Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • Biber - A Typology of English Texts (Linguistics 1989)

    Hochgeladen von

    rverano1983
    848 Ansichten22 Seiten
    Text Typology

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    PDF oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    Text Typology

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    848 Ansichten22 Seiten

    Biber - A Typology of English Texts (Linguistics 1989)

    Hochgeladen von

    rverano1983
    Text Typology

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 22
    LINGUISTICS wos et puised i 1969 9 an introns vow Ae 88 ve [sual wit proven mda trum fe Yee ne language seca, neste mre ag espe ge one Sone timate ames acts wg egecoon sen oh get Tae ary ea rane nar Se Seed aoa ag acy aoe nouns maaan tay nt ee soreness sear” SSiogreineaecw merase rmawarwinere Inacio (ropa ow") OM TD (reuse postage) ‘Shue ates Bu 20 Iie rena on) USE 890 enone onan Sumergtons, sage of back aaues may be orgies though ary bosksler or Susann aor dey tom MOUTON GE GRUYTER sas of Wa Stan fe flowing saree Sate. Sener Ean Ee Copying in the USA: -Aunerzatonto phoroy tons rama sol se, teitraor parsons sets spc clans ated by isun Se Grae aun of an Sra ‘Sane Caracol Rpoing ere pcs ta 380 pot ‘apy pal avec OCC. 2 Congas Si. Salom, MA TI, 024-5900 $200, Lunges is conrad Cura Cons, ABCA, Unguses Abstracts ana Soi 1989 VOLUME 27—1 (299) ‘an interdisciptinary journal or the language sciences Eotorin Che! WOLFGANG KLEIN Acsistan Editor AMANDA POUNDER ammagen The Neetands Fstora Soa BERNARD COMAIE OSTEN DAHL Stecktoim, Seren NoReerr OMAR Borin, Germany Fur 6. onosre Lovvan, Begun GeRaLo GazoaR Brabon, Gres Gran “IRAP VAN MARLE \anageg Estoy ELIZABETH KRUGSMAN MOUTON OF GRUYTER BEALIN . NEW YORK - AMSTERDAM Board of consulting editors Sete Joan nee ala Sood Ce Beshion Con Neate = tdi Sees Harlow Tanda Sign Lino Oro jo eee Dasa? A typology of English texts* DOUGLAS BIBER Abstract ‘This paper develops a typology of texts tn English wth respect 10 fv dimensional model of variation. Each dimension comprises ast of lesical land symactic eanes that coeur frequently in tess reflecting underlying ‘shared communicative factions. Eight text types ore identified with respect to these dimensions; ech type represents a grouping of tests that are ‘markedly similar to one anozher with respect ther dimension charater- ‘ations. Although the lingustic variation among texts is continu. there fare ony af linguistic charaterisations that occur freuenty and he fv types identi here represent the prototypical groups of texts having these ‘haractertzations. The types are interpreted by conviderng ther predomi nat linguistic features an the general commaniatve characterises of the texts grouped in each type, and by performing microaalyses of particular texts. Based on these interpretations, factional labels, such a Taforma tional interaction’ "Learned exposition, and “Involved persuasion’, are propose foreach type 1. Introduction (Over the last several years, numerous stuies have attempted to document the nature and extent of linguistic similarities and differences among various kinds of texts. major goal of such research isto develop an ‘overall typology of texts, to provide a theoretical and empirical found tion for comparative discourse research, This need has been emphasized by Tannen (1982: 1: Linguist rezareh to often focuses on one of another kind of dat, without ‘postings vlaonaip to other hinds In over to determine whch Yet re Sppropite for proposed rush nd to determine the ican pst tnd (@ Mouton de Graver Amsterian 4 D. Biter projected rmarch «perspeive is neded onthe Kinds of language snd thee Inerclatombipe dacoure anal eed tsnonomy of dsenune pe, aad trays of daingushingunong them 11s easy to illsirate the need fora typology of texts: many discourse staies analyze particular sos of texts without specifying thei elatons 10 fther kinds of texts, offen making the unwirranted asumpion that findings canbe generalized to “discourse as a whole. For example, there have boon numerous contradictory conclusions concerning the linguistic characteristics of speech and waiting due to this methodological sho ‘coming (many studies compare only face-to-face conversation and ace ‘demic eaposition but assume that thee results charaterize all speech and writing: see Tannen 1982; Biber 1986), Silly, contradictory claims are common concerning the linguistic characteristics of “complen” versus ‘imple’ discourse or formal’ versus ‘informal discourse (Finegan and Biber 1986; Besnier 1986). In fact, a typology of tens is a research prerequisite to any comparative register analysis, whether of spessh and Writing, formal snd informal tets,restrited and elaborated codes, Ttrary and collaguial styles, "good and" student compositions, early and late historical periods, or whatever to situate particular texts relative to the range of texts in English " “There have been a numberof ext typologies proposed within lingui= tis and elated eld, Researchers have typically developed ypolopis 08 {functional basis: fist identlying one’ or two particular functional Aichotomics, and then describing the “ype defined by the poles of those ‘istnctions. For example, much of the research on spoken/written ‘iferences ean be Considered us implisitly typological inthis way, where the mode diferences between spesch an writing are claimed tO distin _uish between oral and iterate text types. More explicit ypologics have teen proposed by Longacre (1976) and Chafe (1982). Longaere proposes, «four-way distinction of monologc’ texts with respect to the parameters ‘Of projeted tie and femporal succession: narrative, expostory, proce: ‘dural, and hortatory, Chafe proposes a fourway cawsiieaion of texts with respect othe parameters of involvement delachment ad “integra {ion-fragmentation ‘Within rhetorical theory, four baie modes of discourse are tration ally distinguished: aration, description, exposition, and argumentation. ‘Athough there is wide agicerent on the mporance of thee Tour discourse ‘types, there else agrment onthe paricular parameters distingushing among them: fr example different definitions of exposition have focused ‘omone or another ofthe following parameters contet type, ofzanization, ‘objectivity, purpose, or informational density (Grabe 1984), A typology of English texts $ All of these typologies have been proposed on functional rather than linguistic grounds. Tha isn each ofthese cases esearchers have slated fan important fupetonal diference among txts end have subsequently attempted to identify the linguistic features associated with that iler- «nee. For this reason, thes typologies are not well defined from a strictly linguist perspective, considering questions suchas (1) do the proposed seis of defining linguistic features actualy cooceur systematically in txts? (2) are the texts im each type actually similar to each other in their linguist frm? (3) are the types clearly distinc in their linguistic form? and (4) docs the typology characterize the fll range of texts in English? For example, neither Longacte's typology (see Smith 1985) nor Chafe’s (Gee Redeker 1984 captures the sets of linguistic Features that actually ooecur in English texts, and therefore these typologies cannot inti text types that ate linguistically wel defied, The rhetorical modes of discourse, on the other hand, are not intended as linguistic types the characteristic linguist features of each mode have not been consistently efned, and there is considerable linguistic variation among the texts within each mode. These typologies ae important to the extent that they ‘ently salient functional diferences among texts. (The functional dis tinction identified by Chafe have Been particulary wseflin this regard) Functionally based typologies have not been sucessful, however, in identifying the salient unautsre difrences among texts in English. The present study uses anew approach to identily the salient linguistic text types of Engish. The typology developed here is based on sets of symiacti and leneal features that cooceu frequently intext, rather than sssuming sets of features defined on priori Functional grounds, These feature ses, the “dimension of variation, are idetfed empirically by rulivarite quantitative methods, and the linguistic characteristics of any given text can he specified precisely with respect to cach dimension, The dimensions and associated text charaterizations provide the basi for the present typology the types are defined such that the texts cach ype are maximally similar in thee linguistic characters. while the diferent types are maximally distinct from one another. These types represent important functional diferenees in English, because linguistic ‘ooccurtence reflects shared function. The order of analysis is reversed From previous studies. however. The types ate Tir identified on the bass oftheir linguist characteristics and only subsequently interpreted func tionally. The resulting text distinctions represent the Functional types that ate linguistically well defined in English ‘There is one Further text typology that should be considered here: the fotk-typology of genres” Gentes are the text categories realy distin- shed by mature speakers ofa language; for example, the genres of 6 D. Biter English include novel, newspaper ates, torial, academic ates, publ spss ado bondcoi,and ieyay covesaton. Thee Stoners are defined primarily onthe bash of external format. Ths, sewspaper aries are found inthe news sections of REWSpapers: 36 Umit ales are found in scademic journals. These distinctions are {eed to oterditeencesin purpose an tation and hee are marked Inu aierencer among the pers of English (Biber 1988). Genre (nnetion do not adequately represen the undedying text ype of Fnglah, however. Texte within particular genes can difler greatly in thar lngusie sharcterstiny for example. newspaper artes can range from extemely narrative and collogsalininguiste form 10 Sxtemely informational and claborated inform. On the other hand, Siren genrescan be quite similar initially Tor example, nenspaner Sct and popular magazine arls ean be nearly denial in orm Lingisicaly inc texts within a gente represent diferent txt types nguyen eres eet sie et type In the present typology of texts genes and text types ae leary timinguished, andthe rations among and betwen them are Henified nd explained i 22 Background: tive dimensions of variation ‘The oton of tinge eooseurrenc i etal 0 inguin aalss of hk orrepster Brown and Fraser (199-33) empha the poe athcof fs notoncobcrng that te be-mislending to concert on ‘pro olaed [agus markers withow taking inf acount stem 7 iSistons what nl he concurese oft of marr Ee $Tupy 972 an yns 197) dene spetch eat vars hat are diel bys shaed otf coocuring ng estore the txt pes Sine pres study are te sent vats of ngs defined in those thm hat toxt pes are ented quantitative sath hat he etn ‘peal share een uf the sme se of eooecuring ngs iene Beau cooturece refs shared faction the sang {Sys ar eoheret in et ingisi form and conmmncatve anton ie he presen stay, T aaa Uguite cooserrence i tems of underlying dmenon af var, Tere ar thee dsinne chara tens ofthe notion a timasin as weit it, no singe dimension ‘Shoat inst 0 aosunt fr the range of Haute variation in 5 ensues rather © multimensonal tnx rouired Sond Simeon are continous snes of writin ate han dichotomous tention Thd the conccurene ptr ander dimensions ae A typology of English txts 7 ‘ented quantitatively (by a statistical procedure known as factor Analysis) rather than on an priori functional bass Dimensions have both linguistic and functional conten. The linguistic content of a dimension comprises a group of linguistic Features (sch as, passives, nominalizations, prepositional phrases) that cooocur with @ ‘markedly high frequency in texts. Based on the assumption that cooceur Fence refls shared function, these eoaccurrene patterns are interpreted in terms ofthe situational, social, and cognitive functions most widely shared by the cooceurring linguistic features "To date, five major dimensions of variation have been identified in English. Biber 1988) presents «unified description of genre variation in English in terms ofthis five-cimensional model, The mode! is developed byanalyzing the cooocurrence distributions of 67 linguistic features in 81 spoken and written texts of contemporary British English. The texts, Which were taken from the Lancaster Oslo Bergen andthe London- Lund Corpora, represet 23 diferent geares (Tor example, academie prose, res reportage, conversation, radio broadcast). The linguistic features fall into 16 major grammatical categories: (A) tnse and aspect markers, (8) Place and time adverbial, (C) pronouns ad pro-serbs,(D) questions (E} nominal forms, (F) passives, (G)stative forms, (H) subordination fea tures, () prepositional phrases, adjectives, and. adverbs, J) lexical specificity, (K) lexical classe, (L) modals,(M) specialized verb classes, (8) reduced forms and dsprefered structures, (0) coordination, and (P) regation, The featores are identified automatically in texts by computer programs written in PL; 1. The cooccurrence pateras among features (that is, the dimensions) are identified quantiatively by a ait procedure Known as factor analysis. Biber (1988) includes oth a theoretical analysis of genre variation in terms of the model and full Aiseusson of the methodological approach (including situational desrip- tions of the texts, functional descriptions of the linguistic features, and technical descriptions of the computational and statistical teenies). 1 vil begin herewith a bref explication ofthe overall model of variation tnd then go onto use ths model asthe basis for a typology of texts in English “The summary that follows on pages § and 9 lists the cooccurring features associated with each of the five dimensions: 8D. Biber Summary ofthe cooecurrence patterns underlying the dimensions: Dimension 1, Involved versus Dimension 2 “Narrative versus ‘informational production ‘ponnarraive concerns prvate verbs pusttease verbs| THAT deletion Be person pronouns contractions perfect-aspect verbs preseat-ense verbs public verbs 2nd person pronouns Syothetic negation DO as pro-er present parcpal clauses analytic negation Semonswative pronouns present-tense verbs eneralemphatics tibutve adjectives Ist person pronouns pronoun IT BE as main verb ‘causative subordination scoursepartces Dimension 3. “Explicit versus situation-dependent reference” ‘WH relative clauses on object indefinite pronouns positions ‘eneral holes ied piping relative clauses “anspiiers WH relative clauses on subject sentence relatives positions WH questions ‘Phrasal coordination possiblity modals ‘ominalzations| omphrasal coordination WH causes time adverbial final prepositions place adverbials adverbs adverbs sword length prepositions Iypeitoken ratio attibusve adjectives place adverbals A wypoegy of English ests 9 Dimension 4. Overt expression of Dimension. “Abstract versus ersuasion® ronabstract ste Infntives conjunets predition mods agents passives fasve verbs past participa clauses ‘conditional subordination BY passives nocesity modals pastpartpial WHIZ deletions spit auxares ther adverbial subordinators possibility moda a ‘no complementary features ‘no complementary Features Most of the dimensions consist of two groupings of features, which ‘represent sel of features tht occur in complementary pattern That, ‘when the features in one group oceur together Tequently i & text, the features in the other group are markedly less frequent in that ext, and vice versa. To interpret the dimensions, iis important 0 consider likely reasons for the complementary distribution of these two groups of features as well s the reasons for the cooccurrence pattern within ach sr0up. Far example, consider dimension 2. The features in the top group (above the line} are pastense verb, perfeetasport verb, Thidperson pronouns, and public verbs (primarily speechact verbs) while the features in the bottom group are presentiense verbs and adjectives. Considering all of the features on dimension 2, this dimension 1s interpreted as distinguishing narrative discourse from other types of discourse, suggesting the interpretive label ‘Narrative versus nonnarratve concerns’. Narrative conoeent are marked by considerable reference to 10D. Bier ‘past time, third-person animate referents, and reported speech (public. ‘erbs) nonnarrative concerns, whether expository descriptive, or othe. ‘are marked by immediate time and attebutive nominal elaboration, The ‘complementary groupings on the other factors reflex similar functional relations ‘To represent the communicative funtion) underlying each cooceur- rence pater, the dimensions ar labeled as follows: |. Involved versus informational production 2. Narrative versus nonnarrative concerns 3. Elaborated versus situaion-dependent reference 44 Overt expresion of persuasion 5. Abstract versus monastract style Dimension 1 (se summary, page 8) represents a dimension marking high informational density and exact informational coatent (the bottom ‘rouping of feature), versus affective, interactional, and. generalized content (the top group of features). Two communicative parameters seem to be involved here” (I) the primary purpose of the wrter)spaker informational versus involved: and (2) the production circumstances: those eieumstances providing carelal editing possiblities, enabling prec sion in lexical choice and an integrated textual structure, versus circum stances that are characterized by real-time constrains, resulting in igeeraized lexical choice and a generally fragmented presentation of Information. To refect these parameters, the interpretive label “Tovolved ‘ees informational prodvetion’ i ved fr this dimension. ‘Considering both groups of defining features, dimension 3 is intr preied as characterizing highly explicit, contetindependent reference ‘ersus nonspesfi,situaton-dependent reference. WH relative causes Uincluding ped-piing constroctons) are used to specify the identity of referents within txt in an explicit and elaborated manner. Time and place adverbial, on the other hand, are usually used for textexteral Feferences, where the addressee must identi the intended place and time ‘eferents in the actual physical context of the discourse, Overal, the label “Blaborated versus stuation-dependent reference captures the character ofthis dimension, The interpretive label ‘Overt expression of persuasion’ is used for imension 4 This dimension marks the degree to which persion 3 ‘marked overly, whether marking the speakers point of view, oF the speakers attempt to persuade the adresse Finally, the eooccurence of conjunets passive constructions, and past- participa clauses on dimension $ marks informational discourse that is abstract, lechnieal, and formalin ste versus other types of discourse. A typology of English texts 11 ‘The label “Abstract versus nonabstract style" can thus be proposed for dimension 5 of texts the frequency of nouns in text might be called the “noun score’ of that text, dimension scores” can be computed 10 characterize cach text with respet to each dimension, Firs, the frequen ‘38 ofall inguistcfeatores are normalized ta text length of 1,000 words tnd standardied to a mean of 0.0 and standard devstion of 1.0. On Such scale, a score of 1.0 marks a value thats one standard deviation higher than the overall mean score; score of ~ 1.0 marks vali that fone standard deviation below the mean.” Standardized scores are used because they set frequency counts ta single scale, making the frequencies irecly comparable across features. ‘Ale standardization, dimension sores are compute by summing, for ‘ach ext, the Feguencis ofthe salient defining features ofthe dimension, ‘To illustrate, consider dimension 3 as given im the summary on page 8 ‘The dimension score representing dimension 3 is computed by adcing together the frequencies of WH relative clauses on object and subject positions, pied-pipng relative clauses, phrasal coordination, and nomi alizations (the features with postive loadings), and Frequencies of time adverbial, place adverbial, and gene features with negative loadings) — Tor each text The linguist relations among txts can be considered by comparing their dimension scores, and the relations among text varieties can be considered by comparing the mean dimension score ofeach variety. For trample, Figure T plots the mean dimension scores for nine English genres with respect co dimension 1, "evolved vers information production. Face-to-face conversation has the highest vl, marking it 45 extremely involved and interactive, this high score reflects high frequencies of present-ense verbs, private verbs, frst- and second: person pronouns, contractions, ele, together with matkedly low fre- fences of nouns, prepositional phrases, long words, ete. Personal letersand interviews have moderately high score on dimension 1, while general ction and prepared speeches have intermediate valves. Genres like press reportage, academic prose, and offical documents have the lowest values on dimension I, marking them as quite informational and noninvolved: these low scores reflect very high frequencies of nouns, prepositional phrases, etc, plus very low frequencies of private verbs, 12D. Biber Fee Moon sce of emi 1 ted romain peti} foie Te overall relations between any two texts or vaites canbe analyzed by consideration of their rsative scores onal ive dimensions. In previous lies, T have used the dimensions to examine the relations among Various genre clases (Se for example 1987, 1988; Biber and Finegan 198); the present paper develops a typology of English texts with respect to the Bive dimensions. A typology of English texts 13 4A typology of texts in English 4.4. Ldefiction of formally distin text types Groupings of texts that are similar in their linguistic form can be identified empirically by ssing a statinal procedure known as cluster alysin n the present cae, the groupings are idatifed on the basis of Similarities with respect to the ve dimensions outlined above. Cluster is groups texts such that the texts within each cluster are maximally Similar to each other in thee exploitation ofthe textual dimensions, while tach caster ie maximally distine! from the others. Thats, thos exis with the most similar dimension scores are grouped in each cluster. “To identi the major text types in English it was necessary to analyze ‘he similarities and diferences among a large numb of texts representing ‘many diferent spoken and writtén genres. nal, 481 tens taken ffom 23 ‘major gonre categories were analyzed, as summarized in Table I? Some ofthese genre categories represent several dstint subgenes, For exam ple, pres reportage icles cultural, sports, and financial news reports Academic prose includes humanities, social scence, and enginering txpositions broadcasts include sports reporting and reportage of less ‘tcting events such asa funeral anda scene demonstration. Taken Together, these teats represent a large range of the communicative situations and purposes found in English ‘Alster analysh produces diferent solutions fo diferent numbers of| clusters (that i, oneclster solution, a two-luster solution, et) “Therefore, the fst ask for the researcher isto determine which solution provides the best fit the dat, that in which solution the exts within ach cluster are maximally similar while the clusters themselves are ‘maximally distinct The fit ofa solution ean be asesed quantitatively. “and in the present analysis, the solution for eight clusters provides the bes fitto the data ‘The cluster analysis asians every tent in the study to some easter. I ‘cach text i labeled with the number ofits cluster, ll 48) texts can be plotted ina way tht illsrates the diferences among clusters. Figure 2 for example, shows the distribution of texts with respect to dimension I (nvolved versus informational production) and dimension 3 (Explicit ‘versus situated reference). This plot represents the distribution of texts scconding to their exploitation of the linguistic features on these two dimensions; the horizontal axis plas the dimension score of each text for ‘dimension I; the vertical axis plots the scores for dimension 3. The ‘numbers in the plot represent the clster aumber ofthe texts having the ‘ven scores on these two dimensions. For example, the position held by 6 Poplrove ie 7 ows “ 16, Gone toe » 18. Tephow cones B Sobers debt, and interns 2 2 Spmtunour penn i Bh Pn specie me ‘Amit ame of mode on ‘the circled number $ on Figure 2 locates the text that has & dimension score of 13 on dimension 1 (the horizontal axis) and a score of ~5 on ‘imension 3 (che vertical axis), and that belongs to cluster 5; these ‘dimension scores mark this text as moderately involved in focus and ‘moderately situated in reference. Figure 2 shows relatively distnet groupings for clusters 1, 25.7. and 8, while the remaining three clusters (3,4, and 6) are less wel distinguished {in terme of dimensions I and 3. The texts in cluster | (marked in the plot by the numeral I) are characterized by quite high scores on dimension 1 and relatively low scores on dimension 3 cluster 2 is similar except thas Tower scores on dimension 1 Clusters 8,7, and §, all have unmarked scores on dimension I; they difer from one another along dimension 3: A typology of English texts Poof cay in ith eet enon | (che rm fs 1s onal prion} rm dmeson 3 (Expl ern aed fen) 16D. Biter luster 8 texts have markedly high scores, cluster 7 txts have extreme low sores, cluster 5 texts have unmarked scores. Clusters 3,4, and 6 have low scores on dimension I: on dimension 3, cluster 4 tens tend to have high scores, cluster 6 texts tend {0 have relatively low scores, and claster 3 tents have unmarked scores. “The astrishs on Figure 2 plot the ‘centroids’ (the central characteriza- ios) for each cluster with respect to the two dimensions. An overall summary of each cluster is given in Table. including the numberof texts In the cluster, the nearest cluster, and the distance’ to the nearest luster. The “distance” measures the cumulative difference between the cluster cenoids with fespect to the five dimensions. Table 2 confirms the limpression given by Figure 2 that the types ate not equally distinct in thet linguistic characteizations. In particular this table shows that clusters 3, 4nd Gare relatively nondistine: both luster 3 and luster 6have cluster ‘4 the nearest clstr, with a distance of only 8.3 between cluster 3 and cluster "The cluster analysis identifies the “ore’ text types in English: the ‘ver high concentrations of txts. Theresa group ‘of core texts anda group of peripheral texts associated with each clus. ‘Core tents are very similar (6 the ental lngustic characterization of 2 cluster: peripheral texts are relatively disimilar to the ental luster characirzation, but even more dissimilar to other clusters * Out ofthe 4451 texts in this study, 348 aze grouped into one ofthe core text types by the cluster analysis: Figure 2 plots only these core texts. Peripheral xs, however, are not aberrant; their existence rather reflects the fact that text variation i continuous. Texts do not divide into sharply distinct, “ype — instead there isa continuous range of variation in linguistic form and use. The notion of “text type developed here is based on the Tele 2 Gr ary of te aes crete perp ets scr A typology of Brglsh tes 17 frequent and therefore typical clustrings of texts, which account forthe majority of texts English. Ina sense, these ean be considered the text ‘prototypes’ of English. There are, however other texts that fallin Derween clusters, grading from one type to the next, I return to the continuous nature of variation among texts i section 5 The grouping of texts into clusters determined on the bass of thei characterization with espect tall ve dimensions. That i, texts that are Similar with respect to-one dimension but very different with respect to ‘other dimensions ate ily tobe grouped ino diferent casters, Figure 2 shows the dsebution of texts with espct to only two dimensions, biti fan be used as an illustration ofthe way texts are grouped into csr, For example, texts in clusters 1, 2, and 5 are very similar with respect to their dimension 3 scores (the vertical axis); texts in all three clusters generally ave scores between 0-and ~8. With respect to thei dimension "scores (the horizontal axis), however, the texts in these three casters are distinc: texts im cluster 1 have scores ranging From to S4; texts in luster 2 range from 22 to 40; texts in cluster 5 range from —3 10 15 Similar comparisons can be made for clusters 8,5, and 7: texts in these ‘lustre are quite similar with respect to thee dimension 1 scores (ranging generally between 3 and 12), but quite distinc with respect to thee just put my glasses on # I can't se @ thing without them f (long pause] well after all they're too dark to be inspiring arent they # [pause] BI don't want one ¢ I'm afraid ‘A: Think I'd eather substitute # B: yes #Thaven' space # I don't want [pause] portraits ‘A: no # (pause) Custer 2 texts “Text sample 2(LL:S.5; pane! discussion) ‘Question: Do you think that thete is any chance thatthe Labour Party will provide an effsive opposition in the forseable Faure? [AY Chvistopher Chatavay 9 C:_Pveseldom heard a string of sentences that I realy do bie # to [pause] contain quite so many # [pause] faulty analyses 9 of the present situation # [long pause] I don't believe § that this country is ‘Singing to unilateralism [A Lord Boothby # B: well (pause T don't think you know # that Tony Wedgwood Benn can seriously say that personalities [pause] don’t matter # long pause] because think they do matter tremendously in [pause] plies {today # and especialy nthe politis ofthe Left long pause] what has Ihappened is ‘Teat sample 3 (LL:I.; fecetoface conversation between academic colleagues, concerning student comprehensive exams) ‘A: wells [pause] may [ask 4 what goes into that paper now ¥ because [have to advise # [pause] a couple of people who are doing the [mm] B:_ wall what you do sto [lng pause] this is sort of between the two fof us what you do # isto make sure that your own [pause] candidate A typology of English tes 25 {omm] is {pause that your {pause} there's something that your own candidate can bandle# long pause] ‘A: you mean that the the the papers are more of les seta hominem 2 are they # (pause) ° B:_ [mm] [long pause] they shouldnt be ¥ long pause] bat frm] [pause] Tmean one # Sts long pause] one question # now I mean this fellows doing the language of advertising # [pase] 50 very well A yeah Br Bie him one on ‘A: | this a spare paper (change of topic) Be yeah Text sample 4 (LAL examination ofa witness) ‘A: Mr Pte di you ¢ (long pause arrive # about 10 o'clock # on the [pause] Sunday # [pause] the date the will was [pause] signed pause) Be yes # flong pause] And [pause] id you [pause go # and see your mother straight away spontancous speech — specifically a court x i Be yest did ¢ ‘A: what was she then doing ¢ [pause] B: she was having her lunch # fang pause) ‘A: what about the brandy bottle # where was that ¥ long peu] By [don't know I ida’ (pause I dda’ se ¢ ‘A: you did't see it ¢ Be well [pause] no T didn’t 1 would think 1 ought to tell your lordship pause} so that nothing # is [pause] isto be hidden # Trom our side [pase] tha the Plains supplied ¥ certain statements # to ut ¥ [long pass several ‘months ago [pause] one of which # was a short statement ¢ from the ctor # pase] ‘Text samples Illustrate the share characteristics of custrs 1 and 2 aswell asthe major difference between these two types. Al four simples ae interactional, but text sample I, which represents cluster 1, is nearly fxclusive in its interpersonal focus, while samples 2-4, which represent Custer 2, ll have a specie informational purpose in addition to thee imerpersonal purpose In sample 1, there sno particular topic that the Focus of discussion; rather, the participants change topic ely and place Primary emphasis onthe interaction ise instead of on the exchange of 26D. Biter information. In contrast, samples 2 4 are all informational to some extent, Sample 28 from a pane! discussion, where a group of dscusants Interact with one another debating a ssries of specie issues, ths speech vents thus expliily informational and interactional atthe sume tine, Sample 31s rom a face-to-face conversation i professional content for professional purposes, andi thus has a markedly informational ae well ierational focus, The text that contains sample 4 is from the pee labeled “spontaneous speeches’ in the London-Lund Corpus, and is therefore Surprising tha this tex is groupe into the interactional cluster 2-As sample 4 shows, however, this text in fet an interaction —~ a fourtvoom examination of witness which both informational and ineraetional. The grouping of this txt ito cluster 2 highlights the fet that the types ate defined on the bass of linguistic characteristics rather than any external extra, [As noted above, clusters | and 2 are very similar with respect to dimensions 25, and text samples -4 illustrate these shared characer- istics All Tour texts are marked by nonelaborated reference in that they have very few WH relative clauses, phrasal coordinator, and aomializa- tions the upper features on dimension 3) Infact, al ofthese texts contain ineyplct referents that can be understood only by reference to the immediate situation or shared background of the participants: for example, there, thes, some of ths, tha, those in strple the present situation hs coun today in sample 2: thas paper, sellin sample 3, the brandy ote, several month go in sample 4 In addition, ll Four texts are nonabstract in tha they contain very few conjunet, passives, oF ther past-paicipal constructions (the features on dimension 5). Like their respective clusters, text samples 4 are relatively unmarked with ‘espect o dimension 2" Narrative concer’ and dimension 4 Expression fof persuasion Thus, these texts show relatively few past tense forms, perfect-aspct verbs, thitdpetson pronouns ete. (dimension 2) and few Infinitive, prediction modal, suasive verbs ete. (dimension 4). The major linguistic derence Beween clusters 1 and 2 eats to thei characterization on dimension I cluster 1 i exteemely involved, while ‘luster 2 more moderately involved. The situational characteristics of the texts grouped into esters | and 2, together with this linguistic ‘characterization ead to the interpretation of cluster as highly imerper sonal. noninformational teraction, and cluster 2 as informational Interaction, The dimension I characterises of text samples | 4 support this iaterpeeation, Sample | hts by far the highest dimension | score of ‘hese four ected by Frequent private verbs (uch as know, tn). that deletions (Fk hat) tha all rights 1 think Inuraines or any of the other normal encumbrances which Cel had A typology of English texts 33 S50 far avoided. He ead the fl stars sorry sory and frowned atthe provisions of Schedule D taxation which not only allowed he to claim relief on the most unlikely purchases, but also postponed demanding the ax uni her nancial year was ended, audited and agreed by the Inspector. All tyoe of these text samples illustrate the informational features associated with dimension I: frequent occurrences ofthe bottom features (euch as nouns, prepositional pase, atibutive adjectives plas mark ‘ily infrequent use ofthe upper features (such a5 private verbs, contrac. tions). This is true of the editoral (sample 9), which is primarily informative and expository in purpose, aswell asthe humor text (sample 1), which is primaniy entertaining and narrative im purpose. Further, espite the dierent purposes ofthese texts, they all ue naratve forme fassocited with dimension 2 (such at pas-tene forms. perfect-aspect verbs, third-person pronouns). This tendency is most pronounced in the humor tex sample, but is found inal dre samples, On the other thes dimensions, these samples illustrate the unmarked characterization of cluster 6 not markedly ‘laboraed! of “situated in reference, and not marked with espct to persuasion of abstract syle “The text type represented by this cluster has a special place in the present typology: its the most general and nondistnc of the eight types Although the txts inthis type share a general linguistic eharacerieation, having carefully crafted, informational presentation and making tl tively fequent use of narrative forms, the linguistic characterization of this type tends to be relatively unmarked on all fie dimensions. As tex samples 9-11 show, the ens in this type can have diferent purposes, akhough the underlying logical development used to achieve those Purposes seems celatively similar. That all of these samples use 8 farratve line and careful informational elaboration to achieve their end. inthe case of editorials, that end is analysis of some poliial or social situation: in the case of press reportage, that end is informing through factual report of events inthe case of humor (as wells ftion and biography), that end is entertainment through a report of evens. These texts belong tthe same type in their surface charaterizations and, 08 lesser extent, in their underlying organizations, they show considerable Variation, however, wih respect to their specific purposes. wil return {0 the discussion of tox type 6 relative to the other ies in section 5. 425. Cluser 7: ‘Situated reportage’, Chster isthe smallest and most Gistince text type identified im the study. Figure 4 shows that iis ot ‘marked with respect to dimension I, but itis markedly nonnarrative, MD. Bier nonpersusive, und nonubstrac (with respect to dimensions 2 4, and 3). ‘The most distinctive characteristic ofthis clusters on dimension 3, where it ts characterized as extremely situated in reference. The core tens ‘grouped into this cluster ae all sports broadcasts. This text type thus characterizes the on-line reportage of events which are in progress sad ‘ecur ina fairly rapid suecesson, Text sample 12, taken from a broadcast ‘of soccer game, ilustates the distinctive characteristics ofthis text type ster? ‘Text sample 12 (LL102; sports broadeast — soccer) a: Dunn # down the line #2 bad one # i's Badger that gets it # he's got time to conirol it # [pause] he feeds infact» Tom Curry one ofthe ‘diel players ahead of bim (pause Curr has got the all on that farside chips the ball down the cence # [pause] again # harmless one ‘pause] no danger # outcomes Stepney [pause] and now lef-footed ¢ his clearance #{pause] is again 9 long (pause) high @ probing ball ¢ down centecld j onto the head of flog pause) Flynn # Flynn to Badger # Bader on the far side Sample 1 illustrates the dstinsve characteristics of easter 7: neither ‘involved nor informational (that i, elaively few occurences of either ‘upner of bottom features from dimension 1), markedly nonnarrative (0 past-tense verbs, perfect-aspect verbs, or ether features from dimen ‘on 2, nonpersuative (none ofthe features associated with dimension 3) find markedly nonabsiract in sive (none of the pasive constructions associated with dimension 5). Although these charactrizatons al repre sent features that are markedly infrequent, they elec the very specialized purpose and production station of these texts a speech event that Seseribes evens actually in progress 0 8 large audience that is not present. For example, the distant relationship between broadcaster and Sodience resis in the lack of involvement feature: the rapid on-line Droduction of text results in relatively few informational features: and the ‘eportage of evens in progress results in the nonmarrative chireteia tion ofthese texts. The ment distinctive postive characterization of ype 7 texts isthe extremely high use of expressions referring dicetly to the physical and temporal situation of communication, Thus, sample 12 Contains numerous expressions sch a down the ie, ahead of hom that {far side, down te conte which requie direct reference to the playing fed for understanding. The very frequent use ofthese expressions results in the extemely situated characterization of type 7 on dimension 3 ‘We might wonder why this text types much more “situate” than 1ype A typology of English tes 38 1, “Tntimate interpersonal interaction’. Both text types are noninforma- tional, and in both types the pariipants share the same temporal context In fat, in some respacs we might expest type 1 to be more Stuated in reference than type ext in ype 1 Lets, parila actually Share the same physical situation, and addresees can request clarification, im eases of misunderstanding: in typical type 7 texts, the speaker (a radio broadeasier) does not actually share a physical situation with the Tsteners, and there sno possiblity of carfeation, Thee seem to be (Wo reasons forthe observed characterization of type 73s extremely situated relative to typeI. Firs, the iterative texts in cluster I do not involve the ‘sme informational demands and are not produced under the same ime ‘constrains as those in luster 7. That i, on line reportage of sports events involves a rapid production of spech describing al relevant evens as they occur. Tn such a situation, there is great demand for situated reference, because thee are very many different referents to keep tack of but very litle opperunity for elaborated referring expressions. nterper sonal interaction (ype 1), onthe other hand, involves considerably fewer referents and provides considerably more opportunity for elaborated reference. Second, the expected syle of sports broadcast isonet ges the impression of an extremely rapid and exciting succession of events, coven if this = not actually the ease. Thus, even in the reportage of @ baseball game, where event occur much more slowly than in a socer ‘match, many ofthe same features seen in sumple 12 are frequently used (Gee Ferguson 1983). Due to the distinctive linguistic characterstice sociated with these unusual production demands, sports broadcasts are Isolated as separate text type of “situated reportage’ by the present analy 426. Claer §: ‘Involved persuasion’, Cluster & also represents relatively specialized text type. In thir linguistic characterization, the texts inthis cluster are moderately involved, nontarative, elaborated in reference, and nonabstract in sige (Figute 4). The most distinctive sharateristic of cluster 8 oecurs on dimension 4, where these texts are ‘markedly persuasive in form. The texts grouped into this cluster (see the ‘breakdown atthe end of section 4.1) are also charactristicaly argumen- tative or persuasive i thei primary purpose, The majority ofthese texts are spoken: some are interactional and informational, such as the interviews and the telephone conversation between disparaes other are informational monologues. sich as the spontaneous and prepared speeches. The remaining texts are written, informational texts, sch as, Popular lor, professional eters, religion, humor. and editorials Overal, the linguistic characterization of these texts i primarily persuasive and 35D. Biber secondarily involved, while the texts themselves are primarily arguments: tive oF persuasive in purpose, Fading to the interpretive label “Involved persuasion “Text samples 13-15 illustrate several of the diferent ways that texts ‘an be persuasive aswell as involved. Text sample 135 from a session of parliament, in which a number of MPs interact withthe Secretary of State, This text contains a number of short interactive monologues, with each speaker attempting to persuade the others. Text sample is from a sermon. This is strictly a monologue, with the preacher fkempting to ‘exhort and persuade the audizace Sample 15 is from a professional letter. This (ext is moderately interactive i that itis & Fesponse to a previous letter from specific individual, Te is also Persuasive, in that it responds to specific questions and proposes & Specie course of action. Custer “Text sample 13 (LL:ILA; spontaneous speech — MPs in Parliament — interacting with each other andthe Secretary of State) 'Q would he not agree that iis essemil atthe moment # that more [pause] shouldbe free for exports snd less absorbed within our public sector # (lone pause) ‘A> well Think T would accept on the later point i that more of our esoures must go # into [rm into the Balance of payments {would he agree that [mm pause] an absence of such a statement # piu] continues to generate uncertainty in the industry 4 and pethaps he migh ike to take this opportunity to [mm] j reemphasize Fis suppor for the second force ane # long pause) AN well | would certainly § [pause] regret ita # [pause] parts or # ‘or indeed the whole of the mi] review # [pause] was to dribble out § that’s not my intention at all ¢ [pause] we shal of course ¢ (pause) indeed we ave (pause studying it [pause] very carefully # (paste). Text sample 14 (LL:12.1; prepared speech sermon) * ‘we must [long pause] have our corporate life together # a. church Tong pause). we can fight ¢ [pause] and we must fight {pavse] Spaist the word f the esh and the Devil ¢ (pute) as individuals [pase] but we must also fight [pause] asthe whole church of God # long pause). we must have God's guidance jan grace # [pause] ‘we must go out realiring [pase] that without God's grace # [pause] ‘we are atteriy powerless lone pase] A typology of English texts 37 ‘Text sample 15 (7; profesional eter) Furthermore it relly would be inappropriate for me to put words in your mouth. In short, you should really take the format of the ‘esolution and pu in yout own thoughts. the association i already sampling opinion on a numberof other matters and it may be posible {0 add this one. IF i snot possible to add your concern this year, would certainly be possible to add it next year Inall thre ofthese samples, there isa high frequency ofthe "persue sive’ features associated ith dimension 4. In sample 13, there are prediction modals (would, shal), necessity mods (should, mus), possi ity modus (might, suasive verbs (agree, and conditional subordination, ‘Sample I shows an extreme use of necessity modals (must) aswell the ‘we of possibilty medals (can). Sample 15 also shows frequent tse of ‘modals (should, may, would) as well as conditional subordination, In audition, all chee simples are relatively involved, as shown by features Sacha irst- and second-person pronouns, emphatis and hedes, private ‘erbs, et. These samples thus iusteate relatively specaied txt type having «primary persuasive or argumentative purpose Ii interesting thatthe speakers and weters ofthese texts are fly uniform in adopting sninvolved presentation rather than a sity informational presentation. “Thats, these texts use both overt persuasive markers (dimension 4) and idensifeation with the listenerreader and an informal, cllogual style (Gimension 1) to make thei point In contrast, some of the peripheral texts grouped in tis cluster are sitet informational while being overdy argumentative and persuasive, ‘Text sample 16, from a philosophy journal, illustrates this type of fet ‘ext sample 16 (LOB: 54; academic prose ~ philosophy) te impression must be describable without reference to any event oF| ‘object citnet fom it It must be possible to characterize that inter impression without invoking any reference to the so-called objet of este... The supposition, then that desring oF wanting sa Humean ‘use, some sort of internal tension of uneasiness, involves the follow” ing contradiction: As Humeaneause or internal impression it must be

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen