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/