Towards an analysis of discourse 5any subordinate clauses, but there are certain closed classes where we can
specify almost all the possible realizations which consist of single words or
groups.
There is a similar overlap at the top of the discourse scale with pedagogical
structures and we have been constantly aware of the danger of creating a
rank for which there is only pedagogical evidence. We have deliberately
chosen lesson, a word specific to the particular language situation we are
investigating, as the label for the top rank. We feel fairly certain that the
four lower ranks will be present in other discourses; the fifth may also be,
in which case, once we have studied comparative data, we will use the more
general label interaction.
We see the level of discourse as lying between the levels of grammar and
non-linguistic organization. There is no need to suppose a one-to-one
correspondence of units between levels; the levels of phonology and grammar
overlap considerably, but have only broad general correspondence. We see
the top of our discourse scale, lesson, corresponding roughly to the rank
period in the non-linguistic level, and the bottom of our scale, act, corresponding
roughly to the clause complex in grammar.
SUMMARY OF THE SYSTEM OF ANALYSIS
This research has been very much text-based. We began with very few
preconceptions and the descriptive system has grown and been modified
to cope with problems thrown up by the data. The system we have produced
is hierarchical and our method of presentation is closely modelled on
Halliday’s ‘Categories of a theory of grammar’. All the terms used, structure,
system, rank, level, delicacy, realization, marked, unmarked, are Halliday’s.
To permit readers to gain an overall impression, the whole system is first
presented at primary delicacy and then given a much more discursive
treatment.
Levels and ranks