1887
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines the linguistic realization of continuative discourse relations in British English written discourse comparing narrative and argumentative dyadically edited texts. The data comprise 18 co-edited texts and metadata documenting the editing process (keystroke logs and transcripts of the dyads negotiating discursive well-formedness). The focus of analysis lies on the linguistic realization of coordinating and , which keep the discourse on the same level, and on the linguistic realization of subordinating and , which introduce a deeper level in the discourse hierarchy. Special attention is paid to contexts in which the discourse relations are encoded in intra-clausal coherence strands, and to contexts in which they are additionally signalled in the peripheries. The quantitative analysis of the signalling of continuative discourse relations shows genre-specific preferences for the signalling of and in the argumentative data, and , and in the narrative data. Both the products of the edited data, the co-edited texts, and the metadata show that the linguistic realization and interpretation of continuative discourse relations are – to varying degrees – subject to recontextualization. We suggest that this variation provides evidence for (1) discourse relations as constitutive parts of discourse grammar, and (2) genre as a blueprint which constrains their linguistic realization.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22010.fet
2023-01-30
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
    2003Logics of conversation. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Asr, Fatemeh Torabi & Vera Demberg
    2012 Implicitness of discourse relations. InMartin Kay & Christian Boitet (eds.), Proceedings of COLING 2012: Technical papers, 2669–2684. Mumbai, India: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bellos, David
    2013 The solitary monoglots. The Guardian, 19 August 2013, p.23.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Benamara Zitoune, Farah & Maite Taboada
    2015 Mapping different rhetorical relation annotations: A proposal. InMartha Palmer, Gemma Boleda & Paolo Rosso (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (SEM 2015), 147–152. Denver, CO: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/S15‑1016
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S15-1016 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bublitz, Wolfram & Uta Lenk
    1999 Disturbed coherence: ‘Fill me in’. InWolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk & Eija Ventola (eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it. Selected papers from the International Workshop on Coherence, Augsburg, 24–27 April 1997, 153–174. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.63.12bub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.12bub [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, Billy
    2013Relevance Theory. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139034104
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034104 [Google Scholar]
  7. Crible, Ludivine & Vera Demberg
    2020 When do we leave discourse relations underspecified? The effect of formality and relation type. Discours261. 10.4000/discours.10848
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.10848 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dale, Robert
    1991 Exploring the role of punctuation in the signalling of discourse structure. Proceedings of the Workshop on Text Representation and Domain Modelling: Ideas from Linguistics and AI, 110–120. Berlin: Technical University of Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Das, Debopam & Markus Egg
    2023 Continuity in discourse relations. Functions of Language30(1). 10.1075/fol.22017.das
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22017.das [Google Scholar]
  10. Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
    2018 Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes55(8). 743–770. 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2019 Multiple signals of coherence relations. Discours241. 10.4000/discours.10032
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.10032 [Google Scholar]
  12. Demberg, Vera, Merel C. J. Scholman & Fatemeh Torabi Asr
    2019 How compatible are our discourse annotation frameworks? Insights from mapping RST-DT and PDTB annotations. Dialogue & Discourse10(1). 87–135. 10.5087/dad.2019.104
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2019.104 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fetzer, Anita
    2010 Small stories in political discourse: The public self goes private. InChristian R. Hoffmann (ed.), Narrative revisited: Telling a story in the age of new media, 163–184. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.199.09fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.199.09fet [Google Scholar]
  14. 2017 Contrastive discourse relations in context: Evidence from monologic and dialogic editing tasks. InRachel Giora & Michael Haugh (eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives, 269–292. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110546095‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-015 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2018a The encoding and signalling of discourse relations in argumentative discourse: Evidence across production formats. InMaría de los Ángeles Gómez González & J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds.), The construction of discourse as verbal interaction, 13–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.296.02fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.02fet [Google Scholar]
  16. 2018b Discourse pragmatics: Communicative action meets discourse analysis. InCornelia Ilie & Neal R. Norrick (eds.), Pragmatics and its interfaces, 33–57. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.294.03fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.294.03fet [Google Scholar]
  17. Fetzer, Anita & Augustin Speyer
    2019 Discourse relations across genres and contexts: A contrastive analysis of English and German discourse. Languages in Contrast19(2). 205–231. 10.1075/lic.17006.fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17006.fet [Google Scholar]
  18. Giomi, Riccardo & Evelien Keizer
    2020 Extra-clausal constituents in Functional Discourse Grammar: Function and form. Revista da Abralin19(3). 159–185. 10.25189/rabralin.v19i3.1717
    https://doi.org/10.25189/rabralin.v19i3.1717 [Google Scholar]
  19. Givón, T.
    1993English grammar: A function-based introduction (21vols.). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.syns
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syns [Google Scholar]
  20. 2005Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.130
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.130 [Google Scholar]
  21. Grosz, Barbara J. & Candace L. Sidner
    1986 Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics12(3). 175–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gumperz, John J.
    1996 The linguistic and cultural relativity of inference. InJohn J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 374–406. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1994An introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie
    2008Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hofmockel, Carolin, Anita Fetzer & Robert M. Maier
    2017 Discourse relations: Genre-specific degrees of overtness in argumentative and narrative discourse. Argument & Computation8(2). 131–151. 10.3233/AAC‑170021
    https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-170021 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hyland, Ken
    2018Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Klumm, Matthias
    2022 The signaling of continuative and contrastive discourse relations in English argumentative discourse: Corpus-based and experimental perspectives. Discours301. 10.4000/discours.12044
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.12044 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2000Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Maier, Robert M., Carolin Hofmockel & Anita Fetzer
    2016 The negotiation of discourse relations in context: Co-constructing degrees of overtness. Intercultural Pragmatics13(1). 71–105. 10.1515/ip‑2016‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0003 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mann, William & Sandra Thompson
    1988 Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text8(3). 243–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sanders, Ted J. M.
    2005 Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. InMichel Aurnague, Myriam Bras, Anne Le Draoulec & Laure Vieu (eds.), Proceedings/Actes SEM-05: First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning, 105–114. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sanders, Ted J. M., Vera Demberg, Jet Hoek, Merel C. J. Scholman, Fatemeh Torabi Asr, Sandrine Zufferey & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
    2021 Unifying dimensions in coherence relations: How various annotation frameworks are related. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory17(1). 1–71. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0078
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0078 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Taboada, Maite
    2009 Implicit and explicit coherence relations. InJan Renkema (ed.), Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies, 127–140. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.148.13tab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.148.13tab [Google Scholar]
  36. Thibault, Paul J.
    2003 Contextualization and social meaning-making practices. InSusan L. Eerdmans, Carlo L. Prevignano & Paul J. Thibault (eds.), Language and interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz, 41–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.117.05thi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.117.05thi [Google Scholar]
  37. Vande Kopple, William J.
    1985 Exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication36(1). 82–93. 10.2307/357609
    https://doi.org/10.2307/357609 [Google Scholar]
  38. Weizman, Elda & Anita Fetzer
    2021 The discursive construction of accountability for communicative action to citizens: A contrastive analysis across Israeli and British media discourse. Intercultural Pragmatics18(5). 605–632. 10.1515/ip‑2021‑5002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-5002 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22010.fet
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22010.fet
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error