DA Vs Pragmatics

[Thomas Bloor]

OK. I should have checked before rashly misremembering (even though I
hedged) the limits Levinson places on DA. Sorry for that. I did make the
point that this was written 17 years ago, but I remember thinking  at the
time that his definition was a very narrow one and it was. I apologise if I
made the claim too strongly.

However, I think he is wrong (and was at the time) in his claim that the
concept 'rule' was central to DA: "..(DA) employs both the methodology and
the kinds of theoretical principles and primitive concepts (e.g. rule and
well-formed formula) typical of linguistics. It is essentially a series of
attempts to extend the techniques so successful in linguistics, beyond the
unit of the sentence." (Levinson 1983: 286).

 De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), in a key early textbook, emphasise that
text linguistics deals in tendencies rather than rules:
 "We should work to discover regularities, strategies, motivations,
preferences, and defaults rather than rules and laws. Dominances can offer
more strict realistic classifications than can strict categories.
Acceptability and appropriateness are more essential than grammaticality
and well-formedness. Human reasoning processes are more essential to using
and conveying knowledge in texts than are logical proofs." (De Beaugrande
and Dressler 1981 pxiv - xv).
This title is in Levinson's bibliography.

Especially given the dominance of Chomskyan 'rules' in linguistics at the
time, the discrepancy between Levinson's and De Beaugrande and Dressler's
comments could not be much clearer. Obviously, there was some sort of basis
for Levinson's perception at the time; some people were talking about text
grammars and such, but that was only a part of the scene.

Don't get me wrong;  some decades ago I was briefly a student of Levinson's
and I have the greatest respect for his work; I think that _Pragmatics_ is
a classic, and I always have my students read it. I just didn't want
someone looking to it as a reliable guide to the difference between DA and
pragmatics (especially now); it's hardly a central issue in Levinson 1983,
anyway. I generally try to stay out of demarcation disputes of this kind as
I don't believe they are very profitable, but I think it is generally
better to err on the side of inclusion than exclusion.

Tom Bloor


>"Discourse analysis" has never been a label for a unified approach to the
>study of social interaction. Nevertheless, at the time that Levinson wrote
>his book, most of what was being done, aside from conversation analysis, fit
>his description of "discourse analysis." Clearly things have changed, as I
>learned the last time I discussed this with Jonathon Potter on the languse
>list (or was it "ethno"?)--"discourse analysis" has now become synonymous
>with "social interaction analysis" (i.e., the designation of a field) for
>many people out there. But Levinson can't be criticized for not having
>guessed the direction the term would take.
>
>BTW, Levinson did NOT equate discourse analysis with the Birmingham school,
>but with a variety of schools (the text grammarians and several, like the
>Birmingham school, that were heavily influenced by speech act theory).
>Further, I don't see how his critique of discourse analysis cannot be
>applied to those scholars and schools to which he intended it to apply. If
>it does not fit, I'd love to hear, in some convincing amount of detail, how
>it doesn't.
>
>Christian Nelson
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Thomas Bloor <T.Bloor at ASTON.AC.UK>
>To: <DISCOURS at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
>Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 6:45 PM
>Subject: Re: DA Vs Pragmatics
>
>
>> Dominique
>>
>> Re Steve Levinson's 'Pragmatics'; it has often been suggested that he
>> presents a misleading distinction between discourse analysis and
>> pragmatics. Although I admire Levinson's book greatly, I fully endorse
>this
>> assessment. He sets very narrow limits for what he considers to be DA and,
>> if I remember correctly, seems to equate it almost exclusively and very
>> mistakenly with the Birmingham (Sinclair/Coulthard) model; also, I have
>> doubts about his internal evaluation of this model itself. Of course, it
>> was published 17 years ago and a lot has happened in DA since then, but I
>> think that even at the time, Steve got this wrong. (Read the book, though.
>> It is excellent on many issues.)
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> >  Hi Gisela (Redeker) and Elisabeth (Traugott),
>> >
>> >many thanks for your answer (Gisela) and reflexion (both of you) on the
>> >relation between Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics; as I'm just doing a
>> >Master's Degree in Applied Linguistics, I don't have as much knowledge as
>> >both of you about this topic, but I have a deep interest. I will keep
>> >these comments and reflexions in my PC files for further references.
>> >As Gisela suggested me, I could find an answer to my question in
>> >"Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
>> >Chapter 6".
>> >I'm also going to visit again Teun's home page and look for what you tell
>> >me, Gisela.
>> >
>> >
>> >Regards
>> >
>> >Dominique
>>
>>
>> Thomas Bloor
>> Language Studies Unit
>> Aston University
>> Birmingham, UK
>> B4 7ET
>>
>> Phone:0121 359 3611 xt 4212/4236
>> Fax:0121 359 2725
>>

Thomas Bloor
Language Studies Unit
Aston University
Birmingham, UK
B4 7ET

Phone:0121 359 3611 xt 4212/4236
Fax:0121 359 2725