There was a Twitter exchange yesterday that apparently ended up finding a home on the web. In light of this somewhat unexpected development, I thought it might be prudent to provide “the rest of the story” regarding my comments.

If you read through my papers, articles and monograph, you will note that I never have claimed to do discourse analysis. Never. I have made reference to what it has to offer, but have been extremely meticulous about classifying myself as a grammarian rather than an analyst. Why? Because I have not DONE any discourse analysis. The exception might be when I give a reading of a passage or in the High Definition Commentary: Philippians, but the latter offers up little detail about how I arrived at my conclusions.

Discourse analysis, in my view, is the synthesis of all linguistic, rhetorical, literary, semantic or pragmatic information in a discourse into a coherent and cohesive whole. Synthesis is a key word here, with the objective being to demonstrate the cohesion of the various parts into a coherent whole. If you are not doing synthesis of parts into a coherent reading, you aren’t doing discourse analysis. This is why I have not claimed to do discourse analysis before this summer.

So what exactly have I been doing? Linguistic description of the pragmatic pieces and parts. In my view, this description is a necessary first step if one has any hopes of synthesis. If you miss some of the parts or fail to correctly understand their unique contributions, what are the consequences for your synthesis? In light of this inauspicious potential for derailment, I have focused–perhaps inordinately so–on really understanding the parts, and hopefully helping others to do so in the process.

So you might be wondering at this point if I have any interest in discourse analysis. Indeed I do. However I have known for some time that I was missing a piece in my framework that prevented me from effectively working in this area. What was it? Drawing a meaningful distinction between continuity/discontinuity and cohesion. How did I know this? Since roughly 2003 Stephen Levinsohn has been trying (rather unsuccessfully, I’m afraid to say) to help me understand this difference, but I have turned out to be a slow learner. He’d explain it and I’d give him a blank stare in response. You see, I have done my best to conflate the two as though they were the same thing, as though they described the same parameter.

Continuity and discontinuity have to do with how we break a discourse down into smaller chunks. Generally speaking, we chunk a discourse where there are changes in time, place, participants or kind of action. For instance the change in location from Lydda to Joppa in Acts 9:36 suggests a change in the story, a new chunk. Givon has claimed that there is a relationship between the number of changes there are in these parameters and the level of the break in the discourse. For example, if there is simultaneously a change in time, location and participants, chances are there is a pretty big transition in the discourse. Continuity of these factors leads to judgments of continuity in the discourse, discontinuity in one or more of these factors leads to judgments of discontinuity. So continuity has to do primarily with segmentation and chunking, determinations about what things go together and which ones don’t.

But wait, there’s more! There is another, completely separate parameter that deals entirely with how things hang together The parameter? Cohesion. It is only concerned with how things hang together. And here is where I stumbled. I thought that cohesion and continuity sounded a lot alike, and they do. However they are focused on different parameters. You see, even discontinuity adds to cohesion. Say what? Think about it. If there is a change from Lydda to Joppa in Acts 9:36, this can indeed be viewed as a discontinuity. But on the other hand, since there is a thematic link between the places, in terms of cohesion this change is actually cohesive link binding the two parts together.

Recall the definition from p. 194 of the Discourse Grammar for a frame of reference: it provides the primary basis for connecting what precedes to what follows. So although there may be a change of topic, time, location, etc, the frame of reference provides a cohesive link between the two parts. In other words, although a frame of reference represents a discontinuity, it also represents a cohesive link between what may be viewed as two disparate things. It is a cohesive bridge across the gap of discontinuity to make sure the reader successfully navigates the transition. Think about it. If there is a major discontinuity or transition in a discourse, you risk losing your reader. They might miss it or lose the bigger cohesive picture in the process. A writer needs to make sure that the reader recognizes the transition, hence frames and other devices to clearly signal the discontinuity. But if the discourse truly builds into a cohesive whole, there must still be something connecting the parts. This is where cohesion comes in, tracking those things the writer uses to help the reader make the proper connections.

Here is the kicker, the thing that I failed to grasp. The same devices that are used to mark discontinuities on the continuity/discontinuity plane also function to cohesively link the parts on the cohesion plane. They are related yet distinct planes, not to be conflated.

I gave two papers at the International Society of Biblical Literature meeting in London this summer. Questions after my first one got me thinking, but the real credit for helping me understand the error of my conflating ways goes to Dr. Cynthia Westfall of McMaster Divinity School. Her incisive questions after my second paper led to a huge “aha” moment, a long and contemplative “ohhhh” the likes of which written language cannot do justice. Lights went on, pangs of anguish struck as I realized what I had been missing.  Levinsohn spoke up right after her, further prosecuting her point.

On the train ride out of London and for the next few days, Levinsohn and I discussed cohesion in great detail. If you are looking for a tidy introduction, I’d recommend the one in Dooley and Levinsohn’s Analyzing Discourse. Only be sure not to conflate cohesion with continuity. I know the terms sound similar at face value, but in linguistics they are describing very distinct concepts. Continuity/discontinuity concerns chunking into smaller parts, cohesion describes how the parts fit into a cohesive whole.

I have always made an intentional distinction between discourse grammar and discourse analysis. I have known I was missing the boat on something important, so I avoided making claims about discourse analysis like I avoid the plague. However a great many people who have followed my research had claimed on my behalf that I am doing discourse analysis, something which I have sought to correct.

I have always viewed the grammatical description of devices as the necessary first step to any kind of analysis, hence writing Discourse Grammar. It has been my belief that once I understood what each of the pieces does, I would be in a much better place to synthesize the parts into a whole. I have also known that I failed to grasp something very important about cohesion. Thanks to Westfall and some strategies I learned from Levinsohn, I am in a much better place to venture into cohesion and full-blown discourse analysis.

This November at ETS,((Discontinuity of time and place, cohesive link between the two parts)) I’ll be participating in a panel discussion on different approaches to discourse analysis. I think it’s pretty cool that God saw fit to help me figure things out before I had to give the paper! The focus will be on the book of James, and I’ll be analyzing chapter 2. In light of this, you’ll be seeing more posts on analysis as I practice what I’ve learned. I am very thankful for having had such a great mentor for learning about the pieces, and for his persistence in pressing me about considering the whole.

And that’s the rest of the story.