DISCOURSE TYPES,
GENRE SCHEMATA,
AND
RHETORICAL RELATIONS
Andrej A. Kibrik
Institute of Linguistics,
Russian Academy of Sciences
kibrik@comtv.ru
1
Genres and discourse types
Discourse studies: typology of discourse
specimens is the least developed area (cf.
e.g. van Dijk ed. 1997)
However, the issue is important: in any
empirical discipline a classification of
specimens is among central tasks
2
General problem
In modern discourse studies, there is no
satisfactory classification of genres or
discourse types
All available classifications are purely
enumerative
Enumerative inventories cannot be
demonstrated to be exhaustive and
internally coherent
3
A classification of animals in
‘a Chinese Encyclopedia’
cited in Borges’ Celestial Emporium
of Benevolent Knowledge
1.those that belong to
the Emperor,
2.embalmed ones,
3.suckling pigs,
4.those that are trained,
5.mermaids,
6.fabulous ones,
7.stray dogs,
8.those included in the
present classification,
9.those that tremble as
if they were mad,
10. innumerable ones,
11. those drawn with a
very fine camelhair
brush,
12. others,
13. those that have just
broken a flower vase,
14. those that from a
long way off look like
flies
4
General goal
Move towards a non-enumerative, but
rather a calculus-type classification of
discourse genres
5
Specific problem
Discourse genres are defined as non-linguistic
phenomena
Swales (1990):
genres are attributes of discourse
communities
genres serve typical communicative
intentions salient in such communities
It is not clear whether genres can be attributed
any linguistic properties
6
Specific goals
Address the question: are discourse
genres linguistically identifiable?
If yes, attempt to provide a linguistic
definition of at least one genre
7
ATTEMPTS OF LINGUISTIC
GENRE DEFINITION
Linguistic definition 1: Genre schemata
TOO GENERAL
Linguistic definition 2: Morphosyntactic
and lexical features
TOO DETAILED
An alternative linguistic definition:
Configurations of rhetorical structures
8
Linguistic definition 1:
Genre schemata
The story schema (Chafe 1994)
Orientation
Complication
Climax
Denouement
Coda
Additional elements in Labov 1972
Abstract
Evaluation
9
Definition 1
(another example)
The Native English business letter schema
(Kong 1998)
Source of reference
Making the request
Background of the company
Justification for the request
Stating the conditions
Other related requests
Cordial conclusion
10
Definition 1 is problematic
Too large-scale approach: It is unclear
how one can make any predictions of the
linguistic form of a genre specimen
11
Linguistic definition 2:
Morphosyntactic and
lexical features
Biber 1989
481 texts in corpus
67 morphosyntactic and lexical features
5 dimensions: groups of covarying features
8 clusters of texts in the 5-dimensional space
8 text types with tentative labels, such as “intimate
interpersonal interaction”
limited correlation to established genres
Example: 62% texts of the genre of personal
telephone conversation belong to the text type
“intimate interpersonal interaction”
The conclusion is that genres are linguistically
12
irrelevant
Linguistic definition 2 fails,
as demonstrated by Biber
Too small-scale approach: Individual
morphosyntactic and lexical features are
incommensurable with discourse genres as
wholes
But why do discourses of the same type fail
to have consistent characteristics?
13
A possible clue:
types of passages
Narrative
Descriptive
Expository (explanatory)
Instructive and hortatory
Persuasive (argumentative)
(see e.g. Longacre 1992)
this list is enumerative, too, but at least the
number of categories is more embraceable
14
Selected features of discourse
passages
Type of passage
Characteristic morphosyntactic
and lexical phenomena
Narrative
Past tense, perfectives
Descriptive
Stative predicates
Expository
???
Instructive
Imperatives
Persuasive
Modal verbs
15
Reasons for Biber’s results
Morphosyntactically and lexically identifiable
discourse units are passages rather than
discourses as wholes
Genres are not internally homogeneous in terms
of passage types; they consist of more than one
passage type
Therefore, discourses as wholes cannot be
expected to be consistent in terms of
morphosyntactic and lexical features
16
A set of working hypotheses
So, the question is: what could be a
viable linguistic definition of discourse
genres? Or at least of passage types?
Prerequisite: Genres can be defined in
terms of genre schemata
Genres schemata can be defined as
combinations of passage types
Passage types can be defined in terms of
rhetorical relations
Therefore, genres can also be ultimately
defined in rhetorical terms
17
A CASE STUDY
THE NIGHT DREAM STORIES PROJECT
Original goal: search for differences in discourse
structure in the night dream stories of children
with and without neurotic disorders
69 stories from neurotic children
60 stories from neurologically intact children
About 3000 discourse units in corpus
The corpus has been:
transcribed
RST-diagrammed
18
Rhetorical structure
theory (RST)
Originally formulated by Mann and Thompson 1988
A unified view of discourse structure, irrespective of
the size of discourse segments
A nomenclature of rhetorical relations between
discourse segments
Each discourse segment serves the realization of
the overall communicative intention of the speaker
We added a number of rhetorical relations to the
canonical set in order to account for narrative
discourse data (Kibrik, Podlesskaya, Kal’kova, and
Litvinenko 2002)
19
Generalized schema of a
night dream story
Begin
(Headline)
Setting
NARRATIVE CHAIN
(Evaluation)
(Summary)
End
20
Two major types of passages
in stories
The great majority of texts in corpus are
predominantly narrative (= are stories)
129 texts altogether
6 non-narrative texts
Narrative chain: Narrative type of passage
Setting: Descriptive type of passage
21
Typical normal story: Z11
1. My s klassom ..(1.8) poshli ..(1.1) vot ..(0.5) kuda-to.
My classmates and I went somewhere.
2. ..(0.3) Zashli v dom,
Entered a house,
3. ..(1.2) i tam ..(0.2) byli stupen'ki ..(1.8) i voda.
and there were steps and water there.
4. ..(1.0) My stali na bol'shoj plot,
We went onto a big raft
5. ..(0.6) i pereexali na druguju storonu.
and crossed to the other side.
6. ..(1.5) Potom ..(1.4) my vyshli iz dveri.
Then we exited the door.
7. ..(0.8) Tam byla dver' ...(1.0) takaja zheltaja.
There was a door there, a yellow one.
8. ..(0.5) My otkryli ee,
We opened it,
...
22
RST-diagram of text Z11
23
RHETORICAL STRUCTURE
OF NARRATIVE PASSAGES
Uppermost relations:
Sequence
Consequence
(Emotional reaction)
(Discord)
All these relations are variants of the basic
narrative relation
We can therefore define the narrative
passage as a passage that has one of
narrative relations in its uppermost node 24
Typical neurotic story: N08
1. Ja byla doma ..(0.3) s mamoj, ..(1.1) s bratom,
I was at home with my mom, with my brother,
2. ..(0.4) nu tam ..(0.3) kot mne eshche snilsja moj.
well I dreamt about my cat too.
3. ...(2.8 m) Dolgoe tam vremja snilos',
For a long time I dreamt
4. kak my prosto doma tam,
how we were just at home
5. delami zanimaemsja.
doing various chores.
6. ..(1.) Potom ..(0.2) chego-to ..(0.2) trevogu ja pochuvstvovala,
Then for some reason I felt anxiety,
7. vygljanula v okno,
looked out of the window,
8. u nashego pod'ezda pozharnaja mashina stoit.
next to our entrance there was a fire engine.
...
25
RST-diagram of text N08
26
Frequency of the uppermost
narrative relations
Relations
n
Sequence
91
Consequence
29
Emotional reaction
3
NONE (non-narrative text)
6
TOTAL
129
%%
71
22
2
5
100
27
Relations appearing above
narrative relations:
Begin
Headline
Setting
(Evaluation)
(Summary)
End
Out-relations
 All these relations are “genreorganizational” for the genry of story
28
Frequency of the highest level
non-narrative relations
Relations above narrative
Number
NONE
20
Begin
9
End
69
Headline
10
Summary
1
Setting
Out-relations
55
13
29
Rhetorical relations-based
definition of the genre of
story
Story is a discourse that has one of narrative
relations in its highest node in the rhetorical
graph, with the exclusion of genreorganizational relations Begin, End, Headline,
Summary, Setting, and Evaluation
30
A generalized rhetorical
diagram of a story
STORY

Begin

End

Headline

Summary

Setting




Evaluation


Sequence/Consequence/….
…



31
RHETORICAL STRUCTURE OF
DESCRIPTIVE PASSAGES IN
STORIES (SETTINGS)
Frequency of settings in stories
Z
N
Total
%%
Setting
25
38
63
49
No
Setting
Total
35
31
66
51
60
69
129
100
32
Most typical relations
appearing at the uppermost
node of descriptive passages
Joint
Elaboration
Background
At a certain degree of granularity, these three
relations can be taken as varieties of one and
the same
33
Relations that can potentially
appear above the typical
descriptive relations
Source-out is the only relation that
appears in this position in corpus more
than once
Five other relations appear once each,
most of them of organizational (e.g.
Summary) or realizational (e.g. Split) kind
34
Frequency of settings by
structural type
Uppermost relation
n
TRIVIAL CASE
14
Joint
13
Source-out > Joint
3
Elaboration
15
Source-out > Elaboration
4
Background
4
Source-out > Background
2
Other
5
TOTAL
n, including similar %%
14
22
16
25
22
35
6
10
5
8
63
100
35
Generalizations on the
rhetorical structure of
descriptive passages
There is a significant portion (22%) of trivial
descriptive passages that do not contain any
rhetorical relation
Whenever descriptive passages are not trivial,
they can be reliably defined as having one of
the relations Joint, Elaboration, and Background
in their uppermost node
36
Questions remaining for
future research
 Are descriptive passages as well rhetorically definable as
narrative passages?
 Are basic descriptive relations used exclusively in
descriptive passages?
 Can it be the case that types of passages are rhetorically
definable only when they figure as “major” (Longacre)
types of passages in particular discourse genres?
If that is the case, rhetorical definitions may be more suitable
for genres than passage types.
 How can one define trivial passages? Perhaps inherent
aspect of predicates?
 Can all discourse material be attributed to a certain type
of passage?
37
CONCLUSIONS
 At least some passage types can be identified in terms of
rhetorical relations
 Since genre schemata can be defined as configurations of
passage types, genres can also be ultimately defined in terms
of rhetorical relations
 A rhetorical relations-based definition appears adequate for
the narrative type of passage, and for the discourse genre of
story
 For descriptive passages in stories, a rhetorical definition is
useful when such passages are not trivial
 The question of whether a rhetorical definition can be
universally used to define discourse passages and genres
requires further study
38