1887
Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper compares the linguistic realization of coordinating and subordinating discourse relations in English and German short personal narratives, paying particular attention to the context-dependence of (1) their overt marking with discourse connectives, and (2) their adjacent and non-adjacent positioning. The analysis is based on 20 written texts collected from university students.

The use of discourse connectives with adjacently and non-adjacently positioned discourse relations is more frequent in the English data. Considering the sentence as the unit of investigation, the coordinating relations of Contrast and Result and the subordinating relation of Explanation are marked overtly throughout the English data, while coordinating Narration and Background, and subordinating Elaboration and Comment relations are marked overtly less frequently. The picture is roughly similar with clauses as units of investigation. In the German data, the use of discourse connectives is also more frequent irrespective of adjacently or non-adjacently positioned discourse relations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16024.spe
2018-03-26
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    (ed) 2009Contrastive Pragmatics. Special Issue ofLanguages in Contrast9(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, Nicholas , and Alex Lascarides
    2003Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Asher, Nicholas , and Laure Vieu
    2005 “Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations.” Lingua115: 591–610. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaugrande, Robert de , and Wolfgang Dressler
    1981Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111349305
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111349305 [Google Scholar]
  5. Berzlánovich, Ildikó , and Gisela Redeker
    2012 “Genre-dependent interaction of coherence and lexical cohesion in written discourse.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory8(1): 183–208. doi: 10.1515/cllt‑2012‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0008 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bublitz, Wolfram , Uta Lenk , and Eija Ventola
    (eds) 1999Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.63
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chafe, Wallace L.
    1982 “Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature.” InSpoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, ed. by Deborah Tannen , 35–53. Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chesterman, Andrew
    1998Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.47 [Google Scholar]
  9. Coates, Jennifer
    2003Men Talk: Stories in the Making of Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470755617
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755617 [Google Scholar]
  10. De Fina, Anna , and Alexandra Georgakopoulou
    2008 “Introduction: Narrative Analysis in the Shift from Texts to Practices.” Text & Talk28: 275–281. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2008.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.013 [Google Scholar]
  11. Duranti, Alessandro
    2006 “Narrating the Political Self in a Campaign for U.S. Congress.” Language in Society35: 467–497. doi: 10.1017/S0047404506060222
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060222 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fetzer, Anita
    2008 “Theme zones in English media discourse. Forms and functions.” Journal of Pragmatics40(9): 1543–1568. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.016 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2013 “Structuring of discourse.” InHandbooks of Pragmatics. The Pragmatics of Speech Actions. Vol.2., ed. by Marina Sbisà and Ken Turner , 685–711. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214383.685
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214383.685 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2016 “Discourse relations across discourse genres. Degrees of overtness in argumentative and narrative texts.” IWoDa’ 16, Santiago de Compostela, 29–30Sept. 2016, 14–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fetzer, Anita , and Augustin Speyer
    2012 “Discourse Relations in English and German Discourse: Local and Not-So-Local Constraints.” Intercultural Pragmatics9: 413–452. doi: 10.1515/ip‑2012‑0025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0025 [Google Scholar]
  16. Givón, Talmy
    1993English Grammar: a Function-Based Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gómez-González, María
    2001The Theme-Topic Interface. Evidence from English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.71 [Google Scholar]
  18. Grosz, Barbara , and Candace Sidner
    1986 “Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse.” Computational Linguistics12: 175–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1994Introduction to English Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Halliday, Michael , and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1987Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Höhle, Tilman
    1986 “Der Begriff ‘Mittelfeld’. Anmerkungen über die Theorie der topologischen Felder.“ InKontroversen, alte und neue. Akten des 7. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses Göttingen 1985, ed. by Albrecht Schöne , 329–340. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hunston, Susan
    2007 “Using a Corpus to Investigate Stance Quantitatively and Qualitatively”. InStancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebretson , 27–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164.03hun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.03hun [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnstone, Barbara
    2003 “Discourse Analysis and Narrative.” InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin , Deborah Tannen , and Heidi Hamilton , 634–649. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Knott, Alistair , and Ted Sanders
    1998 “The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages.” Journal of Pragmatics30: 135–175. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00023‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00023-X [Google Scholar]
  25. Krzeszowki, Tomasz
    1989 “Towards a typology of contrastive studies”. InContrastive Pragmatics, ed. by Wieslaw Oleksy , 55–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kunz, Kerstin , Stefania Degaetano-Ortlieb , Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski , Katrin Menzel , and Erich Steiner
    2007 “English-German contrasts in cohesion and implications for translation.” InEmpirical Translation Studies. New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, ed. by Gert De Sutter , Marie-Aude Lefer , and Isabelle Delaere , 265–312. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kunz, Kerstin , and Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski
    . Forthcoming. “Conjunctions in source and target texts: A corpus-based analysis of English and German.” InCorpus-based Approaches to Discourse Relations ed. by Kerstin Kunz and Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski . To appear as a Special Issue ofDiscours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Labov, William
    1972Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Levinson, Stephen
    1979 “Activity types and language.” Linguistics17: 365–399. doi: 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
  30. Linell, Per
    1998Approaching Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  31. Marcu, Daniel
    2000 “The rhetorical parsing of unrestricted texts: A surface-based approach”. Computational Linguistics26(3): 395–448. doi: 10.1162/089120100561755
    https://doi.org/10.1162/089120100561755 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mey, Jacob L.
    2001Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Pavlenko, Aneta
    2008 “Emotion and Emotion-Laden Words in the Bilingual Lexicon.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition11: 147–164. doi: 10.1017/S1366728908003283
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728908003283 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sarangi, Srikant
    2000 “Activity types, discourse types and interactional hybridity: the case of genetic counselling.” InDiscourse and Social Life, ed. by Srikant Sarangi and Malcolm Coulthard , 1–27. London: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Schilder, Frank
    1997 Temporal Relations in English and German Narrative Discourse. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
  36. Selting, Margret
    2010 “Affectivity in Conversational Storytelling: An Analysis of Displays of Anger or Indignation in Complaint Stories.” Pragmatics20(2): 229–277. doi: 10.1075/prag.20.2.06sel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.2.06sel [Google Scholar]
  37. Speyer, Augustin , and Anita Fetzer
    2014 “The Coding of Discourse Relations in English and German Argumentative Discourse.” InThe Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence, ed. by Helmut Gruber and Gisela Redeker , 87–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Steiner, Erich
    2015 “Contrastive studies of cohesion and their impact on our knowledge of translation.” InDiscourse Analysis and Translation. Special issue ofTARGET, ed. by Meifang Zhang and Jeremy Munday . International Journal of Translation Studies27(3): 351–369.10.1075/target.27.3.02ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.27.3.02ste [Google Scholar]
  39. Taboada, Maite , Mario Carretero , and Jennifer Hinnell
    2014 “Loving and Hating the Movies in English, German and Spanish.” Contrastive Linguistics14: 127–161.10.1075/lic.14.1.07tab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.07tab [Google Scholar]
  40. Tan, Ed
    1994 “Story Processing as an Emotion Episode.” InNaturalistic Text Comprehension, ed. by Herre van Oostendorp and Rolf A. Zwaan , 165–188. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Teich, Elke
    2003Cross-Linguistic Variation in System und Text. A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110896541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
  42. Thibault, Paul
    2003 “Contextualization and social meaning-making practices.” InLanguage and Interaction. Discussions with John J. Gumperz, ed. by Susan L. Eerdmans , Carlo L. Prevignano , and Paul J. Thibault , 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.117.05thi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.117.05thi [Google Scholar]
  43. Thurmair, Maria
    1989Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111354569
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354569 [Google Scholar]
  44. Widdowson, Henry
    2004Text, Context, and Pretext. Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470758427
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758427 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16024.spe
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16024.spe
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): adjacency , context , discourse connective , discourse relation , granularity and personal narrative
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