Defining discourse

[zmaalej]

Dear all,

I would like to contribute selectively to this discussion as any one single
question could be subject-matter of a dissertation.

As a metaphorist myself, I liked Michelle Kells's metaphor of discourse
making and processing as "shuttling and toggling." However, the linguist in
me aspires for a more palpable, scientific?, thoughtful view. Leaving
historical discourse developments aside, I believe that Schiffrin (1994)
offers one of the most defensible views of discourse. Bridging the gulf
between the formalists' view of discourse as sentences and the
functionalists' focus on language use , Schiffrin (39) proposes a view of
discourse as utterances(although I am not convinced that this is a
reconciliation of formalism and functionalism). Utterances, of course,
should be conceived of as in pragmatic theory (in the sense developed by
Eggert rather than that of McComiskey). To corroborate Eggert's view of
utterances, I would say that length, syntax and medium are not criteria that
constrain utterances (for a distinction between sentence and utterance, see
e.g. Levinson's _Pragmatics_ (1980)).
    Such a view of discourse as developed by Schiffrin will allow for talk
about a host of collocations across registers (in Halliday's sense of field,
mode and tenor) such as spoken discourse, written discourse, political
discourse, economic discourse, legal discourse, promotional discourse,
literary discourse (although this type is peculiar, see e.g. Searle's "The
Logical Status of Fictional Discourse" (1975), _Pratt's Toward a Speech Act
Theory of Literary Discourse_ (1977), Pratt & Traugott's _Linguistics for
Students of Literature_ (1980)), etc.
    Notice that I have deliberately avoided talking about a definition of
discourse. Is a definition desirable? Would a definition be possible in the
presence of an ever-increasing number of discourse-as-utterance discourses?
Would a definition be useful in the light of this diversity of discourses,
which show adopt different moves, strategies, plans, goals, etc.? What plus
would such a definition give to DISCOURSE? I think that DISCOURSE is
utterances, and the the subfields of DISCOURSE define themselves according
to registers, moves, goals, methodologies, etc.

Zouhair

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Bucholtz <bucholtz at TAMU.EDU>
To: DISCOURS at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu <DISCOURS at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu>
Date: 25 ÌÇäÝííå, 1999 3:57
Subject: Defining discourse


>As promised, and in the hopes of finding common ground--or at least
>fruitful connections--in the vast interdisciplinarity of the list, we're
>sending out our first topic for discussion:
>
>What is discourse? What definition(s) do you find useful, and what
>definitions seem unhelpful or off the mark? What frameworks or theories
>inform your definition?  Alternatively, do you feel that defining discourse
>is pointless, wrong-headed, detrimental (as Paul Bove suggests in his
>chapter on discourse in *Critical Terms for Literary Study,* Univ. of
>Chicago Press, 1995)? If so, what other approach would you advocate?
>
>We're looking forward to a range of responses from numerous disciplinary
>(and interdisciplinary) perspectives.
>
>The listowners
>
>Mary Bucholtz
>James Cornish
>Chris Holcomb
>Marty Jacobsen
>