discourse types , genre schemata, and rhetorical relations
Download
Report
Transcript discourse types , genre schemata, and rhetorical relations
DISCOURSE TYPES,
GENRE SCHEMATA,
AND
RHETORICAL RELATIONS
Andrej A. Kibrik
Institute of Linguistics,
Russian Academy of Sciences
[email protected]
1
Genres and discourse types
Discourse studies: typology of discourse
specimens is the least developed area (cf.
e.g. van Dijk ed. 1997)
However, the issue is important: in any
empirical discipline a classification of
specimens is among central tasks
2
General problem
In modern discourse studies, there is no
satisfactory classification of genres or
discourse types
All available classifications are purely
enumerative
Enumerative inventories cannot be
demonstrated to be exhaustive and
internally coherent
3
A classification of animals in
‘a Chinese Encyclopedia’
cited in Borges’ Celestial Emporium
of Benevolent Knowledge
1.those that belong to
the Emperor,
2.embalmed ones,
3.suckling pigs,
4.those that are trained,
5.mermaids,
6.fabulous ones,
7.stray dogs,
8.those included in the
present classification,
9.those that tremble as
if they were mad,
10. innumerable ones,
11. those drawn with a
very fine camelhair
brush,
12. others,
13. those that have just
broken a flower vase,
14. those that from a
long way off look like
flies
4
General goal
Move towards a non-enumerative, but
rather a calculus-type classification of
discourse genres
5
Specific problem
Discourse genres are defined as non-linguistic
phenomena
Swales (1990):
genres are attributes of discourse
communities
genres serve typical communicative
intentions salient in such communities
It is not clear whether genres can be attributed
any linguistic properties
6
Specific goals
Address the question: are discourse
genres linguistically identifiable?
If yes, attempt to provide a linguistic
definition of at least one genre
7
ATTEMPTS OF LINGUISTIC
GENRE DEFINITION
Linguistic definition 1: Genre schemata
TOO GENERAL
Linguistic definition 2: Morphosyntactic
and lexical features
TOO DETAILED
An alternative linguistic definition:
Configurations of rhetorical structures
8
Linguistic definition 1:
Genre schemata
The story schema (Chafe 1994)
Orientation
Complication
Climax
Denouement
Coda
Additional elements in Labov 1972
Abstract
Evaluation
9
Definition 1
(another example)
The Native English business letter schema
(Kong 1998)
Source of reference
Making the request
Background of the company
Justification for the request
Stating the conditions
Other related requests
Cordial conclusion
10
Definition 1 is problematic
Too large-scale approach: It is unclear
how one can make any predictions of the
linguistic form of a genre specimen
11
Linguistic definition 2:
Morphosyntactic and
lexical features
Biber 1989
481 texts in corpus
67 morphosyntactic and lexical features
5 dimensions: groups of covarying features
8 clusters of texts in the 5-dimensional space
8 text types with tentative labels, such as “intimate
interpersonal interaction”
limited correlation to established genres
Example: 62% texts of the genre of personal
telephone conversation belong to the text type
“intimate interpersonal interaction”
The conclusion is that genres are linguistically
12
irrelevant
Linguistic definition 2 fails,
as demonstrated by Biber
Too small-scale approach: Individual
morphosyntactic and lexical features are
incommensurable with discourse genres as
wholes
But why do discourses of the same type fail
to have consistent characteristics?
13
A possible clue:
types of passages
Narrative
Descriptive
Expository (explanatory)
Instructive and hortatory
Persuasive (argumentative)
(see e.g. Longacre 1992)
this list is enumerative, too, but at least the
number of categories is more embraceable
14
Selected features of discourse
passages
Type of passage
Characteristic morphosyntactic
and lexical phenomena
Narrative
Past tense, perfectives
Descriptive
Stative predicates
Expository
???
Instructive
Imperatives
Persuasive
Modal verbs
15
Reasons for Biber’s results
Morphosyntactically and lexically identifiable
discourse units are passages rather than
discourses as wholes
Genres are not internally homogeneous in terms
of passage types; they consist of more than one
passage type
Therefore, discourses as wholes cannot be
expected to be consistent in terms of
morphosyntactic and lexical features
16
A set of working hypotheses
So, the question is: what could be a
viable linguistic definition of discourse
genres? Or at least of passage types?
Prerequisite: Genres can be defined in
terms of genre schemata
Genres schemata can be defined as
combinations of passage types
Passage types can be defined in terms of
rhetorical relations
Therefore, genres can also be ultimately
defined in rhetorical terms
17
A CASE STUDY
THE NIGHT DREAM STORIES PROJECT
Original goal: search for differences in discourse
structure in the night dream stories of children
with and without neurotic disorders
69 stories from neurotic children
60 stories from neurologically intact children
About 3000 discourse units in corpus
The corpus has been:
transcribed
RST-diagrammed
18
Rhetorical structure
theory (RST)
Originally formulated by Mann and Thompson 1988
A unified view of discourse structure, irrespective of
the size of discourse segments
A nomenclature of rhetorical relations between
discourse segments
Each discourse segment serves the realization of
the overall communicative intention of the speaker
We added a number of rhetorical relations to the
canonical set in order to account for narrative
discourse data (Kibrik, Podlesskaya, Kal’kova, and
Litvinenko 2002)
19
Generalized schema of a
night dream story
Begin
(Headline)
Setting
NARRATIVE CHAIN
(Evaluation)
(Summary)
End
20
Two major types of passages
in stories
The great majority of texts in corpus are
predominantly narrative (= are stories)
129 texts altogether
6 non-narrative texts
Narrative chain: Narrative type of passage
Setting: Descriptive type of passage
21
Typical normal story: Z11
1. My s klassom ..(1.8) poshli ..(1.1) vot ..(0.5) kuda-to.
My classmates and I went somewhere.
2. ..(0.3) Zashli v dom,
Entered a house,
3. ..(1.2) i tam ..(0.2) byli stupen'ki ..(1.8) i voda.
and there were steps and water there.
4. ..(1.0) My stali na bol'shoj plot,
We went onto a big raft
5. ..(0.6) i pereexali na druguju storonu.
and crossed to the other side.
6. ..(1.5) Potom ..(1.4) my vyshli iz dveri.
Then we exited the door.
7. ..(0.8) Tam byla dver' ...(1.0) takaja zheltaja.
There was a door there, a yellow one.
8. ..(0.5) My otkryli ee,
We opened it,
...
22
RST-diagram of text Z11
23
RHETORICAL STRUCTURE
OF NARRATIVE PASSAGES
Uppermost relations:
Sequence
Consequence
(Emotional reaction)
(Discord)
All these relations are variants of the basic
narrative relation
We can therefore define the narrative
passage as a passage that has one of
narrative relations in its uppermost node 24
Typical neurotic story: N08
1. Ja byla doma ..(0.3) s mamoj, ..(1.1) s bratom,
I was at home with my mom, with my brother,
2. ..(0.4) nu tam ..(0.3) kot mne eshche snilsja moj.
well I dreamt about my cat too.
3. ...(2.8 m) Dolgoe tam vremja snilos',
For a long time I dreamt
4. kak my prosto doma tam,
how we were just at home
5. delami zanimaemsja.
doing various chores.
6. ..(1.) Potom ..(0.2) chego-to ..(0.2) trevogu ja pochuvstvovala,
Then for some reason I felt anxiety,
7. vygljanula v okno,
looked out of the window,
8. u nashego pod'ezda pozharnaja mashina stoit.
next to our entrance there was a fire engine.
...
25
RST-diagram of text N08
26
Frequency of the uppermost
narrative relations
Relations
n
Sequence
91
Consequence
29
Emotional reaction
3
NONE (non-narrative text)
6
TOTAL
129
%%
71
22
2
5
100
27
Relations appearing above
narrative relations:
Begin
Headline
Setting
(Evaluation)
(Summary)
End
Out-relations
All these relations are “genreorganizational” for the genry of story
28
Frequency of the highest level
non-narrative relations
Relations above narrative
Number
NONE
20
Begin
9
End
69
Headline
10
Summary
1
Setting
Out-relations
55
13
29
Rhetorical relations-based
definition of the genre of
story
Story is a discourse that has one of narrative
relations in its highest node in the rhetorical
graph, with the exclusion of genreorganizational relations Begin, End, Headline,
Summary, Setting, and Evaluation
30
A generalized rhetorical
diagram of a story
STORY
Begin
End
Headline
Summary
Setting
Evaluation
Sequence/Consequence/….
…
31
RHETORICAL STRUCTURE OF
DESCRIPTIVE PASSAGES IN
STORIES (SETTINGS)
Frequency of settings in stories
Z
N
Total
%%
Setting
25
38
63
49
No
Setting
Total
35
31
66
51
60
69
129
100
32
Most typical relations
appearing at the uppermost
node of descriptive passages
Joint
Elaboration
Background
At a certain degree of granularity, these three
relations can be taken as varieties of one and
the same
33
Relations that can potentially
appear above the typical
descriptive relations
Source-out is the only relation that
appears in this position in corpus more
than once
Five other relations appear once each,
most of them of organizational (e.g.
Summary) or realizational (e.g. Split) kind
34
Frequency of settings by
structural type
Uppermost relation
n
TRIVIAL CASE
14
Joint
13
Source-out > Joint
3
Elaboration
15
Source-out > Elaboration
4
Background
4
Source-out > Background
2
Other
5
TOTAL
n, including similar %%
14
22
16
25
22
35
6
10
5
8
63
100
35
Generalizations on the
rhetorical structure of
descriptive passages
There is a significant portion (22%) of trivial
descriptive passages that do not contain any
rhetorical relation
Whenever descriptive passages are not trivial,
they can be reliably defined as having one of
the relations Joint, Elaboration, and Background
in their uppermost node
36
Questions remaining for
future research
Are descriptive passages as well rhetorically definable as
narrative passages?
Are basic descriptive relations used exclusively in
descriptive passages?
Can it be the case that types of passages are rhetorically
definable only when they figure as “major” (Longacre)
types of passages in particular discourse genres?
If that is the case, rhetorical definitions may be more suitable
for genres than passage types.
How can one define trivial passages? Perhaps inherent
aspect of predicates?
Can all discourse material be attributed to a certain type
of passage?
37
CONCLUSIONS
At least some passage types can be identified in terms of
rhetorical relations
Since genre schemata can be defined as configurations of
passage types, genres can also be ultimately defined in terms
of rhetorical relations
A rhetorical relations-based definition appears adequate for
the narrative type of passage, and for the discourse genre of
story
For descriptive passages in stories, a rhetorical definition is
useful when such passages are not trivial
The question of whether a rhetorical definition can be
universally used to define discourse passages and genres
requires further study
38