|
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249712802
Discourse, grammar, discourse
Article in Discourse Studies · February 2009
DOI: 10.1177/1461445608098496
1 author:
Mira Ariel
Tel Aviv University
59 PUBLICATIONS 3,128 CITATIONS
All content following this page was uploaded by Mira Ariel on 27 April 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Discourse Studies
http://dis.sagepub.com/
Discourse, grammar, discourse
Mira Ariel
Discourse Studies 2009 11: 5 DOI: 10.1177/1461445608098496
The online version of this article can be found at: http://dis.sagepub.com/content/11/1/5
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Discourse Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://dis.sagepub.com/content/11/1/5.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Feb 16, 2009 What is This?
Ariel: Discourse, grammar, discourse
ARTICLE
Discourse, grammar, discourse
MIRA ARIEL
TE L AVIV U N IVERSITY , ISR AEL
5
Discourse Studies Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC) www.sagepublications.com
Vol 11(1): 5–36 10.1177/1461445608098496
ABS T R A CT Discourse and grammar often complement each other, each imposing a different set of constraints on speakers’ utterances. Discourse constraints are global, pertaining to text coherence, and/or to interpersonal relations. Grammatical constraints are local, pertaining to possible versus impossible structures (within specific languages). Yet, the two must meet
in natural discourse. At every point during interaction speakers must simultaneously satisfy both types of constraints in order to communicate properly. It is also during conversational interaction that language change somehow takes place. This overview first explains and exemplifies how discourse constraints guide addressees in selecting specific grammatical forms at different points in the interaction (discourse ‘selecting’ from grammar).
It then examines the relationship between discourse and grammar from a grammaticization point of view, demonstrating how a subset of discourse patterns (may) turn grammatical (grammar ‘selecting’ from discourse). The central theme is then that discourse depends on grammar, which in turn depends on discourse.
KEY WORDS : accessibility, arbitrariness, discourse, frequency, grammar, grammaticization
Discourse and grammar often seem to be two very different facets of human communication. Grammar specifies a set of language-specific codes, typically restricted to sentence-level units. It guides speakers on how to properly con- struct sentences, which are then joined together by a completely different set of (discourse) principles into a coherent piece of discourse. Discourse is the product of the use of grammar in particular natural contexts. It typically comprises a stretch of utterances (mostly sentences) which are organized in a non-random fashion. The principles informing discourse construction (such as relevance) are global and not specifically linguistic (Giora, 1985; Grice, 1989; Mann and
6 Discourse Studies 11(1)
Thompson, 1988; Sperber and Wilson, 1986/1995; Van Dijk, 1977). It would seem that discourse simply picks up where grammar leaves off, and if so, gram- mar and discourse complement each other, and there’s no interesting relation- ship between them. The thrust of this overview of the grammar/discourse relationship is that discourse and grammar are very much part of one system of linguistic behavior, and just like horse and carriage, they definitely go together. ‘Usage feeds into the creation of grammar just as much as grammar determines the shape of usage’ (Bybee, 2006: 730). Discourse cannot but reflect grammar: it contains only, or virtually only, grammatical language products. At the same time, discourse makes a selective use of grammar, choosing just those gram- matical forms which suit the specific discourse goals of the speaker. Grammar too reflects discourse: ‘Grammar codes (best) what speakers do most [in discourse]’ (Du Bois, 1987). It also makes a selective use of discourse, ‘choosing’ some but not other discourse patterns for grammaticization. In other words, the claim is that there’s constant feedback between grammar and discourse, each of them simultaneously taking the active role of the horse, as well as the passive role of the carriage.1
Most of this overview is devoted to the relationship between grammar and discourse taken as two sets of different, though interacting linguistic behaviors. Section 2 supports the idea that the linguistic patterns we find in natural dis- course reflect a highly selective use of grammar, and section 3 supports the idea that grammaticization, the process which leads to the creation of grammar, turns a select subset of discourse patterns into a (future) grammar. In view of these findings, we raise the question of the arbitrariness of grammar (section 4). But we start off with a few examples demonstrating that grammar is not necessarily restricted to the sentence level, and discourse principles are not neces- sarily restricted to stretches larger than the sentence (section 1). In other words, some regularities cross-cut the sentence/discourse divide.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
