Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 19:2 (2019) ► pp.205–231

Discourse relations across genres and contexts

A contrastive analysis of English and German discourse

| University of Augsburg (Germany)
| University of Saarbrücken (Germany)

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.

Keywords: discourse relations, textual theme, adjacency, argumentative discourse, narrative discourse, English/German
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The granularity of discourse: Micro meets macro
    • 2.1Micro units
    • 2.2Discourse relations
    • 2.3Macro units
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Procedure
    • 3.2Data
  • 4.Contrastive analysis
    • 4.1Editorials
    • 4.2Personal narratives
    • 4.3Editorials and personal narratives
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17006.fet
References
Aijmer, K.
(ed.) 2009 Contrastive Pragmatics. Special Issue of Languages in Contrast 9(1).Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. and Lewis, D.
(eds) 2017 Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-Pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. and Lascarides, A.
2003 Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Behrens, B., Fabricius-Hansen, C. and Solfjeld, K.
2012 Competing Structures. The Discourse Perspective. In Big Events, Small Clauses. The Grammar of Elaboration, C. Fabricius-Hansen and D. Haug (eds), 179–225, Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A.
1998 Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. and Dressler, W.
1981 Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, C.
1989 Zur Vorfeldbesetzung in deutschen Verbzweit-Strukturen. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
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
Fabricius-Hansen, C. and Haug, D.
(eds) 2012 Big Events, Small Clauses. The Grammar of Elaboration. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A.
2008 Theme Zones in English Media Discourse. Forms and Functions. Journal of Pragmatics 40(9): 1543–1568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Challenges in Contrast. Languages in Contrast 9(1): 73–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Structuring of Discourse. In Handbooks of Pragmatics. The Pragmatics of Speech Actions. Vol. 21, M. Sbisà and K. Turner (eds), 685–711. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 The Dynamics of Discourse: Quantity Meets Quality. In Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse, P. Cap and M. Dynel (eds), 235–257. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 The Linguistic Realisation of Contrastive Discourse Relations in Context: Contextualisation and discourse common ground. Modélisation et utilisation du contexte / Modeling and Using Context 2(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Speyer, A.
2012 Discourse Relations in English and German Discourse: Local and Not-So-Local Constraints. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(4): 413–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fries, P. H.
1994 On Theme, Rheme and Discourse Goals. In Advances in Written Text Analysis, M. Coulthard (ed), 229–249. Lomndon: routledge.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. and Givón, T.
(eds) 1995 Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
1993 English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction, 21 Vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
1975 Logic and Conversation. In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III1, P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1994 Introduction to English Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. and Halliday, M.
1987 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. and Mackenzie, L.
2008 Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hützen, N. and Serbina, T.
2018 Lexical Chains and Topic Continuity in the Register of Popular Scientific Writing: German-English Contrasts. Pragmatics and Society 9(1): 8–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W.
2007 Schriftlichkeit und kommunikative Distanz. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 351: 346–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krzeszowski, T.
1989 Towards a Typology of Contrastive studies. In Contrastive Pragmatics, W. Oleksy (ed), 55–72. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kunz, K., Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., Lapshinova-Koltunski, E., Menzel, K. and Steiner, E.
2017 English-German contrasts in cohesion and implications for translation. In Empirical Translation Studies, Sutter, G., Lefer, M. and Delaere, I. (eds), 265–311. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.
1979 Activity Types and Language. Linguistics 171: 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maier, R. M., Hofmockel, C. and Fetzer, A.
2016 The Negotiation of Discourse Relations in Context: Co-Constructing Degrees of Overtness. Intercultural Pragmatics 13(1): 71–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molnár, V.
1991 Das TOPIK im Deutschen und im Ungarischen. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
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 from [URL]
Reis, M.
1997 Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, C. Dürscheid, K.-H. Ramers and M. Schwarz (eds), 121–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Shaer, B. and Frey, W.
2004 ‘Integrated’ and ‘Non-Integrated’ Left-peripheral Elements in German and English. In Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop. ZASPiL 35(2), B. Shaer, W. Frey and C. Maienborn (eds), 465–502. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Speyer, A.
2009 Das Vorfeldranking und das Vorfeld-es. Linguistische Berichte 2191, 323–353.Google Scholar
Speyer, A. and Fetzer, A.
2014 The Coding of Discourse Relations in English and German Argumentative Discourse. In The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence. Theories and Applications, H. Gruber and G. Redeker (eds), 87–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thibault, P.
2003 Contextualization and Social Meaning-Making Practices. In Language and Interaction. Discussions with John J. Gumperz, S. Eerdmans et al.. (eds), 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G.
2014 Introduction to Functional Grammar. Third Edition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H.
2004 Text, Context, and Pretext. Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar