On Footnotes and Scholarship

I (Dave) remember a while back, a classmate with open book in hand exclaimed with much adoration, “Wow, look at this first footnote!” It was the first page of an essay in an edited book, where the body text of the first page of the essay turned out to be only three or four lines, and the rest of the page was filled with an extensive footnote. To my colleague, this was impressive. It represented scholarship. On another occasion, I had heard a different classmate state that in order to impress others and/or to get an essay accepted for publication, the first footnote should fill over half the page. Again, this represented scholarship.

But what is a footnote? And what is its role (or roles) in scholarship and research? The major ways in which footnotes are used today is to identify references, sources, and citations related to statements in the text to which the footnote is attached. This could include sources that the author quotes, sources that the author consulted, sources that the author depends on for his/her own statement, and sources that are related to the statement in some way. In some instances, footnotes are used not just for citations but to carry on discussions of tangential topics—a discussion footnote (although one might well consider either putting this in the text or deleting it altogether). For a citation footnote, a footnote is required if you use the words of someone else; if you quote someone, footnote them. Obviously. If you as an author consult a source and get some idea or ideas from them, it is wise, and ethical, to footnote them too. Other footnotes seem to be optional.

Now, what is scholarship? Scholarship is the advancement of a particular field through research, writing, teaching, and practice by means of rigorous study and investigation, and thoughtful analysis of the object of study. Scholarship is not… simply a reproduction of previously made statements, even if they contain truths (or mistruths). There is nothing wrong with reproducing truths—in fact, truths ought to be reproduced (and of course, mistruths should not). But we want to make a distinction between scholarship and a reproduction of truths.

Admittedly, it gets a bit tricky in biblical studies, because we are dealing with a finite corpus (66 books, if you’re Protestant) that students and teachers have been studying for millennia. So, admittedly, scholarship in biblical studies is much more of a challenge than, say, physical science (in the sense of the object of study), since the object of study for science is the universe, and hence almost unlimited.

Interestingly enough, footnoting and referencing in the scientific field is much more limited in comparison to biblical studies. Footnoting even in linguistics is much more limited than in biblical studies.

Earlier generations of biblical scholars used minimal footnotes. Take for example James Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language. Not many footnotes there. Look at F.F. Bruce’s books. Minimal. Ernst Käsemann’s Perspective on Paul, as another example—just enough. Perhaps, they had less printed material to work with. But the publishing industry has been around for very long time. They seem to have been more interested in scholarship than simply citing the work of others.

So where is the place of footnoting in biblical studies? Well, if an author wants to seem erudite and desires to impress people, footnote away! But if a biblical scholar wants to really advance knowledge of Scripture by positing real research and thoughtful inquisition—in other words, produce scholarship—then an abundance, or overabundance, of footnotes is not really required. Just good scholarship.

— Stanley E. Porter and David I. Yoon

8 thoughts on “On Footnotes and Scholarship

  1. Hi
    Dave, I have just finished reading your ‘Prominence and Markedness in New Testament Discourse’ and I have a couple of questions.
    1. If markedness is ‘a linguistic description of _binary_ oppositions’ (p.5) what do you mean be degrees of markedness (e.g. p.11)?
    2. When you (and Stan) describe ‘background’ information in a discourse are you thinking of what Grimes described as ‘events’ or ‘non-events’? It seems to me that you are talking about ‘events’ so I find ‘background’ to be confusing.
    PS Sorry, but the article could really have done with some editing.


    • Bruce,

      Thanks for reading my article. I appreciate the interaction, even if it has nothing to do with this post! 🙂

      1) That’s actually a good question. Binary oppositions implies two “degrees,” But within each degree, there may be two degrees at a sub-level. So specifically in terms of verbal aspect and markedness, you have perfective and non-perfective (binary), and within non-perfective, you have imperfective and stative (binary again). This constitutes degrees of markedness.

      2) I can’t speak for Stan on this one, but I didn’t have Grimes in mind. I can’t recall Grimes at the moment (and I don’t have his book to refer to right now), but I could see why the language of “events” and “non-events” would be confusing. Probably not the same, I would guess. Grounding, in Porter at least, has nothing to do with “events” in the normal sense, but on the markedness and prominence levels. When it comes to verbal aspect, background simply reflects the perfective aspect, especially in expositional or discursive texts.

      PS, you’re probably right. I caught a few needs for edits myself! Oh well…

      — Dave


      • Hi Dave
        Thanks for your reply. I’m not sure that _binary_ opposition _implies_ two _degrees_. Isn’t it rather talking about two _values_ (plus/minus, on/off, 0/1 etc.)?
        On the background/foreground question — where I am confused with Stan (and your) explanation is in the difference from the usage (Wallace, Longacre, Grimes, Levinsohn) where, at least in narrative, ‘foreground’ refers to the mainline (Grimes’ ‘events’) and ‘background’ refers to Grimes’ ‘non-events’. I think this was the basis of Jody Barnard’s critique in FN 19(2006) 3-29.


      • Bruce,

        Well, I’m not sure what the difference is between what you said, “two values,” and what I said, “two degrees.” I think we’re saying the same thing, essentially.

        As far as background/foreground, there are two different sets of terminology here in need of distinction: that of “grounding” (i.e., background/foreground) and that of “mainline/supportive” material. Another distinction is at what level are we applying these terms? Word group, clause, clause complex, paragraph, discourse? Grounding can be applied at any of these levels, while “mainline/supportive” is for paragraph and discourse levels. For Porter, in narrative texts, the background aspect (perfective/aorist form) carries the mainline, while supportive material is reflected in two ways: prominence, hence foreground and frontground material, and background (but in a different sense–probably why it can be confusing–not background at the aspectual-prominence level but at the paragraph/discourse level), through infinitives, participles, secondary or embedded clauses, etc. So it may be the case that we are applying the term background to different levels of discourse, one at the word level (verbal aspectual choice), and one at the paragraph/discourse level.

        I hope that doesn’t confuse you more…

        — Dave


  2. Hi Dave
    My reply has been a while in coming. I have had other things to do.
    On features, actually, no I don’t think binary and ‘degrees’ are the same thing. Or are you saying that in phonology more than one ‘degree’ of, say, voicing is to be expected? This would seem to nullify the point of phonology. So I am not sure still what you meant by using ‘binary features’ and ‘degrees of markedness’.
    On foreground/background, sorry, I am still confused. Would you be able to explain please _why_ the distinction you have made is required especially since the linguistic literature does not seem to support the distinction. What does the distinction give us in understanding a text? Are is it a distinction without any function? What is the function of ‘grounding’ at word group ‘level’?


    • No problem, Bruce. I guess I’m now confused, as I’m not sure where phonology comes into the discussion. By binary, I’m referring to two sets of choices. By degrees of markedness, I’m referring to the cline of markedness that goes from unmarked to marked. This cline can be organized into levels of binary oppositions, as I have outlined above in terms of aspect and tense-forms.

      Regarding foreground/background, what distinction are you referring to? Narrative texts and discursive/expositional texts? I don’t think it is so much “required” as it is a basic generic, let’s say, observation of the type of text in question. At least in the New Testament, those two types seem to be reflected, although there could potentially be other text types in the broader literature, such as poetic. Also, this may not be as developed in the literature, but I think it is important to note at what level prominence (or grounding) can be applied to: word group, clause, clause complex, paragraph/discourse. An element is prominent… but prominent at what level? Is it prominent in the entire discourse? Or is it prominent in the clause in which it is located? Does that make sense? Porter’s chapter on Prominence in “Linguist as Pedagogue” might be helpful for further examination on this. Also, my book (just released), “A Discourse Analysis of Galatians and the New Perspective on Paul” has a section on prominence that details more on that.

      Let me know if you have any further questions or comments on this. Thanks for the discussion.

      — Dave


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s