Runge on Porter’s Use of Contrastive Substitution

Steve Runge has posted a paper on his blog (to be published next year) critiquing Stanley Porter’s theoretical framework regarding the Greek verb. This is an important paper for readers of Greek and I highly suggest you check it out. Steve provides an explanation on his blog regarding the back story of why this particular paper is sorely needed:

“At the 2010 ETS meeting I presented an overview of some foundational errors in Stan Porter’s theoretical framework that significantly undermine the validity of his claims regarding the Greek verb. These issues initially came to light in research for my 2009 paper on the historical present.What I read left me with a knot in my stomach. Why? Well, Stan taught me second year Greek while I served as a TA for his first year Greek class at TWU. He was one of the folks who got me interested in linguistics in the first place, and he published my first article on Greek in one of his journals. I owe him a lot.

What was the big deal? The nature of the problems suggested a failure to adequately engage the linguistics literature. Significant counter arguments were ignored, as were warnings which should have led him to reach opposite conclusions about the presence of temporal reference in the Greek indicative tense-forms. One of the most significant pieces of evidence is the work of Stephen C. Wallace. I have posted his article, which is quoted at length in my critique. I would strongly encourage you to read it in its entirety. These problems were not just in his dissertation, but also in his recent writings on the prominence of the Greek tense-forms.”

Read more here: Porter’s Use of Contrastive Substitution