EDUs per sentence

Although it is difficult to see from the mean number of EDUs per sentence row in Table 6.1, there are noteworthy differences in the distribution between the numbers in the three languages.

As we can see in Table 6.3 showing the distribution of EDUs per sentence in all the L1 texts, the typical pattern in Danish texts suggests that one EDU in many cases (40.3 %) corresponds to one sentence. In English, the distribution shows the same percentages for the occurrences of one and two EDUs per sentence (34.5 % and 34.3 % respectively), followed by a considerable number of sentences with three EDUs (19.3 %). In Italian, by contrast, the highest concentration of EDUs is found in sentences with three EDUs. In fact, each triangle in Table 6.3 that represents Italian sentences with one, two, three and four EDUs constitutes approximately 20 % of the total number of EDUs. This entails that sentences with up to four EDUs in Italian amount to 78.1 % of all EDUs, whereas the equivalent numbers in Danish and English are much higher:

93.0 % and 96.0 % respectively. As argued above, we can also see that the Italian sentences contain more EDUs than the Danish and English counterparts. In fact, there are a small number

167

of Italian sentences with more than nine EDUs; the Danish and English texts contain only very few sentences with more than seven EDUs (0.3 % in Danish and 0.4 % in English).

Table 6.3: Distribution of EDUs per sentence

These numbers confirm that the longer sentence lengths found in the Italian texts are not only due to differences in typological language characteristics between Danish, English and Italian, but also due to differences between the mean numbers of EDUs per sentence in the three languages. For instance, Italian sentences contain more EDUs and thus more information than Danish and English sentences. Example 124), containing an Italian sentence with nine EDUs, illustrates how a relatively large amount of information can be packaged inside the same sentence. The interesting thing about this example is the way the underlined satellites are structured linguistically as subordinate EDUs. The first two (quando si tratta/when it is a matter and come io sostengo/as I point out) are subordinate finite adverbial clauses, and the three following (sottoscritto/supported, contententi/containing and testate/tested) are postmodifiers.

Thus the satellites are integrated in their respective nuclei and in various ways dependent on them, see the deverbalisation scale presented in Chapter 4. This means that cognitively they play a less salient role in the discourse structure of the sentence than if the satellites had been textualised as independent sentences (cf. Renkema, 2004, p. 147). Furthermore, satellites textualised as subordinate clauses are typically marked by discourse cues, here quando (when)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Danish 40,3 31,7 14,6 6,4 4,5 1,2 1 0,3 0 0 0 0 0

English 34,5 34,3 19,3 7,9 2,1 0,8 0,7 0,2 0,2 0 0 0 0 Italian 17,3 21 21,6 18,2 9,3 4,8 3,4 2,5 1,1 0,2 0 0,2 0,2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Percentage

EDUs per sentence

168

and come (as), revealing their argumentative functions in relation to the main claim of the sentence found in the nucleus (it is essential to carry out an initial set of experiments on animals).

124) [Ma [quando, signor Commissario, [come io sostengo nell'emendamento]

[sottoscritto da oltre cinquanta parlamentari,] si tratta di nuovi cosmetici] [contenenti ingredienti nuovi,] [mai testati sperimentalmente prima] [al fine di caratterizzarne il profilo tossicologico negli animali da laboratorio,] in tali condizioni io sono convinto, da scienziato, che sia obbligatorio procedere ad una prima fase di sperimentazione animale] [prima dell'uso nell'uomo] [e prima dell'immissione in commercio.] <ep-01-04-02.txt:42>

[However, [when, Commissioner, [as I point out in an amendment] [supported by over 50 Members of Parliament,] it is a matter of new cosmetics] [containing new ingredients] [never tested in the past] [in order to establish their toxicological profile in laboratory animals,] then, I am convinced, as a scientist, that it is essential to carry out an initial set of experiments on animals] [before the use on human beings] [and before the emission on the market.]

In contrast to the strategy above of downgrading satellites into subordinate EDUs of various types, example 125) from a Danish text with eleven EDUs applies an upgrading strategy. Here, the satellite EDUs are not always reduced to subordinate clauses. The first sentence introduces the main nucleus (beef must be labelled with regard to provenance), while the following sentences fulfil different rhetorical functions: the underlined independent sentence Målet med denne ordning (The purpose of the regulation) expresses a causal relationship (Volitional Cause) with the previous sentence. By comparing this way of upgrading the information of the sentence to an independent sentence with the downgrading of the Italian counterpart in example 124), where a causal relationship (Purpose) was textualised as an infinitve clause (al fine di caratterizzarne/in order to establish), we can gain further insight into the typical information structure patterns of the two languages. As mentioned earlier, English in this respect resembles Danish more than it resembles Italian.

125) [Jeg går ind for, at oksekød mærkes med det eller de lande,] [kødet kommer fra,]

[og jeg er stærkt imod at indføre et fælles EU-mærke,] [hvor forbrugerne ikke kan se, hvilke lande der er tale om.] [Målet med denne ordning må være at opnå, at forbrugerne har tillid til kød fra samtlige EU-lande.] [Indtil det er en realitet,] [har forbrugerne krav

169

på at vide præcis, hvilket land kødet kommer fra.] [Jeg har stillet et ændringsforslag om, at slagteriets autorisationsnummer ikke skal fremgå på etiketten.] [Med mit forslag ønskede jeg at sikre, at små og mellemstore slagterier fortsat kan levere kød til opskæring.] [Dette autorisationsnummer giver ikke forbrugeren nogen anvendelig information] [og har ingen konsekvens for sporbarheden.] <ep-00-04-11.txt:271>

[I am in favour of beef being labelled with the name of the country or countries] [it comes from] [and I am strongly against introducing a common EU label] [from which consumers cannot see which countries are involved.] [The purpose of the regulation in question must be to achieve that consumers have confidence in meat from all EU countries.] [Until this is a reality,] [consumers need to know precisely which country their meat comes from.] [I have tabled an amendment to the effect that the slaughterhouse's authorisation number should not be shown on the label.] [In this way, I wished to ensure that small and medium-sized slaughterhouses could continue to supply meat to butchers.] [The authorisation number does not provide the consumer with any useful information] [and has no bearing upon traceability.]

At the end of the previous chapter, in Section 5.6, I gave a number of examples of how the satellite status of the Evaluation relation was textualised differently across the three languages – in Danish and English as independent sentences and in Italian as coordinate insertions or relative clauses. From a rhetorical perspective, this difference shows how Danish and English use full stops to emphasise the importance of the satellite EDU – although the information contained in this EDU is still considered to be less important than the information in the nucleus, cf. the section on RST in Chapter 5. Furthermore, the more frequent use of full stops in Danish and English also indicates a higher tendency in these two languages to vary sentence length more frequently than in Italian, cf. the remarkable differences in Table 6.3 between the Danish, English and Italian sentences with only one EDU (40.3 – 34.5 – 17.3 %). In examples 126) and 127), we can see how this stylistic emphasis differs in English and Italian. The first example from English shows how a sentence containing seven EDUs is followed by a sentence with just one EDU, here underlined.

126) [Not only does it transfer decision-making away from the Commission] [and bring it to the Council,] [but it does so via meetings] [for which there are no prior published papers or minutes,] [from which the European Parliament and all those [committed to openness and transparency in decision-making] are excluded,] [and where the need to write papers diverts already stretched Commission staff away from their proper job of managing humanitarian aid effectively.] [The delay in translating those papers into

170

eleven different languages can be measured in terms of extra deaths.] <ep-96-05-20.txt:33>

The last sentence of this English example is textualised as an independent sentence with one EDU in order to highlight the consequences (more people die) of the situation presented in the previous sentence (a new committee diverts staff away from their proper job of managing humanitarian aid). In this way, the writer is able to direct more attention to the serious consequences than if he had included more EDUs in the last sentence. In the Italian example in 127), we can see what effect the opposite strategy has. Here, the writer starts with a sentence consisting of 13 EDUs followed by a sentence with eight EDUs, again underlined. The main nuclei of this excerpt are found in two coordinate clauses (e, quindi, noi siamo assolutamente d’accordo… e siamo convinti che…/and we are therefore totally in agreement… and we are convinced that) located in the second sentence and surrounded by a series of satellite EDUs.

This means that no emphasis is accorded by the writer, and it is up to the reader to separate the individual units of information from each other.

127) [In questi anni non abbiamo esitato ad indicare nella Repubblica di Serbia il responsabile principale delle drammatiche vicende, specialmente in Bosnia,] [e abbiamo spesso difeso con nostre risoluzioni il diritto della Croazia a vedersi restituito il territorio] [occupato dai serbi,] [ma proprio per questo, nel momento [in cui dopo gli accordi di Dayton, si avvia una situazione di maggior tranquillità nell'ex Jugoslavia] [- e si deve avviare questa situazione -] noi non possiamo, oggi, con la stessa forza [con cui abbiamo denunciato errori e crimini di altri paesi] non denunciare quello] [che avviene nella Croazia stessa,] [per quanto riguarda il rispetto dei diritti dell'uomo, il rispetto delle minoranze etniche, la libertà di stampa, il pluralismo della stampa e, non ultima, la questione [a cui ha accennato lei, onorevole Fassino,] dell'impegno] [che la Croazia ha di collaborare con il Tribunale dell'Aja] [e consegnare coloro] [i quali sono sospettati di gravi reati.] [Tutto questo non è avvenuto] [e, quindi, noi siamo assolutamente d'accordo con la decisione del Consiglio d'Europa e con la decisione dei governi dell'Unione] [che lei ci annunzia] [e siamo convinti che, [se in questi mesi [in cui vi sono le truppe dell'IFOR,] la comunità internazionale non riesce a determinare un clima di trasparenza e di rispetto dei diritti dell'uomo,] diventerà molto difficile per noi allontanarci da quelle

171

terre] [sapendo che [non appena l'IFOR va via,] c'è il rischio che tutto torni ad incendiarsi.] <ep-96-06-05.txt:85>

[In these years we have never hesitated to point the finger at the Serb Republic as primarily responsible for the tragedies, especially in Bosnia,] [and our resolutions have frequently defended the right of Croatia to have the territory] [occupied by the Serbs restored to it,] [but precisely because of this, at a time [when a more peaceful situation is developing in former Yugoslavia after the Dayton agreements] [- and this situation must develop -] we cannot fail to condemn today, as forcefully [as we have condemned mistakes and crimes in other countries,] what [that is going on in Croatia itself] [as regards respect for human rights, respect for ethnic minorities, press freedom, press pluralism and, last but not least, the point [that you mentioned, Mr Fassino,] about commitment [that Croatia has] to cooperate with the Hague Tribunal] [and hand over those] [who are suspected of serious crimes.] [None of this has happened,] [and we are therefore totally in agreement with the decision by the Council of Europe and the Union governments] [that you have announced] [and we are convinced that [if the international community fails to establish a climate of transparency and respect for human rights] [while the IFOR troops are there,] it will become extremely difficult for us to leave [knowing that [as soon as IFOR departs] there is the risk of everything going up in flames again.]

In this Italian example, we can also observe a high number of embedded EDUs textualised as relative clauses and subordinate finite adverbial clauses, which writers were discouraged from using in the previously cited EU style guides. Similarly, long sentences were to be avoided. The results presented in this section could be seen as indications of Italian not observing these rules, even though, as noted in the Italian version of the style guide (How to write clearly/Scrivere chiaro/Skriv klart, 2011), longer and more complex sentence structures are more acceptable in this language than in other languages. However, the results could also be interpreted as Danish and English writers preferring clear indications through full stops of information boundaries, whereas Italian writers do not necessarily perceive a one-to-one relationship between sentence and information boundaries. In Section 6.2, the investigation of the information structure of the three languages continues with an examination of the signalling of rhetorical relations.