[Xmca-l] Re: A methodological question

[David Kellogg]

Right, Ed. Note that there is a systemic-functional version of RST
developed by Christian Matthiessen (using "elaboration", "extension", and
"enhancement" as the main logico-semantic relations that are realized in
parataxis, hypotaxis, and embedding (these are structurally different, but
we can functionally relate them).

I've always wondered if there is something developmental going on here.
It's a grammatical expression of the genetic law, because parataxis is
easily SHARED between speakers, hypotaxis is more intra-mental, and
"embedding" is when that intra-mentality can be assumed.

The latest analysis I did showed no statistically significant change
between first graders and sixth graders in Korean schools in their
hypotaxis and parataxis, but a big change in embedding. I think one of the
reasons that Castro's speeches are so long is that when he embeds, he
unpacks with taxis. But the lack of statistical significance in taxis was
due to extreme variations within groups, dwarfing the variations between
them. The embedding was significant between groups: one of the things that
kids learn about Korean is how to embed.

Castro: "This nation has had to face the taming of not one tiger, not two
tigers, not three tigers, but the taming of 1,000 tigers."

Embedding: "of ...." is rankshifted--a noun is embedded in a noun group

Castro: "Someone once said that it was a paper tiger, and it is, from a
strategic point of view, because some day it will cease being the world's
owner."

Unpacking: "it was a paper tiger" unpacks "tiger" into a sentence
(elaboration) and then explains (enhancement)

David Kellogg
Macquarie University



On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Edward Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:

> Ulivi
>
> This is only a suggestion, but you might find rhetorical structure theory
> interesting if you want to get at embedding (there is a tool for analysis
> and some discussion: http://www.sfu.ca/rst/06tools/ )
>
> Ed
> > On Feb 9, 2017, at  3:43 PM, Ulvi İçil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear xmcas,
> >
> >
> >
> > I would like to direct to you a methodological question and to kindly
> have
> > your idea.
> >
> > I am reading Fidel Castro's speeches. They are full of critiques of
> > neoliberal globalization, capitalism and so on.
> >
> > If I would like to study those speeches in terms of the adult educational
> > aspects, elements they possess (because they are addresses to conscience
> > of the adult world, mostly Cuban people, various sections of Cuban people
> > and society) I wonder what would be the best methodology.
> >
> > For a study something like: Critical discourse in Fidel Castro's
> speeches.
> >
> > Not CDA, I suppose, because, my aim will not be looking at what lies
> behind
> > and hidden in these speeches, because they already demystify capitalism
> > etc. which means that as an analyst I have a subjectivity which is on the
> > side of Castro rather than aiming at criticizing him, I intend to make
> > visible what he criticizes in the global neoliberal world.
> >
> > Discourse analysis?
> >
> > Thinking that I intend to include into the study all the emotional,
> > spiritual elements in those speeches, with many evaluations,
> qualifications
> > like "teaching, medicine nobel professions" etc.
> >
> > Should I study something on the line like "critical discourse (embedded)
> in
> > Fidel Castro's speeches"?
> >
> > If yes, how?
> >
> > And if not, what may be the best possible methodological alternative?
> >
> > It is so interesting that while I studied the valuable works of Norman
> > Fairclough on CDA, on the critique of globalisation etc, which, for the
> > focus of study, they have, various aspects of capitalist, transnational
> > company discourse etc, I found that same critique not as an analysis,
> but,
> > itself, in Fidel Castro's public speeches, criticizing neoliberal
> > globalisation etc, so how to study Castro's speech texts?!
> >
> >
> > Thank you very much.
> >
> > Ulvi
>
>
>