Cover not available
Part of
The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González and J. Lachlan Mackenzie
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 296] 2018
► pp. 13–44

The encoding and signalling of discourse relations in argumentative discourse

Evidence across production formats

| University of Augsburg, Germany
This chapter examines the role of production format in the linguistic realization of discourse relations in the argumentative discourse genre of commentary, distinguishing between implicitly realized discourse relations, encoded in coherence strands and lexical coherence, and overtly realized discourse relations, encoded in coherence strands and additionally signalled with discourse connectives, metadiscursive comments and non-congruently configurated theme zones. The production format comprises single-authored commentaries, monadically edited commentaries and dyadically edited commentaries. The edited texts stem from a discourse-editing task: the source text was stripped of almost all adverbials yet retained the original argumentative sequential organization and default configuration of events. The study is methodologically compositional across functional approaches to discourse grammar, discourse semantics, and discourse pragmatics. The analysis confirms that Contrast is realized overtly by default, Continuation and Explanation tend to be realized overtly in edited texts and Elaboration is realized more frequently overtly in single-authored texts.
Keywords: context, discourse coherence, discourse common ground, discourse relation, overt realization, production format
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discourse: Quantity and quality
    • 2.1Discourse unit
    • 2.2Discursive glue
  • 3.Discourse relations and their linguistic realizations
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Data
    • 4.2Procedure
    • 4.3Results
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Continuation
    • 5.2Contrast
    • 5.3Explanation
    • 5.4Elaboration
    • 5.5Comment
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 20 September 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.02fet
References (39)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. “I think – An English Modal Particle.” In Modality in Germanic Languages. Historical and Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Toril Swan, and Olaf Jansen, 1–47. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicolas, and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventola (eds). 1999. Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, Robert, and Wolfgang Dressler. 1981. Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Monika. 2003. “Discourse Relators and the Beginnings of Sentences in English and German.” Languages in Contrast 3: 223–251.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2000. “Negotiating Validity Claims in Political Interviews.” Text 20 (4): 1–46.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Reformulation and Common Grounds.” In Lexical Markers of Common Grounds, ed. by Anita Fetzer, and Kerstin Fischer, 157–179. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Theme Zones in English Media Discourse: Forms and Functions.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (9): 1543–1568.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “‘Here is the difference, here is the passion, here is the chance to be part of a great change’: Strategic Context Importation in Political Discourse.” In Context and Contexts: Parts Meet Whole?, ed. by Anita Fetzer, and Etsuko Oishi, 115–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Contexts in Interaction: Relating Pragmatic Wastebaskets.” In What is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges, ed. by Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer, and Petra Schumacher, 105–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Structuring of Discourse.” In Pragmatics of Speech Actions, ed. by Marina Sbisà, and Ken Turner, 685–711. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Augustin Speyer. 2012. “Discourse Relations in English and German Discourse: Local and Not-So-Local Constraints.” Intercultural Pragmatics 9: 413–452.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton-Ann, and Talmy Givón (eds). 1995. Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. 2 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Helmut, and Gisela Redeker (eds). 2014. The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, and J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hofmockel, Carolin, Anita Fetzer, and Robert M. Maier. 2017. “Discourse Relations: Genre-Specific Degrees of Overtness in Argumentative and Narrative Discourse.” Argument & Computation 8(2): 131–151.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans, and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2014. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. “Activity Types and Language.” Linguistics 17: 365–399.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 1998. Approaching Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan, and María de los Ángeles Gómez-González (eds). 2004. A New Architecture for Functional Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maier, Robert M., Carolin Hofmockel, and Anita Fetzer. 2016. “The Negotiation of Discourse Relations in Context: Co-Constructing Degrees of Overtness.” Intercultural Pragmatics. 13 (1): 71–105.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques. 2002. “Speech Act Theory and the Analysis of Conversations.” In Essays in Speech Act Theory, ed. by Daniel Vanderveken, and Susumu Kubo, 239–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Roulet, Eddy. 2006. “The Description of Text Relation Markers in the Geneva Model of Discourse Organization.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 115–132. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted. 1998. “Semantic and Pragmatic Sources of Coherence: On the Categorization of Coherence Relations in Context.” Discourse Processes 24: 119–147.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant. 2000. “Activity Types, Discourse Types and Interactional Hybridity: The Case of Genetic Counseling.” In Discourse and Social Life, ed. by Srikant Sarangi, and Malcolm Coulthard, 1–27. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speyer, Augustin, and Anita Fetzer. 2014. “The Coding of Discourse Relations in English and German Argumentative Discourse.” In The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence, ed. by Helmut Gruber, and Gisela Redeker, 87–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2018. “‘Well would you believe it, I have failed the exam again’: Discourse Relations in English and German Personal Narratives.” Pragmatics in Society 9(1): 26–52.Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite. 2006. “Discourse Markers as Signals (or not) of Rhetorical Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 567–592.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thibault, Paul J. 2003. “Contextualization and Social Meaning-Making Practices.” In Language and Interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz, ed. by Susan L. Eerdmans et al., 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry. 2004. Text, Context, and Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Biryukova, E. V., E. G. Borisova & I. S. Kalyatin
2024. Specific features of Russian coordinating conjunctions from the activity approach perspective. Russian language at school 85:4 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Andorno, Cecilia, Sandra Benazzo & Christine Dimroth
2023. Contrast marking variation in Romance and Germanic languages. Functions of Language 30:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Das, Debopam & Markus Egg
2023. Continuity in discourse relations. Functions of Language 30:1 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Fetzer, Anita & Matthias Klumm
2023. The linguistic realization of continuative discourse relations in English discourse. Functions of Language 30:1 ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Klumm, Matthias, Anita Fetzer & Evelien Keizer
2023. Continuative and contrastive discourse relations across discourse domains. Functions of Language 30:1 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
Egg, Markus & Debopam Das
2022. Signalling conditional relations. Linguistics Vanguard 8:s4 ► pp. 383 ff. DOI logo
Jančaříková, Renata, Renata Povolná, Olga Dontcheva-Navratilová, Světlana Hanušová & Martin Němec
2020. AN ACADEMIC WRITING NEEDS ANALYSIS OF CZECH UNIVERSITY GRADUATE STUDENTS. Discourse and Interaction 13:1 ► pp. 42 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.