Dialogue II: “A New Stratum Called Discourse Semantics”

The same seminar room, a week later. The piles of books have grown. A whiteboard now bears the heading: “DISCOURSE SEMANTICS”. Mr Blottisham stands before it, marker in hand. Professor Quillibrace and Miss Elowen Stray sit opposite.

Mr Blottisham (with satisfaction):

Now this is where things get interesting. We’ve moved beyond traditional semantics.

Miss Stray (looking at the board):

Beyond?

Blottisham:

Yes — to discourse semantics. A new stratum. Above lexicogrammar. This is where meaning really gets organised.

Professor Quillibrace (mildly):

I see.

Blottisham (writing briskly):

Identification. Ideation. Negotiation. Connexion. These are not grammatical systems — they operate at the level of discourse.

Miss Stray:

They sound familiar.

Blottisham (smiling):

Of course they do. But now they’re properly theorised.

Quillibrace:

May I ask what work this stratum does that semantics did not already do?

Blottisham (without hesitation):

It accounts for how texts hang together. How participants track entities. How exchanges are negotiated across stretches of discourse.

Quillibrace:

So cohesion, reference, and speech function.

Blottisham (irritated):

Not reference — identification. And not speech function — negotiation. These are different systems.

Miss Stray:

Different how?

Blottisham:

They’re discourse-level. Semantic.

Quillibrace:

Semantic in what sense?

Blottisham:

In the sense that they make meaning.

(A brief silence.)

Quillibrace:

They made meaning before as well.

Blottisham:

But not explicitly. Not as a stratum in their own right.

Miss Stray (slowly):

So the difference is where they’re placed in the architecture… not what phenomena they describe?

Blottisham:

Exactly. Placement matters.

Quillibrace:

Indeed it does.

(He gestures gently to the board.)

Quillibrace:

What kind of symbolic abstraction distinguishes this stratum from semantics?

Blottisham:

It’s more discourse-oriented.

Quillibrace:

That is an orientation, not an abstraction.

Miss Stray (frowning):

If discourse semantics is a different stratum, shouldn’t it do a different kind of work — not just describe a different domain?

Blottisham:

You’re thinking too rigidly. Systems can be reorganised.

Quillibrace:

Reorganised, yes. But reorganisation is not the same as stratification.

Blottisham (defensive):

This is progress. We’ve taken insights that were scattered across grammar and cohesion and given them a proper theoretical home.

Miss Stray:

By renaming them?

Blottisham:

By refining them.

Quillibrace:

Refinement normally sharpens distinctions. Does this refinement distinguish discourse semantics from semantics — or does it absorb semantics under a new name?

(Blottisham hesitates.)

Blottisham:

You’re missing the point. The field has moved on.

Miss Stray (quietly):

Moved on from what?

Blottisham:

From an outdated architecture.

Quillibrace:

Or from an architecture that constrained where novelty could appear.

(Miss Stray looks again at the board. The headings now seem heavier.)

Miss Stray:

If the semantic stratum is renamed and repopulated, then calling it a new stratum doesn’t extend the architecture — it just relocates ownership.

Blottisham (firmly):

Theory needs names.

Quillibrace (pleasantly):

Yes. And names need work to do.

Mr Blottisham caps the marker with a decisive click. Professor Quillibrace makes a small note. Miss Stray remains staring at the whiteboard.