Cover not available
Part of
Changing Genre Conventions in Historical English News Discourse
Edited by Birte Bös and Lucia Kornexl
[Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics 5] 2015
► pp. 191–222

Speech-like syntax in written texts

Changing syntactic conventions in news discourse

This article explores the extent to which present-day written news discourse has become more speech-like regarding the structure of sentences. Three features will be analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively: the use of conjunctions as extra-clausal linking devices, the occurrence of disintegrated clausal units, and the loose attachment of syntactic fragments, i.e. of non-clausal material, to a completed syntagma. The data are taken from news reports in a quality paper and a popular paper from two time samples, dating from 1900 and 2013. The results give evidence for an increasing informalization of British written news discourse and thus align themselves with proposals to the general drift of written registers toward more oral styles.
Keywords: English news, increments, informalization/colloquialization, spoken language, syntax
Published online: 24 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ahs.5.08has
References (37)
References
Altenberg, Bengt. 1986. Contrastive linking in spoken and written English. In Gunnel Tottie & Ingegerd Bäcklund (eds.), English in speech and writing. A symposium, 13–40. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2007. Syntax als Prozess. In Heiko Hausendorf (ed.), Gespräch als Prozess: Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion, 95–124. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2009. On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31. 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baron, Naomi S. 2008. Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The impact of electronically-mediated communication on language standards and style. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth C. Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 329–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barth, Dagmar. 2000. “That’s true, although not really, but still …”: Concessive relations in spoken English discourse. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause, condition, concession and contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 411–438. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, David. 1998. Cancellative discourse markers: A core/periphery approach. Pragmatics 8. 515–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65. 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Bethany Gray. 2012. The competing demands of popularization vs. economy: Written language in the age of mass literacy. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth C. Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 314–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty & Gregory Ward. 2004. Information structure and noncanonical syntax. In Lawrence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 153–174. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bös, Birte. 2012. From 1760 to 1960: Diversification and popularization. In Roberta Facchinetti, Nicholas Brownlees, Birte Bös & Udo Fries, News as changing texts: Corpora, methodologies and analysis, 91–143. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russel S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Linking intonation units. In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 1–27. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono. 2007. ‘Incrementing’ in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics 17. 513–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dovifat, Emil & Jürgen Wilke. 1976. Zeitungslehre. Band 1: Theoretische und rechtliche Grundlagen, Nachricht und Meinung, Sprache und Form. 3rd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
. 1994. Conversationalization of public discourse and the authority of the consumer. In Russell Keat, Nigel Whiteley & Nicholas Abercrombie (eds.), The authority of the consumer, 253–268. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203. 88–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Christian Mair. 1999. “Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4. 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Alan J. 1976. The origins of the popular press in England, 1855–1914. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim & Regina Weinert. 1998. Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PressGazette. UK newspaper sales: Relatively strong performances from Sun and Mirror . [URL]. (19 March, 2014).
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1986. Functions of and in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 10. 41–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Kristina. 2000. The emergence and development of headlines in English newspapers. In Friedrich Ungerer (ed.), English media texts – past and present: Language and textual structure, 45–65. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1986. On the origins of and and but connectives in English. Studies in Language 10. 137–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weischenberg, Siegfried. 1988. Nachrichtenschreiben: Journalistische Praxis zum Studium oder Selbststudium. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Winkler, Susanne. 2012. The information structure of English. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 71–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar