94 that it demands that the exegete attend as closely to the peculiarities of the text as to its
similarities” Longman 1996, 143. The text-types posited by Longacre allow for greater precision than the two-way
distinction that Niccacci makes between narrative and discourse. For Niccacci, the basic division in biblical Hebrew is between the narrative framework and reported speech using
the terms narrative and discourse for these two text-types Niccacci 1994, 119. This is an important distinction, but within these two major types, further classification is
necessary. The concept of fluidity allows for the shifts from one type to another— sometimes subtle and other times more obvious—that are used as rhetorical strategies in
the communicative development of the text. The model implemented here takes a position between Niccacci and Longacre. The narrative-discourse distinction of Niccacci
is significant, but needs greater sensitivity to text types. Longacre’s model also has its merits, but needs to be applied fluidly.
In the present analysis, an awareness of text-type is fundamental. There is undoubtedly a crucial distinction between the two types which Niccacci refers to as
narrative and discourse, but the terms preferred here are narrative and reported speech. More important than the actual terms, however, is sensitivity to the text’s transitions and
movements which can affect the grammatical and syntactic realization of the text.
5.2.4.2 Cohesion and Coherence
A fundamental principle in all discourse-pragmatic analysis is that both cohesion and coherence are features of all spoken or written communication. Cohesion refers to
the way in which the communication itself reflects syntactic and semantic
95 “connectedness.” This may vary in degree from one text to another, but the assumption
is that all communication seeks cohesion. Languages have a variety of mechanisms at their disposal for building cohesion into the text and this needs to be carefully evaluated
for each language being studied. Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesion in English was the first monograph to deal with the cohesive mechanisms of English, exploring the “semantic
resources which are drawn upon for the purpose of creating text” Halliday and Hasan 1976, 10. Cohesion is assumed to be operative in every language even though the
language-particular mechanisms may vary. Berlin’s article “Lexical Cohesion and Biblical Interpretation” explores some of the mechanisms employed in the biblical
Hebrew text Berlin 1989, 29-39. The notion of cohesion is crucial to the analysis of
. Anaphora backward reference and cataphora forward reference are cohesive devices. One of the issues in
the analysis of is whether the connection is to what precedes or what follows see
question 1 in 4.1.5. Further discussion specifically regarding is suspended,
however, until Chapter 10. Coherence, on the other hand, is the connection of the text or communication with
the world in which language is used. A text is coherent to the degree that it appropriately reflects the world in which the text is produced. Perceptions of coherence may vary
depending on the worldview underlying the text. In other words, awareness of the role worldview can play in shaping a text is foundational. Even though there may be
incongruences with the analyst’s own worldview, coherence is assumed. This is not a mere assumption of textual integrity because it is the biblical text; coherence is a
96 characteristic of human communication. The assumption of
coherence in communication is cognitively parallel to the mental process used to interpret the “fuzzy” images reprinted
here Churchland 1996, 110-12. When normal communication takes place between members of the same
speech community, coherence is based on the speakers’ shared rules. When communication involves another
language, there is great potential for mismatch of rules. The communication is produced through one set of rules and interpreted through another. The
attempt to interpret is the mind’s search for coherence in spite of the fuzzy edges resulting from the mismatch of rules.
One of the reasons why the study of a language’s cohesive devices is so
important is that they are one of the primary means by which proper
interpretation of the text takes place. In cross-linguistic communication, the
fuzzy edges will be filled in by the interpreter’s own linguistic system. In the illustrations above, the gaps or fuzzy edges are
filled in by the mind based on perceptions of the real world. Similarly, in fuzzy communication the mind fills in the gaps with the knowledge the interpreter brings to the
text.
Illustration 2: Picture of a dalmatian dog sniffing the ground, approaching a
tree in a park. Illustration 1: Don Quixote
figure, riding a horse.
97
5.2.4.3 Context-Sensitivity
