[English Language Coursework]

by

[English Language Coursework]

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

When a new object of inquiry presents itself to an established scientific discipline, there is not likely to be any immediate consensus either about the nature of that object or about the most productive theories and methods for treating it. The scientists themselves typically fall into three groups of response. The first group denies admission to the new object of inquiry on the grounds that it is no proper concern of science, either because it lacks any systematic nature or because it falls under already established concepts of superior status. The second group is willing to admit the new object of inquiry under the proviso that current theories and methods can be extended or modified to encompass it. The third group undertakes the far more arduous task of designing new theories and methods to suit the new object of inquiry, such that its nature can be captured in the most direct and insightful fashion. Since each of the three groups is making assumptions about 'objective truth', each one tends to view its own position as the only reasonable and correct one. Consequently, the groups often 'talk right past each other', to borrow Stegmüller's (1976: 159) phrase. The three-way confrontation just descried has arisen with regard to ~admitting the lal as an object of linguistic inquiry:

Some scholars denied that texts are proper objects, since their nature equals that of super-long sentences accessible via adequate or complete sentence grammars (e.g. Katz and Fodor, 1963; Dascal and Margalit, 1974). Some scholars hoped that the prevailing transformational and logical theories could be altered to shift from sentences to texts (e.g. Petöfi, 1971;: van Dijk, 1972; Ballmer, 1975). Some scholars elected to set aside prevailing sentence theories in search of new theories more directory amenable to thee special considerations of text and discourse2 (e.g. Winograd, 1972; Norman and Rumelhart, 1975; Schank et al., 1975; Coulthard, 1977; Kintsch and van Dijk, 1978; Petöfi, 1979; Beaugrande 1980a, b; Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981).

Understandably, some linguists simply ignored the text, though non-response might legitimately be classed as a special ' kind of response. Some of this group might be genuinely unaware of the new trend; but such blissful ignorance is becoming steadily harder to maintain. The 'encroachment of text and discourse into linguistic research must be viewed in correlation with an enduring scientific crisis in the 'standard theory', at least as postulated by Chomsky (1965). Such a crisis ensues when the prevailing theory is no longer considered an adequate tool for solving research problems. There ensues a phase of extraordinary research, described by Stegmüller (1976: 144):

More and more new formulations and versions are probed. There is a willingness “to try anything.” Open expressions of discontent are heard. Foundational discussions commence, and refuge is sought in philosophy. All of these symptoms have been familiar for over a decade: new formulations such as 'generative semantics' (e.g. Lakoff, 1971); 'case grammar (e.g. Fillmore, 1968; 1977); 'stratificational grammar' (e.g. Sampson, 1970); 'relational grammar' ...