1887
Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of the linguistic realization of discourse relations across and within English and German discourse, comparing the genres of newspaper editorial and personal narrative. It concentrates on Continuation, Narration and Contrast, and Elaboration, Explanation and Comment. Particular attention is given to (1) their overt realization with textual themes and pragmatic word order, and (2) the (non)adjacent positioning of discourse units realizing the relations. The methodological framework is an integrated one, supplementing Systemic Functional Grammar with Segmented Discourse Representation Theory. In the English and German narratives, there is a strong tendency to realize discourse relations overtly. The overall overt realization is significantly higher for narratives in both languages with editorials being significantly less overt. There are also significant differences in the overt realization of non-adjacently positioned units realizing discourse relations with significant distributions in all cases, although the distribution in the narratives is less significant.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.17006.fet
2018-11-01
2019-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K.
    (ed.) 2009Contrastive Pragmatics. Special Issue ofLanguages in Contrast9(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, K. and Lewis, D.
    (eds) 2017Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-Pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑54556‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54556-1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Asher, N. and Lascarides, A.
    2003Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Behrens, B., Fabricius-Hansen, C. and Solfjeld, K.
    2012 Competing Structures. The Discourse Perspective. InBig Events, Small Clauses. The Grammar of Elaboration, C. Fabricius-Hansen and D. Haug (eds), 179–225, Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chesterman, A.
    1998Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.47 [Google Scholar]
  6. De Beaugrande, R. and Dressler, W.
    1981Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111349305
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111349305 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dürscheid, C.
    1989Zur Vorfeldbesetzung in deutschen Verbzweit-Strukturen. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fabricius-Hansen, C. and Ramm, W.
    2008 Editors’ Introduction. In‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’ in Sentence and Text, C. Fabricius-Hansen and W. Ramm (eds), 1–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fabricius-Hansen, C. and Haug, D.
    (eds) 2012Big Events, Small Clauses. The Grammar of Elaboration. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110285864
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110285864 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fetzer, A.
    2008 Theme Zones in English Media Discourse. Forms and Functions. Journal of Pragmatics40(9): 1543–1568. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.016 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2009 Challenges in Contrast. Languages in Contrast9(1): 73–97. 10.1075/lic.9.1.05fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.9.1.05fet [Google Scholar]
  12. 2013 Structuring of Discourse. InHandbooks of Pragmatics. The Pragmatics of Speech Actions. Vol.2, M. Sbisà and K. Turner (eds), 685–711. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214383.685
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214383.685 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2017 The Dynamics of Discourse: Quantity Meets Quality. InImplicitness: From Lexis to Discourse, P. Cap and M. Dynel (eds), 235–257. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.276.11fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.11fet [Google Scholar]
  14. 2018 The Linguistic Realisation of Contrastive Discourse Relations in Context: Contextualisation and discourse common ground. Modélisation et utilisation du contexte / Modeling and Using Context2(1): 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fetzer, A. and Speyer, A.
    2012 Discourse Relations in English and German Discourse: Local and Not-So-Local Constraints. Intercultural Pragmatics9(4): 413–452. 10.1515/ip‑2012‑0025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0025 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fries, P. H.
    1994 On Theme, Rheme and Discourse Goals. InAdvances in Written Text Analysis, M. Coulthard (ed), 229–249. Lomndon: routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gernsbacher, M. and Givón, T.
    (eds) 1995Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.31
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.31 [Google Scholar]
  18. Givón, T.
    1993English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction, 2Vols.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Grice, H. P.
    1975 Logic and Conversation. InSyntax and Semantics. Vol.III, P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1994Introduction to English Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hasan, R. and Halliday, M.
    1987Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hengeveld, K. and Mackenzie, L.
    2008Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hützen, N. and Serbina, T.
    2018 Lexical Chains and Topic Continuity in the Register of Popular Scientific Writing: German-English Contrasts. Pragmatics and Society9(1): 8–25. 10.1075/ps.16025.hut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16025.hut [Google Scholar]
  24. Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W.
    2007 Schriftlichkeit und kommunikative Distanz. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik35: 346–375. 10.1515/zgl.2007.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl.2007.024 [Google Scholar]
  25. Krzeszowski, T.
    1989 Towards a Typology of Contrastive studies. InContrastive Pragmatics, W. Oleksy (ed), 55–72. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kunz, K., Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., Lapshinova-Koltunski, E., Menzel, K. and Steiner, E.
    2017 English-German contrasts in cohesion and implications for translation. InEmpirical Translation Studies, Sutter, G., Lefer, M. and Delaere, I. (eds), 265–311. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110459586‑010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-010 [Google Scholar]
  27. Levinson, S.
    1979 Activity Types and Language. Linguistics17: 365–399. 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Maier, R. M., Hofmockel, C. and Fetzer, A.
    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]
  30. Molnár, V.
    1991Das TOPIK im Deutschen und im Ungarischen. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Preacher, K. J.
    2001 Calculation for the Chi-Square Test: An Interactive Calculation Tool for Chi-Square Tests of Goodness of Fit and Independence [Computer software]. Available fromquantpsy.org
  32. Reis, M.
    1997 Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. InSprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, C. Dürscheid, K.-H. Ramers and M. Schwarz (eds), 121–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Shaer, B. and Frey, W.
    2004 ‘Integrated’ and ‘Non-Integrated’ Left-peripheral Elements in German and English. InProceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop. ZASPiL35(2), B. Shaer, W. Frey and C. Maienborn (eds), 465–502. Berlin: ZAS.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Speyer, A.
    2009 Das Vorfeldranking und das Vorfeld-es. Linguistische Berichte219, 323–353.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Speyer, A. and Fetzer, A.
    2014 The Coding of Discourse Relations in English and German Argumentative Discourse. InThe Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence. Theories and Applications, H. Gruber and G. Redeker (eds), 87–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2018 “Well would you believe it, I have failed the exam again“: Discourse Relations in English and German Personal narratives. Pragmatics in Society9(1), 26–51. 10.1075/ps.16024.spe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16024.spe [Google Scholar]
  37. Thibault, P.
    2003 Contextualization and Social Meaning-Making Practices. InLanguage and Interaction. Discussions withJohn J. Gumperz, S. Eerdmans . (eds), 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.117.05thi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.117.05thi [Google Scholar]
  38. Thompson, G.
    2014Introduction to Functional Grammar. Third Edition. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203785270
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203785270 [Google Scholar]
  39. Widdowson, H.
    2004Text, Context, and Pretext. Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470758427
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758427 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.17006.fet
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.17006.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