Monosemy: A Theoretical Sketch for Biblical Studies

Abstract: This paper explores linguistic monosemy and the methodological priorities it suggests. These priorities include a bottom-up modeling of lexical semantics, a corpus-driven discovery procedure, and a sign-based approach to linguistic description. Put simply, monosemy is a methodology for describing the semantic potential of linguistic signs. This methodology is driven by the process of abstraction based on verifiable data, and so it incorporates empirical checks and balances into the tasks of linguistics, especially (though not exclusively) lexical semantics. This paper contrasts lowest common denominator and greatest common factor methodologies within biblical studies, with three examples: (a) Porter and Pitts’s analysis of the semantics of the genitive within the Greek case system in regard to the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate; (b) disagreement between Ronald Peters and Dan Wallace regarding the Greek article; and (c) the Porter–Fanning debate on the nature of verbal aspect in Greek. Analysis of the Greek of the New Testament stands to benefit from incorporating the insights of monosemy and the methodological correctives it steers toward. (Article)

Keywords: Linguistic modeling, minimalism, traditional grammar, Saussure, Columbia School, semantics.

"Given the problematic issues that surround analysis of word meaning in Greek (entire volumes have been written to address this and other related issues) it is not unreasonable to state that questions about Greek words have often relied on unprincipled and arbitrary methodological approaches." (p. 108)

"Biblical scholarship is fundamentally a linguistic enterprise at its heart . . . Monosemy follows the trajectory set by other important works in linguistic analysis of the New Testament by adopting a principled, lowest common denominator approach, a trajectory that has and will continue to generate useful and valuable studies." (p. 136)

Wishart, Ryder A. “Monosemy in Biblical Studies: A Critical Analysis of Recent Work.” Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 6 (2017) 81–106.

This paper is available at the Journal's website, so just follow this link.