From: Mike Sangrey (msangrey@BlueFeltHat.org)
Date: Mon Mar 26 2001 - 13:42:26 EST
Dave Reigle <reigles@paonline.com> said:
> I do see that this is a good example of focusing too closely on a
> small piece of text. Taking it in terms of the larger text does open
> up and clarify the possibilities for interpretation. Is that what
> discourse analysis is about?
It will be best to let a master speak...so I'll quote.
J. P. Louw, in Linguistics and NT Interpretation, ed D. A. Black, pg 18,
19 said (excellent book by the way):
"Discourse analysis is not a recipe that can be applied to ensure a
final reading of a passage, void of any subjective notions. It is
rather a demonstration, a displaying or showing, first of all to
oneself, how the text is being read, then giving account to others how
the text is read and used to eventually come to an understanding of
the text. In short, it is revealed reading; it charts the course of
the reading process. ...
"...[S]tudies [on discourse analysis] focus on the syntax of a text
and deal with issues such as cohesion, anaphora, hierarchy of
syntactic strata, sequences and levels, ellipsis, the function of
pronouns, particles, etc., in discourses. Others focus on the
semantics [of the][sic] texts by looking at the paragraph as a basic
unit, or how semantic relations are textually marked, or the structure
of information in a text or how reference and coherence function as
semantic indicators, or plot structure and the interplay of
participants in a text. Then there are studies on presupposition and
inference in texts, on speech acts, on the relevance of utterances--in
short, the pragmatics of a text [I think he is specifically
referring to `Relevance Theory' here]. Another trend is to look at
the typology of texts (written, spoken, expository, narrative,
scientific, conversational) or the psychology of processing
information with attention to cognitive processes of comprehension and
recall. Many studies have been undertaken to explain the stylistic
divides of discourse, especially rhetorical choices and theme
dynamics."
If I may add to Louw's excellent comments: Discourse analysis accepts
as a presupposition the anomalies created by close analysis of the very
thing we do so very naturally--reading. Add to that the fact that
nearly all of us are involved in analyzing a text written in a
language in which we are NOT fluent. Discourse analysis, then, seeks
to provide process and vocabulary to help us not be stupid.
We are still quite capable. I leave as an exercise to the analyst
to determine what I think we are capable of. <chuckle>
Hint: It's a little of both and a whole lot of the middle.
--- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 18:40:23 EST