Discourse Analysis Tool

I use and appreciate the Discourse Analysis resources available in Logos. How about a graphical Discourse Analysis tool so we can diagram, analyze and document passages ourselves (applying what we learn from the resources) - maybe like BibleArc.com? I like BibleArc.com's basic set of tags and the ability to add my own. The tutorials and other resources to help learn and refine your skills is also very good. (Is there a partnership opportunity here?)

This should be in addition to the needed graphical sentence diagramming function yet to be added to Logos4.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rich DeRuiter

I use and appreciate the Discourse Analysis resources available in Logos.

I've been trying to figure out why people like this so much. Could you tell me?

All I see is the obvious displayed in sometimes obtuse, but most decipherable, terms.

I'm not trying to be obstinate, I really do want to understand what you find helpful about this.

Steve Sando

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52646#Comment_52646

Richard, I'll throw in my two cents worth.

In the software world I used to think if I drew a picture of the architecture and then just gave it to engineers they would understand it all. After years of living under that misconception I finally figured out that the act of drawing the diagram in front of them on a white board is when communication and understanding happened.

In other words, the value is in interacting with a piece of text or a concept. The more forms of interaction - the better the level of understanding. The value is not in the final picture, it is in the act of building the diagram. Therefore, the best diagramming format is the one you enjoy using.

That's why looking at someone else's diagram isn't nearly as beneficial as building one. I believe that's what Tim is after, rather than reviewing the existing ones.

FWIW

davidphillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52692#Comment_52692

In other words, the value is in interacting with a piece of text or a concept.

Agreed! The pre-existing diagrams are helpful when I am working through my own diagramming and analysis of a passage. Sometimes I have a question about syntax I am wrestling with and these resources are just one additional place to look at for insight.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52692#Comment_52692

That's why looking at someone else's diagram isn't nearly as beneficial as building one. I believe that's what Tim is after, rather than reviewing the existing ones.

I don't question the validity of building one's own diagram. Really. Go for it. I hope Logos will build a tool to make this happen in L4.

What I'm wondering about is the value of the Discourse Analysis diagrams. I've asked this in other places and have yet to hear an answer that makes me understand what it is about this resource that some people like so much. So I'm asking again.

Maybe it's not the best place to ask, but I figured that someone who likes this tool can help me understand why they like it. So I'm capitalizing on the opportunity to further my understanding.

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52718#Comment_52718

What I'm wondering about is the value of the Discourse Analysis diagrams. I've asked this in other places and have yet to hear an answer that makes me understand what it is about this resource that some people like so much.

I assume we're talking about the Lexham Discourse Greek NT and its English counterpart, the High Definition NT. To me, the value of these resources is that they provide deeper understanding of an important but largely invisible aspect of the text itself, complementary to lexical study, morphological analysis, or syntax. If you're not a Greek scholar (i'm not), what the discourse structure is signaling is often obscured by English translations, which have the thankless task of finding the right compromise between being faithful to the original text, readable, good for reading out loud, not too many unfamiliar words, etc. So looking at the discourse structure helps you understand what's given special emphasis, how things are introduced to frame an argument or make a point, which parts of the text are coordinated, etc.

If you've studied the Biblical text enough, and particularly if you also know Greek, you probably already know and take for granted much of this information. But not everyone has had this experience, and making it explicit can help you think differently about the meaning of the text.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52777#Comment_52777

If you've studied the Biblical text enough, and particularly if you also know Greek, you probably already know and take for granted much of this information. But not everyone has had this experience, and making it explicit can help you think differently about the meaning of the text.

Thanks Sean. Maybe that's why I've not found it that helpful: I study the passage in Greek and catch much of this already. I do understand about translation glossing, which is why original language work can be so helpful (especially with some of those long Pauline sentences!).

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52778#Comment_52778

Rich,

there is a video and some commentary on Steve Runges blog about that particular thing; "why do I care about discourse analysis?"

It was revealing...

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52883#Comment_52883

Rich,

there is a video and some commentary on Steve Runges blog about that particular thing; "why do I care about discourse analysis?"

It was revealing...

I remember looking at something from him a few months ago. But when I went to look at the resource, it didn't seem to do what was promised. In fact, the way I had looked at the structure and discourse clues in the text, I saw glossed over, if not ignored by the HDNT (but not by some commentators I was reading). I was quite disappointed. A lot of promise, but short on delivery, was what I felt.

But I want to be open to the idea that I was just looking at something besides the discourse structure when I made my assessment. Maybe I'm blind and need my eyes open.

When I open the resource I just see the obvious. What should I be looking for?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52899#Comment_52899

When I open the resource I just see the obvious. What should I be looking for?

I am going to deliberately put my foot in mouth. It is my observation that each generation of graduate students have their own "in method" - structuralism in my generation, post-modern/semiotics following at our heels, reader-response at bit later up to discourse analysis. Each "in method" has the traits of (a) being able to be understood by your old method advisor and (b) bring a new aspect into focus so you believe that the dissertation is worth doing. From this slightly cynical perspective, I've come to believe that any method that forces a close reading of the text is beneficial, especially if it forces you to explore/consider aspects you would likely have glossed over.

An apparent unrelated jump: I was recently reading a book on exegesis that ran through the history in one chapter. I was brought to a stop while I decided whether to laugh or cry as the author explained how the church went astray forgetting the importance of grammar and syntax replacing it with "allegory" ... it was my impression that grammar and syntax were dropped as an area of research because it had been mined as deeply as possible and the gloss was sitting in the margins of the text. [Mind you, I do have great fun with some of the excesses of allegorical and typological interpretation.]

Back to discourse analysis, the issue that I think needs to be kept in mind is how do we encourage the critical wrestling with the discourse structure without requiring expertise in discourse analysis. For many, that is by providing a proposed structure to understand, accept or reject. Depending upon your training this may be a trivial or a complex process.

As in the early universities, computers have put much of grammar and textual analysis in the "its in the marginalia" mode. Structuralism, semiotics, post-modernism, boundary criticism, discourse analysis, ... are our new "allegoryism" Methods that clearly provide insights often obscured in previous methods but methods with the potential to create new areas of extremes.

Now I will try to close my yard mouth - a mouth with 3 feet in it.[:D]

Russ Quinn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52718#Comment_52718

What I'm wondering about is the value of the Discourse Analysis diagrams. I've asked this in other places and have yet to hear an answer that makes me understand what it is about this resource that some people like so much. So I'm asking again.

Richard,

The value of Discourse Analysis tools lie in their focus on larger units of text. Whereas morphology is primarily concerned about individual words and syntax is concerned with the relationship of words to other words in clauses and sentences, Discourse Analysis is concerned with the relationship of sentences to paragraphs and paragraphs to the discourse as a whole.

The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament in Logos utilizes linguistic terminology. This tool takes a bit of extra study to appreciate. You might find the following sources helpful for background:

Reed, Jeffrey T, "Discourse Analysis" in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament edited by Stanley Porter, 188-217.
Watson, D. F. "Structuralism and Discourse Analysis" in Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments.

The tools available on biblearc.com are a bit different. The best explanations of arcing are found on that web site and in Tom Schreiner's book Interpreting the Pauline Epistles. I find arcing very valuable because it focuses on the logical relationships between propositions. It's categories are less technical than the categories in the Lexham resource. I was privileged to have two doctoral seminars with Dr. Schreiner on the Greek text of Romans and Galatians. In his seminars, we were required to answer any morphological or syntactical questions as well as diagram sentences and do the arc diagrams for any text in those books without helps. I view the arc diagrams as the final (and possibly most helpful) stage of a full exegetical analysis of a text.

I hope that Logos will go beyond sentence diagramming and add arcing tools that integrate with biblearc.com. In my experience this stage of exegesis has been the most fruitful in really understanding the argument of the biblical author.

Russ Quinn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/53657#Comment_53657

I hope that Logos will go beyond sentence diagramming and add arcing tools that integrate with biblearc.com.

Or, I should say, tools that allow relationships between units of text to be shown graphically.

I would prefer to be able to customize the relationships with the categories proposed by Schreiner and arcbible.com as options.

I also think there are probably better ways to graphically represent the relationships than arcs. Although it would be helpful to a lot of students for these to be an option.