5 The discourse structure of parliamentary discourse
5.6 Cross-linguistic differences in discourse structure
150
constructions are perfectly valid in English and Italian, too, both grammatically and semantically. The reason for this is not only the higher number of intrasententially coordinated EDUs in Danish, but also the tendency for Danish to be less constrained with respect to which rhetorical relations can be expressed in syntactically coordinated constructions, see Table 5.4.
We shall return to this issue in Chapter 6 on information structure.
151
spans including several EDUs or because they do not have any explicit discourse cues to signal them. Disjunction is usually textualised in coordinated clauses through the coordinator or, and the last two multinuclear relations, Joint and Multinuclear Restatement, also have low occurrences, but I find it quite reasonable that these are usually textualised as independent sentences.
Another interesting observation is that the semantic relations exhibit a general tendency across the three languages to textualise semantic relations intrasententially more frequently than pragmatic relations. Pragmatic relations are typically textualised between sentences, with a few exceptions in the Italian texts (Concession and Justify). This could indicate a more universal tendency across Danish, English and Italian to prefer sentence shifts when relating speech acts.
Table 5.5 shows the distribution of sources of coherence and the two types of linkage. From a cross-linguistic perspective, Danish and English tend to distribute the sources of coherence almost equally, whereas Italian in all cases displays a higher tendency to prefer intrasentential linkage of EDUs. For instance, the Italian pragmatic relations are more frequently textualised between EDUs inside the same sentence (44.9 %) than Danish (25.2 %) and English (20.1 %) pragmatic relations.
152
Table 5.4: Distribution of rhetorical relations and linkage
Danish English Italian
Intra- Inter- Intra- Inter- Intra- Inter-
SEMANTIC RELATIONS
Circumstance 98.6 % 1.4 % 97.6 % 2.4 % 100.0 % 0.0 % Condition 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 % 0.0 % Elaboration 70.0 % 30.0 % 77.5 % 22.5 % 92.0 % 8.0 % Evaluation 26.1 % 73.9 % 31.8 % 68.2 % 83.9 % 16.1 % Interpretation 21.7 % 78.3 % 17.9 % 82.1 % 66.7 % 33.3 %
Means 95.2 % 4.8 % 88.5 % 11.5 % 96.4 % 3.6 %
Non-Vol. Cause 32.3 % 67.7 % 34.0 % 66.0 % 28.6 % 71.4 % Non-Vol. Result 17.4 % 82.6 % 44.0 % 56.0 % 55.6 % 44.4 %
Otherwise - - - - 100.0 % 0.0 %
Purpose 93.2 % 6.8 % 100.0 % 0.0 % 98.3 % 1.7 %
Solutionhood 2.3 % 97.7 % 7.7 % 92.3 % 3.8 % 96.2 % Unconditional 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 % 0.0 % Unless 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 % 0.0 % Volitional Cause 85.2 % 14.8 % 85.7 % 14.3 % 93.3 % 6.7 % Volitional Result 74.1 % 25.9 % 75.0 % 25.0 % 96.0 % 4.0 %
PRAGMATIC RELATIONS
Antithesis 35.3 % 64.7 % 57.1 % 42.9 % 80.0 % 20.0 % Background 5.7 % 94.3 % 0.0 % 100.0 % 9.9 % 90.1 % Concession 52.1 % 47.9 % 35.7 % 64.3 % 68.3 % 31.7 % Enablement 0.0 % 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 % Evidence 13.3 % 86.7 % 9.3 % 90.7 % 40.0 % 60.0 % Justify 41.7 % 58.3 % 44.4 % 55.6 % 68.6 % 31.4 % Motivation 18.8 % 81.3 % 15.0 % 85.0 % 29.2 % 70.8 % Preparation 0.0 % 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 % 33.3 % 66.7 % Restatement 45.5 % 54.5 % 50.0 % 50.0 % 20.0 % 80.0 %
Summary 0.0 % 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 % 5.3 % 94.7 %
MULTINUCLEAR RELATIONS
Disjunction 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 % 0.00 % 100.0 % 0.00 % Conjunction 54.2 % 45.8 % 51.5 % 48.5 % 74.6 % 25.4 %
Contrast 77.8% 22.2% 85.7% 14.3 % 83.9 % 16.1 %
Joint 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 %
List 35.1% 64.9% 61.5% 38.5 % 86.4 % 13.6 %
Mc. Restatement - - 0.0% 100.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 %
Sequence 41.9% 58.1% 28.0% 72.0 % 26.7 % 73.3 %
153
Danish English Italian
intra- inter- intra- inter- intra- inter- Semantic relations 66.4 % 33.6 % 72.6 % 27.4 % 82.6 % 17.4 % Pragmatic relations 25.2 % 74.8 % 20.1 % 79.9 % 44.9 % 55.1 % Multinuclear relations 51.4 % 48.6 % 48.0 % 52.0 % 70.4 % 29.6 %
Table 5.5: Sources of coherence and linkage
Moreover, we can observe that four relations in particular tend to be textualised differently in Danish and English than in Italian: Evaluation, Interpretation, Antithesis and Evidence. These cross-linguistic differences are interesting because they reveal the interstructural connection between text structure, discourse structure and information structure. We have seen that rhetorical relations appear to be used in the same way in Danish, English and Italian, but that there are cross-linguistic differences in the way in which the relations are used syntactically to link EDUs. In the cases of the four relations mentioned above, we can again observe that Danish and English prefer to textualise satellites in independent, or new, sentences. See the examples below of how Evaluation is textualised differently across the three languages: in Danish 118) and English 119) intersententially, and in Italian intrasententially as embedded clauses – a coordinate clause insertion in 120) and an appositive relative clause in 121).
118) [Fru formand, på vegne af den liberale gruppe vil jeg gerne hilse betænkningen af Terrón i Cusí velkommen.] [Det er en vigtig og nødvendig betænkning.] <ep-03-02-11.txt:38>
[Madam President, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I should like to welcome Mrs Terrón i Cusí's report.] [It is an important and necessary report.]
119) [I therefore ask the Commissioner to take that on board.] [It is essential.] <ep-97-09-16.txt:102>
120) ... [ricordo il fatto che nel testo si evochino [- e questo è positivo -] le lingue minoritarie regionali] [che hanno strumenti di protezione diversi.] <ep-01-01-15.txt:80>
... [I would point out [- and this is a positive fact -] that the text refers to regional minority languages,] [which are covered by a range of protective measures.]
154
121) [L'esigenza, [che faccio mia,] di un'applicazione flessibile del patto di stabilità e di crescita e di un coordinamento delle politiche economiche, sociali e ambientali a partire dalla zona euro è stata però largamente disattesa in questi ultimi anni di recessione,] ...
<ep-02-10-21.txt:49>
[The need, [which I fully endorse,] for flexible application of the Stability and Growth Pact and for coordination of economic, social and environmental policies, starting with the eurozone, has, however, been completely disregarded during the recent years of recession,] ...
Table 5.6, Table 5.7 and Table 5.8 summarise the findings of this chapter by pairing them with the different levels of the deverbalisation scale from Figure 4.1 in the previous chapter. In particular, the tables show in which types of textualisation the rhetorical relations are found, broken down according to each specific language: Table 5.6 contains all Danish relations, Table 5.7 all English and Table 5.8 all Italian. Above all the tables, the corresponding letter of the levels in the deverbalisation scale are found, specifying the syntactic construction employed.
Table 5.6, Table 5.7 and Table 5.8 should be read as follows: if we look at the rhetorical relation Evaluation, we can see that the majority of textualisations occur at level (a) for Danish and English: in Danish, there are nine instances and in English, ten instances of the relation being textualised at level (a) as independent sentences. But if we look at Table 5.8 with the Italian distributions, we find only a single instance of Evaluation at level (a). Here, the majority of Evaluation textualisations are found at level (e), relative clauses, as exemplified above in 121).
Other cross-linguistic differences can be observed between the tendency in Danish to restrict the number of non-finite textualisations to express Elaboration, Means or Purpose and the tendencies in English and Italian to allow non-finite textualisations to express a wider range of rhetorical relations: Circumstance, Elaboration, Means, Purpose, Cause, Concession and Conjunction. In this way, we can see how the similarities in text structure patterns between English and Italian, in certain cases, can be refound in the discourse structure of the two languages.
What can also be deduced from the tables is that syntactic coordination does not always correspond to rhetorical coordination. By adding up the number of textualisations at level (c), coordinate main or matrix clauses for each language, we can see that, in Danish, 56.2 % of these express multinuclear relations, but that the other 43.8 % express mononuclear relations. The same patterns are found in English and Italian, with 65.5 % versus 34.5 % and 53.5% versus 46.5 % respectively, underlining the fact that syntactic coordination does not equal rhetorical
155
coordination. However, if we look at the number of syntactic subordinate textualisations (levels d-j) that express rhetorical coordination, the numbers clearly indicate a tendency towards a closer correspondence between syntactic and rhetorical subordination: in Danish, only 18.5 % of the multinuclear relations are textualised at level (d)-(j), in English 16.4 %, while in Italian we find 31.5 %. These percentages would have been even lower if I had not regarded coordinated subordinate constructions such as two coordinated relative clauses as two subordinate constructions but as one subordinate and one coordinate, see Section 4.4.2.
156
A – independent sentence E – relative clause I – nominalisation
B – main or matrix clause F – infinitival clause J – verbless const.
C – coordinate main or matrix clause G – gerund, pres. or past part.
D – subordinate finite adverbial clause H – pres., past or adj. modifier
A B C D E F G H I J
SEMANTIC RELATIONS
Circumstance 1 1 62 2 3 2 2
Condition 29 3 3 1
Elaboration 29 64 13 3 209 1 2 2 4
Evaluation 9 7 2 5
Interpretation 14 5 1 1 2
Means 1 1 6 1 5 7
Non-Vol. Cause 10 35 7 8 2
Non-Vol. Result 7 10 4 2
Otherwise
Purpose 2 2 16 8 14 1 1
Solutionhood 18 24 2
Unconditional 3
Unless 1 1
Vol. Cause 3 15 2 30 9 1 1
Vol. Result 2 5 12 4 1 2 1
PRAGMATIC RELATIONS Antithesis 6 7 2 1
Background 26 36 8
Concession 15 35 11 10
Enablement 2
Evidence 19 25 13 3
Justify 14 13 7 9 4 1
Motivation 5 5 5 1
Preparation 5 2 1 1
Restatement 3 2 3 1 1 1
Summary 10 13 2 1
MULTINUCLEAR Disjunction 5 4
Conjunction 27 49 91 6 4 1
Contrast 4 4 9 7 2 1
Joint 5 8 2
List 14 9 11 1 2
M. Restatement
Sequence 3 12 14 1 1
Table 5.6: Textualisation of rhetorical relations in Danish
157
A – independent sentence E – relative clause I – nominalisation
B – main or matrix clause F – infinitival clause J – verbless const.
C – coordinate main or matrix clause G – gerund, pres. or past part.
D – subordinate finite adverbial clause H – pres., past or adj. modifier
A B C D E F G H I J
SEMANTIC RELATIONS
Circumstance 1 7 2 37 5 11 4 12 3
Condition 24 1
Elaboration 25 49 11 4 171 5 71
Evaluation 10 3 4 5
Interpretation 10 13 2 3
Means 1 2 1 14 2 5 1
Non-Vol. Cause 10 27 1 3 3 1 4
Non-Vol. Result 4 10 3 3 4 1
Otherwise
Purpose 1 2 4 25 1 2 5
Solutionhood 7 16 2 1
Unconditional 4 1 1
Unless 2 1
Vol. Cause 4 5 11 6 3 4 2
Vol. Result 2 2 3 1 2
PRAGMATIC RELATIONS Antithesis 3 12 3 1 1 1
Background 29 47 1
Concession 16 23 5 7 1 1 1 2
Enablement 2 2
Evidence 7 28 4 1 2 1
Justify 12 11 5 14 2 1
Motivation 5 13 1 1
Preparation 3 3
Restatement 1
Summary 13 8 2 1
MULTINUCLEAR Disjunction 1
Conjunction 25 49 82 4 3 2 2 1
Contrast 4 10 4 3
Joint 16 4 1
List 2 3 7 1
M. Restatement 2
Sequence 3 13 8 1
Table 5.7: Textualisation of rhetorical relations in English
158
A – independent sentence E – relative clause I – nominalisation
B – main or matrix clause F – infinitival clause J – verbless const.
C – coordinate main or matrix clause G – gerund, pres. or past part.
D – subordinate finite adverbial clause H – pres., past or adj. modifier
A B C D E F G H I J
SEMANTIC RELATIONS
Circumstance 1 22 4 5 8 1 6 1
Condition 27 1
Elaboration 3 28 21 6 215 3 87 2 12
Evaluation 1 1 12 16
Interpretation 2 3 5 9 2
Means 3 2 1 9 1 10 1
Non-Vol. Cause 8 42 10 7 5 1 1 1 1 1
Non-Vol. Result 5 6 2 9 4 1
Otherwise 1
Purpose 1 1 2 8 40 2 5
Solutionhood 6 15 5
Unconditional 1
Unless 1
Vol. Cause 1 6 24 11 1 2 3 4 1
Vol. Result 1 5 1 12 1 4 1
PRAGMATIC RELATIONS Antithesis 9 4 1 1
Background 10 49 9 1 1 1
Concession 5 31 9 9 13 1 3 1 6
Enablement 2
Evidence 5 19 11 4 3 2 1
Justify 9 14 12 19 10 3 2 1 1
Motivation 2 13 2 1 3 1
Preparation 2 1
Restatement 2 2 2
Summary 3 13 2
MULTINUCLEAR Disjunction 1 2 2
Conjunction 5 34 98 11 11 4 5 7 2 4
Contrast 1 3 19 4 2 1 1
Joint 3
List 1 2 13 5 1
M. Restatement 1
Sequence 4 16 8 1 1
Table 5.8: Textualisation of rhetorical relations in Italian
159