Discourse Analysis - Already but Not Yet

Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Mon Jul 31 16:22:18 EDT 2000


In a message dated 00-07-31 11:22:03 EDT, mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us writes:

<< The text (largely) provides the framework and Discourse Analysis (DA)
 provides a way to objectively uncover that framework, thus attempting
 a solution to our myopia.>>

A few months ago, I would have readily agreed with Mike's assessment of DA. 
At this point, however, I'm not so sure that I would hail the purported 
objectivity of DA. While it is a valuable tool and at times it does in fact 
seem like an indispensable tool--nevertheless, it has its limitations and its 
own problems with subjectivity. In praxis, it is very difficult (near 
impossible) to come up with a presuppositionless, Baconian system in which 
every "idol of the mind" is eradicated. One has to have some type of starting 
point and DA is no different.
 
 <<As an analytical methodology it brings a disciplined structure to
 interpretation.  There have been other attempts at this, too.  But,
 most, and I am specifically referring to the analytical methodology, do
 not recognize the priority and prominence of the larger constituents of
 communication, such as--paragraph, section, in deed, the entire document
 the author has penned.  Grammars have been one such attempt; they do not
 get above the clause (perhaps sentence) level, however.[2] >>

In _Biblical Greek Exegesis_, Guthrie and Duvall try to emphasize the 
macrostructure over against the microstructural aspect of the text when 
teaching their students NT grammar. And indeed they have a point. But one 
thing I've wondered about in connection with DA is where one starts when one 
wants to 'analyze' the suprasentential level of a text? Do we start from the 
bottom and go up? Or do we begin at the discourse level and proceed downward? 

I guess the problem I'm having with DA is understanding how stasrting at the 
discourse level works in a practical way. Why start at the top when working 
on a text? As a case example, let's say that I am trying to put together an 
exegetical paper on Hebrew 1-14 (which I am indeed currently working on). In 
this case, I can clearly see how DA would serve as an important tool. But I 
still fail to see how its possible to get away from the signifier and the 
signified when exegeting such a text and why it would be beneficial to do 
such. I do not think the text would tell me what I need to know if I forsook 
the clausal or word level (cf. Heb. 1:3-4). In fact, Jeffrey Reed suggests 
that one cannot totally get away from the word level when performing DA and 
he indicates that it may be okay to start from the bottom and work upwards.

Just a few thoughts,
Edgar Foster



More information about the B-Greek mailing list