Die Rolle der Heckenausdrücke bei der Diskursstrukturierung im Deutschen und Litauischen

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LIV (2006), 1 -25 The role of hedges in organising discourse structure in the German and Lithuanian EcLé ALOSEVICIENE The Vilniaus universitetas article deals with the role of hedges in organising discourse structure. A comparative analysis of speeches by German and Lithuanian politicians reveals the significance of hedges as elements of discourse. Attention is paid, first of all, to thematicisation and argumentation strategies as well as to metalinguistic comments in which hedges perform several linguistic functions. They lend emphasis to an utterance, help the speaker distance himself from it, or allow him to present it as reflecting his own subjective point of view. The results of the analysis are grouped according to the pragmatic functions hegdes may perform (evaluation, emphasis, distancing, degree of likelihood, metalinguistic). Morpho-semantically and syntactically, hedges comprise almost all parts of speech, including modal markers, as well as a considerable part of the syntactic constructions and even stylistic and graphic properties of the text. 0. PRELIMINARY DESIGNATIONS The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between hedge expressions and discourse structuring in terms of thematization, argumentation strategies and metacommunication, taking into account differences and similarities in the use of hedge expressions in German and Lithuanian. The examined corpus comprises texts with a total of 100,000 words from Lithuanian and German-speaking politicians’ speeches, which are thematically to be assigned to the area of »auenpolitik- *«, structurally- -functionally to the text types,,conference, occasion, opening and parliamentary speeches“. Eaie ALOSsEVICIENeE The linguistic Hecken, who iiber a great communicative-pragmatic Potenzial verfiigen, are here as Discourse Units. In doing so, they structure the individual speech, but also comment on the discourse itself, by focusing at the same time on the Speakers and Get here. Within the political discourses they turn out importaals nt Means that can be used for strategic language actions. Beim Argue and the Thematic organization as well as Metacommunication achieves the Hedge certain functions. Thereby can Sie die Design speech contribution both restrictive and intensifying. But you can also statements epistemically deviate orshe — im Opposite — of Present results of subjective evaluations. On these Functions of the Heckenausdriicke is im The scope of this Contribution particularly received. 1, ENGLISH EXPRESSIONS FROM A LINGUISTICAL POINT OF VIEW Der von Lakoff (1972) introduced Term hedge, hedging has become in the Linguistics as Subject of investigation established. On the one hand, exclusively Indicators of uncertainty analyzed, the Weakening of the Certainty or also the restriction of Responsibility of the Serving copywriters (cf. House/Kasper 1981: 167, 185; Skelton 1997: 45). On the other hand, for a wide Opinion of the Phenomens pleaded, whereby on Relationship between modality and discourse-analytical perspective is addressed and various Aspects of Speaker settings (from the Uncertainty up to Intensification and Evidentiality) and the most Impact on den Recipients are notified (cf. Markkanen/Schréder 1997: 5f. ). In the most investigations, however, the communicative-pragmatic Potential of Heckenausdriicke im Foreground so that it can be dispensed with, the Heckenphenomen on certain word type lists einzugrenzen. 2. SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIC CHARACTERISTICS DER DISCURSE MARKERS Linguistics Units with a discourse-structuring function be under different Terms in summary: ,,Colloquial words“ (Hen- The route of the heck expression in the discourse structure in German and Lithuanian language is described by,,modalization markers“ (Fairclough 2003: 170f.; Dalmas 2003),,,pragmatic markers“ (Fraser 1990; Brinton 1996) and finally,,discourse markers“ (Schiffrin 2001). With regard to their semantic and pragmatic peculiarities, they form a subset within the hedge complex. Their semantic characteristics can be described by their coherent function, i.e. the relationship between individual language elements or units in speech formation. From a discursive-pragmatic point of view, they are speaker-oriented and discourse-related, serve to preserve the face when expressing assessments and belief contents, mark the speaker's attitude, are means of argumentation strategies and economy (cf. Lewis 2006)'. Fraser (2005) distinguishes four types of pragmatic markers, whereby he understands only commenting (i.e. unfortunately, frankly, surely, likewise; lit. deja, atvirai pasakius, is tikryjy, laimei) as actual discourse markers, which can be classified as hedge expressions. They signal the sequential Discourse context or the Intention of Speakers with regard to the role of the statement in connection with the free discourse. With regard to the hedge phenomenon, Brinton (1996: 37) emphasizes the property of discourse markers to subjectively thematize the discourse and the actual significance of discourse markers to the phenomena directly connected with the hedge Unsicherheiten des Sprechers zu bekunden. Auch Walrod (2006: 6) misst phenomenon such as attenuations (i.e. quite, partially, so to speak; lit. gana, pakankamai, i§ dalies, vadinamas), distances (d. allegedly, apparently; lit. tariamas, menamas), uncertainties (i.e. perhaps, most likely, it seems; lit. galbitt, imanoma, regis) or intensifications (i.e. surely, certainly, just, exactly; lit. esu tikras, Zinoma, biitent). ' Schiffrin (1986: 42) refers in a narrow sense only to such elements as pragmatic markers, which are multifunctional and difficult to determine lexically and which have no propositional meaning. Their main focus is on such Elements like and, but, because, therefore, etc. Diese Discourse markers are not speaker-related, but relate to objective circumstances by describing reality, and are therefore not the subject of this study. Ec. is ALOSEVICIENE 3. EXPLAINATION AND MAKING USE OF DES DISCURSE DEFINITIONS The term “discourse” is very complex and is applied to many areas. Im Center of Investigations of the Founders of the For Foucault (1970), the concept of discourse stands for social institutions and practices, their rules, constitutional modes and limitations (,,discursive practices*)?. Fiir the present investigation are only two approaches to the Discourse term relevant. On the one hand, we mean certain Relationships within individual Text copies, especially the semantic relationships of text units with each other. Thus, we distance ourselves from the discourse-analytical Perspective that above all Phainomene der language organization, but also directly connected with the examination of the heck expressions*. Da the investigated Body gets out political speeches, on the other hand we assume the understanding of a political discourse, which is characterized by a Set of specific (especially linguistic) characteristics. Here we slep&en us to the current Concept of the Discourses an — Text copies of different types of text*, Reference ? Although Foucault means a lot of sounds by a discourse, he is not interested in the linguistic side. His discourse concept refers rather to the regularity of social Actions. Fiir Foucault means the Investigation of Discourses always also the Investigation of Power as a discourse-structuring Gr6&e. Furthermore, he distinguishes between original and commentary discourse, the latter represents variations of the former and vice versa Originaldiskurse Give an impulse for more Speech acts (cf. Foucault 1998: 15ff. ). In these direction also aims the critical Discourse analysis, which is understood as an interdisciplinary oriented social analysis and the es um the Uncovering the discursive Power relations goes (cf. Jager 1993; Fairclough/Wodak 1997). ®° With the hedge expressions in the middle discourse dealt the works of Prince et et al. (1982), Low (1996), Tschizmarova (2005). * Under text types we understand certain patterns of action or communicative forms,,,which are particularly recurring Operations as a habitualized Manifesting communication behavior* (Paper 2003: 23). Giinthner (2000: 21) refers to them as,,conventional, yet flexible and dynamic expectation structures regarding. der Organization of linguistic and communicative Procedure im concrete Diskurszusammenhang" (in German). It is emphasizu zed that the Determining characteristics of a Text sort mostly on many levels are located at the same time: on This Route DER HECKENAUSDRUCK EIB DER DISCURSE STRUCTURING IM DEUTSCHEN AND LITHUANIAN take, constitute a certain Discourse or discourse form a communicative Together’. The ones we examined Politician speeches are Components of the informative-appellative or informative-persuasive language usage, which on the Control and Manipulation of 6ffentlichen are opinion-oriented (cf. Pappert 2003: 59). Others become self-evident Functions (Contact, obligation and declaration functions) not excluded, all the more so, as political im Discourse of a Bandwidth of méglicher Speech actions such as Explain, justify, representation of facts, self-presentation, production of Attach, restrict, modify, control, etc. the Talk is. Im Connection with the Use of the Hedge extensions and their Role in the discourse structuring are also the strategic Aspekte® within the political Discourses zu particularly mentioned. They connect directly with the linguistic Realisation of the 0.g. Speech and speech actions. Thereby goes es after Klein (1998) um + Relevance strategies (modalization strategies, taking the addressee's perspective), suggestivity strategies + (providing evidence, confirmation and evaluation), plausibility strategies + (Signalling of Preferences iiber mégliche Reservations of the Hérer) and + camouflage strategies (omission of relevant information, implicit Allusions and indirect Reference, specification of the Uncertainty). of language (prosodic and phonological, lexico-semantic and morphosyntactic Mittel), situativen (discourse analytical, medial Prerequisites etc.) as well as social (institutional framework, gender constellation etc.) Levels. * Zur Explication of the Discourse s. concept above all Buses and Teubert (1994) and Bluhm et et al. (2000). ° Zu Strategische aspects of political Communication s. also Hoffmann (1998). EGie ALOSEVICIENE 4. HECKENAUSDRÜCKE AS DISCURSIVE STRUCTURAL UNIT The role of hecken expressions as discourse markers is determined by the nature of the respective discourse. Discourses have linked structures (units and segments) and relations (rhetorical tionen, d.h. Argumente) und sind durch Kohasion (sprachliche und lexikalirelations and coherence-relational means) and coherence (contextual connection). The textual (contribution to the production of coherence and cohasion) and interpersonal (modalization, intensification) functions of the discourse markers organize in the monological and written fixed discourse we investigate individual parts of text passages, so that they are not confined to the linguistic perspective, but simultaneously allow statements to be made about the cognitive, expressive, social and textual competence of language users (see Schiffrin 2001: 67). In the context of discourse structuring, hedging has a diverse linguistic expression. The range of heckenmaRige use ranges from modal expressions (modal particles, modal verbs, modal verbs in performative use) to syntactic (conditional sentences), stylistic (litotes, rhetorical question) and graphic (anfeierungszeichen) language forms. Participles, metaphorical transfers and interjections appear in our corpus as marginal manifestations of the linguistic hedge. In terms of frequency, the center of the hedge phenomenon lies in epistemic and restrictive use. Therefore, modal expressions and restrictors of various kinds have the highest frequency in both languages. These and other communicative functions such as evaluation, intensification and speech commentary and their role in discourse are to be analysed in the context of thematic structure and argumentation theory. 4.1 Organization of topics and argumentation With regard to the thematic structure of the text, the hedge expression Means of Modalisation and Evaluation of thematic core and individual topics. With regard to the thematic organization structure, discourse markers are elements of Die Route per HeckENAUSDRUCKE BEI DER DISKURSSTRUKTURIERUNG IM DEUTSCHEN UND LITAUISCHEN sequencing strategies, i.e. they contribute to the organization of thematic units. Argumentation is a,,linguistic procedure which is to be placed,,within’ the unit,,discourse type’, but which also plays an important role in discourses which are called,,public speeches’* (Trautmann 2004: 21). According to Klein (1980) argumentations are to be seen as complex language actions, which include assertions, objections, etc. contain and are generally vague, ambiguous, context-dependent and illocutively polyfunctional. The most well-known argumentation scheme of Toulmin (1975: 90ff. after Ohlinger 2003: 28f.) includes the following components: Data or the thesis (supporting observations), from which a conclusion is inferred by means of the final rule from the supporting to the to be supported observation. Data is referred to explicitly, while final rules are referred to implicitly. If no clear statements are acceptable by means of conclusion rules, then subjunctions (further arguments), modal restriction operators (modifiers or qualifiers) or adjectives are used. to introduce exceptional conditions that may put the validity of the conclusion into question. The coherent structure of the argumentations results from the fact that they are Prasuppositions can help’. In general, there is a distinction between inductive and deductive arguments. To the former are added such arguments that are based on the structure of reality (coexistence connections, cause-effect relationships), so that here we are not talking about coherence but about evidence (cf. Petter 1988: 117). For the second group of arguments, the data establish a clear connection between attitudes, attitudes and intentions on the one hand and actions on the other (especially in the case of cover-up strategies). Arguments as well as units of metacommunication are linguistic actions that lead to conflict or conflict. Contribute to problem solving. They are used to build consensus on controversial issues. The heck expressions have the following argument functions: assessment, explanation (commenting), relativization, restriction, contribution to the support or problematization of a position, etc. The persuasion aspect, which implicitly indicates the speaker’s intentions, should not be underestimated. ? See also Linke et al. (1994: 242ff.). EGLe ALOSEVICIENE The argumentative Success and thus sometimes the persuasive effect depend on whether a logical connection is established between the thesis and the data presented. Explicit comes through the Use of strengthening and positively evaluating elements to express. On the other hand, the strategically deployed dampening measures serve to relieve any objections. Texts that are characterized by a high Ma of modality exhibit an earthy Share of an implied information and contribute significantly to fulfilling certain communicative functions. zu A particle-- rich language like German, for example, can be (yes, probably) implicit or indirectly generated Standards of courtesy that statements weaken and relativize what im Lithuanian with others means, such as epistemic Verbs (to think, to believe, to hold), Substantiven (assumption, possibility, hope) und Participles (tikétina, abejotina, priimtina) must be made. Probably the most widely studied are in connection with the argument the Modal particles®. This can be seen through their polyfunctionality as well as by a high Ma an Explain the implicit; by the Use of Modal particles can have logical Conjunctions and argumentative Remain implicit. Die Number of modal particles is both in languages the same, although the German as a particle-rich language is called. This results from the fact that many Lithuanian Particles (gal, galbit, tarsi) German Correspond to modal words. However, differences arise within individual der Functional areas. Wahrend im Germans as Argumentum ad populum Begreindungsund Evidence indicators (yes) or Indicators for a high Degree of probability (well) dominate, are im Lithuanian die Components of the Conjecture dominant (bene, tarsi, gal, turbut), whereby the galbiit, hypothetical Nature of the arguments is underlined. AuSerdem they relate im Lithuanian not only on the previous Statements: (1) The international Community must Network of reconstruction in teams den Provinces pinch closer. Germany is already ja *S, contributions from Breweri- (1986) es and Rost-Roth (1998). Die Route per HECKENAUSDRUCKE BEI DER DISKURSSTRUKTURIERUNG IM DEUTSCHEN UND LITAUISCHEN is represented by a PRT in Kunduz and a diplomatic post in Herat. (2) I would like to mention to the guests from the Emirates a few figures that are well known to the German economy [...] (3) The European Union is in crisis, perhaps even in a kind of impasse. The narrow interests of one state or group of states are put above the common interests of the whole of Europe. Referendums of south European Union Constitution suzlugo biitent The European State in Ancient Times. A very convenient means for the perspective strategy of the speaker and Avoidance of Cancel and Continuation of the Theme development is im Deutschen die Particle actually. It also allows the Hanging on to a situation or topic with which the expression is not related (cf. Dalmas 2003: 203f. ). AuSerdem can thereby, as well as with the epistemic Verb form I find the Entitlement to general validity be restricted. In Lithuanian, the parenthetic insertions tiesa, tiesq sakant, if tikryjy perform the same function, and are equally good as equivalents for the German insertions. Discourse marker in actually, the Tat as Support of a previous auction serve: (4) Einen Thoughts has Prime Minister Karamanlis, which I would like to emphasize, double emphasize. This is actually a new Theme [...] (5) Nors referendums In France ir In the Netherlands there is an active debate about the direction in which the integration processes ES should continue, and the need for a stronger and more unified common ir foreign and security policy ES is almost ir uncontroversial. 18 Indeed, its ES authority in the international arena is constantly strengthenino ES g, and its influence and involvement in resolving conflicts around the world is constantly expanding. If the Role of the Modal pronoun im Frame der argumentation must be emphasized, is au&er the so modal particles not least the Role of Emphasize zu modal words. In particular, hypothetical arguments can be Operators such as bestimmt, sicher, offensichtlich, wirklich, tikriausiai etc. should be underlined. Your pragmatic Ecié ALosevicienE be used. Der Grade one Rating is always with the emotional Commitment of Speakers or speakers Schreibers connected (cf. Adamzik 1984: 256). In both Languages has the Negation but primarily attenuating or (32) This Constitution is an offer to the citizens, an offer to all the forces of European civil societies. It is not least to them that an Letters of the Constitution with To fulfill life. (33) The objectives we pursue or the principles that guide us are not different. Mit Anfiehrungszeichen is within the political communication not on an inadequate Establishment of a The word or Expression im language system, but rather stands a metalinguistically connoted expression with the Problematization of the facts against the H6rern in Connection. Same Function can also other Hedge extension like a kind of, so-called; a certain, so-called, so-called, kind of iibernehmen. Zur Mitigation of problematic holes or Situations by means of Anfiehrungszeichen or. intonation tend in particular the Lithuanian politicians, while the German Politicians speak a hGhere have frequency an restricting adverbs: (34) Finally, we must help to defrost the frozen conflicts that are stopping the state’s economic expansion and dividing society. ir (35) If we take the two Referendums in Holland and in France, which, so to speak, a Shock drawn, [...] then you see here this Biindel von The motives. Die Conditional sentences have not only an argumentative Function. The if clause im Vorfeld have, among other things, metacommunicative functions and operate on the discourse-pragmatic level by either the Formulate conditions under which the following speech actions are relevant (Exampl36 es and or 37), on Interaction sound Conventions of courtesy Take reference (Exampl38 es and 39): 16 Die Route per HECKENAUSDRUCKE BEI DER DiskURSSTRUKTURIERUNG IM DEUTSCHEN UND LITAUISCHEN (36) Turkey has already made tremendous progress and caught up. But if it wants to succeed, it will have to make even greater progress in the future. (37) Obviously, if we want to benefit from economic integration, the small region cannot remain a bottleneck Europos infrastruktiroje. (38) If I'm es allowed, I want a little We will also talk about the difficulties of implementing such a reform strategy. (39) However, if you are interested in my opinion, I am not afraid to say: EU The marathon of ratification of the Constitutional Treaty will only be won if it is successfully carried out in all EU Member States! 5. CONCLUSIONS The complex phenomenon of the linguistic hedge does not occur in isolation in different discourses, but overlaps with the semantic and pragmatic characteristics of the so-called discourse markers. Heckenausdrücke play a special role in discourse structuring by structuring thematic units, blocking arguments of the speakers and allowing metacommunicative insertions in the text and discourse. From the comparative analysis and quantitative evaluation within the political discourse, it has emerged that in German the use of discourse markers for different degrees of probability and intensification of own statements dominates. In particular, modal verbs and modal particles play an essential role as carriers of additional or implicit information. Meta-comments are also characteristic of German-speaking politicians’ speeches. On the other hand, the speeches of Lithuanian politicians are characterized by a higher proportion of restrictive and evaluative language elements. 17 EGLE ALOSEVICIENE LIST OF SOURCES OF DOKUMENTATION Speech by Chancellor Gerhard Schréder at the World Economic Forum in Davos, 28 January 2005. URL http://www. bundesregierung.de/-,413.780791/- rede/ Rede-von-Bundeskanzler-Gerhard.htm: Document (6) Speech by Chancellor Schréder at the German-Russian Investment Conference, 28.10.2004. URL http://www.moskau.diplo.de/de/03/Reden/ Datei__041028,property=Daten.doc: Beleg (15), (20) Speech by Kerstin Miiller, Minister of State in the Interim Office, at the opening of the Afghan Civil Society Conference, 29 March 2004. URL http://www. auswaertiges-amt.de/www/de/ausgabe_archiv?archiv_id= 5556: Document (1) Speech by Chancellor Schréder on the occasion of the Polish Lisbon Strategy Conference Forums, URL 26.05.2004. http://archiv.tndesregierung.de/bpaexport/ rede/90/658090/multi.htm: Document (31), (38) Speech by Chancellor Schréder to students and graduates of the Financial Academy in Moskau, URL 08.07.2004. http://archiv.bundesregierung.de/bpaexport/ bulletin/44/693644/multi.htm: Document (27) Speech by Chancellor Gerhard Schréder at the conference “Giving Europe a Soul”, 26.11.2004. URL http://archiv.bundesregierung.de/bpaexport/ rede/12/751512/multi.htm: Beleg (16), (21), (32) Speech by Federal Minister Fischer on the European Constitution before the German Bundestag, Berlin, 02.07.2004, (excerpt- ). URL http://www. auswaertiges- -amt.de/www/- de/ausgabe_archiv?archiv_id = 5908: Document (10) Network von Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs Fisher im Security Council Vereinten Nationen in New York zur Lage in Iraq/Kuwait, URL http://www.auswaertiges 14.02.2003. amt.de/www/de/aussenpolitik/ausgabe_archiv?archiv_id = 4074&type_id= 3&area id=11: Document (19) Speech by Federal Minister Fischer on German Auenpolitik before the German Bundestag, 08.09.2004 (excerpt). URL http://www.auswaertigesamt.de/www/de- /ausgabe_archiv?archiv_ic = 6110: Document (8), (14), (36) 18 Speech by German Chancellor Gerhard Schréder at the German-Saudi Arabian Economic Forum in Riyadh, 28 February 2005. URL http://archiv.bundesregierung.de. de/bpaexport/bulletin/51/799451/multi.htm: Document (24) Speech by Chancellor Schréder at the German-Emirati Economic Forum, 05.03.2005. URL http://archiv.bundesregierung.de/rede,-797357- /Rede-vonBundeskanzler-Schroed.htm: Beleg (2) Speech by Federal Chancellor Wolfgang Schiissel Europa-Forum Wachau, 06.06.2004. URL http://www.austria.gv.at/2004/6/- 9/gottweig2004 final_k.pdf: Beleg (4) Speech by Chancellor Schiissel on the occasion of Europe Day in Parliament, 29 September 2006. URL http://www.austria.- gv.at/Docs/2005/9/29/- rede_hbk_ europatag_20050929.pdf: Beleg (35) Speech by Chancellor Gerhard Schréder at the American Chamber of Commerce in Washington, 27 June 2005. URL http://archiv.- bundesregierung.de/bpaexport/ rede/18/850918/- multi.htm: Beleg (13) Address of H.E. President of the Republic of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus to the 59th National General Assembly session, 2004.09.22. URL http://www. President. It/It/news.full/5266: Beleg (23), (30) Speech of the President of the Republic of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus at the American Trade and Business Lunch, How to Sustain Dynamic Growth in the Baltic Region: Future Vision*, Vilnius, 2004.10.07. URL http://www. President. |t/It/news. full/5322: Document (17), (37) Speech of President Valdas Adamkus at a business breakfast, Chicago, USA, 24.09.2004 URL http://www. president.- It/It/news.full/5277: Beleg (25) Speech of Minister of Foreign Affairs A. Valionis at the conference on the Treaty on a Constitution for Europe, 12.11.2004. URL http://www.voruta.lt/article. php?article = 656: Beleg (39) Welcome speech of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania A. Valionis at the conference,,New NATO: expanding the strategy of public diplomacy“, 2004.06.07. URL http://amb.urm. It/nato/showitem.- php?TopMenulID = 1245&1temID = 2693&SiteID = 66&Lang ID=1: Document (11) 19 EGLé ALosevICiENE Lietuvos Republics President Valdo Adamkaus greeting Zodis at the conference »After the Lisbon process: new ES Saliy vyriausybiy ir pramonés bei verslo organizacijy siekiai perspektyvos“, ir URL 2005.02.24 http://www. president.It/It/news.full/5535: Document (22) President Valdo Speech of Adamkus Extraordinary plenary session of the Seimas »Interests of Lithuania European Saveznoj 2005.10.20. Uniji“, URL http://www. president.It/It/news.full/6091: Document (3), (18) Seimo Address by the President In the debate in the Seimas, the most important European Sajungos darbokés issues, URL http://www.paulauskas.|t/index. 2005.10.20. asp?DL=L&TopicID = 159: Document (12) Foreign Reikaly Minister A. Valionis speaks in the Seimas debate about the most relevant European Union policies, URL www.urm.It/index. 2005.10.20. php?1149113537: Document (5) A. Speech by Mr. Brazauskas BJVT virSiniy meeting, URL http:// www.ministrapirmininkas.|t/page.asp? 2004.06.21 DL = L&TopicID = 14 = 116: Document (9) A. Speech by Mr. Brazauskas Convention, URL 2003.04.16 http://www. ministraspirmininkas.It/page.asp?DL =L&TopicID = 14 = 534: Document (33) Lietuvos Republics President Valdo Speech of Adamkus »The future of Europe Lietuvos Brightness* French Institute of Political Science, URL 2005.10.07. http:// www. President. |t/It/news.full/6035: Document (34) Lietuvos Republics President Valdo Speech of Adamkus ,,Terra Democratica Ryty In Europe ir uz its limits: wins, is$akiai subsequeir nt Zingsniai", said at the Cikagos reception organized by the Foreign Affairs 2005.09.19. Council, URL http://www. president.It/It/news.full/5998: Document (7), (28) Lietuvos Republics President Valdo Adamkaus address to heads of foreign diplomatic missions, URL http://www.urm.|t/popup2.php?item_ id= 2004.07.14. 8811: Document (29) President Rolando Pakso language LR Seimo ir International conference organized by the Danish Embassy ,,Europos Union Eastern Dimension’, 2003.04.25 20 Dig Route DER HECKENAUSDRUCK EIB DER DISCURSE STRUCTURING IM DEUTSCHEN AND LITHUANIAN URL http://www.euro.It/ivykiai/readnews.php3?ItemID = 3381 &TopMenuID =1&MenuId = 2&LangID = 1: Document (26) LITTERACY Apvamzik, K. 1984: Linguistics Action and social Contact. Tiibingen: Gunter Idiot. Barrscu, R. 1972: Adverbial semantics. Frankfurt am Main: Athenaeum. Bun, C., Deisster, D., ScHARtoTH, J., STUKENBROCK, A. 2000: Linguistics Discourse analysis: Overview, problems, perspectives. Language and Literature: in Science and Technology Lessons 86, 3-19. Braussz, U. 1986: Zum Problem of the so-called Polyfunctionality of Modal particles. Ja and just as Argumentation signals. Zeitschrift fiir Phonetics, Linguistics and Communication research 39 (2), 206-223. Brinton, L. J. 1996: Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter. Brown, P. and Levinson, S$. C. 1987: Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: University Press. Busser, D. and Teupert, W. 1994: Ist Discourse a linguistic Object? Zur Methodological question of the historical Semantics. In: D. Busse, Hermantris, F. Teubert, eds., W. Begriffsgeschichte und Discourse history. Methodological questions and Research results of the historical Semantics. Charging: West Germans Publishe10-28. r: Datmas, Inc. M. 2003: Insofar as the Eye is enough? Stand and Points of interest by so named Modulator. Ein Riickblick. In: I. Behr, D. Baudot, ed., Function and Meaning. Tiibingen: Stauffenburg, 197-208. eccs, E. 2000: Texting patterns Argument: Logic Fundamentals. In: K. Brinker et al., ed., Text and Linguistics of speech. An international Handbook of Contemporary Research. 1. Halbbd. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, 397-414, 21 EGLeé ALOSEVICIENE FaircLoucu, N. 2003: Analysing Discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London-New York: Routledge. FairctoucH, N., Wopak, R. 1997: Critical discourse analysis. In: T. A. of Dijk, ed., Discourse social as interaction. Discourse studies, Vol. 2. London: Sage, 258-284. Foucaut, M. 1998: Inaugural tvarka: Lecture of the Discourse College de France, read May Decemb1970 er dieng. 2 Vilnius: White circles. Fraser, B. 1975: Hedged Performatives. In: P. Cole, J. L. Morgan, ed., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3, 187-210. Fraser, B. 1990: An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 383-395. Fraser, B. 2006: Towards A Theory of Discourse Markers. In: K. Fischer, ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles. Vol. 1. URL: http://people.bu.edu/bfraser/ Basic%20Introductory%20Readings/Fraser%20-%202005%20-%20Towards% 20a%20Theory%200f%20DM.doc [03.03.2006]. GirpentEnnE, S. 2001: Causality as cross-cutting Relationship. Linguistics 50 (3), 27-31. GunTuner, S. 2000: charge activities of in the Everyday life interaction. Grammatical, prosodic, rhetorical-stylistic and interactive Procedures for the Constitution communicative Pattern and Genus. Tiibingen: Max Niemeyer. Her. H. 1978: Speech swords. Fiir eine Extension of the Types of words. In: H. Henne, Mentrup, W. Weinrich, H. Interdisciplinary German Dictionary in of Discussion. Diisseldorf: Schwann, 42-47. HorrmMann, M. 1998: Design strategies and strategic Design. Zur Persuasiveness von Thematization styles im political Discourse. In: M. Hoffmann, Chr. Ke@ler, Hrsg., Beiträge zur Persuasion research: under special Consideration of text-linguistic and stylistic Aspects. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 57-97. House, J., and Kasper, G. 1981: Politeness Markers in English and German. In: F. Coulmas, ed., Conversational Routine. The The Hague: Mouton, 157-185. 22 Die Route per HECKENAUSDRUCKE BEI DER DisKURSSTRUKTURIERUNG IM DeuTSCHEN UND LiTAUISCHEN JAcer, S. 1993: Critical discourse analysis. An introduction. Duisburg: Duisburger Institute for Language and Social Research. Kein, J. 1998: Political Communication as a Language Strategy. In: O. Jarren, U. Sarcinelli, U. Saxer, eds., Political Communication in the Democratic Society. Society. A handbook with encyclopaedia part. Opladen, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 376-395. K.ein, W. 1980: Argumentation and Argument. In: W. Klein, ed., Argumentation. Journal of Linguistics and Linguistics. Géttingen: Vandenhoeck & Co. Ruprecht, 9-57. Laxorr, G. 1972: Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts, in: D. Hockney, W. Harper, B. Freed, ed., Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, Lewis, D. M. 2006: Discourse markers in English: a discourse-pragmatic view. In: K. Fischer, ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles. Vol. 1 URL: http://people.bu.edu/bfraser/Pragmatically%20riented/Lewis%20-%- 20DM%20in%20E%20-%20A%20Prag.%20View.doc [03.03.2006]. ‘ 221-271. Linke A, Nusspaumer M., PortMann, P. R. 1994: Studybook Linguistics. Tiibingen: Niemeyer. Low, G. 1996: Intensifiers and Hedges in Questionnaire Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 17 (1), 1-37. Markkanen, R., Scuréper, H. 1997: Hedging: A Challenge for Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis. In: R. Markkanen, H. Schréder, eds., Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: de Gruyter, 3-20. Outincer, D. 2003: Argumentation in the first lesson of foreign language. Pragmalinguistic and grammatical aspects based on argumentations of German and Lithuanian students. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Pappert, S. 2003: Political language games in the GDR: communicative dedifferentiation processes and their effects on public language use. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 23 EGLE ALOSEVICIENE Perrer, Y. 1988: Argumentation strategies. In: B. Sandig, ed., Discourse Analysis. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr, 103-120. Pirtner, K. 1996: Speech commenting inserts. In: P. Kunsmann, ed., Linguistic accents 93. Join the 3. International Linguistics Days. Hamburg: Kovaé, 141-157. Pittner, K. 1999: Adverbs in German. Studies on their position and interpretation. Tiibingen: Stauffenburg. Pitrner, K. 2000: Conditions of speech acts and conditional speech acts: Pragmatic conditional sentences in German. In: A. Fetzer, K. Pittner, eds., Conversation analysis: recent developments. Linguistics online 5. URL: http://www. linguistik-online.org/1_00/ PITTNER. HTM [26.11.2005]. Prince, E. F., Fraper, J., Bosk, Ch. 1982: On Hedging in Physician-Physician Discourse. In: R.J. Di Pietro, ed., Linguistics and the Professions. Norwood-New York: Ablex, 83-97. Rosr-Rotu, M. 1998: Modal particles in arguments and action proposals. In: T. Harden, E. Hentschel, eds., Particulae Particularum. Festschrift fir Harald Weydt. Tiibingen: Stauffenburg, 293-324. Scuirrrin, D. 1986: The functions of and in discourse. Journal of pragmatics 10 (1), 41-66. Scnirrrin, D. 2001: Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context. In: D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, H. Hamilton, eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, Mass: Blackwell, 54-75. Scuwitatia, J. 1979: Metacommunications as a means of dialogue organization and relationship definition. In: J. Dittmar, ed., Conversation Analysis. Tiibingen: Max Niemeyer. Sizpmann, D. 2001: Multi-word Discourse Markers in Translation: A Corpus-based Investigation into Restrictors. Living Languages 46 (3), 97-107. Sxe.ton, J. 1997: How to Tell the Truth in The British Medical Journal: Patterns of Judgement in the 19th and 20th Centuries. In: R. Markkanen, H. Schroder, eds., 24 Diz Route per HECKENAUSDRUCK EIB DER DISCURSE STRUCTURING IM DEUTSCHEN AND LITHUANIAN Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: de Gruyter, 42-63. TRAUTMANN, C. 2004: Argue. Functional pragmatic Analyses of practical and scientific Discourses. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Tscuizmarova, I. K. 2005: Hedging functions of the Bulgarian discourse marker xajde. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1143-1163. VersTRAETE, J.-Ch. 2001: Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions the in English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics. 33, 1505-1528. Wa rum, M. 2006: The Marker is the Message. The Influence of Discourse Markers and Particles on Textual Meaning. URL: http://www.sil.org/asia/philippines/ ical/papers.html tte, W., Rosemann, [15.03.2006]. We Ph. 1990: Everyday language Metacommunication im English and Germans. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Wunperuicu, D. 1983: Modalised Talk to me. In: G. Brtinner, A. Redder, Studies on Use of the Modal verbs. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr, 226-245. Eglé Alosevitiené Vilniaus universitetas Kaunas Faculty of Humanities Germany Department of Philology Muitinés g. 8, LT-44280 Kaunas egle.alosevicene@vukhf lt 25