This chapter reviews the surveies on English restrictive comparative clauses from four different positions, viz. pragmatics, sentence structure, semantics, and discourse. The reappraisal includes the anchoring map of English restrictive comparative clauses, information position of NPs, the syntactic-semantic facets of comparative clauses and discourse construction.
2.1 Grounding and Restrictive Relative Clause
English comparative clauses are categorized into two sub-categories: Restrictive relation clause and non-restrictive comparative clause. Look at the undermentioned illustrations:
The male child who works at the Chinese eating house surveies hard.
The male child, who works at the Chinese eating house, surveies hard. ( Stockwell et al. 1973, Comrie, 1981 )
The first sentence is restrictive comparative clause ; while the 2nd one is on-restrictive comparative clause. in the first sentence, the map of ‘who plants at the eating house ‘ is to place the caput noun ‘the male child ‘ which identities one male child among others. The comparative clause, inserted into this sentence, helps do the referent clear and supply more specific significance to the matrix sentence: The male child surveies hard. The comparative clause that behaves in this manner, to place or to curtail the significance of the caput noun, is known as a restrictive relation clause. ( Master, 1996 ) In this paper, the writer focal point merely on restrictive comparative clause.
Scholars such as Schachter ( 1971 ) , Bernardo ( 1979 ) , Tabasowka ( 1980 ) , Beaman ( 1984 ) , Hann ( 1987 ) , Fox ( 1987 ) , Fox and Thompson ( 1990 ) , and Nugsamee ( 2003 ) present full treatment on the maps of English restrictive comparative clauses, in the undermentioned treatment, restrictive comparative clauses will be shortened as RRC. It is showed in their initiation that there are two chief maps of RRCs: foundation and description. RRCs serive foundation map in the undermentioned circumstance: If the information coded in a RRC has already been known to the hearer/reader, the RRC is used to anchor the referent and assist the listener/reader place the referent mentioned in the old discourse. Those research workers propose that RRCs are often used to assist listeners place the mentioned referents in conversation, as in “ The adult male who I met yesterday is my foreman. ” However, many RRCs are besides employed for doing the new referents a relevant portion in the discourse, as shown by the illustration “ A cat who I met in the street yesterday said he knew your sister. ” In this illustration, the RRC is used non for the designation of old referents, but for doing the new referent A cat a contextual relevancy through the given entity I in the RRC. Thus, in this survey, the term ‘grounding ‘ is used to mention to RRCs used both for the designation of old referents and for doing new referents relevant to the discourse. The construct ‘grounding ‘ will be made clear in the subsequent parts of this survey. Leech and Svartvik besides province this map in their definition of RRC. They define the English Relative Clause as: ( a survey of discourse map of comparative clause from a functional semantic sentence model )
“ Assorted types of sub-clauses are linked to portion of all of the chief clause by back-pointing elements normally relative pronoun ( wh-pronouns: who, whom, whose, which, that, and nothing ) . The chief map of a comparative clause is that of postmodification in a noun phrase, where the comparative pronoun points back to the caput of the noun phrase ( the ancestor ) ” . ( P285 )
The other map of RRCs is that they may do averment about their caput NPs and supply new information for the newly-introduced caput NP. RRCs of this sort perform description maps.
In add-on, in Bernardo ( 1979 ) and Beanan ( 1984 ) ‘s surveies, they classify RRc into two classs: information-bearing and identificatory. In Beanan ‘s nomenclature, information-bearing refers to a comparative clause that carries new information, while identificatory refers to a comparative clause that carries old/given/known information. These two classs, nevertheless, can merely be understood within the context of the full narrative. It would be helpful to look at some illustrations from Beanan: ( 1984, P73 )
Information-bearing
( 1 ) There was a adult male ( who was picking pears ) .
( 2 ) The three male childs pass the adult male ( who had merely come down from the ladder ) .
In the above sentences, the parts in brackets are mentioned for the first clip in the context.
Identificatory
( 3 ) And so the adult male ( who was picking pears ) comes down from the ladder.
( 4 ) The adult male ( who had been picking the pears ) is merely acquiring down from the ladder.
In the above sentences, the parts in brackets have been antecedently mentioned in the context.
The first two illustrations can be considered as information-bearing because they provide new information to the listener about the “ the adult male ” . The 2nd brace of illustrations is identificatory relations because they individual out “ the adult male who was picking pears ” from other members of the class “ adult male ” nowadays in the old context. As already stated, this differentiation can merely be understood within the context of the full narrative.
In Fox and Thompson ( 1990 ) further separating the types of foundation, they propose three cardinal sorts of anchoring to lucubrate on how comparative clauses make their caput NPs a relevant portion in the whole discourse. The first is what Prince ( 1981:236 ) has called anchoring: “ a discourse entity is anchored if the NP stand foring it is linked, by agencies of another NP, or “ Anchor ” , decently contained in it, to some other discourse entity ” . She gives an illustration to exemplify this type of grounding.
( 5 ) A cat I work with says he knows your sister. ( Prince, 1981:233 )
In ( 5 ) , I, a given referent in the address context, in the comparative clause serves as an ground tackle to associate the new discourse entity a cat. It therefore makes the caput NP relevant to the whole discourse.
The 2nd sort of foundation is proposition-linking, in this state of affairs a new referent is linked under the frame evoked in the old discourse. See text ( 6 ) .
( 6 ) The female parent ‘s sister is a existent bigot. Y’know and she hates anyone who is n’t a Catholic. ( Fox and Thompson, 1990:301 )
In this illustration, the full NP anyone who is n’t a Catholic is grounded by its association to the old proposition qualifying ‘mother ‘s sister as a bigot ‘ . Therefore, the information stated in the RRC serves proposition-linking anchoring map.
The 3rd sort of foundation is done by chief clauses alternatively of comparative clauses. Harmonizing to Fox and Thompson, comparative clauses of this sort provide no foundation ; that is, it does non associate a caput NP to any given referent in the comparative clause. Alternatively, the new referent is grounded by the given entity in the chief clause alternatively of being made relevant by a given NP in the comparative clause. In such a instance, the RRC is used to supply new information for the new caput NP, as shown in ( 7 ) .
He ‘s got a spring that comes, manner up. ( Fox and Thompson, 1990:301 )
In illustration ( 7 ) , the new referent a spring is grounded by the topic of the chief clause he alternatively of the given referent in the RRC. The RRC in this illustration is non used to anchor its caput NP, but merely used to supply new information for its caput NP.
Fox ( 1987 ) further proposes the other discourse map of comparative clauses and provinces that comparative clauses are structured to supply information for their firstly-introduced caput NPs, thereby supplying description map. This is accomplished by supplying a stative description of some facet of the new referents, as shown in the undermentioned illustration.
( 8 ) I did non detect it but there is a adult female in my category who is a nurse and, she said to me she said that did you notice he has a disability and I said what. You know I said I do non see anything incorrect with him, she says his manus. ( Fox, 1987:861 )
Fox states that the adult female ‘s ‘nurseness ‘ is critical to her relevancy to the undermentioned narrative. It is through her preparation as a nurse that she is presumptively more attuned to physical handicaps-an attunement which the Teller describes himself as missing. Therefore, the RRC here plays a important function in presenting a new referent and doing it relevant to the on-going discourse. Therefore, from this illustration, it is evident that the RRC is employed to supply description for the caput NP, paving the manner for the caput NP and doing it a contextual portion in the on-going discourse.
From the positions of Givon ( 1993,1995 ) , Fox ( 1987 ) , and Fox and
Thompson ( 1990 ) , a RRC may be used for any of two grounds: foundation and description. When a RRC serves the map of associating the current referent to the predating vocalization, it does a foundation undertaking. In such a instance, it grounds its caput NP, as in ( 2 ) – ( 5 ) . When the information coded in a RRC is associated with the anterior proposition frame, the RRC does a proposition-linking foundation work, as shown in ( 6 ) . Furthermore, when a RRC is non used to anchor a new discourse entity, the intent of it is to supply new information for its newly-introduced caput NP. RRCs of this sort supply description map, as in ( 7 ) – ( 8 ) .
2.2 Information Status of NPs
Several bookmans present their positions saying differentiation of given and new information.
Halliday adopts the Prague school position of information as consisting two classs: new information, which is information that the addresser believes is non known to the addressee, and given information, which is information that the addresser believes is known to the addressee.
In his treatment of information construction, Halliday ( 1967 ) is peculiarly concerned with spoken English. He claims that besides a thematization analysis, a sentence may besides be divided into information units, some of which would be focal. On the other manus, the focal unit carries new information, and the non-focal units convey information that is recoverable in the preceding discourse ( given ) .
Compared to Halliday, Chafe ( 1974, 1976 ) has provided a somewhat different reading of the given/new information definition. He claims that given information can be referred to as information that the talkers assume to be in the listener ‘s consciousness at the clip of the vocalization. New information, in contrast, is thought of as information that is believed by the talker non to be in the listener ‘s consciousness, either because the listener is no longer cognizant of it, or because it has non been introduced into consciousness.
In his book “ Discourse, Consciousness, and Time ” , Chafe ( 1994 ) elaborates his thoughts on given/new differentiation by depicting assorted provinces of consciousness that affect the manner in which people produce address, which he calls “ intonation units ” . Consciousness, harmonizing to Chafe, is correspondent to vision, which can be classified into two groups: foveal vision, the object of people ‘s focal point, and peripheral vision, anything else on the scene, which people are cognizant of, but non needfully concentrating on.
Similar to the vision metaphor, Chafe proposes that human existences besides have both focal and peripheral consciousness, and that our head is in a changeless province of alteration as we move from one focal point to another. He identifies the province of alteration as consisting of three information types in the head: active, semiactive and inactive. While active information is information that is in the focal point of people ‘s attending ( given ) , semiactive information is something that is known before, but non in the current focal point of attending ( accessible ) . Finally, inactive information is information that is non stored in people ‘s unconscious head ( new ) .
Another well-known position towards the impression of given/new information was developed in 1977 by Clark and Haviland in “ Comprehension and the Given-New Contract ” . They claim that “ the processing demands entailed by sentence information construction are formulated in a given-new scheme ” . When talkers and listeners are engaged in discourse, they follow certain concerted communicative rules: to be enlightening, relevant, and unambiguous. In making so, the talker provides background ( given ) information which he assumes is known to the listener. To this base, he adds new information which is presumptively unknown to the listener.
Harmonizing to the Clark and Haviland ‘s Given-New Strategy, the procedure of groking a sentence in discourse context comprises three sub-processes or phases: ( 1 ) placing the given and new information in the current sentence, ( 2 ) happening an ancestor in memory for that given information, and ( 3 ) attaching the new information to this topographic point in memory. The primary utility of this scheme has focused on assorted possibilities that can go on during phase 2. For case, sentences construed as given but have no obvious ancestor from old sentences should enforce troubles in comprehension.
Vande Kopple besides highlights an importance of discourse context as a major standard for given/new information definition. Harmonizing to Vande Kopple, given/new information can be defined as follows:
Given information centres on elements that have been mentioned prior to a peculiar point in a text or that are recoverable from the text or the extralinguistic state of affairs. New information includes the elements non run intoing these standards. ( P53 )
( Chafe, 1974, 1976, 1987, 1994 ) . Chafe ( 1976:30 ) defines given information as “ cognition which the talker assumes to be in the consciousness of the addressee at the clip of vocalization ” , and new information as “ what the talker assumes he is presenting into the addressee ‘s consciousness. ” His work ( 1994 ) further recognizes a tripartite dislocation into given, accessible, and new information in topographic point of the simple binary differentiation of given and new information. Chafe proposes that given information can be characterized as already active at the clip of vocalization, accessible information as semiactive at the point of vocalization and new information as inactive at the clip of vocalization. The differentiation between given and accessible information can be illustrated in the undermentioned illustrations.
( 9 ) Angstrom: We got some beer out of the bole.
Bacillus: The beer was warm. ( Chafe, 1994:170 )
( 10 ) Angstrom: We checked the field day supplies.
Bacillus: The beer was warm. ( Chafe, 1994:170 )
The beer in B ‘s response of ( 9 ) has been treated as given information since it has been established as a shared referent with A ‘s vocalization. The beer in ( 10 ) is accessible because of the cognition that the field day supplies are likely to incorporate beer.
Another bookman does major part to the information position surveies is Prince. She categorizes entity into given ad new. When mentioning to new, she introduces a new construct “ anchored ” . A new entity might be freshly introduced and has no connexion to the context ; nevertheless, the existent instance is that the new entity surely has some sort of connexion with some already existing entities in context. She considers that this new entity is anchored, intending that its comparative place in the context has already been settled. Anaphora can present a new construct into a discourse ; besides it can ground this entity in many ways. Anchoring means that the freshly introduced entity builds some connexion with the preexistent entities in the discourse dynamic context.
e.g: Adolf Hitler, who was the leader of the largest party in Germany- National Socialists, was demanding for himself the chancellorship of the democratic Republic he had sworn to destruct.
As a new construct in this text, Adolf Hitler is anchored by the descriptive anaphora “ the leader of the largest party in Germany ” . This grounding enables readers to hold a clear cognition of Hitler ‘s societal place at that clip. New information includes debut of new entity or new features every bit good as constitution of a new connexion.
It is really of import to ground the new entity and it is besides the indispensable demand of coherency of discourse. The information value of new entity lies in the connexion built by new entities with existing entities. The extra descriptive qualifiers are non assisting to entree to the existing entities, as a affair of fact, there is no accessing issue, because the related entity is non given, but instead new, the information provided by the related qualifier is new every bit good, the lone map here is to ground.
Hwang ‘s ( 1994 ) survey besides revealed a inclination of new information in her comparative clause. In “ Relative Clauses, Adverbial Clauses and Information Flow in Discourse ” , Hwang investigates discourse-pragmatic maps of comparative clauses and adverbial clauses in association with information flow in English narrative narratives. Based on informations obtained from this analysis, Hwang found that possibly the most common maps of comparative clauses in any linguistic communication is “ supplying background information that is frequently new but descriptive, instead than progressing the event line of a narrative ” . ( P680 ) See the illustration below:
( 11 ) Once upon a clip there was a small miss i?›who lived entirely with her fatheri?? .
Information in the comparative clause in ( 11 ) gives background information about “ a small miss ” . It is new and descriptive, and introduces extra characters “ her male parent ” , who is related to the character introduced by the caput noun. This map of presenting related participants, harmonizing to Hwang, is found more in her English comparative clauses.
2.3 Theme and Rheme of Relative Clauses in English
& lt ; a survey of discourse map of comparative clause from a functional sentence position model & gt ;
Mathesius was among the first to present this differentiation. Harmonizing to his categorization, the subject can be referred to as the section that the talker is speaking about in the sentence, whereas the rheme is what the talker says about the subject. In other words, the subject largely corresponds to the first component or the grammatical topic in a clause, and the rheme frequently corresponds to the grammatical predicate. The 3rd construct of FSP, viz. , topic/comment or given/new is similar to the 2nd and it was besides introduced by Mathesius. His differentiation is based on the analysis of sentences into two major elements: the given and new or the subject and the remark. Generally speech production, the subject is perceived as a section in a sentence that conveys given, known or old information, “ information that is expressed in, recoverable from or is comparatively more accessible in anterior sentences of the text ” . On the other manus, the remark is considered as a section that carries new information, information that is now expressed in, is non recoverable from, or is comparatively less accessible in anterior sentences.
Kuno ( 1976 ) is another linguist who take into history subject and rheme
in the survey of English comparative clause. In his celebrated article, “ Capable, Theme, and the Speaker ‘s Empathy ” -A redirect examination of Relativization Phenomena, Kuno claims that merely NPs which are considered as the subject of a comparative clause can be relativized. Following are some of his illustrations:
( 12 ) Here is the vocalist that Susan painted a image of.
( 13 ) Here is the door that Smith know the people at
( 14 ) Here is Smith, who know the people at the front door.
In sentences ( 12 ) and ( 13 ) the comparative pronoun is an oblique object ( object of preposition ) , yet ( 12 ) is acceptable whereas ( 13 ) is non. Kuno provinces that ( 12 ) is acceptable because it is easy to construe “ the vocalist ” as the subject of the comparative clause while ( 13 ) is unacceptable because “ the hapless ” is non the subject of the clause. Alternatively, the subject of the comparative clause in ( 13 ) is “ Smith ” . Since it is “ Smith ” which is relativized in ( 14 ) , the building is acceptable.
Similar to Kuno, Bak ( 1981 ) is another research worker who applies the construct of theme/rheme and topical patterned advance to the survey of Korean and English comparative clauses. Bak explores English relation clause in footings of topic-comment articulation or the thematic constructions. Three major types of comparative clauses are investigated: simple comparative clauses, multiple comparative clauses and self-embedded comparative clause. See the undermentioned illustration from Bak ( P356 ) :
( 15 ) This is the Canis familiaris i?›that chased the cati??i?›that killed the rati?? .
Bak suggests that the thematic construction in this illustration reveals the most cardinal manner of organizing a comparative clause in many linguistic communications. That is, each subject is developed from the predating remark.
He so concludes that comparative clauses and text sequence are rather similar in footings of the thematic construction. However, the merely acceptable thematic constructions of comparative clauses are of two types: the simple additive thematic patterned advance and the thematic patterned advance with a uninterrupted changeless subject.
2.4 Accessibility Hierarchy of Restrictive Relative Clause & lt ; A Study of Discourse Functions of Relative Clauses from a functional sentence position model & gt ;
Many linguists have besides accepted that the English comparative clauses conform to one specific order known as the Accessibility Hierarchy. The handiness hierarchy hypothesis claims that more comparative clause constructions are more easy processed than others.
The NP Accessibility Hierarchy is intended to capture the handiness of noun phrase statement places for comparative clause formation. Keenan & A ; Comrie ( 1977 ) suggest the undermentioned hierarchy, where the places at the top are universally more accessible for relativization:
( 1 ) Accessibility Hierarchy ( henceforth AH )
topic ( SU ) & gt ; direct object ( DO ) & gt ; indirect object ( IO ) & gt ; oblique object or object of preposition ( OPREP ) & gt ; possessive object ( GENO ) & gt ; object of comparing ( OCOMP )
Informally, this means that it is easier to relativise topics than any other
NP place, easier to relativise direct objects than any lower place, and so on.
This hierarchy suggests that comparative clause in ( 16 ) is more accessible than ( 17 ) , which is itself more accessible than ( 18 ) , and etc. :
( 16 ) I kicked the miss { who ate my cocoa bar } .
( 17 ) I kicked the miss { whom the kids liked really much } .
( 18 ) I kicked the miss { whom Sam sent the invitation to } .
( 19 ) I kicked the miss { whom Sam was standing beside } .
( 20 ) I kicked the miss { whose sister Sam liked } .
( 21 ) I kicked the miss { whom Sam liked more than John } .
Proposed by Keenan and Comrie ( 1977 ) , the handiness hierarchy is influenced by the semantic and grammatical function of the comparative pronoun which is co-referential with the comparative clause caput NP. In ( 16 ) , for illustration, the caput NP of the comparative clause “ the miss ” is the topic of the comparative clause verb “ eat ” . On the contrary, “ the miss ” in ( 17 ) is the direct object of “ like ” and in ( 18 ) is the indirect object of “ send ” and so forth.
Based on this hierarchy, two of import claims have been made. First all linguistic communications have capable comparative clauses ( 17 ) , and 2nd, if a linguistic communication has, for case, a comparative clause of the type “ IO ” , so it will besides hold comparative clause types lower on the hierarchy, which is “ SU ” and “ DO ” . In other words, we can do claims about all other comparative clause types that a linguistic communication will hold when the lowest type is identified.
However, it should be pointed out that the degrees such as “ DO ” , “ IO ” or “ SU ” do non state about their places in sentences. For illustration, “ who ” in ( 23 ) belongs to the “ SU ” degree, but the comparative clause can happen in two places in the Matrix ; one place is when the caput NP is the topic of the Matrix as in ( 23 ) , and the other is when the comparative clause modifies an NP in the predicate portion of the Matrix as in ( 22 ) :
( 22 ) I kicked the miss who ate my cocoa.
( 23 ) The miss who ate my cocoa is traveling to pay for it.
Based on the above illustrations, ( 22 ) , which involves right ramification is by and large easier to treat than sentence ( 23 ) which involves center-embedding. As we can see, what Keenan and Comrie are concerned with is merely the maps of the comparative pronouns within the comparative clause, and non the maps of the caput noun phrases within the chief clause.
Refering these semantic and grammatical functions of comparative pronouns within the subsidiary clause, Keenan ( 1975 ) and Keenan and Comrie ( 1977 ) make another claim that tends to pull a batch of linguists ‘ attending. They province that when traveling up the hierarchy, the trouble of apprehension, which implies the trouble of larning additions.
As in the chief clauses, comparative clause caputs are likely to mention to given information if they are the topic of the comparative clause verb and tend to mention to new information when they are the objects of one. See the undermentioned illustration:
( 24 ) Susan ate the apple i?›that fell off the tree.i??
( 25 ) Susan ate an apple i?›that fell off the tree.i??
( 26 ) Susan ate an apple i?›that Sophie had picked.i??
( 27 ) Susan ate the applei?›that Sophie had picked.i??
Based on these sentences, ( 24 ) and ( 25 ) should be easier to treat than ( 26 ) and ( 27 ) . Since the caput of these comparative clauses is an object of the chief clause, and should therefore encode new information. ( 26 ) should be the most preferable of all. Based on these illustrations,
Keenan so emphasizes that, all other things being equal, when topics are relativized in the insert or dependant clause, the sentence is easier to treat than when objects are relativized.
2.5 Cohesion map
Coherence is one of the most of import contents of discourse analysis. In a cohesive discourse, the semantic connexions between sentences are really fast ; this is because without semantic connexions between sentences, a discourse can non be formed. When a linguistic communication is used for communicating, some sort of cohesive agencies are applied to organize near semantic connexions so as to build cohesive discourse and allow audiences or readers understand the significance behind words.
The pre-text and the post-text demand cohesive devices to put up semantic dealingss, and these cohesive devices will take certain signifiers. In the literature refering coherence, merely which cohesive devices can happen is discussed, but non why they should take the signifiers that they take, and non other signifiers. The present paper discusses the motives behind the assorted signifiers the cohesive devices of text return, and proposes eleven general cohesive rules.
The basic constituents of text are sentences. How a sentence is formed is decided by grammar system. Equally long as the grammar system is understood, forming sentences are hard. But text as a semantic party has no constrains from the position of its signifiers. In this manner, it is difficult to depict the formation rule of the cohesive mechanism of text. How does the cohesive mechanism of text work? It seems that this basic inquiry of many linguistic communication phenomenons is rarely studied.
The map of mention is to set up significance connexion. Coherence distance, more exactly, is a psychological distance, so that coherence in the short impermanent break can be continued by nouns, instead than the signifier of pronouns. It can be called the rule of psychological distance.
In coherence, sometimes the same points are used to show the same object or construct, sometimes, different points are used to mention to the same object or construct. These are closely related to the communicating intents. In order to expose continuity, logical rigidness and preciseness, relations are used to demo the mutuality.
Another position centres on predictability. Kuno ( 1972, 1977, 1980 ) is a advocate of this position. In Kuno ‘s term, lingual referents are given if they are predictable, and if the addressee could foretell them when they are deleted. On the other manus, new referents are unpredictable.
The other position is closely related to what Halliday ( 1967, 1974, 1981, 1994 ) calls recoverability. Harmonizing to Halliday, information that is presented as recoverable is given ; if non, it is new. To this, he adds that there are a figure of elements in linguistic communication that are inherently given in the sense that they are non explainable except by the mention to some old references or some characteristics of the state of affairs. The mention includes anaphoric elements, which refer to things mentioned earlier, and deictic elements, which are interpreted by mention to the “ here and now ” of the discourse ( Halliday, 1994:298 ) .
The most complex class of discourse entities is what Prince calls inferables. She notes that an entity is inferable if the reader/listener can deduce it by agencies of logical and plausible logical thinking from the discourse entities which have been already evoked. For illustration, readers/listeners are able to deduce the driver from the fact thate really coach has a driver in “ I got on a coach yesterday and the driver was intoxicated ” . Prince farther proposes a subclass of inferable entities, which she calls incorporating inferables. A typical illustration is “ Hey, one of these eggs is broken! “ ( Prince, 1981:233 ) . The NP one of the eggs is a incorporating inferable which is contained within the other NP the see ggs which is situationally evoked.
Prince ‘s taxonomy so includes the following seven subclasses: unanchored brand-new, anchored brand-new, fresh, inferables, incorporating inferables, textually evoked and situationally evoked. The first three can be classified as new, the 2nd two as inferable, and the last two as evoked. Thus, based on Prince ‘s taxonomy interms of false acquaintance, we can do a really all right information-status distinctionof NPs.
All the above positions on given and new information are really closely related and non independent of each other. However, for practical analysis that composing research workers are likely to transport out, we do non necessitate to separate them so finely all the clip. Based on the old surveies, several composing research workers suggest that given information covers elements that have been mentioned prior to a peculiar point in a text, recoverable from the extralinguistic state of affairs or texts, or inferrable from the other mentioned discourse entities through logical and plausible logical thinking or universe cognition. On the other manus, new information refers to foremost introduced discourse entities merely ( Vande Kopple, 1986, Biber, 2000, Nuamthanom, 2003 ) . Along the line with the statements of these research workers, we classify inferable and elicited entities into discourse entities stand foring given information as opposed to new information which contains foremost introduced discourse entities. The corresponding signifiers of given/new information are defined as follows:
Given information: equivalent word, pronouns, repeats, eclipsis or inferable entitiesfrom other mentioned entities through logical logical thinking or universe knowledge.i?ZNew information: foremost introduced entities.
2.6 Syntactic-Semantic Aspects of Restrictive Relative Clauses
Du Bois ( 1987 ) notes that statements consisting new information appear preferentially in the S or O functions, but non in A function, which leads to preparation of a Given A Constraint, where A function is the ‘transitive topic ‘ , S function the ‘intransitive topic ‘ and O function the ‘transitive object ‘ . He formulates Given A Constraint as “ avoiding presenting a new referent in the A-role statement place ” ( p. 827 ) . Fox ( 1987 ) and Fox and Thompson ( 1990 ) use Du Bois ‘s impression to analyze the distributional form of comparative clauses in English conversation, and happen that S-relatives and O-relatives predominate over A-relatives, where S-relatives represent that the comparative pronoun is the topic of an intransitive verb of the comparative clause, A-relatives mean that the comparative pronoun is the topic of a transitive verb of the comparative clause and O-relatives express that the comparative pronoun is the object of a transitive verb of the comparative clause, as shown in the undermentioned illustrations severally.
( a ) S-relatives
and he ‘s got a spring that comes manner up. ( Fox, 1987:859 )
( B ) A-relatives
No in fact I know person who has her now. ( Fox, 1987: 859 )
( degree Celsius ) O-relatives
This adult male who I have for linguistics is truly excessively much. ( Fox, 1987:859 )
Harmonizing to Fox ( 1987 ) , the preponderance of S-relatives and O-relatives over A-relatives in her survey receives the support from the undermentioned facts. First, O-relatives predominate over A-relatives since the NPs in capable places of O-relatives chiefly consist of exphoric pronouns such as the talker I and the listener you in self-generated English conversation, they serve as better ground tackles than the NPs in the object places of A-relatives which are normally made up of full NPs that normally represent new information in conversation. Harmonizing to Fox ‘s survey, A-relatives are more likely to be chosen when the NPs in the object places of A-relatives perform the map of associating the current vocalization to the predating discourse, as shown by her in ( 12 ) . However, the NPs in the object places of A-relatives seldom stand for given information in English conversation since they often are the place for new information to be introduced ( Givon, 1979 ; Du Bois, 1987 ; Fox, 1987 and Fox and Thompson, 1990 ) . A-relatives therefore tend to be reasonably rare in self-generated conversation. Second, the preponderance of S-relatives over A-relatives may be caused by the ground that the capable places of intransitive verbs tend to be chosen to present new discourse entities ( Du Bois, 1987 ) . Therefore, the capable places of intransitive verbs in S-relatives normally form the place where new information is likely to be given, as shown by a spring in ( 11 ) . Fox and Thompson ( 1990 ) add that the caput NPs of S-relatives tend to be indefinite nonhuman objects in the chief clauses, and by the clip we hear the object caput NPs, we have already heard the main-clause topics which are typically pronouns in address contexts. In such instances, the object caput NPs are already grounded by the main-clause topics. This is what Fox and Thompson refer to as main-clause foundation. S-relatives here are used non for anchoring but for supplying new information for their new caput NPs.
2.7 Discourse Structures
In this subdivision, foremost the nexus between discourse constructions and textual relationships within discourse will be established. Then, the definition of discourse unit will be introduced and the happenings of RRCs in discourse units in the present survey will be examined.
Discourse constructions are really much concerned with the semantic dealingss keeping between the sections of discourses. The functional dealingss between discourse sections is one attack to the overall constellation of discourse constructions. This attack is emphasized by Hoey ( 1983 ) and Hoey and Winter ( 1986 ) .Emphasis of their plants is placed on the interpretative Acts of the Apostless involved in associating one textual section ( s ) to the other ( s ) through logical sequence or duplicate dealingss. Examples under the header of logical sequence relation include condition-consequence, instrument-achievement, cause-consequence, and problem-solution, as shown below severally.
Condition-Consequence
( 28 ) If the royal portrayal was non used [ on casts ] , the weaponries of the state or reigning house were frequently taken as a suited symbol. ( Hoey, 1983:19 )
In ( 28 ) , the subsidiary clause is the status and the chief clause is the effect.
Cause-Consequence
( 29 ) [ 1 ] It was over, it was known, it was decided, there was nil at all, of all time, to be done about it. [ 2 ] He might every bit good, now, travel to bed. [ 3 ] So he stood up, set down his empty glass, looked at himself with some wonder in the mirror, to see if he looked different for holding understood, and went to bed. ( Hoey, 1983:21 )
[ 1 ] , [ 2 ] and [ 3 ] all together organize a cause-consequence relation where [ 1 ] and [ 2 ] jointly form the cause for the effect given in unit [ 3 ] .Problem-Solution
( 30 ) The problem with this state ‘s economic system used to be that there were excessively many farthings being made. Once we stopped doing them everything turned out all dark. ( Hoey, 1983:51 )
The lingual device the problem indicates a problem-solution relation between two discourse sections.
When sections of a text are compared or contrasted with one another, they can be brought under the header of fiting dealingss. See illustrations ( 29 ) and ( 30 ) .
Contrast
( 31 ) People think of Birmingham in different manner. Alderman Frank Price sees the metropolis as a kind of anvil, whereas my barber thinks of it as ‘a impersonal kind of topographic point built by people who worked difficult for coevalss ‘ . ( Hoey, 1983:23 )
In this illustration, two sorts of people ‘s thought about Birmingham are under contrast.
Compatibility
( 32 ) Upstairss Fred thumped and bumped and tossed and turned. And downstairs Ted moaned and groaned and crashed and thrashed all over the bed. ( Hoey, 1983: 20 )
In text ( 32 ) , Fred and Ted are being compared for their similarity of response to the kiping agreements.
Harmonizing to Winter and Hoey, logical sequence and duplicate dealingss are the two basic classs of clause dealingss between sections of texts. Besides, they add that another common clause relation is general-particular, including two subcategories general statement-example and preview-detail. The undermentioned text characterizes general statement-example relation.
( 33 ) It is interesting to observe that iconic theoretical accounts merely represent certain characteristics of that part of the existent universe which they simulate. For illustration, a map will merely incorporate those characteristics which are of involvement to the individual utilizing the map. Similarly, designers ‘ theoretical account will be limited to include merely those characteristics which are of involvement to the individual sing using the designer. ( Hoey, 1983:113 )
The first sentence of ( 33 ) is a general statement for which the subsequent two duplicate sentences provide illustrations.
Winter and Hoey note that the texts above frequently contain hints to assist the reader/listener interpret the clause dealingss. The most evident means whereby a clause relation may be signaled to the reader/listener is by the usage of subordinators, conjuncts, and vocabulary points. Take ( 31 ) and ( 33 ) for illustrations, in ( 31 ) , the conjunct so happening in the beginning of sentence [ 3 ] Tells us that three sentences form a cause-consequence clause relation. In ( 33 ) , the adjectival different first Tells us that people ‘s thought about Birmingham is to be contrasted and so whereas reveals that the contrast is under manner.
From old surveies discussed supra, we can see that discourse frequently contains lingual devices to ease the reading of textual dealingss between units of discourse. Linguistic devices are back uping grounds to the cognitive activity of infering the dealingss. Subordinators, conjuncts and lexical points are evident agencies whereby textual dealingss can be signaled to the reader/listener. However, some texts may non affect expressed devices to show the functional dealingss between discourse sections. In such instances, the reader needs to deduce the functional dealingss.
Guided by old surveies, in the present survey, based on Hoey ( 1983 ) and Winter ( 1986 ) ‘s categorization of textual relation, a discourse unit can be defined as a discourse section which bears a functional relation with one another. In the present survey, the shaping of a discourse unit relies on the writer ‘s ain interpretive act of textual dealingss bing between discourse units. Therefore, this division may be subjective, but the writer follows one general agreed rule: discourse units must hold a textual relationship with one another.
( 34 ) The narrative of a hapless household that acquired celebrity and luck overnight, dramatically illustrates the power of the imperativeness. The household lived in Aberdeen, a little town of 23,000 dwellers in South Dakota. As the parents had five kids, life was a ageless battle against poorness. They were anticipating their 6th kid and faced with even more urgent economic jobs.
— — — — – Lesson 45
The functional relation between the first sentence and the remainder of the paragraph is general statement-example. The first sentence is the subject sentence and the remainder of the paragraph provides an illustration for the statement. In this text, we can see that the RRC occurs in the beginning place of the discourse unit and besides introduces the subject of the whole discourse. Then, see the undermentioned illustration.
( 35 ) [ 1 ] In many ways, this is unfortunate for the hapless histrions who are required to travel on reiterating the same lines dark after dark. One would anticipate them to cognize their parts by bosom and ne’er have cause to waver. [ 2 ] Yet this is non ever the instance.
— – Lesson 22
In ( 35 ) , the whole paragraph consists of two discourse units: Discourse units [ 1 ] and [ 2 ] are linked by the contrast relationship. And the S-relative occurs in the beginning place of discourse unit [ 1 ] .
A farther probe is conducted on how the discourse maps of RRCs are related to their happenings in discourse units. Take texts ( 34 ) and ( 35 ) for illustrations, in ( 34 ) , the RRC is an A-relative and the NP the debut of a hapless household in the RRC has non been mentioned in the old discourse, it therefore serves as an introductio to the new caput NP the hapless household. The new caput NP the hapless household so becomes the subject in the undermentioned discourse. The RRC therefore performs decription map and farther nowadayss the new caput NP the hapless household as the subject in the whole discourse. In ( 35 ) , the RRC occurs in the beginning place of discourse unit [ 1 ] , and it is an S-relative. The map of the S-relative is to supply new information for the caput NP. The information stated in the RRC here involves the gap of the new referent and the expectancy of the information that will be constructed in the on-going discourse. Therefore, the RRC introduces the caput NP as the subject in the subsequent discourse. From texts ( 34 ) and ( 35 ) , we can see that the intent of utilizing RRCs in the beginning of discourse units is to present the new caput NPs for farther development. Such development is achieved in two ways. The new caput NPs are further developed either by doing them grounded through the given entity in the RRC. Or new information in the RRC may be added to the newly-introduced caput NP and farther do the new referent become the subject in the undermentioned discourse. In either manner, RRCs in the beginning of discourse units are used to develop new caput NPs for the subsequent discourse.
From the treatment above, it can be seen that the discourse maps of RRCs bear close relation to their happenings in discourse units. When RRCs occur in the initial places of discourse units, they chiefly serve as a device to explicate new caput NPs as subjects in the subsequent discourse. How the discourse maps of RRC sare related to talk about constructions of written texts will be to the full investigated in the undermentioned chapter. From the brief treatment above, it is obvious that in add-on to the facets of information flow such as given/new information position of NPs, ‘discourse construction ‘ factor is important in make up one’s minding the discourse maps of RRCs in written debates and expoundings.
2.8 Summary and Conclusion
From the old surveies, it has been investigated how English RRCs are operated both in self-generated conversation and written texts. RRCs are used for two grounds: foundation and description. RRCs achieve anchoring map by either executing as proposition-linking or grounding the new referents through the given referents in RRCs. Besides, RRCs fulfill the description map by supplying new information for their newly-introduced caput NPs. Furthermore, RRCs are realized by different types of syntactic relations: A-relatives, S-relatives, and O-relatives. Different syntactic types may lend to different discourse maps of RRCs.
The findings of old surveies are chiefly from surveies on self-generated conversations and written text. However, here is one thing that differs from talking texts and written texts. The typical form of given/new information position of discourse entities in spoken discourse is different from those in written discourse. Most referring looks in self-generated conversation present given information, and among these given information, exophoric referents such as you and I account for over half of all given referents in conversation, while this sort of given referents are non present rather frequently in written texts given the characteristics of written texts. ( Prince, 1981 and Biber, 2000 ) . Second, the preferable nominal signifiers used for given referents are besides different in these two registries: Spoken texts have greater trust on pronouns and written texts usage full lexical NPs most of the clip. Compared with spoken discourse, written discourse consists of higher proportion of full lexical NPs showing new information ( Biber, 2000 ) . So it is clear that there exists disagreement between spoken and written linguistic communications with regard to information position of mentioning looks. Based on this fact, we have grounds to believe that written texts may non trust on as many human pronouns in grammatical capable places as spoken texts do to ground new referents. O-relatives in written linguistic communications therefore may non happen every bit often as in spoken linguistic communications.
Besides, written linguistic communications frequently display discourse construction markers that are greatly different from those used in spoken linguistic communications. Written texts tend to trust on an extended set of lingual markers such as logical connections furthermore and temporal markers when or rhetorical organisers of larger stretches such as foremost and in decision. Therefore in this manner, written texts normally have really clear discourse structures most of the clip. As for spoken linguistic communications, due to limited clip, spoken linguistic communications often depend on extralinguistic hints to construe the functional relation between clauses, so they frequently use many uncomplete sentences and the boundary of discourse units tend to be marked by non-linguistic elements. Therefore, written linguistic communications display their typical forms of discourse constructions really otherwise from spoken linguistic communications. Based on the analysis of difference between speech production and written text, it is assumed that in written text, lingual markers will be more frequently used, since comparative clauses are an obvious lingual marker, so restrictive comparative clauses may be used rather frequently.
To acquire a comprehensive apprehension of discourse constructions of written texts, we set up the nexus between discourse constructions and textual relationships within discourse. The functional dealingss keeping between discourse sections may be included under two wide classs: logical sequence and duplicate dealingss.
In this paper, it is believed that in add-on to the factors such as information position of NPs, coherency demand of the text, the trouble of handiness and syntactic-semantic types of RRCs, discourse constructions may besides play a important function in impacting the discourse maps of RRCs in written texts. Thus, impressions ‘information position of NPs ‘ , ‘coherence ‘ , ‘syntactic types of RRCs ‘ and ‘discourse constructions ‘ will be employed to look into the discourse maps of RRCs and their dealingss to their happenings in discourse units.
