Cover not available
Article published In:
Anglo-German Discourse Crossings and Contrasts
Edited by Sylvia Jaworska and Torsten Leuschner
[Pragmatics and Society 9:1] 2018
► pp. 26–51

“Well would you believe it, I have failed the exam again”

Discourse relations in English and German personal narratives

| University of Saarbrücken
| University of Augsburg
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.
Keywords: discourse relation, adjacency, discourse connective, context, personal narrative, granularity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discourse: Quantity meets quality
  • 3.Personal narratives
  • 4.Discourse relations in contrast
    • 4.1Discourse relations in the German data
    • 4.2Discourse relations in the English data
    • 4.3Contrastive analysis
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16024.spe
References (44)
References
Aijmer, Karin (ed). 2009. Contrastive Pragmatics. Special Issue of Languages in Contrast 9(1).Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, and Laure Vieu. 2005. “Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations.” Lingua 1151: 591–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de, and Wolfgang Dressler. 1981. Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berzlánovich, Ildikó, and Gisela Redeker. 2012. “Genre-dependent interaction of coherence and lexical cohesion in written discourse.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1): 183–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventola (eds). 1999. Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1982. “Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature.” In Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 35–53. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1998. Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 2003. Men Talk: Stories in the Making of Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Fina, Anna, and Alexandra Georgakopoulou. 2008. “Introduction: Narrative Analysis in the Shift from Texts to Practices.” Text & Talk 281: 275–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 2006. “Narrating the Political Self in a Campaign for U.S. Congress.” Language in Society 351: 467–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2008. “Theme zones in English media discourse. Forms and functions.” Journal of Pragmatics 40(9): 1543–1568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Structuring of discourse.” In Handbooks of Pragmatics. The Pragmatics of Speech Actions. Vol. 21., ed. by Marina Sbisà and Ken Turner, 685–711. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Discourse relations across discourse genres. Degrees of overtness in argumentative and narrative texts.” IWoDa’ 16, Santiago de Compostela, 29–30 Sept. 2016, 14–17.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Augustin Speyer. 2012. “Discourse Relations in English and German Discourse: Local and Not-So-Local Constraints.” Intercultural Pragmatics 91: 413–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar: a Function-Based Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gómez-González, María. 2001. The Theme-Topic Interface. Evidence from English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Barbara, and Candace Sidner. 1986. “Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse.” Computational Linguistics 121: 175–204.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. Introduction to English Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael, and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1987. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman. 1986. “Der Begriff ‘Mittelfeld’. Anmerkungen über die Theorie der topologischen Felder.“ In Kontroversen, alte und neue. Akten des 7. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses Göttingen 1985, ed. by Albrecht Schöne, 329–340. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2007. “Using a Corpus to Investigate Stance Quantitatively and Qualitatively”. In Stancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 27–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 2003. “Discourse Analysis and Narrative.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi Hamilton, 634–649. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Knott, Alistair, and Ted Sanders. 1998. “The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages.” Journal of Pragmatics 301: 135–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krzeszowki, Tomasz. 1989. “Towards a typology of contrastive studies”. In Contrastive Pragmatics, ed. by Wieslaw Oleksy, 55–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kunz, Kerstin, Stefania Degaetano-Ortlieb, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski, Katrin Menzel, and Erich Steiner. 2007. “English-German contrasts in cohesion and implications for translation.” In Empirical 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
Kunz, Kerstin, and Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski. Forthcoming. “Conjunctions in source and target texts: A corpus-based analysis of English and German.” In Corpus-based Approaches to Discourse Relations, ed. by Kerstin Kunz and Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski. To appear as a Special Issue of Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique.
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1979. “Activity types and language.” Linguistics 171: 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 1998. Approaching Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcu, Daniel. 2000. “The rhetorical parsing of unrestricted texts: A surface-based approach”. Computational Linguistics 26(3): 395–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2008. “Emotion and Emotion-Laden Words in the Bilingual Lexicon.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 111: 147–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant. 2000. “Activity types, discourse types and interactional hybridity: the case of genetic counselling.” In Discourse and Social Life, ed. by Srikant Sarangi and Malcolm Coulthard, 1–27. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Schilder, Frank. 1997. Temporal Relations in English and German Narrative Discourse. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google 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
Steiner, Erich. 2015. “Contrastive studies of cohesion and their impact on our knowledge of translation.” In Discourse Analysis and Translation. Special issue of TARGET, ed. by Meifang Zhang and Jeremy Munday. International Journal of Translation Studies 27(3): 351–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite, Mario Carretero, and Jennifer Hinnell. 2014. “Loving and Hating the Movies in English, German and Spanish.” Contrastive Linguistics 141: 127–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tan, Ed. 1994. “Story Processing as an Emotion Episode.” In Naturalistic Text Comprehension, ed. by Herre van Oostendorp and Rolf A. Zwaan, 165–188. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Teich, Elke. 2003. Cross-Linguistic Variation in System und Text. A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thibault, Paul. 2003. “Contextualization and social meaning-making practices.” In Language 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, Henry. 2004. Text, Context, and Pretext. Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Klumm, Matthias
2022. The Signaling of Continuative and Contrastive Discourse Relations in English Argumentative Discourse: Corpus-Based and Experimental Perspectives. Discours :30 DOI logo
Fetzer, Anita & Augustin Speyer
2019. Discourse relations across genres and contexts. Languages in Contrast 19:2 ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Fetzer, Anita
2018. The encoding and signalling of discourse relations in argumentative discourse. In The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 296], ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 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.