193
194
Admittedly, this may not have been the easiest path to follow, as the existence of ‘a correlation between language, cognition and mentality is still an open question, although it has been discussed for more than two hundred years’ (Durst-Andersen, 2010, p. 29). In fact, Korzen (2005a, p. 55) traces the discussion even further back in history and discusses some interesting statements by the 18th- and 19th-century philosophers Vico and Humboldt. But correlating language and cognition is a essential path to follow in a study that sets out to answer to what extent discourse patterns can be associated with contextual factors.
In contrast to various studies of cultural aspects in international business communication (e.g.
Beamer, 2000; Hofstede, 1984; Lewis, 2006), the approach in intercultural rhetoric is to move from examining linguistic features of particular texts that are subject to specific rhetorical situations to contextual factors. As illustrated in Figure 2.1 illustrating the various linguistic structures and cognitive dimensions, Chapters 4 to 6 moved from the lower levels of lexicon and morphology to the middle levels of syntax, text, discourse, and information structure, now arriving at the upper levels of context. By following this bottom-up approach, the point of departure is constituted by naturally occurring linguistic data found in the corpus. The converse approach is to adopt a top-down approach, which would take contextual factors as its point of departure. I have chosen the former approach because of the obvious biases related to the latter.
The correlations I draw between linguistic structures and contextual aspects should be perceived as genre-specific rather than universal, and as descriptive rather than prescriptive. As in any corpus-based study, a different data set may result in a different set of findings. This being said, most of my findings are supported by a number of earlier findings and observations. I refer to these in the following where applicable.
7.1.1 Language, cognition and linguistic structures
The most salient point in a study that ties up language with cognition is whether language influences thought or whether language controls thought, or whether there is no correlation between language and thought at all. In intercultural rhetoric, the majority of studies adhere to the assumption of a correlation based on influence (Moder, 2004, p. 10), also referred to as the
‘weak’ version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity; the correlation based on control is referred to as the ‘strong’ version (Gumperz & Levinson, 1996; Lucy, 1992; Sapir, 1964; Whorf, 1954). In this thesis, the weak version is followed. Much inspiration has also been drawn from subsequent revisions of this version, in particular Slobin’s (1996a) revision of correlating differences in linguistic structures with differences in rhetorical patterns. Slobin does
195
not correlate language with thought per se, but talks of fitting one’s thoughts into linguistic frames. This idea is coined in the notion of ‘thinking for speaking’ defined as (p. 76):
a special form of thought mobilised for communication. The activity of thinking takes on a particular quality when it is employed in the activity of speaking. In the evanescent time frame of constructing utterances in discourse one fits one’s thoughts into available linguistic frames. ‘Thinking for speaking’ involves picking those characteristics of objects and events that (a) fit some conceptualisation of the event and (b) are readily encodable in language.
These ‘linguistic frames’ are also taken to comprise the notion of linguistic structures as applied in this thesis. They are, as discussed in Chapter 2, based on a combination of grammatical constraints (Sausurre’s langue) and stylistic preferences (parole) which continuously influence and are influenced by contextual factors such as the communication situation, the writer’s cultural background and linguistic traditions. Below, this idea is illustrated with the three cognitive dimensions from Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2, showing how language can be viewed as a window on human cognition.
Figure 7.1: Relations between cognitive dimensions
In the context of this study, we have seen how Level I features influence Level II features. In Chapter 4, it was shown that participial constructions (Level I) are extremely rare in Danish, whereas they are relatively frequent in English and Italian. This results in a more hierarchical
Level III: Context (general context, history,
cultural patterns and linguistic traditions)
Level II: Macrostructure (syntax, text, discourse and
information structure) Level I: Microstructure
(lexicon and morphology)
196
text structure (Level II) in English and Italian and a higher frequency of non-finite realisations of main verbs. However, evidence that Levels I and II are capable of influencing or being influenced by Level III features has still not be discussed in this thesis.
7.2 Three examples
This section deals with three examples from my corpus in each of the languages under consideration. The examples capture the kinds of cross-linguistic differences that the previous three chapters have examined in detail. The first example in 146) is taken from the Italian part of the corpus. The topic of the speech is animal experimentation. The text is an excerpt of the original, which contains three subsequent paragraphs. Below the Italian L1, an English translation is found.
146) Signor Presidente, ho apprezzato la coerenza con cui l'onorevole Roth-Behrendt ha portato avanti la sua relazione e soprattutto l'esigenza di porre fine a una discussione che ormai dura da molti anni. Condivido anche le preoccupazioni da parte dell'opinione pubblica sulla sperimentazione animale: quando questa è ripetitiva su ingredienti e principi attivi conosciuti da anni e già immessi in commercio, allora il sacrificio di nuovi animali è assolutamente inutile. 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. La mancata sperimentazione animale di cosmetici nuovi potrebbe portare - lo dico con la massima chiarezza - all'insorgenza di potenziali effetti tossici, sia nei bambini sia nelle donne sia nell'uomo, potenziale epato- e nefrotossicità, potenziale neurotossicità ed effetti anche cancerogeni. Chi è responsabile, poi, caro Commissario?
Per tutte queste ragioni mi auguro fortemente che l'Assemblea possa approvare un emendamento, da me presentato con cinquanta parlamentari, che va nella direzione anche di non ostacolare quello che è il progresso della scienza. <ep-01-04-02.txt:42>
Mr President, I appreciate the consistent way in which Mrs Roth-Behrendt has developed her report and, in particular, the need to bring to an end a debate which has lasted for many years now. I also share the public's concerns regarding animal experimentation; if this is a matter of repeat trials on active ingredients and principles which have been known for years and are already on the market, then the sacrifice of
197
more animals serves absolutely no purpose. However, Commissioner, when, as I point out in an amendment supported by over 50 Members of Parliament, it is a matter of new cosmetics containing new ingredients which have never been tested in the past in order to establish their toxicological profile in laboratory animals, then, as a scientist, I am convinced that it is essential to carry out an initial set of experiments on animals before cosmetics are used by human beings and before they are placed on the market. If new cosmetics are not tested on animals, it could lead – I would like to make this quite clear – to potentially toxic risks for men, women and children alike. There would be a risk of toxic effects on the liver and nervous system, and even cancer. And who would be responsible then, my dear Commissioner? For all these reasons, I strongly urge the House to adopt an amendment tabled by myself and 50 other Members, which calls for barriers not to be placed in way of the progress of science.
This is a typical example of the Italian texts in my corpus. The writer begins by expressing his attitude towards the topic of the session (a report on animal experimentation), which is a widely used opening in all the texts across the three languages. Then, the writer starts his argumentation, which could be represented in the following way using Toulmin’s (1958) ‘Model of Argument’:
Figure 7.2: Argument model of ‘Animal experimentation’ text
As we can see, all elements which according to Toulmin are necessary to present a good and realistic argument are present in the text, some more implicit than other, e.g. the warrant (shown in italics). The argument does not pretend to be stronger than it actually is, which can be seen by the inclusion of a rebuttal (or Concession in RST terms) and qualifiers indicating the conditions under which the argument is true (e.g. use of modal verbs and adverbials such as potenziale/potentially). In terms of text structure, the text contains a high number of subordinate EDUs, some of which are realised syntactically with non-finite verb forms (mostly as participial modifiers: contenenti/containing; sottoscritto/signed; presentato/presented, but also as
Claim: Parliament should allow animal experimentations
Rebuttal: No animal experimentation is needed in case of repeat
trials
Warrant: Parliament should allow things that
save human lives
Grounds: Animal experimentation saves
human lives