I'll shut up after this! I just want to clarify my last quite unclear
message. What I was trying to suggest was that there are (at least) 2
dimensions of "windows" into language -- one is "up" and "down":
context semantics lexis/grammar "below" lexis/grammar
and the other is sideways -- in Bill's terms, for instance:
rhetorical aim rhetorical mode arts/ media
and what is tricky, when you bring "discourse" into questions of grammar, is
how we can look sideways through all the different windows while we focus on
the level of grammar.
Hope that is somewhat more clear.
Judy
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Judy Diamondstone
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 5:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Lenses" that use grammar
Bill, I like your discussion of "levels" as lenses. I wonder, though, if
something other than "levels" is operating as "lenses" in your discussion of
pragmatics.
Somehow, mode and media sit 'side by side' for me, rather than as a
heirarchy. Also, rhetorical aim/ purpose, is _interrelated_ with questions
of modality and media, and they're all very much affected by the context, of
course.
If I am reporting to a scientific audience, my report will most likely be
descriptive and explanatory; persuasive strategies will be "hidden" in the
conventions of scientific report, although they would be more evident in an
oral presentation (for instance in paralinguistic signals) than in a written
article.
I see grammar as responsive to all of these: purpose, mode, and media.
Content/form/texture are inseparable when we're concerned with style....
What do you think?
Judy
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of William J. McCleary
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 1:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: "Lenses" that use grammar
In a couple of recent posts, Craig Hancock mentioned various "lenses"
through which to look at discourse, and Bob Yates said that the particular
lenses Craig mentioned had nothing to do with grammar.
That got me to thinking of lenses and how grammar does affect not only what
we see in discourse but how we define and explain what we see. Discourse,
as you know, consists of several aspects that can be considered levels and
therefore can be arranged in a hierarchy, with the higher levels
controlling how the lower levels are used. All of these levels exist
simultaneously in discourse, and they interact. However, each level can be
isolated somewhat and used as a lens to give us enlightenment as to how
discourse works.
In the scheme I use (which I did not invent) there are four main levels to
discourse: context, pragmatics, semantics, and code (grammar). The bottom
level, as you know, is usually seen as being made up of phonemics,
morphemics, and syntax. And you also know how syntax and morphemics control
which allophones are used and how syntax can control which morphemes, such
as suffixes, are used.
Let's consider, then, the three levels of pragmatics and their effects on
the grammar of the discourse. The three levels of the scheme I'm using are,
from top down, rhetorical aims, rhetorical modes and arts/media. And in
pragmatics, grammar is affected primarily by that aspect called style.
On the level of rhetorical aims, think of the stylistic differences between
the persuasive and informative aims. For example, three traditional
characteristics of persuasive style are clarity, brevity, and
impressiveness. These characteristics require active verbs, uncomplicated
syntax, rhythm, repetition of syntactic structures, and so on. By contrast,
the style of information is not required to have any of the three
characteristics of persuasion. Your editor will appreciate anything you can
do to make information clear, brief, and impressive, but the need for
informative writing to be unbiased and to reflect accurately the reality
being written about often militates against it.
On the level of rhetorical mode, consider the differences between narration
and discription. For example, active verbs predominate in narration, while
description will probably have a large proportion of linking verbs (and
even its grammatically active verbs may not be very semantically active.)
Finally, consider the level of arts/medium and remember how difficult it is
to listen to a convention "speaker" read aloud a paper meant for
publication in a journal. Not only is the grammar of writing different from
the grammar of speaking, but the grammar of a mass written medium like a
newspaper is different from that of a limited-readership publication such
as a journal.
In sum, then, as we look through the lenses of these three levels,
analyzing the grammar of the language being used gives us an insight into
the variations within the level and what a writer or speaker should do to
be effective. Anyone who cannot analyze grammar is limited in what he or
she can "see" through the lens.
Bill
William J. McCleary
Livonia, NY
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
