Have We Come Full Circle Yet? Closure, Psycholinguistics, and Problems of Recognition with the Inclusio
Literature communicates its own structure to an audience with linguistic devices that discourse analysts call boundary markers. Boundary markers are linguistic cues that signal the structural borders within a discourse and at its outer limits. The literary question of closure, that is, how a poem en...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Sage
2006
|
| In: |
Journal for the study of the Old Testament
Year: 2006, Volume: 30, Issue: 4, Pages: 475-505 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Literature communicates its own structure to an audience with linguistic devices that discourse analysts call boundary markers. Boundary markers are linguistic cues that signal the structural borders within a discourse and at its outer limits. The literary question of closure, that is, how a poem ends, is directly dependent upon such linguistic signals. The inclusion, a structural convention whereby the opening of a poem is repeated at the end as in Psalm 8, is an obvious example of a boundary marker. Biblical scholars enjoy identifying inclusios but many so-called examples are less than obvious. These are problematic and beg the question: What makes an inclusion recognizable? Discourse-analytic studies of language, memory, and recognition provide an important and effective answer. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1476-6728 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the Old Testament
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/0309089206066317 |