
much RT literature, I have never spoken with a real live RT scholar (or
person for that matter) so I am not sure whether I understand the theory as
well as I should. Please feel free to inform me that I am really missing the
point if that be the case. Thanks.
Using Sperber and Wilson's discussion of efficiency in communication (1995:
46ff) and the principle of relevance itself as a point of departure, I
propose that an abstract relational concept such as "supreme lord/master" may
be expressed (realized) in a surface structure (text or utterance) by
different words or phrases depending upon the referent of the label itself.
Specifically, the social status and relationship between the referent and the
speaker and what the speaker wishes to communicate about the referent will
result in different types of expression for different individuals. As for
the first, the following contextual factors will contribute to the choice of
expression:
1. the relationship of the referent to the individual using the label.
2. the social status of the referent with respect to the individual using the
label.
3. the social status and relationship of the referent to the local community
of which the individual using the label belongs.
4. the social status and relationship of the referent to the wider cultural
context (e.g., the [known] world).
Therefore, in Ancient Rome in approximately 60 CE, the emperor Nero by virtue
of his social status and relationship to his subjects could simply be called
"lord" (Latin dominus; Greek: kyrios or despotes) to express this superlative
concept. The use of any modifiers such as "one" or "most high" would be
redundant unless the purpose of the utterance was praise or flattery. The
emperor's status in the empire is unparalleled and his relationship to all
subjects (including other local "lords") is one of supreme master/lord.
Therefore, efficiency would suggest that only the one word label "lord" would
be sufficient to express this superlative concept. And indeed would seem to
express this concept unless otherwise made explicit.
However, in a more localized case, such as a subject king in Palestine or
Asia Minor during the same period, the title "lord" by itself could not mean
supreme lord/master because of his status and relationships between his
subjects and the emperor. He is indeed lord to his people but it is
understood that he is not supreme lord/master because of the implicit
relationships within the empire between emperor, vassal kings, and people.
Therefore, there would be no conflict in the following statements (without
other explicit information elsewhere):
Nero is lord (or lord Nero)
Agrippa is lord (or lord Agrippa)
[note, though these statements look confessional, they are only written this
way to illustrate my point, they are not intended to be confessional]
If however, one wished to express that the vassal king is the supreme
lord/master, the communication process would demand some type of modifier(s)
because he is not normally so considered. Therefore, "Agrippa is the most
high lord" or "Agrippa is the one lord" would be necessary.
Because of the relational nature and semantics of the term "lord" (there can
be only one supreme lord), the modified statements would involve an implicit
challenge to the statement, "Nero is lord."
I hope I am clear here. Does anyone have any comments (positive or negative)
or direction on my proposal? Am I correct to see that relevance theory
helps explain this? Any comments would be helpful.
Joe Fantin
PhD student: University of Sheffield
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 28 2001 - 14:17:05 GMT