Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: parsing, taxonomy vs. process (was:Expository discourse "profile")

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>
  • To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: parsing, taxonomy vs. process (was:Expository discourse "profile")
  • Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:53:27 -0400


Hi Randy,
you wrote:

>
> a good point but possibly misunderstood by many on the
list:
>
> "Once I understand a text, I am not
> interested in parsing it any longer (just 'busy work'
then)."
>
> 'parsing' in this context does NOT refer to naming the
kinds of prefixes
> and suffixes on words.
> 'parsing' seems to refer to naming the chunks of text,
naming the
> paragraphs. a taxonomy of paragraphs.

Although I prefer "sub-discourse" to paragraph, yes, this
analysis (parsing or labelling) of *chunks* of text is
indeed what I have in mind. Thanks for clarifying.

>
> such analysis is not a part of real language
communication, we certainly
> arn't doing it or conscious of it here in English. so i
agree with bryan
> and paul. though all would agree that secondary analysis
and reflection is
> necessary for any 'close' reading of a text.
> and this should lead to grammatical/syntactical/discourse
'analysis' that
> is closer to wat we do in real communication.
> close reading must be VERY sensitive to what the author
could have said but
> didn't, which entails a VERY high level of language
competence. [So high,
> in fact, that a reader/hearer is not conscious of the
parsing of nuts and
> bolts of words. "but (conj-adv) that (sub.nom.) is (3 s
pres.) a different
> discussion (pred. nom). language users function at a much
higher level.]
>
> a 'process' model of discourse is more helpful/useful than
a taxonomy and i
> think that is what bryan is doing with his discourse
types. (they may also
> be modulated down towards the language system.) language
is linearized and
> streams past an audience, there are macro- and micro-
signals and switches
> along the way that help in processing. the whole is done
against a
> background of assumed or known information (a.k.a.
'relevance theory').

Well not to be fussy, just to come to an understanding:
;-) I *would* definitely call discourse analysis of a
written text in a second language "real language." O.K., it
is kind of a specialized study of real language called
poetics or rhetoric or literary interpretation or (when it's
closest to linguistics) pragmatics or a combination of all
of the above I call *discourse analysis*. It's just that I
don't think "close reading" is any less "real" than leisure
reading the newspaper or bartering in the shuq.

This topic reminds me of one of my first graduate courses
with Dr. Diane Sawyer (no relation to the t.v. journalist)
on teaching reading in which the class had quite the debate
on the definition of reading. When the dust settled and we
had had a chance to consult some experts we agreed that
reading (in our context and for our purposes) is certainly
not simply being able to pronounce words and was rather more
akin to *thinking* than anything. Good readers are
doubtless good thinkers, and barring a learning disability
or lack of education/experience, good thinkers become good
readers. It's an awful truth that the best predictor of
someone's ability (who is from a literate society) to read
is his I.Q. Is pronouncing the words in a text "reading"?
Nope. Is achieving a basic, literal understanding of a
literary text such as the Tanakh "reading"? I don't think
so. To me, the ability to see a Hebrew writer exercise his
linguistic options to guide us through his text to his
message is *merely* reading. If our understanding of a text
stops anywhere short of this "close reading," I would
question whether we have read the text at all. This is
exactly why I am on a mission to introduce discourse
analysis of BH from day one, lesson one. (Chances are,
however, that I will not find a publisher who buys the
approach. <ugh!>)

About the very high level of language competence that you
maintain is necessary for discourse analysis: I disagree
entirely! Very great exposure to a language is necessary to
do discourse analysis ONLY IF one learns a language
naturally/informally. However, one may be armed with
pragmatic, rhetorical, poetic rules of a language from DAY
ONE of *formal* instruction and be effectively and
independently doing discourse analysis after one year of
study. This is exactly the approach of my text.

In addition, the great exposure to a language that is
prerequisite to discourse analysis when one learns
naturally/informally can be substituted for by the
translations most of us have available in our first
languages. I.e. since discourse analysis, IMO, makes use of
poetics, rhetoric, literary criticism, we are aided by our
English translations in which we can process a lot of text
quickly if we cannot do the same in Hebrew.

>
> as a sample on the question of 'taxonomy' versus
'process', you might want
> to look at what happens to the verbless clause in Andersen
versus Buth '99
> (in eisenbraun's volume on verbless clause). one ends up a
simple tool that
> can be almost instantly manipulated while processing a
text. the other ends
> up as very cumbersome lists.
>
> braxot
> randall buth

Excellent point. Thanks for the article! It does indeed
represent a simple explanation of the distribution of S-P
and P-S word order in verbless clauses that is significant,
readable, and consistent with a Praguean functionality. I
have altered my previously Andersonian views! Cool! 8-)


Shalom,
Bryan



B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267




  • Re: parsing, taxonomy vs. process (was:Expository discourse "profile"), Bryan Rocine, 10/13/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page