Dave Reigle 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. 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