1

DISCOURSE TYPES, GENRE SCHEMATA,

AND RHETORICAL RELATIONS

Andrej A. Kibrik Institute of Linguistics,

Russian Academy of Sciences

kibrik@comtv.ru

2

Genres and discourse typesDiscourse 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

3

General problemIn 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

4

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

5

General goalMove towards a non-enumerative,

but rather a calculus-type classification of discourse genres

6

Specific problemDiscourse genres are defined as non-

linguistic phenomenaSwales (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

7

Specific goalsAddress the question: are discourse

genres linguistically identifiable?If yes, attempt to provide a linguistic

definition of at least one genre

8

ATTEMPTS OF LINGUISTIC GENRE DEFINITIONLinguistic definition 1: Genre schemata

TOO GENERALLinguistic definition 2: Morphosyntactic

and lexical features TOO DETAILED

An alternative linguistic definition: Configurations of rhetorical structures

9

Linguistic definition 1: Genre schemataThe story schema (Chafe 1994)

Orientation Complication Climax Denouement Coda

Additional elements in Labov 1972 Abstract Evaluation

10

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

11

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

12

Linguistic definition 2: Morphosyntactic and lexical featuresBiber 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 irrelevant

13

Linguistic definition 2 fails, as demonstrated by BiberToo 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?

14

A possible clue: types of passagesNarrativeDescriptiveExpository (explanatory)Instructive and hortatoryPersuasive (argumentative)

(see e.g. Longacre 1992)

this list is enumerative, too, but at least the number of categories is more embraceable

15

Selected features of discourse passages

Modal verbsPersuasiveImperativesInstructive???ExpositoryStative predicatesDescriptivePast tense, perfectivesNarrative

Characteristic morphosyntactic and lexical phenomena

Type of passage

16

Reasons for Biber’s resultsMorphosyntactically 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

17

A set of working hypothesesSo, 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

18

A CASE STUDYTHE NIGHT DREAM STORIES PROJECTOriginal goal: search for differences in

discourse structure in the night dream stories of children with and without neurotic disorders

69 stories from neurotic children60 stories from neurologically intact childrenAbout 3000 discourse units in corpusThe corpus has been:

transcribed RST-diagrammed

19

Rhetorical structure theory (RST)Originally formulated by Mann and Thompson 1988A unified view of discourse structure, irrespective

of the size of discourse segmentsA nomenclature of rhetorical relations between

discourse segmentsEach discourse segment serves the realization of

the overall communicative intention of the speakerWe 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)

20

Generalized schema of a night dream story

Begin(Headline)SettingNARRATIVE CHAIN(Evaluation)(Summary)End

21

Two major types of passages in storiesThe 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

22

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 raft5. ..(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,...

23

RST-diagram of text Z11

24

RHETORICAL STRUCTURE OF NARRATIVE PASSAGESUppermost 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

25

Typical neurotic story: N081. 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 dreamt4. kak my prosto doma tam,

how we were just at home5. 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.

...

26

RST-diagram of text N08

27

Frequency of the uppermost narrative relations

Relations n %%Sequence 91 71Consequence 29 22Emotional reaction 3 2NONE (non-narrative text)

6 5

TOTAL 129 100

28

Relations appearing above narrative relations:

Begin Headline Setting (Evaluation) (Summary) End Out-relations

All these relations are “genre-organizational” for the genry of story

29

Frequency of the highest level non-narrative relations

Relations above narrative

Number

NONE 20Begin 9End 69Headline 10Summary 1Setting 55Out-relations 13

30

Rhetorical relations-based definition of the genre of storyStory is a discourse that has one of

narrative relations in its highest node in the rhetorical graph, with the exclusion of genre-organizational relations Begin, End, Headline, Summary, Setting, and Evaluation

31

A generalized rhetorical diagram of a story

STORY

Begin End

Headline Summary

Setting Evaluation

Sequence/Consequence/…. …

32

RHETORICAL STRUCTURE OF DESCRIPTIVE PASSAGES IN STORIES (SETTINGS)

Frequency of settings in stories

Z N Total %%

Setting 25 38 63 49

No Setting

35 31 66 51

Total 60 69 129 100

33

Most typical relations appearing at the uppermost node of descriptive passages

JointElaborationBackground

At a certain degree of granularity, these three relations can be taken as varieties of one and the same

34

Relations that can potentially appear above the typical descriptive relationsSource-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

35

Frequency of settings by structural typeUppermost relation n n, including

similar %%

TRIVIAL CASE 14 14 22Joint 13 16 25Source-out > Joint 3Elaboration 15 22 35Source-out > Elaboration 4Background 4 6 10Source-out > Background 2Other 5 5 8

TOTAL 63 100

36

Generalizations on the rhetorical structure of descriptive passagesThere 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

37

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?

38

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