Not so apparent here but on b-hebrew and b-greek over a period of 20 years or more you will see a diversity of approaches to language research which amount to different linguistic frameworks. See Micheal* Palmer’s bibliography:
http://greek-language.com/Palmer-bibliography.html
Many of the somewhat heated discussions b-hebrew and b-greek over the years come down to conflicting frameworks. I recall some rather lengthy and unpleasant exchanges between Dr. Buth and several other Hebrew scholars from Cambridge UK, Univ. Oslo and other places where it was obvious that incompatible language models and perspectives were at work in the conflict. One of the scholars was working within Psycholinguistic school of thought not to be confused with cognitive linguistics, another was working with a combination of generative grammar and one of the functionalist spin-offs from Prague school. In the 1990s systemic functionalism (M.A.K Halliday) was in vogue particularly within the Rohampton Circle (PhD candidates under S.E. Porter). This is not to be confused with the functionalism of T. Givon, S. Dik, H. Dik. The Halliday-Porter people couldn’t carry on a dialog with Givon-Dik people. Then there was a host of spin-offs from early, middle or late Chomsky. Micheal Palmer is the guy to ask about that. Most recently Steve Runge has been attempting to make Steven Levinsohn intelligible to the masses. In the last decade or so I have been exploring cognitive approaches to semantics after reading Reinier de Blois’ dissertation Towards a New Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew Based on Semantic Domains, Richard A. Hoyle "Scenarios, Discourse, and Translation scenario theory of Cognitive Linguistics, Maragret Sim’s dissertation Relevance Theoretic approach to the particle ἵνα in Koine Greek, and lots of articles by Randall Buth.
Here is a represntative sample from Micheal Palmer’s bibliography:
http://greek-language.com/Palmer-bibliography.html
Danove, Paul. “A Comparison Of The Usage Of Akouw And Akouw- Compounds In The Septuagint And New Testament” Filologia Neotestamentaria. 14:65-86. 2001.
Click the title to read this article online.
Danove, Paul. “Distinguishing Goal and Locative Complements of New Testament Verbs of Transference. FilologÃá Neotestamentaria. 20:51-66. 2007
Click the title to read this article online.
Danove, Paul. “Features of the Conceptualization of Transference in the New Testament.” Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics. 2:5-28. 2014.
Danove, Paul. > A Grammatical and Exegetical Study of New Testament Verbs of Transference: A Case Frame Guide to Interpretation and Translation. Library of New Testament Studies. T & T Clark International, August 18, 2009.
Danove, Paul. Linguistics and Exegesis in the Gospel of Mark: Applications of a Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 218. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Danove, Paul. “The theory of construction grammar and its application to New Testament Greek.” In Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research. Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series, 80. Ed. D.A. Carson &;Stanley Porter. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Danove, Paul. “Verbs of Experience: Toward a Lexicon Detailing the Argument Structures Assigned by Verbs.” Paper presented to the Biblical Greek Grammar and Linguistics Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, November 25, 1996.
Danove, Paul. “Verbs of Experience: Toward a Lexicon Detailing the Argument Structures Assigned by Verbs.” In Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures. Ed. D.A. Carson and Stanley Porter. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 168. Studies in New Testament Greek 5. Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
I obtained Danove 2009 through InterLibLoan. It wasn’t an easy reading experience. I am familiar with the linguistic antecedents of Case Frame analysis but still had some difficulty following the argument.
Barry Hofstetter doesn’t fall into any of the above frameworks. He is a traditionalist who works with the 19th century philology Kühner-Gerth, Gildersleeve ktl. That framework is characterized by ignoring all the other frameworks.
*Micheal: yes it is spelled that way.