Bergen’s article[1] examines various aspects within written human communication that allows the audience to accurately perceive and understand the author’s original intent. His article articulates and explains several “language-specific parameters” within linguistics which exist on a conscious and subconscious level. This type of analysis of written human communication is referred to as “discourse criticism.” Discourse criticism is especially crucial for the Biblical/theological community because theology and exegesis are utterly dependent upon the very text of the Scriptures. Bergen deals with the following three aspects of discourse criticism in his article: 1) basic assumptions of discourse criticism, 2) discourse-grammatical features which point to authorial-intended significance, and 3) a discourse-critical strategy for discerning authorial intention.
From the outset Bergen lays out that within discourse criticism there are underlying “assumptions about language” upon which this linguistic analysis is grounded. He succinctly articulates the five most basic assumptions undergirding discourse criticism. First, Bergen asserts that all parties within communication must agree upon a “set of symbols” or “code” that exude certain meaning. He refers to this mutual agreement of both parties as a “convention of significance.” The writer and the reader must come to this median in order for written communication to be effective. Second, he argues that a majority of written communication takes place on a subconscious level. Because of the vast amount of data being taken in much of the information received is processed subliminally.[2] However, Bergen rightly points out in his third assumption that although much of the data taken in is at a subliminal level, this does not decrease its importance or its contribution to communication.
His final two assumptions deal with parameters that universally guide all language codes. Genre obviously limits communication to specified realms while hierarchical organized units of language dictate the application of a language code. According to Bergen language is “multi-tiered.” The higher levels (i.e. stories, scenes, episodes, etc.) of a language text govern the lower levels (i.e. letters, vowels, words, etc.) of which they are made. Therefore, the principles that govern a language code are equally dependent upon the higher and lower levels of a language text. The pattern is cyclical for without the higher levels, the lower levels have no guidelines and therefore no significance. Likewise, the reverse is true.
Bergen proceeds to explain three discourse-grammatical features that point to authorial-intended significance: 1) order, 2) quantity, and 3) type of information. He bases these “hints” which point to authorial significance upon the “norm-deviation principle.” When any of these three categories of information deviate from their “normal” use the author is in some way signifying precedence. In his last two points Bergen gives a staggering strategy for doing proper discourse analysis and then lists the incredible benefits of such analysis.
In critique I felt Bergen beautifully summarized the art of discourse criticism. He was realistic, yet optimistic in his approach. I appreciate that from the outset he readily admitted that “discourse criticism works from a set of assumptions.” Whether one agrees with the accuracy of his presuppositions laid forth will determine their acceptance of such research. I also thought his observation of the subliminal level of human communication was insightful. So much of why we as 21st century believers have a hard time understanding the text is that we are ignorant and oblivious to the subliminal factors that even we subconsciously use in our everyday language!
A few other things to note: on pages 330-331, his fourth and fifth sub-subpoints seem to be saying the same thing, just reworded. I personally was not seeing the difference between the two? His second main point in his article was straightforward, and his third point concerning his strategy is where he nails the difficulty in discourse criticism studies. People fitting such a description are definitely “in short supply.” Lastly, I wholeheartedly agree with his three concluding thoughts concerning the potentially revolutionary ramifications of discourse analysis. By the will of the Father via the Holy Spirit such research could open up the text of Scripture in an astounding new light as never seen before in the history of the Church!
[1] Robert D. Bergen, Text as a Guide to Authorial Intention: An Introduction to Discourse Criticism, JETS, 30/3 (September 1987), 327-336.
No comments:
Post a Comment